Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Kootenay—Columbia for bringing forward the motion.
Like many members on both sides of the House, I too am sometimes visited by people who have had some difficulties with disability plans, whether they be private or the Canada pension plan disability program.
I understand his sense of frustration, but I would submit that the motion is flawed for two reasons. One has to do with jurisdiction, and he touched on that point, and the other has to do with the fact that it would run counter to a number of initiatives under way right now at the federal-provincial level. I would like to discuss that.
The motion would create the position of an ombudsman to oversee private disability insurers in Canada.
I agree that it is important for consumers of financial services providers to have access to an impartial and fair complaints resolution mechanism that handles complaints about their dealings with financial institutions in a fair and impartial manner.
However, as I say, for two reasons I am not able to support this motion and I will explain why in more detail.
The first reason is it has to do with jurisdictional considerations. The second concerns conflicts with initiatives already under way at the federal and provincial levels to enhance and harmonize existing complaint handling mechanisms. In other words, the motion could lead to duplication and overlap.
In general, the property and civil rights power in the Constitution gives provinces the jurisdiction to regulate the day to day business activity of federally and provincially incorporated non-bank financial institutions, including life and health insurers.
Accordingly, the federal government cannot designate a particular dispute resolution system for non-banks. Provinces have the power to require insurers to be members of particular dispute resolution mechanisms and specify the design of such schemes.
Ontario, for example, has established an insurance ombudsman office to deal with complaints from Ontario policyholders, including Ontario disability claimants. All insurers in Ontario are subject to this regime.
In other provinces, provincial regulators respond to consumer complaints about insurance providers either directly or by referring consumers to an appropriate industry redress mechanism.
Further, as hon. members know, the marketplace in which financial services operate today is characterized by convergence, competition and increasingly complex products delivered through multiple channels.
Given this environment, provincial regulators recognize that financial services providers should be able to assure their customers that complaints and disputes will be handled promptly fairly and impartially through a mechanism that provides a uniform level of easily accessible service.
In this context, a task force on consumer dispute resolution has recently been established by the joint forum of provincial financial market regulators. The task force is comprised of representatives from several stakeholder groups, including the financial services industry and consumer groups, as well as officials from the federal Department of Finance. The task force on consumer dispute resolution is investigating the possibility of a single ombudsman system for Canada.
The federal government recognizes that there are potential advantages for consumers in having a single point of contact for dispute resolution for all financial services complaints. As a result, we are committed to working with the joint forum and other task force members towards this end.
I would also point out that the federal government is working with the industry to establish a new Canadian financial services ombudsman, often referred to as CFSO, as mandated by Bill C-8, which is currently under review in the other place.
As the task force I referred to earlier is still in its early stages and its ultimate outcomes are unknown, we believe that it is essential to press ahead with the CFSO to ensure that consumers will have the benefit of a fair and impartial complaints resolution mechanism at the earliest possible date.
Two points about the Canadian financial services ombudsman are particularly relevant to today's motion.
First, the CFSO would operate independently from government and the financial services industry, with a board of directors that would have a majority of non-financial institution representatives. It would replace the existing Canadian banking ombudsman.
Second, the new ombudsman would reflect the preferences of consumer and small business groups for a cross-sectoral ombudsman office.
To facilitate the creation of a single ombudsman for customers of all financial institutions, the Canadian financial services ombudsman would be capable of accepting all financial institutions as members.
Banks will be required to join. Other federally incorporated financial institutions will be required to be subject to a third party dispute resolution system and, along with provincially incorporated institutions, will be eligible to join the CFSO if they wish to do so.
The Canadian financial services ombudsman would have the power to recommend awards to aggrieved customers and while its rulings would not be binding, it would also have the authority to publicize the names of institutions that did not comply with its recommendations.
Further, the Canadian financial services ombudsman would provide the Minister of Finance an annual report on the number of complaints received and the results achieved in addressing consumer and small business complaints.
The government hopes to have the Canadian financial services ombudsman in place as soon as possible after Bill C-8 comes into force. In addition, the government would explore ways for the Canadian financial services ombudsman to interact with initiatives that may ultimately be launched from the provincial dispute resolution initiative I discussed earlier.
The hon. member has put forth a worthy proposal. However in light of the other initiatives and jurisdictional conflicts I have outlined, the need for an ombudsman to oversee private disability insurers has been overtaken by other measures.
For these reasons I am unable to support the motion put forward by the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.