House of Commons Hansard #200 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was branches.
Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
The House has heard the motion as presented by the deputy government House leader. Is there unanimous consent?
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two petitions in the House.
In the first, 128 petitioners from the riding of Acadie—Bathurst call on Parliament to set up a program to help those affected by the groundfish moratorium.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by 616 Canadians from across the country and calls for the creation of an independent EI fund.
In addition, they are asking that EI benefits be more easily accessible and of longer duration.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is again an honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of residents of Chase, Salmon Arm and the general Shuswap Lake area.
The petitioners are concerned about the recent developments regarding the export of water and list a number of concerns they have.
John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from constituents in my riding. They call on the government to support a timetable by the year 2000 for the abolition of nuclear weapons worldwide.
Mauril Bélanger LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
Is that agreed?
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-67, an act to amend the Bank Act, the Winding-up and Restructuring Act and other acts relating to financial institutions and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is of course with great pride that I accepted to participate today in this important debate on Bill C-67, which deals with the establishment of foreign bank branches in Canada.
First, I would like to comment briefly on the speech of the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions, which is most indicative of the quality of Bill C-67.
He said “This bill will allow us, we hope—”. We hope. If I introduced a bill, it would aim at achieving specific goals through practical means. I would not merely make a wish, hoping it will fulfil itself.
Before explaining the position of the Bloc Quebecois on this bill, I must say that the attitude of the finance minister shows he is true to himself. This minister is unable to look at the big picture with respect to national finances. He has lost all credibility as our national treasurer, because of both his budgetary forecasts and his financial achievements. The Minister of Finance always tries to deal with a complex and general situation with a careless approach and in a piecemeal fashion.
We will recall how he dealt with the MacKay Report on the future of financial services. The minister decided to ignore the true issues raised in this massive report and dealt with only one aspect of the document, bank mergers.
Acting unilaterally, and without waiting for the publication of the complete report of the Standing Committee on Finance, the minister took position on the bank merger issue and, based on incomplete preliminary data, decided to oppose the merger, “for the time being” as he said, adding that he would see later what could be done. This minister, who improvises on a daily basis, is an amateur financier who has no strict timeline for his political agenda.
The finance minister continues in the same vein with Bill C-67, an act to amend the Bank Act, which will allow the establishment of foreign banks. To allow foreign banks to open branches in Canada without affording any protection to financial institutions in Quebec and Canada is to open our market without protecting ourselves. How re-assuring it is to be represented by such a government on the eve of negotiations with the World Trade Organization.
Like his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, who weakened Canada with his recent positions, the Minister of Finance is about to act incoherently by opening our market against the interest of our institutions.
Did the finance minister take the time to read the MacKay report? Is he really aware of the impact of this review? I doubt it. The finance minister, like his Liberal colleagues, hastens to say he consulted various socio-economic stakeholders involved in this issue. I submit that is pure bunk.
I would like to know if the finance minister consulted the Deputy Premier of Quebec before introducing Bill C-67. Was the president of the Mouvement Desjardins, Claude Béland, consulted? If so, how?
The analysis of Bill C-67 leads us to the conclusion that this piece of legislation introduced by the Minister of Finance is an attack on the know-how and expertise of Quebec.
I draw your attention to clause 128, which amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act. Let us have a closer look at clause 7.1, which says, and I quote:
7.1 (1) The Minister may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, enter into agreements with the appropriate authority of a province
It goes on:
(a) with respect to the administration, application and enforcement of provincial legislation in respect of trust, loan or insurance companies incorporated or regulated by or under an Act of the legislature of the province;
(b) in order to authorize the Superintendent to exercise or perform the powers, duties and functions on behalf of the appropriate authority of the province, that the Minister may determine, in respect of trust, loan or insurance companies incorporated or regulated by or under an Act of the legislature of the province; and
(c) in order to
(i) make applicable the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Insurance Companies Act or this Act, or any provisions of these Acts, and the regulations made under any of these Acts, with the modifications that the Minister considers necessary, in respect of trust, loan or insurance companies that are incorporated or regulated by or under an Act of the legislature of the province, and
(ii) limit the application of provincial legislation in respect of trust, loan or insurance companies that are incorporated or regulated by an Act of the legislature of the province.
