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

Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

The recorded division on Motion No. 3 stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the bill.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation ActGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division on the question now before the House stands deferred until 6.30 p.m. Monday, April 15, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-15, an act to amend, enact and repeal certain laws relating to financial institutions, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

There are 13 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-15, an act to amend, enact and repeal certain laws relating to financial institutions.

Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 will be grouped for debate but will be voted on as follows: the vote on Motion No. 1 applies to Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 10; Motion No. 9 will be voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 4 and 8 will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 4 applies to Motion No. 8.

Motions Nos. 11, 12 and 13 will be grouped for debate but will be voted on as follows: the vote on Motion No. 11 applies to Motion No. 13; Motion No. 12 will be voted on separately.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 to the House.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Group No. 1, Motion No. 1. Mr. Peters-

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West, ON

Mr. Speaker, if you seek the unanimous consent of the House, you might find it agreeable to deem the motions in Group No. 1 to have been read.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

If I could have more clarification, would you also say read and seconded?

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West, ON

Yes.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Is that agreed?

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Scarborough East Ontario

Liberal

Doug Peters Liberalfor Minister of Finance

moved:

Motion No. 1

That the French version of Clause 41 of Bill C-15 be amended by a ) striking out lines 28 and 29 on page 39 and subsituting the following:

"une fusion de celle-ci, ou l'a forcée à le faire, à la protion de la". b ) by striking out line 2 on page 40 and substituting the following:

"dans les circonstances, à".

Motion No. 2

That the French version of Clause 45.1 of Bill C-15 be amended a ) by striking out lines 23 and 24 on page 47 and substituting the following:

"reçues ou détenues, la date déterminée est prise en compte, que le droit ait"; b ) by striking out lines 30 to 33 on page 47 and substituting the following:

"sant de prolonger la durée du dépôt aux taux d'intérêts fixés au moment où les sommes ont été sollicitées ou reçues, la date ultérieure est prise en compte,"; and c ) by striking out line 37 on page 47 and substituting the following:

"veler ou de réinvestir les sommes aux".

Motion No. 3

That the French version of Clause 70 of Bill C-15 be amended by striking out line 38 on page 61 and line 1 on page 62 and substituting the following:

"qui suit soit la prise de contrôle de la société soit l'entrée en vigueur du présent article, la der-".

Motion No. 5

That the French version of Clause 76 of Bill C-15 be amended by striking out lines 8 to 10 on page 64 and substituting the following:

"que les fonctions des deux postes seront bien exercées et que les fonctions du poste d'actuaire seront exercées de façon".

Motion No. 6

That the French version of Clause 95 of Bill C-15 be amended by striking out line 39 on page 72 and substituting the following:

"l'ordonnance permettant à la société de".

Motion No. 7

That the French version of Clause 115 of Bill C-15 be amended by striking out lines 31 and 32 on page 88 and substituting the following:

"qui suit soit la prise de contrôle de la société soit l'entrée en vigueur du présent article, la der-"

Motion No. 9

That the English version of Clause 157 of Bill C-15 be amended by striking out lines 13 to 22 on page 108 and substituting the following:

"this section, the onus of proving a ) that the company was not insolvent lies on the directors and the shareholders of the company; and b ) in the case of the directors, that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the company was not insolvent when a dividend was paid or shares were redeemed or purchased for cancellation or that the payment of a dividend or a redemption of shares did not render the company insolvent lies on the directors.''

Motion No. 10

That Clause 165 of Bill C-15 be amended by striking out line 2l on page 120 and substituting the following:

"-ing the 2nd Session of the 35th Parliament,".

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

St. Paul's Ontario

Liberal

Barry Campbell LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the motions that have been grouped for debate, being Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10, I would like to speak very briefly to inform the House these are technical changes and clarifications intended to ensure consistency between the two versions of the bill.

As I look over the various motions it is clear they are merely of the nature I have described and I do not think they require any extensive discussion in the House this morning. Members will note these motions ensure consistency between the English and French versions. They are merely technical, clarifying and would probably only be of interest to practising lawyers.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

So soon, Mr. Speaker? I knew that the government had little to say, but taking only two minutes to propose ten amendments is rather short.

At 9.15 this morning, barely one hour before the beginning of the debate on the amendments to Bill C-15, we learned that the government had decided to propose a series of ten amendments to its own bill.

