Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate on the fourth group of motions and I am pleased that we have agreed to
accommodate one of our Reform Party colleagues, who had to return to his riding unexpectedly early.
I should mention from the outset that the amendments before us are very technical and very specialized. We support them, because, on the whole, they strike us as not altering the spirit of the bill to any degree, a bill, I might add, that we condemn with all the strength we can muster. This is perhaps a bit of a disappointment for our Reform colleagues.
This very important bill changes the rules of the game and the way of doing things in addition to changing the name of the largest federal financial institution. The change is being made on the sly, without debate or show, make no mistake about it, even though the bill will completely change the operation and the mission of the bank in its relations with future clients.
It will have the role of agent of regional development. We will, however, come back to this point at length during the course of the day. The mission of the bank is being changed in that the nature of the role of economic developer through small business will be altered. We have questions about the way the bank will work in the future, because, in our opinion, it will have to become more commercial in nature and assume the accompanying concerns.
At this point in the debate, I would like to inform you that we will support the three motions by our colleague from the Reform Party, and particularly the amendment to prevent the issue of preferred shares. We consider it important in the context that the legislation clearly state preferred shares may not be issued.
I end my remarks here and will comment further on the bill itself in the coming hours.