We can see once again an undisguised attempt by the Minister of Finance, through this legislation, to get involved in areas that come under Quebec's jurisdiction.
Every day, the Bloc Quebecois condemns the numerous federal intrusions in areas of provincial jurisdiction, including those of Quebec. This is why we are opposed to the principle of the bill and will vote against it, unless satisfactory amendments are made to section 7.1, which allows the federal government to squarely intrude into Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.
This one-way provision would allow the government to appropriate and control Quebec's know-how. This is why the Bloc Quebecois is asking for the following amendments, which are essential in the current context.
First, any agreement mentioned in section 7.1 should be the result of government-to-government negotiations.
Second, section 7.1 should be amended to provide for reciprocity. Under such reciprocity, the appropriate authority of a province, and a provincial government, would enjoy the same privileges as those enjoyed by the superintendent and the federal government under section 7.1.
In other words, the Inspector General of Financial Institutions and the Government of Quebec could subject federally chartered financial institutions to Quebec laws.
Let us take a look at the main amendments found in Bill C-67.
The amendments set the general requirements that must be met by a foreign bank to establish a branch in Canada, the type of business that such a branch can conduct, and the standing regulatory requirements that will have to be met. The bill also includes a number of changes concerning the access by foreign banks to the financial services sector.
Under the proposed system, on top of being allowed to establish a Canadian subsidiary, foreign banks will be able to set up either a full service branch or a loan branch.
We bemoan the lack of overall vision on the part of the government regarding the future of the Canadian banking system and financial markets.
Since 1993, the finance minister, who does not know where he is going in this issue, has been improvising. He is putting at risk one of the pillars of our economy, the financial services sector. He should listen to what the Bloc Quebecois has been telling him for years now, namely first strengthen our national industry, then open the market, and finally liberalize.
The Bloc Quebecois has always been of the opinion that the merger debate should be seen as part of a broader debate on the future of financial institutions. The same is true of the bill before us today.
The government is acting irresponsibly and, by refusing to proceed cautiously according to the logical order suggested by the Bloc Quebecois, is leaving Quebec and Canada open to inconsistencies and discrepancies in the quality of services between poor and rich regions, a glaring and on-going lack of fairness.
Let us not forget that, under the federal Insurance Companies Act, a federally chartered insurance company or a foreign company cannot sell policies in Canada to an insurance company set up under provincial legislation. Only a federally chartered insurance company, with the approval of the Minister of Finance, can buy these blocks of business. This situation is unfair to Quebec insurers.
This situation shows clearly that while our financial markets are about to become more and more open to financial institutions, there are still barriers between our own institutions and we do not have full competitiveness within our own borders.
I remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois had proposed a three-step approach which provides for a methodical opening up of financial markets.
As a first step, the Bloc asks the federal government to change the ownership rules for banks and some of the accounting rules in order to allow and foster the grouping of medium and small size financial institutions into financial holdings.
For instance, a bank could join with a life insurance company, an investment funds company and a brokerage. This first step would allow the establishment in Quebec and in Canada of giant financial institutions which would be able to truly compete with megabanks.
The government should allow a period of two to three years for the establishment of these holdings, which would be subject to the 10% rule and whose operations would remain compartmentalized, as is already the case for banks. We should begin by taking the necessary means to encourage competition with new major players on a global scale.
Second, the federal government could then allow bank mergers. For instance, we would have on the Canadian market eight to ten players of similar size and strength and we would therefore have sound competition in our domestic financial sector.
Sound competition is vital if we want consumers and small and medium size businesses throughout the country to have easy access to services at competitive prices.
In the interest of fairness, the bank mergers should occur at the same time that the multisector holdings become operational. All players should be able to start at the same time.
At the same time, the Bloc Quebecois would call for a greater democratization of banks and financial holdings along the proposals of the Quebec association for the protection of savers and investors.
We would also ask for a mechanism to encourage and measure the investments of banks and financial holdings in communities.
In view of the human aspect and of the socio-economic efforts of this reform, the Bloc Quebecois will support measures aimed at protecting access to financial services for the whole population throughout the territory.
