Barry Campbell

[Pensions, April 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite is confusing two principal components of the pension system in this country.

With respect to the Canada pension plan, as the member well knows, consultations are under way across Canada and she is welcome to participate if she has any creative suggestions on how to improve that system. With respect to the seniors benefit she spoke about, today's seniors are protected. The new seniors benefit will be of great advantage to seniors in the future. We are taking steps to ensure the sustainability of both aspects of seniors benefits, the seniors benefit and the pension plan in the long term.

[Pensions, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on one hand the member decries the consultations, suggesting that it is not leadership. That is precisely the kind of leadership Canadians want. They want to be heard. They want a government that listens to their suggestions. That is what we will do in the context of the CPP consultations.

[Pensions, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.

We have just begun a process of consultations with respect to the Canada pension plan. We await with great interest the observations, ideas and suggestions of Canadians on how to ensure the sustainability of the plan.

The goal of the exercise is a sustainable program that will be there for Canadians, not taking something out of the pockets of Canadians.

[Bank Act, March 28th, 1996]

We had all kinds of talk about the ten commandments but I will not get into that in this debate. Fortunately for the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions he does not have to worry about religion on top of all his other concerns.

Let us talk about specifics. Let me respond with some substance to these amendments proposed in this group by the opposition which which we will not support.

If clearing and settlement systems are not properly designed they can result in considerable systemic risk; that is, the risk of problems experienced by one financial institution will spread to other institutions and destabilize the system as a whole. In an increasingly global marketplace in financial services that risk exists. If our systems are not properly designed problems occurring elsewhere may spread to the Canadian financial system.

The hon. member opposite can rail all he wants but this is an appropriate role for a central bank and it is not an appropriate role for a securities regulator.

Bill C-15 establishes a framework for proper risk proofing that is effectively designed and competitive in terms of the spread and cost with which payments are cleared and settled. This will enable Canadian financial institutions to compete more effectively. The proposed clearance and settlement legislation makes sense and has several key functions. It gives the Bank of Canada an explicit role in overseeing clearing and settlement systems that pose systemic risk. The bank already plays a key but informal role in ensuring that such systems are designed in a way which controls risk.

The proposed clearing and settlement legislation provides formal responsibility for the bank to oversee these systems, as it exists throughout the world. However, the legislation aims only to supervise those system that pose a risk to the financial system. It does not seek to regulate any associated financial markets. It is quite properly within federal jurisdiction. Equally important, it is what the safety, soundness and security of our financial system demands and what all Canadians would expect of the federal government. The oversight role for the bank is consistent, as I said earlier, with the role being played by central banks elsewhere.

Second, Bill C-15 gives the Bank of Canada the powers it needs to participate in clearing systems and contribute to their safe, efficient and cost effective operations. These powers will be important in the context of the large value transfer system being planned by the financial sector with the Bank of Canada. This may ultimately replace the large value component of the paper based system with a system that will facilitate the electronic transfer of large values.

The Bank of Canada does not currently have the power it needs to send and receive payments on what will be known as the LBTS. Under Bill C-15, the bank will be given powers allowing it to contribute to the operation of the system in several ways.

There is a level of risk containment that will allow Canada to meet internationally agreed upon standards and contribute to the global competitiveness of our financial institutions. It also reinforces what I believe is an important role of the government, establishing a framework so that financial institutions have the ability and incentives to recognize and control the risks they face.

Another example of a clearing and settlement system which will directly benefit from this risk proofing is the new system for clearing transactions of government debt securities known as the debt clearing service. It was implemented by the Canadian depository for securities and incorporates risk containment features accepted by federal and provincial authorities. Eventually placing all government debt on this system will reduce the cost for the government as issuer as well as for other participants in the systems.

A third key function, and the last one I want to comment on in this important legislation, is to strengthen the enforcement of netting arrangements under bankruptcy and insolvency law. Clearing systems rely heavily on netting of payments to reduce credit exposures between participants and reduce systemic risk.

Without legal certainty, netting arrangements can be called into question when they are needed most when a participant fails.

Confirming that netting arrangements are legally valid and unsaleable in a liquidation or restructuring is an essential part of this legislation.

My time is almost up. I emphasize that this aspect of the legislation is very much about ensuring efficiency and stability of the financial system and contributing to its international competitiveness and meeting our international obligations in regard to system soundness and security.

Therefore, I urge members of the House to reject the ill-advised amendments proposed by the opposition.

[Bank Act, March 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my, my, my. It is incredible. When we debated the first eight motions grouped by the Chair, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot was full of indignation over amendments being tabled at the last minute with no chance to absorb them.

That is the way it works around here. He knows that and he followed those exact rules and procedures in tabling his own very technical motions without any advance notice for us to understand them. Then, as he accused the government in an earlier debate, he stands up on these very technical motions which have been grouped for debate and speaks for about three minutes. I guess the saying goes that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Did I get it wrong?

[Bank Act, March 28th, 1996]

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 Act, March 28th, 1996]

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 Act, March 28th, 1996]

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.

[Petitions, March 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition, signed by 35 Canadians, is with respect to the repeal of section 43 of the Criminal Code.

[Petitions, March 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present two petitions. The first, signed by 40 constituents, draws the attention of the House to the situation of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka.