Debates of Feb. 12th, 2001

Health

[The Speaker]

Hon. members, with their enthusiasm for short questions and short answers, has allowed us to get more in than usual, in fact more than any other so far.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Mike Farnsworth, Minister of Social Development and Economic Security of the province of British Columbia.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

National Defence Act

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-259, an act to amend the National Defence Act (Snowbirds).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reintroduce my private member's bill from the last session which amends the National Defence Act to protect the Snowbirds. I thank the member for Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan for his support in seconding my private member's bill.

Canadians across the country perceive our Snowbirds as a Canadian icon. They thrill millions of people throughout North America annually. Unfortunately their future is unsure and is certainly not protected. The only way we could protect this national icon is to amend the National Defence Act so that the Snowbirds are entrenched in the act itself. This is exactly what my private member's bill calls for.

I ask all members of the House and all Canadians to support it.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Holidays Act

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-260, an act to amend the Holidays Act (National Heritage Day) and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan for supporting my private member's bill to make a day in February a national statutory holiday.

Members of the House and Canadians know that February is the only month of the year in which we do not have a statutory holiday. Heritage is already celebrated in February, so it only makes sense that Canadians deem heritage day a statutory holiday.

Canadians have found new interest over the last decade in the heritage of the country. My private member's bill calls for the government to amend the Holidays Act to include the heritage day statutory holiday. I ask all members to support the bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Patients' Bill Of Rights

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-261, an act to establish the rights of patients in relation to health, treatment and records.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce the patients bill of rights. The purpose of the bill is to establish the rights of Canadians to consistent quality health care services across Canada, personal rights respecting the receipt of health care services, and the corresponding responsibilities of patients in dealing with health professionals.

The Minister of Health would be required to seek the commitment of the provinces to adopt and protect these rights and responsibilities. Full fiscal transfers are dependent on provinces agreeing to the principles embodied in this enactment.

What better time is there to talk about health care than following an election where it was the number one topic. Hopefully the bill will go a long way toward resolving some of our health care issues.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Fishers' Bill Of Rights

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-262, an act to establish the rights of fishers including the right to be involved in the process of fisheries stock assessment, fish conservation, setting of fishing quotas, fishing licensing and the public right to fish and establish the right of fishers to be informed of decisions affecting fishing as a livelihood in advance and the right to compensation if other rights are abrogated unfairly.

Mr. Speaker, the bill was introduced in the last parliament and was a votable bill. It enjoyed support from both sides of the House. Unfortunately the government could not see fit to support it as strongly as members on this side of the House. Nonetheless, it encouraged a lot of debate on the topic of fish and fishermen's rights. I know that technically this is called the fishers' bill of rights. However, being from the old school, I still call them fishermen.

This is a bill to establish the rights of fishers, including the right to be involved in the process of fisheries stock assessment, fish conservation, setting of fish quotas, fishing licensing and the public right to fish. It establishes the right of fishers to be informed of decisions affecting fishing as a livelihood in advance, and the right to compensation if other rights are abrogated unfairly.

Given one of the position papers just brought down by the government with regard to fishermen, I am sure we will enjoy more support on that side of the House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

National Agriculture Industry Relief Coordination Act

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-263, an act to establish a national committee to develop policies and procedures to ensure co-ordination in the delivery of programs by governments in the case of agricultural losses or disasters created by weather, pests, shortages of goods or services or market conditions, and the co-ordination of the delivery of information, assistance, relief and compensation, and to study the compliance of such programs with World Trade Organization requirements.

Mr. Speaker, we have had the patients' bill of rights and the fishers' bill of rights. I suppose I could call this the farmers' bill of rights.

This is the reintroduction of a private member's bill that would like to put into place a consistent program that would be able to develop a long term strategy for agriculture and support systems. This is in fact a desperate need right now and I look forward to being able to debate this on the floor of the House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Parliament Of Canada Act

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

moved that Bill S-10, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Poet Laureate), be read the first time.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Petitions

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by more than 300 people from my riding.

The petitioners point out that, on December 29, 2000, Arthur Kabunda, a student at Bathurst Community College, in New Brunswick, met with a tragic death during a trip to his native country of Burundi. He was killed, along with about 20 other fellow countrymen, by a group of rebels.

The petitioners wish to express their indignation and their dismay at such barbaric actions and hope that some day this violence will stop. They also wish to express their solidarity to the people of Burundi and to all the other nations suffering the horrors of war.

Consequently, the petitioners are asking parliament to officially convey to the family and friends of Arthur Kabunda its condolences on behalf of all Canadians, and to publicly condemn such acts of violence.

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions today.

The first petition is from a group of constituents who are opposed to corporal or physical punishment. They feel that it leads to actual child abuse and to a possible increase in criminal activity. They consequently ask for the government to repeal section 743 of the criminal code.

