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.

Financial System Review Act

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

moved that Bill S-5, An Act to amend the law governing financial institutions and to provide for related and consequential matters, be read the third time and passed.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by asking for unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Etobicoke Centre.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to allow the parliamentary secretary to split his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill S-5, the financial system review act at third reading. This bill would reinforce stability in Canada's financial sector, fine-tune the consumer protection framework and adjust the regulatory framework to new developments.

Since the onset of the global financial crisis of 2008, our government has remained committed to strengthening the framework overseeing the financial sector. Our focus has been to provide the best consumer protection environment possible, one in which there is competition, information is disclosed and consumers are able to make informed choices. Bill S-5 does just that.

Bill S-5 proposes to improve the consumer protection framework by enhancing the supervisory powers of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, FCAC. FCAC is mandated with ensuring that federally regulated financial institutions adhere to the consumer provisions of the legislation set out to govern them. In addition, FCAC is the government's lead agency on financial education and literacy. It has moved forward with an array of excellent initiatives in recent years. FCAC has developed innovative tools to help Canadian consumers, such as a mortgage calculator that quickly determines mortgage payments and the potential savings resulting from early payments.

FCAC has also been instrumental in leveraging and coordinating private sector and voluntary sector initiatives on financial literacy already under way across Canada. Financial literacy among Canadians will pay dividends for future generations. That is why, in budget 2009, we established the task force on financial literacy, to make recommendations on a cohesive national strategy to improve financial literacy in Canada.

The task force had 13 members drawn from the business and education sectors, community organizations and academia. The task force delivered its final report, “Canadians and Their Money: Building a brighter financial future”, on February 9, 2011. It outlined 30 recommendations to improve the financial literacy of Canadians. I am pleased to note that the proposed financial literacy leader legislation before Parliament now responds to a key task force recommendation for the need for dedicated leadership. That legislation, as the name suggests, would provide the framework for the appointment of a financial literacy leader. This financial literacy leader would be mandated to work with stakeholders to support financial literacy initiatives and would continue the progress achieved by the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada.

Informed consumers are the very foundation of a solid financial system. Indeed, a country's prosperity is ultimately the sum of the financial successes and related decisions of all its households. However, we have done more.

In 2009, our government acted to protect Canadians who use credit cards. We want to ensure that Canadians understand their obligations in advance of signing up for and using these purchasing instruments. To that end, the measures we introduced, which are in effect today, mandated clear and simple information on credit card application forms and contracts, and clear and timely advance notice of changes in rates and fees. This initiative provides Canadian consumers with precisely the kind of improved financial information that leads to better decision making.

Also, to protect consumers, in August 2010, we put into effect the code of conduct for the credit and debit card industry. The code was developed in consultation with small business. Under the code, merchants will be provided with clear information regarding fees and rates, given advance notice of any new fees and fee increases, able to cancel contracts without penalty should fees rise or new fees be introduced, and given new tools to promote competition and in particular the freedom to accept credit payments from a particular network without the obligation to accept debit payments and vice versa.

This code has been widely applauded, especially among small business. I will quote at length what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business had to say. It stated:

The Code of Conduct's biggest achievement has been to protect Canada's low-cost flat-fee debit system.... the Code's other big accomplishment is providing merchants with some power in their relationship with credit card companies, banks and card processing companies.

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.

I encourage all members to take the time to review the code and discover how it will contribute to a better system for both merchants and consumers. Before I conclude, let me very quickly highlight some of the other measures in today's legislation which, I believe, other speakers will address in greater detail.

Bill S-5would update financial institution legislation to promote financial stability and ensure Canada's financial institutions continue to operate in a competitive, efficient and stable environment. It would improve the ability of regulators to share information officially with international counterparts. It would change the priority status of segregated fund policies in insolvency situations that would facilitate timely transfer, consistent with life and health insurance policies. It would clarify that Canadians are able to cash government cheques under $1,500 free of charge at any bank in Canada. It would promote competition and innovation by enabling co-operative credit associations to provide technology services to a broader market. It would amend the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act to remove the requirement that there must be at least one bank involved.

In all, the measures proposed by the bill would further strengthen our system by reinforcing stability in the financial sector, fine-tuning the consumer protection framework and adjusting the regulatory framework to adapt to new developments.

Canadians should be justifiably proud of our financial services sector. It employs over 750,000 in good, well-paying jobs. It represents about 7% of Canada's GDP. It is a world leader in the use of information technology.

Over the past four years, the World Economic Forum has ranked our banking system as the soundest in the world. Forbes magazine has ranked Canada number one in its annual review of the best countries to do business. Five Canadian financial institutions were named to Bloomberg's most recent list of the world's strongest banks, more than any other country.

Recently, a Financial Stability Board peer review praised the government's response to the global financial crisis. It highlighted the resilience of Canada's financial system, calling it a model for other countries. The FSB review said that “the strength of Canada's economy and its financial system meant that no Canadian financial institution failed or required government support in the form of a capital injection or debt guarantees during the global financial crisis.”

By updating the financial legislation framework, we would continue to ensure that Canada's financial institutions operate in a competitive, efficient and stable environment that would help Canada maintain its well-earned reputation as a global leader in financial services.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the time I was given to participate in today's debate and to recommend the timely passage of Bill S-5.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the member's speech on Bill S-5. The concern we have had on this side of the House is how improvised the Bill S-5 process has been.

This is something the government knew about years in advance, the revisions of the Bank Act. It did not make it public and did not call for real, sincere public input into Bill S-5. It was brought forward by the Senate first. It was brought into the House of Commons at a late date and the government did not allow the finance committee to do a thorough vetting.

Of course, consumer groups are very concerned because no issues were able to be raised in any fulsome manner with these revisions to the Bank Act. Now we are pressing for a deadline. We have to get this bill through in the next few days.

My question to the member is simply this: Why did the government botch this process? Why did it improvise all the way along, so we are now moving to rush the bill through Parliament to meet a deadline that the government knew about years in advance?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the NDP member actually stood up and asked a question on financial literacy. He is quite right, this is mandatory legislation. The premise of his question is false. As he should know, we did extensive consultations. The process was on September 20, 2010. The government launched the five year review of the federal financial institution legislation. The government invited the views of all Canadians on how to improve our financial system. Approximately 30 submissions were received from a range of stakeholders. Everyone had the opportunity to contribute.

The proposed bill takes into account the concerns of the major interest groups, including consumer groups, stakeholder and policyholder groups and financial sector industry associations.

I think we have done a very good job here. I think this is something all of us can be proud of. We can be proud of our financial institutions because, as I said in my speech, we have been number one. That is something all Canadians should be proud of.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow-up on that question. What we have witnessed over the last number of months, since the Conservatives have had a majority government, is they tend to want to prevent and downplay the importance of procedures in the House in allowing for adequate debate and so forth. As has been pointed out, we have known about the need for the bill for a long time. It was interesting that the Conservatives chose to introduce it through the Senate as opposed to the House of Commons.

This bill comes up every four or five years under review. Could the member affirm if this is the first time it has been introduced through the Senate? If so, why did the government choose to go through the Senate as opposed to the House?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague should know, we are mandated to review it. It is mandatory legislation and it can be through either the Senate or the House of Commons. As the member says, we are a majority government and we have been busy doing the work Canadians are expecting us to do. As opposed to other governments in the past that liked to dither and waste time in the House and in the Senate, we are committed to following through on commitments to Canadians.

Our financial sector is the best financial sector in the world, and this needs to be done by April 20. We are committed to getting it done on time and we are very open to anybody who wants to have input into it. We have had a good consultation process.

As I said, our government is moving forward on all these things because we want Canadians to understand the importance of financial literacy. We want them to have the tools so they can save into the future. This is about the economy and jobs. That is what we are committed to, that is what we ran on and that what we will continue to do.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to speak to the third reading stage of Bill S-5, financial system review act.

I thank the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health for his comments, especially those on financial literacy. They are a cornerstone for all Canadians to understand their institutions. This would help the jobs and economy of our country to continue to grow.

The bill is significant legislation because, although it is purely technical, it would guarantee the long-standing strength and security of Canada's financial institutions. Our government will make a series of changes to various legislation that govern Canada's financial system, including the Canadian Payments Act, about which I will speak in greater detail in just a few moments.

First, I want to emphasize for members of the House, and Canadians watching at home, that the Financial System Review Act is a mandatory and routine legislation. Canada's financial system is the safest and most secure in the world, and that is a direct result of mandatory five-year reviews. That kind of vigilance has been absolutely critical to maintaining our economic strength in our financial institutions. As the hon. member before me pointed out, much of the world has lauded that, understands that and has given Canada credit for it. Thanks to the greatest finance minister on the planet, the hon.—

[An hon. member]

Paul Martin

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

No, absolutely not.

However, that is why we have our system. In fact, it is a long-standing tradition in Canada to conduct mandatory five-year reviews of Canada's financial sector legislation. I should point out that this most recent review process was officially launched in September 2010, when our Conservative government launched the public consultation process open to all Canadians.

I am sure most members of the House are familiar with the World Economic Forum, which has ranked Canada as having the soundest banks in the world for four years running. What is more, Canada's safe and secure financial system is the envy of the world.

I will quote from the United States Congressional Research Service report which explains how Canadian banks offer a model to the United States and other countries on how to avoid a future financial market crisis. It states:

Canada’s financial system, in particular, garnered attention, because it seemed to be more resistant to the failures and bailouts that have marked banks in the United States and Europe...

As my hon. colleagues are no doubt aware, Canada's credit unions offer important and valuable services as part of our banking sector. Indeed, more than five million Canadians and business owners are the grassroots shareholders of co-operative financial services in Canada and one in three Canadians is a member of a credit union or caisse populaire.

In recent years, our Conservative government has demonstrated its commitment to credit unions by supporting a federal credit union charter to accommodate growth and expansion of the Canadian credit union system. These actions will ensure that those credit unions, which choose to pursue business ventures out of the province, will not be constrained by outdated rules on provincial incorporation. Furthermore, this will also give credit unions a means of diversifying sources of funding and spreading their geographic risk exposure. Similarly, in order to provide federal credit unions with a greater leverage of the Canadian Payments Association, today's legislation would amend the Canadian Payments Act so that credit unions would be classified under the co-operative class in the act instead of the bank class.

At the same time, credit unions will still employ the long-standing, well-understood and robust governance, liquidity, clearing and settlement frameworks in use today. While this may sound like nothing more than a technical change, it is nevertheless fundamentally important. This change would continue to promote a level playing field within the financial sector which would foster competition among players and would ensure a stronger, more stable overall system.

This is what the Credit Union Central of Canada, the national association for credit unions of Canada, had to say about this modification. It said:

—we want to note our support for the proposed amendments...Placing the federal credit union in the cooperatives class will preserve and strengthen the credit union system representation at the CPA. It will ensure that a federal credit union will be represented by a director, who speaks for the interests of cooperative financial institutions in CPA matters. A strong advocate at the CPA is important for the credit union system's ability to advocate on behalf of credit unions and to continue to operate payments facility efficiently and cost effectively, which has a direct impact on overall credit union system competitiveness.

I will remind everybody that CPA is the Canadian Payments Act.

I am certain all members of the House would be in agreement that a stronger credit union system can benefit all Canadians.

Finally, as I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, I would like to speak to a piece of the financial system review act that would make improvements to Canada's payments system, something Canadians deal with almost each and every day. Indeed, every year, Canadians make 24 billion payments, which in total are worth more than $44 trillion. These payments allow us to run our businesses, sustain our households and allow governments to fund essential programs.