We deplore this way of doing things, which has almost become the norm with the government, and which consists in tabling, literally at the last minute, a series of amendments to create confusion in the debate. This has happened before. This morning, we took a very serious look at all the amendments to make sure that the government was not trying to pull a fast one on us. It is unacceptable on the part of a responsible government to resort to such tactics, especially in the case of a measure like Bill C-15, which concerns financial institutions and which is of vital importance to the future of that sector, particularly securities.

I wonder who the Secretary of State and the ministerial assistant think they are. I have the impression that they think they are a bit like Moses, but with ten amendments instead of ten commandments. The difference is that we are in Parliament, where democracy is to be respected, where public information and transparency must prevail. If it had not been for my colleagues' alertness and our research service's technical support, we would have been at a loss with the new amendments being systematically dumped on us.

Let me recall, and this is something we discussed last year, that Bill C-15, previously Bill C-100, directly affects an area over which provinces have exclusive jurisdiction, that of securities, which includes liquid assets, shares, bonds and debentures.

This is an area over which provinces have exclusive jurisdiction under two sections of the Canadian Constitution. The first one is Section 92.13, which provides for property and civil rights in the province. The second one is Section 92.16, dealing generally with all matters of a merely local or private nature in the province.

From the beginning of this debate on the bill relating to financial institutions, we have received only half-answers and half-truths when we asked how it happens that the bill clearly infringes upon an exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Bill C-15, notably by implementing across Canada a system for the clearing and settlement of payment obligations, infringes on powers already exercised, for example, by the Quebec Securities Commission-the same applies to Ontario and British Columbia-, and by the Quebec inspector general of financial institutions.

This situation results in costly overlaps for taxpayers. Liberals have become masters at it. They add overlap, particularly in the area of securities. Who is paying for that? The taxpayers. The Liberals are adding not only costly overlaps but also administrative inefficiencies, because Quebec financial institutions will be subjected to dual controls.

Why end up controlling an area which is already very well controlled and which has been under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction for a long time? Why is the federal government showing that much paternalism? Why does the federal government want to monitor the various provincial institutions, particularly the Quebec ones?

We have deplored it, we deplore it today and we deplore most of all the fact that, in these Moses' ten commandments or rather the ten amendments put forward by the secretary of state and assistant to the Minister of Finance, there is nothing that deals with the official opposition's requests and nothing that responds to the criticisms of various provinces with regard to this encroachment by the federal government.

With regard to securities more specifically, the second concern that is not dealt with in Bill C-15 nor in the amended version put forward by the government with these ten amendments is the fact that this is not a partisan issue, an issue of sovereignty versus federalism, but a fundamental issue in Quebec.

Even Daniel Johnson, in a letter dated February 16, 1994, when he was premier of Quebec, stated that it was out of the question for the federal government to encroach on the area of securities-for the federal government was already expected at that time to try to encroach on that area-and that the Government of Quebec would refuse to accept it and would fight tooth and nail to keep its prerogatives in that area.

Daniel Johnson said so, and he is an ally of the people opposite, and too unquestioning an ally at times. He wrote to the intergovernmental affairs minister of the day to remind him of the Quebec consensus-because there is a consensus-on this exclusive jurisdiction over securities. But the government does not even care to respond to its own allies, and it is blatantly ignoring specific sections of the Canadian Constitution.

Besides jurisdictional issues, a third difficulty, as I said earlier, is that financial institutions and even investors in Quebec will suffer from this duplication created by the federal government. Costs will rise, and the securities market will lack the consistency it requires. Let us not forget that all agents on the securities market, like all other financial markets, need clarity and consistency of rules and stability. Everybody knows that financial markets need stability.

Instead of introducing the consistency and stability all financial markets throughout the world require, the federal government comes in clumsily with Bill C-15. It sets out to create its own institutions and let the Bank of Canada and the Canadian superintendent of financial institutions interfere in the securities sector. Such an attitude cannot be accepted.

Last August, the secretary of state for financial institutions appeared before the finance committee. To all our questions on the federal government's infringement upon the securities industry, a field of exclusive provincial jurisdiction especially in Quebec, the secretary of state will have to acknowledge today that he answered

just about anything. He said just about anything. We even had the feeling that the secretary of state did not even know his own bill.

When we referred to specific sections, we got the feeling that the secretary of state had senior officials draft this legislation and was simply providing us with a summary. Every time we told him that the federal government intended to get involved in the securities industry, he said no. Every time we told him that the federal government was paving the way for systematic infringement upon this field, he said: "Come on, where do you see that in the bill?"