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from a group of people concerned about the lack of housing and care facilities for the elderly. They call upon the government to provide measures for one time infrastructure funding to revitalize health care facilities and provide resources for innovative and creative ways to address the needs in the most economic and efficient way.

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition actually contains approximately 10,000 signatures from the west coast of British Columbia right through to Atlantic Canada, although it originated from a group of very conscientious volunteers in my riding.

The petitioners are concerned about the lack of palliative care, the care for those who are dying. They call upon parliament to collaborate with the provinces to provide funding to provide for home care and pharmacare for the dying. They also request collaboration with them for appropriate education and training for all members of end of life teams, for the provision of financial assistance and job protection for family members who provide care for the dying as recommended in the Carstairs report. This petition has 10,000 signatures and more will follow.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you again for recognizing this poor little corner of the House. You have been more than generous today.

This petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, petitions the House as follows. The petitioners draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following: that the two week waiting period for employment insurance benefits is causing undue financial hardship for many families; and that the two week waiting period system means families must wait four weeks before obtaining their first employment insurance benefit.

Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to revise the employment insurance regulations to remove the two week waiting period.

Just to summarize, the two week waiting period to us does not mean a lot, but people earning minimum wage it means a lowly $120 a week benefit. It puts their family in a very difficult set of circumstances in terms of waiting periods. In other words, they cannot afford to buy groceries or heat the house, so we are calling upon parliament to do something about it.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, despite his protestations about this corner of the House and so on, is an experienced member. He would know beyond most of us that reading petitions is not on. Indeed he should give a summary as he did at the end.

I heard him reading. I know he knows that is against the rules. I know in future he would not want to set a bad example for the newer members of the House and would want to comply with the rules in every respect and give a summary instead of reading his petitions.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Request For Emergency Debate

[The Speaker]

The Chair has an application for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, once again I would like to put forward to you in your good graces the opportunity under Standing Order 52 to entertain an emergency debate in the House with respect to what is happening in agriculture today.

Unfortunately no programs have come forward recently from the government side of the House that would allay some of the problems with respect to the financial difficulties and the urgency that farmers face, programs that they are calling for now for spring seeding.

I would simply like to have an opportunity, not only for our party but for other parties in the House, to put forward their views on how the situation could best be resolved.

Under your good graces, Mr. Speaker, I do wish that we could have an open debate, an honest emergency debate on this very crucial issue.

[The Speaker]

The Chair has considered the request of the hon. member for Brandon—Souris very carefully and is satisfied that the request appears to meet the exigencies of the standing order.

Accordingly I am disposed to permit a debate under Standing Order 52 on the question of agricultural policy as raised by the hon. member.

However, in considering it, the Chair has certain options available to it. One is to defer the debate for a further time. I am inclined to do that until tomorrow evening. That gives the Chair additional latitude in that instead of starting the debate at 8 o'clock, it could start at the conclusion of the votes that are scheduled for tomorrow evening at the time of adjournment.

Accordingly I propose that the debate will start at that time and will continue to no later than the hour provided in the standing orders, namely midnight. There will be a debate on this subject for all hon. members.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-8, an act to establish the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, and to amend certain acts in relation to financial institutions, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to continue my speech, which I began before question period today.

I also thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving us the privilege of debating the issue of agriculture. I commend the member from the Progressive Conservative Party for once again raising that issue. It is an issue which is very important to all of us who are representing ridings that have a fair number of farmers in them. We look forward to that debate tomorrow evening.

To continue with our debate on Bill C-8, the act to establish the financial consumer agency of Canada, before we were interrupted I was talking about some of the issues that are dealt with in the bill. As I indicated, we are mostly interested in supporting the bill. It is a bill that is long overdue. If anything, we should probably chastise the Liberal government for not acting more quickly.

One of the things in the bill that I consider to be very important is that it does provide for more competition. I have observed over the years that not only myself personally but many of my friends and, since I became a member of parliament, a number of my constituents, appreciate having a choice.

We have had quite a bit of discussion about airlines lately, about the fact that with less competition we seem to be getting lower service levels from Air Canada. It would be wonderful if we had a very strong, viable competitor, because that would mean we would then get better service as consumers.

The same thing is true in the banking industry. It has happened to me more than once in my life that I have been displeased with the way I was mistreated by the banks on certain particular issues. I had, in every instance, the option of saying to that bank “I am out of here, you are done” and saying that I was not accepting its low level of service and the way it treated me. I did that. I will not mention the specific banks. I have dealt with several. I have always appreciated the opportunity to go to a competitor.