We will also be calling for a mechanism for parliamentary follow-up in order to measure the impact of the changes made on competition, service charges, employment, access to credit, transparency, and services to outlying and disadvantaged communities, so as to be able to make the appropriate corrections and adjustments as we go along, if need be.
Third, the federal government could open up the Canadian financial services market completely to international competition.
Having made it possible for the small players in Quebec and Canada to join forces, there are less grounds for concern that they will disappear or pass into the hands of foreign companies as soon as the market is opened up to international competition.
I remind hon. members that our concern has always been, and will always be, to increase the competitivity of all sectors of financial services in Quebec and in Canada, and to increase the competition in all of Quebec and Canada. More competition means better and better-priced services for consumers and small and medium-sized businesses throughout the country. Enhancing competition is one of the concerns of the Bloc Quebecois.
We are also concerned with making these changes equitably. All those involved in the financial sector must have an equal opportunity to make changes so as to enhance their domestic and international position, for example, by allowing financial holdings which bring together institutions from various sectors.
Hon. members will agree with me that today's debate is liable to have a great impact on our society. We must always remember that public interest comes first and that there are people behind the figures.
In this sense, the Bloc Quebecois has always advocated the establishment of a parliamentary committee to oversee banks and financial institutions, which would periodically check whether consumers and SMBs are well served at competitive prices throughout Quebec and Canada, regardless of their personal wealth. We have advocated the entry of new players into the market to increase competition and thus improve service to consumers.
I should mention that Quebec is at the forefront in protecting consumer interests. In October 1998, Quebec announced the establishment of the Bureau des services financiers to protect the public.
It receives public complaints, ensures the law respecting the distribution of financial products and services is applied, sets up an insurance information and reference centre to give consumers access to clear and complete information, establishes a fund to provide compensation in the event of fraud, keeps a record of offices, independent companies and independent representatives and issues certificates to representatives.
To avoid overlap, the federal government should give Quebec the role of protecting consumers in the area of financial services.
The Bloc Quebecois also advocated greater democratization of the banks. We share the concerns of Yves Michaud in this regard.
Moreover, I want to remind you that the Bloc Quebecois is the only party to have tabled a bill on community reinvestment. We want the banks and other financial institutions to fulfil their social role and to be transparent about the means and objectives involved.
To conclude, I repeat that without appropriate amendments to permit government to government negotiations, we will vote against Bill C-67.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge my Reform friend for co-operating earlier. I appreciate it very much.
Bill C-67, an act to amend the Bank Act, the Winding-up and Restructuring Act and other acts relating to financial institutions and to make consequential amendments to other acts, is opening the door to foreign banks coming into Canada. Let us make that clear.
We have heard about some of the concerns raised by others, some of the benefits and so on. I will venture out and do something that I think is unusual for a politician and attempt to predict the future. I have no corner on wizardry or looking into a crystal ball, but it does not take much crystal ball gazing to figure out what is going on.
The other day I said that sometimes when I stand in the House to make a speech I feel a bit like a eunuch. I do not mean that in any kind of personal sense. I mean it in a helpless sense, in kind of a worthless sense. What is the point? It is sort of the opposite of the Viagra issue. Why are we doing this? Sometimes I feel like I am a great big thick rubber stamp with ink all over one side of me, and every now and then I am asked to rubber stamp something that is going on.
I have a choice. I am either a eunuch or a rubber stamp. I will probably go with the rubber stamp classification. Why do I feel this way? Those in the gallery, those watching television, those listening in and those who will read Hansard or perhaps watch the CPAC version later today will be under the impression that we are debating whether or not to proceed with allowing foreign banks into the country. There will be some good ideas, some bad ideas, concerns and so on, but there will be an impression that we are actually debating this issue and that the debate has some consequence.
It does not. It has no consequence at all. Just as sure as the sun came up this morning, the legislation will pass expeditiously. It is not because most parties will support it. It will pass expeditiously because the government has committed to the World Trade Organization to pass the legislation by end of June.