Canadians use various payments instruments to purchase goods and services to make financial investments and to transfer funds from one person to another. These instruments include cash, cheques, debit and credit cards. With the exception of cash, payment instruments have typically necessitated a claim on a financial institution such as a bank, credit union or caisse populaire. Therefore, banks and credit unions must make arrangements to transfer funds among themselves, either on their own or on their customer's behalf.

A payments system is set on instruments, procedures and rules used to transfer these funds. In Canada our national systems for clearing and settlement of payments are run by the Canadian Payments Association, or the CPA, a not-for-profit organization of federally regulated financial institutions.

Our government knows that no modern economy can reliably function without a payments system that is sophisticated and secure. However, the payments landscape is changing. For example, experience in Canada and abroad since the 1990s demonstrates that clearing and settlement systems do not always include banks as direct participants. That is why Bill S-5 seeks to amend the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act to remove the requirement that there must be at least one bank involved in a payments transaction. These new rules will allow more flexibility in establishing systems to clear complex financial instruments like over the counter derivatives, or OTCs. This adjustment will permit the Bank of Canada to monitor payments that could pose systemic risks to the financial system.

Canada's leadership in reforming the global financial system through membership and international organizations, such as the G20, is well-known and a source of pride for Canadians. What Canadians may not know is that one important commitment we have made to our G20 partners is that all our OTCs will be cleared through central counter parties by 2012. This is an important step for the resilience and stability of our financial system.

To meet our G20 commitments, it is critical that Canadian prudential and market conduct regulators have the necessary authority, tools and information to regulate the Canadian OTC derivatives market on an ongoing basis. This means coordinating activities across current federal and provincial jurisdictions as well as with foreign regulators.

This is the kind of evolutionary change that demonstrates the importance of regular reviews in our legislative framework to maintain Canada's leadership in financial services. For these reasons, I urge the members to support passage of this largely technical but immensely important bill, which would help to ensure the continued functioning of Canada's payments system.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we have raised this issue before in debate on Bill S-5. The matter came up recently this week in the media regarding the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investment, which is a voluntary dispute resolution organization that was set up back in 2002. Two of the big major banks have withdrawn from that organization and no longer participate in it. The ombudsman has said that has effectively made the organization almost useless.

Could the hon. member explain what the government will do to ensure there is the kind of independent analysis and dispute resolution for these matters that was normally provided by that organization?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear that direct comment in the media at the time. However, nothing here is invalidated, so I reject the premise of the hon. member's question. As I indicated in my speech, there are independent bodies that provide this advice.

We have consulted widely with Canadians as well as to what they want in this legislation, including all the credit unions and caisses populaires. Those independent factors and experts in the industry are available to us to refer to and to provide comment on this at any time.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the point I made about the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments. There was an article in the Globe and Mail on March 27.

The organization was set up to provide independent complaint-handling dispute resolution on behalf of customers and clients of the banks. It was to be dealt with in an independent manner. It has been clearly stated that in fact the organization's effectiveness has been lost because two of the big banks are no longer participating. It is a problem when customers and consumers do not have the opportunity to receive an unbiased independent review of their particular complaints. The minister and parliamentary secretary said that they were going to do something about it, but nothing has transpired.

Why does the member think that an independent arbiter representing customers and consumers is not a good idea?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, nobody has said that independence is not a good idea in the financial field. It is there and the ombudsman remains in his position. It is essentially the same question the member asked me a moment ago and the answer remains the same. There is independence in the structure. Consumers still have a right to redress and recourse, and that will be provided throughout the process.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to commence debate for the official opposition this afternoon on Bill S-5. Our finance critic will be participating in the debate later on.

At each stage of the bill it we have said that we will be supporting it. We tried to make some amendments at the committee stage. We thought they would make proper adjustments to the various changes that have been made. We thought they would add to the bill and would not in any way detract from it or cause any problems. We wanted to ensure that the scope of the minister's approval was properly reflected to represent the interests not just of the banking industry, but also took into consideration the concerns of the country's economy as a whole. Unfortunately, those amendments were not deemed to be acceptable and they were voted down.

Nonetheless, we recognize that this is an important process in respect of the Canadian financial system. Some would say it represents the strength of the financial system that we have built into the law a periodic review of the Bank Act every five years. The government will take time to go through this process and ensure that the people participating in financial services in the country are being properly represented and also ensure that the agents, the bankers, the operators, the financial institutions, are operating correctly.

There is no question of the strength of the Canadian banking system. Its ability to withstand the economic chaos which the United States, Iceland, Europe, and various countries within the global community experienced in 2008 was because of the fact that historically over generations this country has developed proper and standard regulation.

In the 1990s under the Liberals, there was an attempt to deregulate the financial industry, to open up our financial institutions to foreign control, but Canadians spoke up and said that was not the way they wanted to go forward. I was glad to see that happen.

It causes me some concern when I hear members opposite in the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party take credit for the state of Canada's financial system. They want to take credit for the fact that it is in good shape. I would suggest it is not the Conservatives and the Liberals alone, it is not the people in this House alone who have made the wise decisions. In large part, it is Canadians, the people who send us to this place who let us know how they think their financial system should be regulated, that they want less speculation and more control and more conservative management of the system. That is a good thing. That is something we should acknowledge and respect.

While this review is an important strength of the banking system, we think that this time around in particular, the government missed an opportunity to make some changes that were sorely needed. We have talked about the measures to reinforce demutualization regulation to prevent predatory practices, measures that could enhance the co-operative credit movement as financial institutions that prioritize serving their communities, as opposed to short-sighted speculation and exorbitant executive bonuses, and more comprehensive consumer protection measures.