It just so happens that I have now been a member of the credit union in my community for a large number of years. I should not use this venue to advertise for the credit unions, but I am glad that this legislation will provide a greater ability for credit unions to offer good competition to the banks. I have found the credit unions very responsive to the needs of their members. That is because instead of being owned by big investors somewhere, they are actually owned by the people who bank there. We have membership meetings. We have shareholders' meetings, and we can go to them, listen to the reports and put forward motions. We can make suggestions to the board of directors, which usually tries to respond to them. Sometimes, of course, they cannot because of various restrictions being put on them.

I like the fact that in Bill C-8 there is more opportunity for competition. The rules for starting up new banks have been made more favourable. The requirement that a group now needs to have only $5 billion capital in order to start up, as opposed to the previous $10 billion, is a good forward move. There is a reduction in the requirement to have 75% of the board of directors be Canadian. That is reduced to 66%. That is a good move because it permits people from other countries to participate as well in establishing competitive banks in this country. I believe that can only help our own domestic banks to provide better service.

There is also, of course, a better and a more transparent process for merging existing banks. We support in general the legislation that is being proposed on that account.

There is also an improvement to consumer protection in the bill. One of the things we struggle with as members of parliament is what happens when a constituent comes to our office with a complaint against a specific bank. There are some cases that are very difficult to deal with. There are some that are impossible as they are legal matters and we cannot deal with them. Sometimes we find that just being able to show support for the person to the bank or the banking ombudsman helps to get these problems solved.

The new legislation in Bill C-8 requires that all banks and financial institutions have in place complaint procedures. In other words, they cannot just do this on an ad hoc basis. They must actually come up with a formal procedure for dealing with complaints, which must be reported to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and is subject to review.

There is a very good consumer protection change in the bill which has to do with the Canada deposit insurance. Until this bill is passed, banks are required to hold insurable deposits. That is now being changed so that the banks themselves will be insured institutions, so I believe that in general there is greater protection for consumers and for depositors.

There is also better access to the access to payments system. This is a great improvement. There are a lot of financial institutions that are not banks but transfer great amounts of money to Canadian citizens, for example, investment firms, life insurance firms and so on. With their ability to access the payments system there is better service for consumers at a lower cost, because it basically cuts out one of the middlemen in the transaction. Giving access to the insurance companies, trust companies and others means that they can actually set it up so that they can transfer money directly into recipients' accounts, on an annuity, for example, without having to go through the bank, thereby saving money. It should be a more reliable and efficient service. We support that move.

Insurance companies are a vital part of our financial base in the country. They are important. They are one of the pillars of the financial structure. I am sure that essentially everyone in the House and, I would hope, everyone listening on TV or hearing this later on, will take the time to make sure that they have insurance in place. It is a very important thing to protect families and others. Here again, Bill C-8 provides for a more equitable system for establishing new insurance companies. There are lower capital requirements, which hopefully will increase the amount of competition and thereby improve service for Canadians.

Finally, there are some other protections for consumers in the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

All in all, this bill is worthy of our support. We should probably make sure that it gets to the finance committee as quickly as possible. Hopefully, interested people who have identified some amendments they would like to see included in this 900 page document will appear before the committee and show us, chapter and verse, what needs to be amended. We as a committee will then consider that and hopefully the outcome will be a new structuring of financial institutions in Canada, which will make them strong in the long run, give us great financial stability in the country and make us a major competitor in world markets.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, when the hon. member started his speech prior to question period he mentioned the thickness of the bill and its 900 pages. I am wondering if he could elaborate how his party or parliament should break down this 900 pages so that it is easily explainable to the people of Canada because, as we know, the bill covers over 4,000 statutes. It changes literally everything that we do in parliament when it comes to financial concerns. I am wondering whether he has an easier solution to how we explain this to Canadians so that everyone in the country can understand exactly what is happening with this very important legislation.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is very difficult to compress into 2 or 3 pages what is contained in 900. It is true that a lot of it is technical and in great detail. Some of the concepts in the bill can be expressed in a sentence or two. I think that what we need to do is make sure that consumers, customers of the banks, ordinary citizens, are aware of the avenues they can use if they have a complaint. They should also have full access to the ombudsman's office. I would recommend that banks put into their offices signs, phone numbers and addresses of websites people can visit for more information, or to find relief for their complaints if they have complaints, or where they can offer suggestions for better service from their banks.

We must also remember that banks right now are competitive. It is not in their interest to do things that would send customers to other banks, which, as I said in my speech, some banks have done to me in my lifetime. It is usually in their interest to keep their customers. We must rely to a great extent on the banks themselves to communicate with their customers and to treat them in a way that will keep them there.

As far as parliament is concerned, in communicating this to our constituents the best we can do is to pick some of the highlights, write a short summary, put it into our local papers or into our householders and hopefully it will get through.