What does all this mean? Let us look at the details. First we got a clue, not from the Canadian government, not from any government press release, but from the Wall Street Journal . Those of us who read the Wall Street Journal on November 10, 1997, would have noticed the article “Financial services talks heat up”. That article stated that Canada would submit a revised offer committing itself to open branch banking to other WTO members. In other words, Canada made a commitment on November 10, 1997 to open up its doors to foreign banks. We did not learn about that in Canada. We had to read it in the Wall Street Journal .
On December 12 a government press release came out stating that Canada welcomed WTO financial services agreement. Services such as banks and insurance companies of a foreign nature would have access to Canada. That was the formal announcement.
Just a few days later guess what other announcement was made? It was the announcement that the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal were to merge. They had read the newspapers as well. They were aware that the Canadian government had negotiated a deal with the World Trade Organization to allow foreign banks to come into Canada. The Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal said they had to do something about it. They had to get a little tougher and bigger and merge in order to confront the foreign banks being allowed into Canada and made that announcement. This apparently shocked the Minister of Finance.
Knowing the discussions that take place around these issues, I suspect the banks were aware of the discussions in the World Trade Organization regarding financial institutions. I am sure the Department of Finance would have been in touch with the major banks of Canada to alert them to this fact.
What did the Minister of Finance expect, that the Canadian banks would just sit there and say that any foreign bank could come into the country and be able to operate? They had to take some steps to protect themselves, and merging was one of the options.
I will make a prediction today. Soon, because of the foreign banks that will be coming into Canada, in particular at the commercial level, and because of the increased competition from these great big foreign banks we will have to revisit the idea of bank mergers. In order to compete the Canadian banking industry will have to take on the international banking giants. They are too small to do it on their own so they will have to merge in some form. Will the Minister of Finance be open to some aspect of merging?
We now understand the changing world conditions and the changing conditions of international banking. We have huge American, European and Japanese banks now operating in Canada at the commercial level. We have to protect our Canadian banks and allow them to grow. Then the debate will be over and mergers will be announced in due course.
That is my prediction. I hope I am wrong in my prediction but that is the way I suggest things are likely to evolve.
What does the legislation do? I listened to my friend, the secretary of state for financial services. He is a man of great integrity. He is a man whose words I listen to carefully and whom I often support. I am encouraged by his openness. We will notice in today's issue of Hansard that on the issue of whether foreign banks coming into Canada will help the small business community he said hopefully. That was his word. He was hopeful the foreign banks would be providing services to Canadian small business that are in search of capital.
I give the minister credit because he certainly did not say that this would be good news for small business. He said that he was hopeful. I give him credit for being hopeful at least. Surely we ought to do something more than simply being hopeful that small business will have better access to capital. I will set that aside for now.
Anybody who believes for a moment that Bill C-67 will result in foreign banks coming in and providing much needed competition for the citizens of Canada is dreaming in Technicolor. That will not happen.
It is clear. They are here. They are interested in commercial banking. Their primary interest is not in retail banking. They tried that. We had all kinds of foreign banks coming to Canada in an effort to provide retail competition. Most of them have left or have identified a small niche market which they are in at the moment.
By and large, expansion in the retail banking sector by a foreign bank will simply not happen. The big Canadian banks have that market pretty well sewed up. There will be a creaming off of the system. We will have increased numbers of foreign banks competing with our national banks to get the best business.
One thing about big business is that it does not now rely on Canada's banks. Big business has access to capital on a global scale. It can access capital in Europe. It can access capital in the United States. It can access capital in Asia.
This is not necessarily a problem. Basically we will have some big banking giants competing with our banking giants for the very lucrative top end commercial market. That is fair enough. That is what will happen. That is what the banks say they are interested in. They are not interested in providing more competition at the retail level.
In other words, they are not interested in providing competition that will benefit the people of Canada in any meaningful way. They will not open branches in small communities. They will not open branches in rural communities. They will not provide better services in small towns of Canada or in the suburbs of our cities.
They will be on the main street. They will be on the Bay Streets of Canada competing for the international global capital market. That is where they will be. Let us understand the average Canadian citizen will not benefit by the existence of foreign banks in this country.