For example, we look at the problems that are facing consumers as a result of exorbitant ATM fees and hidden fees in a whole myriad of banking services. We would like to see full and complete disclosure of fees that are charged to Canadians who use the banks and other financial institutions in this country. Unfortunately, the government decided not to do that. When members opposite get to their feet and speak to this legislation, it is too bad that all they want to do is boast and take credit for the strength of the financial system. All Canadians should be proud of Canada's financial system.

We have to pay close attention to ensure we do not go down the wrong road, that we do not miss things, that we do not disrupt the rules and regulations that are in place in order to provide protection and sound governance.

In that regard, the member who spoke earlier suggested that there was wide consultation with Canadians across the country. That could not be further from the truth. There were requests for participation and consultation. It was by invitation only. I believe that 32 submissions were made and that was it. Even all of those were not made public. As I said in debate at report stage, members talk about this being a technical bill and that we need to recognize it is too detailed for Canadians. That shows a level of disrespect for Canadians which they do not deserve. In Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, for example, there are a lot of constituents whom I have talked with about the need for consumer protection and for greater protection against demutualization. Constituents of mine and Canadians in general know a great deal about these issues. These issues are not too technical for them.

This bill and any review of financial institutions, of the Bank Act, would benefit greatly from a comprehensive, exhaustive consultation with ordinary Canadians. Maybe then members opposite would have a greater appreciation for the challenges and concerns Canadians are facing, and not just the executives of banks and financial institutions. Banks are making tens of billions of dollars in profits every year, and executives are making millions of dollars in annual salaries and bonuses, while consumers whenever they have contact with a financial institution, are being nickel-and-dimed at every opportunity. That causes some concern.

I think that if we had an open process that provided Canadians with the opportunity to share their opinions, knowledge, and experience with the members opposite, it would be of considerable value.

It was in that regard that I raised a couple of questions with the member who spoke before me, and have talked about this before. I am concerned about the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments, a voluntary organization established in 2002 as a result of discussions among government, industry and consumer groups to improve consumer protection and financial services. It was established as a result of section 455 of the Bank Act, which provides all sorts of opportunities to establish dispute resolution processes.

However, these processes are in the complete control of the financial institutions. The whole idea of the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments was to have a voluntary organization that was independent. It was set up as an independent service for conflict resolution, with the condition that all banks participate. It was set up to establish procedures for dealing with complaints made by persons who had requested or received products or services in Canada from a bank.

Through the Bank Act each institution has the opportunity to have that kind of service. While that is all good, what the banks, government and consumer groups have recognized is that it is not good enough. That is why the service I referred to was set up. Again, it is not mandatory but voluntary and, unfortunately, two of Canada's largest banks, RBC and TD, left that service.

When I raised questions with the banking association representative at committee, he told me that it was okay because each bank had its own service and own individuals responsible for dealing with complaints. I am not suggesting for a second that he was engaging in any kind of misrepresentation. It was just the situation, and I appreciate the fact that that it is what he said and what the banks are doing. Good for them. Unfortunately, it was determined back in the early 2000s that it was not good enough: Consumers and government recognized that there had to be something more, that there had to be an independent body.

I also raised this question at committee with the parliamentary secretary. I was told that the minister intended to bring forward and set up some other kind of independent service. The government has been saying that now for upwards of a year. Even the banks are wondering what the government will do in this regard.

It is all about independence, consumer representation, fairness, and ensuring that consumers have appropriate representation when dealing with the banks.

As I said, the financial institutions in this country operate within a regulatory framework that provides them with a great deal of protection against competition and their services being challenged and so on. Unfortunately, this approach does not provide consumers with the same level of support, frankly, that my colleagues and I on this side would like to see.

I recognize that the government has gone some distance in fulfilling its responsibility to conduct this review, but the way it did so was to wait until this fall. The government knew that the review was coming forward but waited until the fall to bring forward Bill S-5. It did not introduce it here in the elected chamber for debate and discussion, but in the Senate. That is not to say that senators have not provided some valuable input, but this is the elected chamber. This is where legislation should at least begin. We have been imbued with the concerns, the wishes and the advice of our constituents, and we bring that to bear in debate. We did not have the opportunity to do so.

In short, the bill was discussed, debated and went through some process within the Senate. We did not see it until, I believe, early this year. We have not had much time to deal with it. We know that it has to pass here by April 20 in accordance with the regulations.

If there had been matters that were particularly egregious and we had put up a stink or had wanted to engaged in lengthy debate on them, we would have been accused of putting the whole process in jeopardy as the deadline would be missed. The pressure would have been on.

As a result of the way it was introduced and the timelines used, we did not have the opportunity to have a fulsome discussion with Canadians and in the House on the amendments that we wanted to introduce. That is unfortunate. I believe that very much underlines the way the government tends to view this chamber and the democratic process. We see that here and we see it in committee, as the government is in a hurry. While it was only elected by 39% of the population, it feels that every Canadian out there believes, accepts and agrees with everything it says. The government will not tolerate any conflict, any discussion or opposition. That is unfortunate.

As we know, 60% of Canadians did not vote for the Conservatives. In much of what they told Canadians in the election, Conservatives assured Canadians, for example, that they would not attack their pensions, and yet they are now doing that. The government made commitments not to attack public services, but has been doing that since. The budget is coming down tomorrow and Canadians are going to see firsthand that what the government said to them to get elected was completely to the contrary of what it would do.

That is another slap in the face of democracy and the kind of issue we have been dealing with.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River, Post-Secondary Education; the hon. member for Manicouagan, Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. member for Windsor West, Canada-U.S. Relations.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech and his great work. It is a pleasure to have him on the finance committee, where he has been a very good addition to us as the deputy finance critic.

We have not had much time to look at this in the finance committee, and I deplore the fact that the government had really improvised with this.

What could the government have done better in protecting consumers from the banks?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member is a co-chair of the finance committee and our critic for national revenue. He has been doing an extraordinary job at staying focused and keeping all of us focused on these important issues.

