House of Commons Hansard #23 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was labour.

Topics

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

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

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 10.

The next question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

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

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

We will now proceed to Group No. 2 which includes Motions Nos. 4 and 8.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Scarborough East Ontario

Liberal

Doug Peters Liberalfor Minister of Finance

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Clause 70 of Bill C-15 be amended by adding, immediately after line 6 on page 62, the following:

"(5) Subsections (2) to (4) do not apply with respect to a person or entity that was carrying on business in Canada under a reserved name on the day immediately preceding the day on which those subsections come into force."

Motion No. 8

That Clause 115 of Bill C-15 be amended by adding, immediately after line 43 on page 88, the following:

"(5) Subsections (2) to (4) do not apply with respect to a person or entity that was carrying on business in Canada under a reserved name on the day immediately preceding the day on which those subsections come into force."

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

St. Paul's Ontario

Liberal

Barry Campbell LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my colleague opposite, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, I was tempted on moving to this second grouping of amendments to tell the House of a story I once heard about lawyers who were arguing a case. One lawyer stood up and argued for several hours and the other lawyer stood and said: "I will follow the very fine example of my colleague and make no argument".

These two motions which are grouped for debate deal again with a fairly technical matter. The act would prohibit the use of the words "trustco" or "lifeco" by an unregulated parent of a regulated institution. This is to avoid certain confusion within the public and to ensure that the public is not misled concerning whether or not a financial institution is in fact federally regulated.

After representations which we heard before the committee and in consultations held in the department it was pointed out to us that to flat out prohibit the use of such words by entities that had long used them would be costly to the companies involved and quite confusing to the public throughout this country. Therefore certain

grandfathering provisions were included and Motions Nos. 4 and 8 further clarify these grandfathering provisions.

I am sure the member opposite will now stand and engage in this debate and launch into a discussion of the overall thrust of the bill, which is interesting, but we have discussed it at other stages.

I see we have a third grouping coming up which consists of resolutions they have just dropped on us suddenly. Everything that he has said about the government's motions, just getting them with no time to prepare, apply to his Motions Nos. 11, 12 and 13 grouped for debate later on.

Lest I cross over the line of relevance I will not get into his motions until we are there.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Bloc

Richard Bélisle Bloc La Prairie, QC

Mr. Speaker, in Group No. 2, two motions have been added. In Motion No. 4, the Minister of Finance proposed:

That Clause 70 of Bill C-15 be amended by adding, immediately after line 6 on page 62, the following:

"(5) Subsections (2) to (4) do not apply with respect to a person or entity that was carrying on business in Canada under a reserved name on the day immediately preceding the day on which those subsections come into force".

The parliamentary secretary says this is only a technicality.

Then, in Motion No. 8, the Minister of Finance proposed:

That Clause 115 of Bill C-15 be amended by adding, immediately after line 43 on page 88, the following:

"(5) Subsections (2) to (4) do not apply with respect to a person or entity that was carrying on business in Canada under a reserved name on the day immediately preceding the day on which those subsections come into force".

We are dealing with the same thing, here. Again, the parliamentary secretary says this is only a technicality.

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary this: Why has the government waited until this morning to add in these technicalities? Why did it not do this before, when Bill C-15 was introduced? In the first session, this bill was introduced as Bill C-100.

Considering that the finance department has hundreds and hundreds of employees at its service, why were these so-called technicalities not introduced at that time? How is it that the parliamentary secretary or the department came up with these amendments around 8.30 or 9 a.m., as my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot pointed out? We were informed of these amendments when we arrived at our offices this morning.

Once again, the Liberal government is not taking its responsibilities seriously. It is doing a sloppy job. Its goal is not to better inform the public, to bring forward specific technical amendments to improve the bill. Its only goal is to try to destabilize members of the official opposition at 9.15 a.m., in order to avoid being severely criticized by them.

This is a very important bill we have to discuss and, suddenly, the government decides to move ten amendments. Then, realizing that he cannot respond to the objections raised by the official opposition, the parliamentary secretary tells us that they are not important amendments, that we should not worry about that, that they are just technicalities. Then why were they not included in the bill when it was introduced?

I would also like to add that the amendments proposed by Liberals this morning do not respond to the repeated requests made by the Bloc Quebecois. Where in the second group of motions, Motions Nos. 4 and 8, as in the eight previous motions, can we find a reduction in governmental regulations? Where can we find the elimination of duplication and overlap that the official opposition has been complaining about for two years?

For several months now, the official opposition has been asking the government to let Quebec's legislation play its role. But, once again, the federal Liberal government prefers to increase its interference in areas under Quebec's jurisdiction. In the end, as my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot pointed out, these two amendments, like the previous eight, are nothing but cosmetic amendments.

This morning, my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot also talked about Moses' ten commandments. I think he was very generous in comparing these amendments to the ten commandments because at least, in the ten commandments, there was a lot of wisdom, shrewdness and insight, which I do not see in the parliamentary secretary's amendments. If the parliamentary secretary had a minimum of decency, he would withdraw his amendments.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Reform

Herb Grubel Reform Capilano—Howe Sound, BC

Mr. Speaker, I find that a strange interpretation of the way democracy works. It shows a lack of appreciation for how complex some of the technical matters are regarding financial bills of this sort.

There are all kinds of things wrong with the bill, but there is criticism on it on the basis that the government has shown its willingness to respond to public concern about a proposal. To me it shows the government is listening. We have a society which takes into account the people who are specifically affected by legislation. I praise the government for having made these modifications.

The bill is not very good. However, with respect to these two clauses I commend what the government has done. The registration of names, names which have already been registered, was an item of contention. We heard about it in the finance committee and I am persuaded that this is a good move. It is for this reason that the Reform Party will support the two amendments placed in Group No. 2.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Is the House ready for the question?

Bank ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

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

Bank ActGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.