For those people who are operating small businesses in Canada, for those people who are probably operating medium size businesses, for those people who are self-employed, running home based businesses or small operations, foreign banks will be of little if any help at all. That is not the market foreign banks are looking for.
In terms of the problems of accessing capital, the problems of establishing good operating lines of credit, and the problems of accessing money for small entrepreneurs, for small business operators and for self-employed individuals will not be assisted in any meaningful way by allowing large foreign banks to open operations in Canada.
The legislation says that to open an account the minimum deposit is $150,000. How many people have $150,000 to deposit into a bank just like that? We are talking about a certain amount of people, not average individuals interested in the banking services of Canada.
When I listen to some of my friends saying this will create competition for Canadian banks in terms of getting them to lower their service charges and so on, it is just by and large dreaming in Technicolor. That will not happen.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
As my friend from Winnipeg says, they will probably even go up.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
They will be losing money to the other guys and have to go elsewhere for their profits. Service charges are a lucrative aspect and something they could easily introduce.
Let us acknowledge very clearly the debate we are having today. The legislation will go to committee, come back here for debate and off to the Senate. That is essentially meaningless because it is a done deal. The government commitment at the World Trade Organization back in December 1997 was that it would do this. Therefore parliament is irrelevant. Parliamentarians are irrelevant. The finance committee is irrelevant.
Let us consider what we are doing today. We are talking about a major change to Canada's banking. We have just gone through a long process of looking into the future of Canada's financial services sector. A huge report was recently tabled.
The government says it will come out with a white paper to talk about the future of the financial service sector in Canada over maybe the next decade or two or three. Why are we taking this decision today on introducing foreign banking? This seems to be the cart before the horse. The horse is not out of the barn and the cart is already running down the road. There is something wrong with this process.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
My friend says that we know what the cart is full of. Yes, we probably do know what it is full of. That is why I say I feel like a rubber stamp today. I know that by and large the debate is absolutely meaningless in terms of having any influence on the future outcome of the legislation. It is incredibly frustrating.
There is another aspect to the legislation. I listened carefully to the explanation of the secretary of state on how this would be helpful to the average citizen. I made some notes as well. I probably used my own wording. I do not think he said it was some version of the trickle down approach, but that was my interpretation of what he was talking about.
If we could provide large foreign banks with an opportunity to come into Canada and compete with our banks at the upper end level of huge corporate business, he said that the benefits would eventually trickle down to the normal folks of the country. In other words, give a break to the large international banking community, the large international banks, be patient and eventually the benefits will trickle down to the average citizen.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
I hear what my friend says. We are just changing Canadian legislation to allow greater access for large foreign banks to come into the country. That is a pretty major change in how banking is conducted here.
The secretary of state for financial services said that he had faith in the trickle down approach. He said if we waited long enough eventually the good things would trickle down on us. If average Canadians were asked if they wanted to be trickled on, they would say no. Being trickled on is not something they find attractive. They probably feel they have been trickled on for a long time.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
They are probably trickled off at this point. Getting trickled on, which is what the legislation is all about, is not the kind of thing we want to see in Canada.
We would maybe welcome a change in legislation if in fact it meant that there would actually be real competition so the average citizen would benefit by lower service charges, by a greater range of services and by easier access to financial services. The legislation will do the opposite. It will put pressure on the existing banking system to cut back to enable it to compete at the high end level.
What does cutback mean? It means a whole bunch of people will lose their jobs. A whole bunch of people will lose access to branches in their various communities. Branches will be closed. The banks have already acknowledged this. The Royal Bank the other day suggested that it would have to cut back at last $400 million in the next little while.
Cutting back $400 million means a whole lot of people who have jobs today will not have them. A whole lot of people will be inconvenienced so that the Royal Bank of Canada can compete at the upper end of the commercial lending market.
What is our job here? Is it not our job as elected representatives to protect the interests of ordinary people? We do not have to protect the interests of banks. Goodness, they have small armies of lawyers, financial experts and lobbyists and unlimited amounts of money. They do not need our protection.
The average Canadian expects us to represent their interests. That is why the folly of this debate today and this discussion is to give the illusion to people sitting in the gallery that somehow this is an important debate when the deal was cut two years ago when the Minister of Finance said “I promise that we will pass legislation permitting foreign banks in Canada before June 1999”.