I spoke earlier about the fact that I thought the government could do a lot more. We thought the government could do a lot more in providing for consumer protection in terms of ATM fees, full disclosure of bank charges, and making sure that the ombudsman and financial services organization was properly established. As I mentioned, according to the ombudsman, right now the organization is basically about to be disbanded because two of the big banks have pulled out.

Those are the kinds of consumer protections that I believe should have been dealt with in this bill.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the member's remarks in the main, but he made a fairly major error when it came to talking about the previous Liberal government's position on the banks. He indicated that we wanted to deregulate the banks. We did not. In fact, we ensured that we did not.

I sat on a committee of Liberal backbenchers when the whole bank merger issue arose and when the banks themselves, the CEOs of the banks, wanted to expand into the U.S. and merge with a lot of the American banks, which would have caused us the same kind of turmoil that befell the Americans. Along with quite a number of other colleagues, I sat on that internal committee and we held hearings across the country. We met with the banks and made recommendations to Prime Minister Chrétien and Minister of Finance Martin. They accepted our recommendations and we did not allow the banks to deregulate. That is why we have the sound financial system we have today, which the Prime Minister tries to take credit for.

Therefore, I would like to correct the record in that regard for the member.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment by the member for Malpeque. The point is that under a great deal of pressure from within and without, the government he refers to was forced to back off from that decision.

It was as a result of Canadians standing up and saying they did not want to go in that direction that the Liberal government finally came to its senses and recognized the right way to go. That is why I have concerns, whether it is the Liberals or the Conservatives who are trying to take credit for a system developed over generations as a result of Canadians saying we need to support these standards and ensure they stay in place.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member's speech, since his knowledge in this area far surpasses my own.

I agree with his criticism about the minimal amount of public consultation—the Conservatives could have easily done better than making a few telephone calls—and, after reading various documents, I would like to get his opinion.

I would like to make a comparison, even though sometimes comparisons can be clumsy. There was a time when the decision was made to separate church and state because these two entities should not sleep in the same bed. But, when I read that decisions on major foreign acquisitions will now be made based on ministerial approval rather than on approval by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, it seems as though we are back to square one and that these two things should not sleep in the same bed either.

I would like the hon. member to clarify his position on that.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. It is a concern that my colleagues and I raised in committee and, likewise, in debate in the House. We told the minister, the parliamentary secretary and the members opposite that we were concerned with the level of involvement of the minister, that the final decision would be left with the minister with absolutely no constraints. We suggested, on a few occasions, that we needed to introduce, at the very least, more broad conditions that relate to the economy of this country and the circumstances facing Canadians that the minister would need to take into consideration when this decision was being made. Unfortunately, the government decided that the minister will be right and will have all the power in this respect.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, we are speaking in the context of the aftermath of the U.S. financial crisis and, in order to avoid what happened there, we need to avoid doing what the Americans did. They turned their mortgage system into a social program over a 30 year period, during which the government first invented sub-prime mortgages, encouraged banks to offer them, ensured those mortgages through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and then, ultimately, compelled by force of law financial institutions to provide those sub-prime mortgages to literally millions of Americans who could never dream of repaying them. This represented a $4 trillion government invasion into the private sector that distorted the entire U.S. mortgage market and had the effect of lending millions of dollars to people, who could never repay the money, so they could live in homes they could never afford to buy.

I wonder if the hon. member would agree that we need to be vigilant to ensure that CMHC and other arms of the Government of Canada never grow into the enormous interventionist beast that the American government became, which brought about the U.S. financial collapse.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I would say in this respect. One is that the government does not seem to want to ever acknowledge that it spent $75 billion buying suspect mortgages from CMHC. We need to remember that the government also waded in when there was trouble. It was not as bad as it was in the United States but there were troubles here and the government has not acknowledged it.

Number two is in regard to CMHC. CMHC is an organization that has an opportunity to play a major role in the development of desperately needed social and affordable housing in this country and the government has not properly supported that organization, continues to turn its back on it and on Canadians from one end of this country to the other who cannot afford a decent place to live, and that is a shame.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by providing some clarity on what is a bit confusing at times, I am sure, for many.

Whether it is members from the Conservative Party proclaiming that we have the best Minister of Finance in the world, implying that is the current Minister of Finance. I hear a member applauding but he might want to hold his applause for a little while on that particular point. Then we have the New Democrats who believe they can rewrite history, not by saying it once or twice but even going beyond that. The other day we heard a New Democrat saying that it was the New Democrats who saved the banking industry in Canada. They may be a little more generous by implying that there might have been some Canadians also involved.

However, I do think it is important to get the record as clear as possible so members can be a little more forthright about what history actually was back in the 1990s. At the time, I was a member of the Manitoba legislature and I recall the debate on deregulations versus having a regulated banking industry. I had met with TD Bank representatives at a special event where there was a discussion on it. Therefore, I am somewhat familiar with the issue and, like many Canadians, have followed it.

It is important to recognize that there was a great deal of pressure being applied around the world by the financial industry which wanted to see deregulation and many countries succumbed to that.

In Canada, Jean Chrétien, the prime minister at the time; the minister of finance, Paul Martin; and the cabinet were able to resist the pressure that many governments caved in to. They recognized the value of having a regulated financial industry with respect to the banking industry specifically.

Because of the efforts and actions of those two individuals in the cabinet at the time, we have what has been classified as one of the greatest and healthiest banking industries in the world. It had nothing to do with the current Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister.

The first major policy announcement from the government related to the banking industry was that we would allow for 40 year mortgages. The current Prime Minister and the current Minister of Finance can take full credit for that. We all know that turned out to be a dud of an idea. Not one Conservative member will now stand in his or her place and say that the Conservatives brought out the 40 year mortgage. The simple reason is that they recognize now that it was a bad idea to do that.