However much we referred to specific provisions-

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

Barry Campbell Liberal St. Paul's, ON

Mr. Speaker I apologize for interrupting my colleague with a point of order, but I am somewhat confused.

We are debating a series of motions which have been grouped by the Chair for debate, which are merely technical to clarify and to ensure consistency in nature. My hon. colleague has referred to there being 10 motions but there are only eight so his math is not very good. However, he is engaging in a debate about the general thrust of the act without referring to these motions at all. I understand that some of his concerns are the subject of motions which are grouped for that purpose which we will be debating a little later this morning.

Perhaps the hon. member could clarify this.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

I would hope you would be sympathetic to the Chair when I express that being it is a bill which is technical in nature, it would be difficult for me as your Chair occupant to apply the rules of relevance. I know the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot of course has spoken often on behalf of his party on financial matters. If it is a matter of good faith on the part of the Chair, so be it. I would be hard pressed to say if there was or was not relevancy in terms of what the member has been speaking to on the motions grouped in the earlier ruling I gave to the House.

So, as far as the rules of relevancy are concerned, I am not in a position to determine if the comments made are relevant or not to this very technical bill, but I rely on the good faith of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, who has been closely following these financial issues for many years now.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on the ten amendments which were put forward and divided in three groups by the government's representatives, because there are ten of them-I do not know how the hon. member came up with the number eight, maybe because we are debating the first eight-but there are ten amendments before the House.

What I want to point out, on behalf of my colleagues, is that not one of these amendments answers the many issues we have been raising for almost a year now. Indeed, it has been almost a year now since the problems surfaced, since the bill was introduced and the secretary of state in particular was unable, in August, during the finance committee's hearings, to answer our questions. Every time we asked him questions on some of the issues we raised and which remain unsolved-

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Reform

Herb Grubel Reform Capilano—Howe Sound, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am very disturbed. I am following the discussion and I am prepared to speak on Group No. 1, Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10. I have counted them three times; there are eight. On what is the hon. member speaking?

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Again, you are really putting the Chair in a very difficult position in terms of the relevancy of the motions on a bill that is very technical. I am sure if the member should so choose, the Chair will recognize him to engage in this debate on the appropriate motions.

I would ask that we give the remaining time to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, which would be approximately two minutes given the interruptions that we have had on points of order, according to our procedures.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to my colleague from the Reform Party that if he wants to understand what we say, he only has to listen. I think this would be a good thing, since he does not often listen to our arguments because he is too busy preparing his while we develop ours. And this has been going on for the last two and a half years.

Thus, I repeat that the amendments put forward by the government do not in any way correct the deficiencies of the initial bill, that is, Bill C-100, which has been renamed Bill C-15, and that the secretary of state told us tall tales when he appeared before the committee. The secretary of state told us that his government did not intend to infringe upon the securities industry. Since then, we have been able to refine our analysis. Bill C-15 was even compared with the old Bill C-100. Then, there was the speech from the throne which spoke clearly of restoring a Canadian securities commission.

So, this is my conclusion on the ten amendments. We will reject these amendments because they do not meet any of our expectations. These purely cosmetic amendments only add up to commas and periods and were put forward this morning with only one hour prior notice to try to destabilize the opposition and the debate on

this bill and create confusion in the population and also force us to concentrate our comments on these ten proposals that are rather trivial considering the seriousness of the bill.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Reform

Herb Grubel Reform Capilano—Howe Sound, BC

Mr. Speaker, there are indeed 10 motions, but they are grouped into Group No. 1 and Group No. 2. The hon. member who constantly said there were 10 motions obviously was putting the two groups together. I will however follow the direction set by the Chair and simply discuss the motions in Group No. 1: Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10. I had a good look at them.

All except for one concern changes in the French translation of the English text. While I do understand and read French, I am not sufficiently expert in the legalese that is involved in here. I have every confidence in the competence and integrity of the writers of this bill in the Department of Finance that this is in order.

Therefore, I express the Reform Party's support for these amendments. I hope we can get on with debate and get through this business. This is an expensive time to be held up at this stage and talk about things that are not relevant to the motions. We will have a chance when third reading of Bill C-15 comes up to have our fundamental objections to the bill registered. I hope we can expedite the passing of these motions today.

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Is the House ready for the question?

Bank ActGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

Question.