What are we doing here? We all are like a bunch of rubber stamps. Stamp, stamp, stamp, that is all we end up doing now. As long as we understand we are just rubber stamps, then that is fair enough, but let us not pretend to anybody listening to this debate that this is meaningful in any way. The Minister of Finance has decided on this.
Let us understand what this reveals. Who runs this country? Who runs this government? Is it the members of parliament elected by their constituents who make decisions? The answer is clearly no. Is it the cabinet that sits there in secret and makes decisions? The answer is absolutely no. One person sitting over there makes all the decisions, the Minister of Finance. He made the decision on whether we should have foreign banking. Was it discussed among the Liberal caucus members? No, it was not.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
The report came after this was signed. My Liberal friend reveals the problem. The Liberals did not start the report until after this was signed, sealed and delivered. He reveals the fact that he actually thinks he is not a eunuch. He actually thinks he has some energy, that he has some role to play. He does not. He is just a nice piece of backdrop that every now and again is asked to bleat, what we call voting, and that is his job.
Let us understand that when we debate legislation like Bill C-67 we are acknowledging one more time in a long list of acknowledgements that one person runs this country and runs this government, the Minister of Finance. He decides now on education policy. He decides on health care policy. He decides on environmental policy. He decides everything.
Once again, should we have foreign banks? My friend says there was a committee roaming the country looking into this. I am on the finance committee. We actually study this. It was all after the fact, after the Minister of Finance had committed to the world that this is what the Government of Canada would do on a particular day, and that is what we are doing. That is why this is really a frustrating place sometimes.
I like the Minister of Finance. He is a smart guy. He is not an expert on health care, education and so on. Maybe foreign banking is getting close. That is not the way we are supposed to work in this place. Members of parliament are supposed to have some role in deciding on the appropriateness of certain legislation.
I lament the fact, I regret the fact that we are living in a dictatorship. It is a kind of elected dictatorship, because we do elect the dictator every four or five years, but basically once that is done, that is it. We are all a bunch of rubber stamps. We sit here and stamp ourselves and that is it, and the Minister of Finance decides what will go on.
It is an elected dictatorship in the hands of the Minister of Finance who now decides all types of economic and social policy and all types of foreign policy. Look at our defence budget. Who decides on the nature of Canada's armed forces? Is it the minister of defence? No, it is the Minister of Finance because he decides on the financial ability of our armed forces to develop the infrastructure they require.
This is frustrating. I am frustrated. I know other members of parliament are frustrated. They are shaking their heads. Even some Liberals are shaking their heads one way or the other. I know the people of Canada are frustrated because they know that the government ignores them. They say they feel alienated. They feel left out of the circle. Of course they should feel alienated because they are left out. They are not considered. Their views are not considered.
We do not support the trickle down theory of economics. We do not like the idea of foreign banks coming into the country and not providing any useful services to the average Canadian. We lament the fact that this debate is irrelevant. What I am saying is that we will not be voting in favour of the legislation.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question. I could have asked him off the record but then the people of Canada would not have benefited from his answer. The member was speaking about the way this legislation has its origin in the WTO and in the international financial services agreement which was signed by this government a day before the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal announced their intention to merge or issue their wedding bands or however one wants to describe this.
That was no coincidence. What struck me at the time was the false outrage of the Minister of Finance who claimed to be totally shocked and surprised that the banks might be considering this when in fact the day before the government had signed an agreement which in some ways precipitated the banks' considering the advisability of merging, something we are against but which nevertheless we recognize was effected by the signing of this financial services agreement.
Would the member care to comment more on that sequence which is something I do not think the Canadian public was fully aware of then or is fully aware if now? There is the way the government prejudiced the outcome of the entire organization of our banking industry by signing this agreement with no debate in the House of Commons beforehand, and still no debate until today. Now it expects us to pass something as significant as this after about two hours of debate. Clearly this is not something we are prepared to co-operate in. We feel this kind of thing should receive more debate and I am sure the member would want to help that happen by commenting on what I have just said.