We have a Minister of Finance and a Prime Minister who like to travel the globe and assume credit for the health of the banking industry in Canada. However, I would suggest that the real credit should be going to Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin, the member for Wascana and many other members who made up the cabinet back in the nineties and resisted the world pressure to deregulate.

What role did the New Democrats play in it? Some might argue that they played a bit of a role. I do not know what it is. I never detected any significant role. It was a Liberal majority government throughout that period and I believe there were 13 New Democratic members, although I could be wrong. However, I do not believe they played any role whatsoever in regard to protecting the banking industry, as much as they would like to claim that they did play a role.

Just the other day we heard New Democratic members of Parliament trying to take credit. However, that was the reality of history and I think it is important to accurately reflect why it is we have a relatively healthy banking industry, especially in comparison to other countries throughout the world.

This is not just something the Liberals recognize. Even the Conservatives, the New Democrats and, I would suggest, leaders around the world have recognized the valuable role that Canada has played in terms of demonstrating leadership on our financial industry as a whole. We should all be proud of that. There is no doubt whatsoever that through the process we have been able to generate the regulations because these ideas and needs of average Canadians come through our constituencies.

I would agree with one of the statements my colleague made, which is that Canadians as a whole understand and appreciate the importance of the industry.

In doing a bit of research, it was interesting to find out that it was Michael Quinn, a Canadian member of Parliament back in 1897, who came up with the idea that we needed to do something to protect consumers. Ever since then, and possibly even before then, governments have recognized the valuable role they play when it comes to monetary policy and the financial industry in our country. That particular member of Parliament, who happened to be from the province of Quebec, highlighted the importance of interest rates. He felt at the time that interest rates were too excessive, that individuals were being charged not 100% but close to 1,000% in some situations. He felt that it was unrealistic to put people who were in relatively poor economic situations and exploit them through high interest rates.

There has always been a high level of interest in the House of Commons in terms of protecting the consumer and in terms of the financial market as a whole. I will spend a little bit of time speaking to that because it is an important issue.

We talk about tomorrow, which is our budget day. Members should not kid themselves. Many people within the financial institutions or the hierarchy throughout the world will be watching the government to hear the types of expenditures, the sorts of revenues that will be generated and what the potential is for Canada into the future. Many individuals and stakeholders throughout the country, everyone from the consumer in Labrador to B.C. to Winnipeg and in our territories are very much interested in what sort of budget we will see presented. It will have a very significant impact on our financial institutions.

Here we have a bill that is designed to protect the integrity of that financial system but I will talk about how government has a direct impact. One thing that needs to be talked about is the government's own debt situation. It was not that long ago, almost six years ago, when the Prime Minister took office and he had some $13 billion-plus in surplus.

If we fast-forward six years, we find that the government has now exceeded $150 billion in terms of new debt. When a government takes that sort of action, many vested stakeholders throughout will stand up and take note, and it will have an impact.

On the macro scale, it does have an impact in the overall debt that we have as a nation. It is something of which we have to be aware. However, the government has not really done a good job on this, and the numbers speak for themselves.

There are other things that we look to the government to demonstrate leadership on because they have a direct impact in regard to our financial institutions. I will give a specific example. We talk about the retrofit program. In a retrofit program where government sees the value of getting people to invest in their homes, quite often that means government support goes toward it and also financial institutions will get directly involved in those types of programs. I bring this up because it is important for us to recognize that the role the government plays in our financial institutions is significant.

It is very important that when we have legislation such as this, we provide the opportunity for members of Parliament to have good thorough debate and provide the opportunity for a bill such as this to go to committee. Actually, this is the type of legislation in which we should be encouraging Canadians to directly get involved in because it affects each and every one of us. It affects our pocket. Therefore, Canadians have a vested interest.

We have to look at the process. What has the process been like for the Conservative government on Bill S-5? Members will notice it is called Bill S-5, as opposed to Bill C-5, meaning it had to go through the Senate. This is something the Prime Minister wanted to do. If it were Bill C-5, that would have implied it would come through the House of Commons.

Ever since the Prime Minister has been given a majority government, he feels he has the authority and mandate to ride roughshod over anything that happens inside the House. He has acquired, in the very short time since he had a majority government, record high introductions of time allocation to prevent members of Parliament from engaging in debate on legislation. The attitude or disregard for this fine and wonderful institution is amazing.

Through this institution, Canadians are afforded the opportunity to voice their concerns through their elected officials. However, day in and day out the Prime Minister seems to ignore the rights and what is important for members to truly engage on legislation that is brought forward and which we are asked to pass. The Prime Minister, for whatever reasons, and he will have to explain them at some point, chose to go through the Senate.

Then we have the issue of the Prime Minister being fully aware months ago of the need pass the bill by April 20. The Prime Minister, as he has done with other legislation, seems to drag his feet. After all, he believes that, through his majority government, he can push things through. Now we are in a situation in which there are some serious time concerns. As a result of those concerns, we will be unable to have the type of debate that is important.

In principle, the Liberal Party supports the bill and we have been very clear on that. We recognize the value of it, but many Canadians have issues about which they want their members of Parliament to speak. This would have been a wonderful opportunity to hear many of those contributions to debate.

As an example, it is estimated that the average Canadian now spends well over $120 or $130 annually on banking fees. There is a great deal of concern over whether there is anything the government can do to watch the whole ordeal, to have take some kind of action or have a plan to provide assurance to Canadians that it truly cares about that issue, that it wants to move toward more transparency on the whole issue of banking fees. What about issues such as interest rates?

Another important issue in my riding has been that of bank closures. In Winnipeg North, a number of banks have closed over the last number of years. It has had a very significant impact. For seniors who live on McGregor or on Selkirk in Winnipeg's north end and have had banks in their community close down, there is a real impact. Many of our senior population do not have Internet. They are not going to do banking on the Internet. They want to go to their local bank. It is great in many ways where we have had credit unions. Recently, Assiniboine Credit Union opened up, I believe on McGregor, to try to meet the demand that was created because of banks leaving.

These are real issues that affect Canadians. Whether the government is allowing for adequate and proper debate in the House or providing the opportunity in committee, we need to have this type of discussion so we can share some of the details of the issues that face us. We know there are explanations of how banks will try to justify the narrowing of the gap in interest rates between loans and deposits. That is one of the primary reasons why banks will say that they have to rely more on banking fees in order to cover costs. We are very much aware of that issue. However, I am also aware that banking profits are at all-time record highs and Canadians are aware of that fact. The government needs to develop a plan that ultimately will deal with the wide variety of issues within our financial markets.

Direct banking is one of them. We could talk about the financial institutions of our insurance companies. There is a wide spectrum of issues that are of critical importance. If we do not do it properly, then people are right to be concerned. Not long ago we witnessed the crashes that happened in the United States, in particular. A number of people virtually walked away from their homes. This crisis took place because banks closed down in countries throughout the world.

It is of the utmost importance that we have ongoing reviews. That is why the Liberal Party supports the principle of Bill S-5. We recognize the value of monitoring our financial markets and ensuring we have good, sound regulations. However, we also recognize the importance of Canadians and consumers and we want to see a government do more to address these issues. Whether it is credit card interest rates or the amount of banking fees, consumers want us to be talking about it this.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney, has said that household debt, which has reached a record high, is the biggest threat to our financial institutions. Consumer debt has reached a record level of 151% of disposable income. The NDP is very concerned about the lending practices of banks and other lending institutions when it comes to mortgages and home equity lines of credit. These practices are becoming increasingly risky.

Is the Liberal member also concerned about the Conservative government's lack of vision in this bill governing financial institutions? When it comes right down to it, Canadian and Quebec families are sinking further and further into debt.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we, too, share the concern with the level of debt. The leader of the Liberal Party started off the session last fall by saying that the important issue for our party was jobs, jobs, jobs.

Over the last number of years, a number of full-time jobs have been lost and that has impacted our economy, which has added to a lot of the debt we have today. Individuals are unable to maintain the types of loans they have because it is difficult to get the same kind of quality jobs. That is one of the reasons why it is important for us to fight for those good quality jobs.

We know what is taking place with Aveos in the province of Quebec. These are jobs that Canada, as a whole, cannot afford to lose. They are worth fighting for. We look to the government to take Air Canada to court on it to protect those jobs because that does have an impact on the amount of money people borrow and on their ability to even pay for loans.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the debate on the bill. It is one that I support. Bill S-5 would modernize a number of elements. It could have gone further.

However, I have enjoyed the “me-firstism” of every party. The Conservative Party wants to take credit for the fact our banking system withheld the recession so well. The New Democrats, apparently, feel they are responsible. I would like to add, as leader of the Green Party of Canada, we had absolutely nothing to do with protecting our banking system.

We all owe a thanks to previous Liberal finance minister, Paul Martin.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I might have spent a bit too much time at the beginning of my comments trying to clarify the record. I genuinely believe that, in reviewing and listening to a lot of the debate of the bill, individuals like Paul Martin, the former minister of finance, and Jean Chrétien did protect the industry by ensuring we had those regulations in place.

My concern was not as much as trying to assume credit for those two individuals, but rather that we do not try to rewrite history when others members stand and try to assume the credit when it is not true.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's speech today. I also appreciate the intervention by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands in relation to Mr. Martin, who certainly played a very important role in maintaining the independence of our banks and maintaining banking regulation. I was a member of Parliament at that time. I can tell her that in fact Liberal MPs were overwhelmingly against the idea, and I want my hon. colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour to hear this, of deregulation of banks or of mergers of banks.

It concerns me because the New Democrats came to Ottawa after last May, saying that they were going be different, with a different approach to Parliament. The NDP put on that coat, or perhaps the new beard, but it is the same old face sometimes. Those members are trying to carry on with this myth that there is no difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals.

On this issue, it would be more reasonable and more in keeping with the coat they are trying to put on if the New Democrats would actually give credit where it is due and admit that on this issue there is a huge difference with the Liberal government. Liberal MPs overwhelmingly insisted that we maintain independent banks, maintain non-merged banks and regulation of banks and that the 40-year mortgage, for example, which the Conservatives brought in, was a disaster.

However, I am going to give the NDP credit for participating with the Liberals during the minority governments, ensuring the Conservative government did not deregulate, as it would have liked to have done.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice that we have virtually unanimous support that the regulations in place during the 1990s are in essence what saved our banking industry, to the degree that it is now the envy of the world. All members recognize that, although it might have taken some a little longer to accept.

At the end of the day, we will have some issues which we will all agree on, and some not. There will be some issues the Liberals will not support, such as increasing the number of members of Parliament from 308 to 338. The NDP is in agreement with the Conservatives in wanting to increase the size of the House of Commons. Sometimes there is a crazy mixture of agreement. This time around, it is nice to see that all of us support a regulated banking industry.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I will not try to do is rewrite history. I will agree the reason we have a sound financial system is not because of the Conservatives and because of the regulations that were put in place by the previous government.

One thing was of interest to me. My colleague mentioned he supports consumers in terms of banking, and mentioned credit cards. I wonder if he agrees with the NDP proposal, that was part of our campaign, to cap the credit card rate?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to proclaim that I know all the answers. However, I do know a lot of the issues. One of the issues that I believe many Canadians, including myself, share, is a concern about the amount of banking fees and the level of interest rates. I believe Canadians want us to deal with these.

I can assure the member that all political parties will at some point make it very clear what they would like to do. I would like to think that I am with my constituents, the consumers, on the issue. I want to wait and see what ultimately happens. However, something needs to be taking place.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to share my colleague's comments that it is really a stretch to watch the Conservative government stand in the House and claim credit for the banking industry's strength over the last recession. It was the Conservative Party members in the 1990s who pushed for deregulation, bank mergers and the ability of banks to sell other financial products. It was resistance to those pushes that caused our banking system to be strong today.

I must say to the Liberal Party though, that the fact there was a debate at all in the 1990s reflects the schizophrenic quality of the Liberal Party. We never really know where it stands. People in the Liberal Party were pushing for those same things. I will give the Liberal Party credit at the end of the day. It resisted those urges, but there were many members, including John Manley and other famous Liberals, who were pushing just as hard as the Conservatives.

That is why the Liberal Party has gone from 172 seats in 2001 to 135 seats to 77 seats to 34 seats over the last 10 years. Canadians never really know where the Liberal Party stands on an issue. It said it would bring in a national child care program. It did not. It said it would bring in a national housing program. It did not. It is this schizophrenic quality that has Canadians quite rightly concerned about the Liberal Party.

Maybe my friend could address the fact that Canadians do not seem to know whether Liberals are on the right side or the left side of the spectrum and that is why it finds itself with 34 seats today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member did make a fair comment in regard to the Conservatives. However, it was the Reform and Canadian Alliance, from which many Conservatives originate. Many would say a vast majority of them would have advocated for deregulation. I am glad they have changed their minds since then.

In regard to the other issue, I can assure the member, when he makes reference to the child care program, which was a Liberal Party commitment, had the NDP supported the Liberals we would have had that in place. It was part of the budget. Unfortunately, because the NDP worked with the Conservatives and defeated the Liberals, we lost that particular issue.

However, I can assure the member that, on issues such as old age pensions and all those good social programs, it was a Liberal administration that brought them through.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate. Before I recognize the member for Brossard—La Prairie, I will just remind him that at 5:30 p.m. we will come to the end of government orders, so he may want to take that into consideration. The hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak on Bill S-5.

We have had some good debates today. At the finance committee, we had the chance to look at the bill. One of the first things that we realized was that we did not have much time to actually study the bill. As members know, the bill came from the Senate. Members know we are trying to abolish the Senate, but that is not the issue. The issue was the fact that the study was done very quickly. There were approximately 30 emails or briefs sent through the website. That was pretty much it.

We are talking about the bill, and how every five years we have to look at the financial institutions and banks. Within the last five years there was a global financial crisis. We have talked about sub-primes and paper-backed products. There was a crisis in the U.S. and there was a crisis here. There are some arguments about why we survived the crisis. As I mentioned, it was not because of the Conservatives. It was because of the previous government that had sound financial regulations.

My problem is that, within the last five years, we could have looked at what was happening in the U.S. and overseas, and at what is happening here. Instead, we have a small bill that looks at technical issues. However, there are issues that are taken care of, and that is why we will be supporting Bill S-5.

What we are saying is that we missed an opportunity. What we do not like in the bill, and this was raised in committee, is the fact that we are giving all the power for approving the purchase of foreign banks by Canadians banks to the minister. The Minister of State for Finance came to committee and explained the bill. The response was not good enough.

The way the system is working right now, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions looks at transactions and gives a recommendation on whether or not to approve the merger or acquisition. Now the minister will have the final say. Even in a case where the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions says that it is not good for Canadian institutions, the minister can say, “We do not mind. Just go ahead and move forward with that transaction.”

That is of concern for us, especially knowing that a lot of the ministers, as we see with the Minister of Industry, have conflicts of interest. There may be a problem in terms of judgment. In this case, there may be some problems with the minister being too close to financial institutions. That is a big concern that we raised. Unfortunately the government did not answer it.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie for his excellent speech.

My colleague did a very good job of explaining what we like about this bill. However, I would also like him to comment further on what is not in the bill but should have been in the bill to make it comprehensive: regulations governing financial institutions and big Canadian banks. Neither Canadian families nor the middle class will benefit from this bill, which was introduced in the Senate. Only the big banks and Conservative Party cronies will benefit.

I would like to know what the member thinks about measures that could have helped Canadian and Quebec families in a tangible way but that are not in the bill.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord for his question.

We would have liked to see measures in the bill that would really help consumers, but the bill contains no such measures. The NDP proposed caps on excessive credit card interest rates. That is one example of what the government could have done. The government also failed to regulate banking fees.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Brossard—La Prairie.

My question is simple. I completely agree that the government missed an opportunity with this bill.

If we had a chance to do it again, what does the member think is the number one thing that would improve our banking system from the point of view of consumers: banking fees, greater transparency or both?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it would be both. However, one thing New Democrats have clearly proposed was to put a cap on credit card fees.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, could my friend comment on what he thinks about other banking fees? I appreciate that the NDP wants to put a cap on the level of interest. Could he provide some sort of an idea of the kind of cap he is referring to? Is he saying it should be a 10% or 15% cap? What percentage cap would he like to see put on credit cards?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we want to look at sub-prime plus a percentage cap.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday one of the member's colleagues considered the strength of OBSI in order to protect consumers. I am not sure if that is why OBSI was set up in the first place. It is an intriguing concept, I agree, but would FCAC not be a better avenue? I am looking for an explanation on the role of OBSI in dealing with this particular issue.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, OBSI actually plays a really important role. Unfortunately, now with the banks giving out, there is an issue. We are not sure what the future of OBSI is. However, right now OBSI is doing a good job.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this week the banking ombudsman was saying, basically, that he does not want the job if it is not going to be mandatory for the banks to listen to what he says. We have seen no indication from the government that it is going to make it a mandatory process, where, if consumers have complaints against banks, they can go to the ombudsman and the ombudsman will make a decision that is enforceable. As it is, it has been a voluntary system. RBC and TD both withdrew from the system in recent months. The ombudsman is saying he is going to quit unless this is enforced.

I would like my hon. colleague's thoughts on this issue.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we also raised this issue in committee. We believe it should be mandatory.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #175

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)