CONTENTS
Friday, November 24, 1995
Bill C-100. Motion for second reading 16763
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 16780
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 16780
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 16781
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 16782
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 16783
Bill C-109. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed
adopted 16783
Bill C-358. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed
adopted 16783
Motion for concurrence in 102nd report 16783
(Motion agreed to.) 16783
Bill C-100. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 16784
16763
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, November 24, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-100, an act to amend, enact and repeal certain
laws relating to financial institutions, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to launch second reading
debate on Bill C-100. The legislation offers concrete, well
considered measures to further enhance the safety and soundness of
Canada's financial system.
These measures are the culmination of an extensive consultation
process. I take this opportunity to extend the government's thanks
to the many industry participants and other stakeholders who
provided constructive insightful advice and to the Senate
committee for its extensive hearings and report. As well I express
appreciation to the Standing Committee on Finance for its decision
to hold advance hearings on Bill C-100 during the summer
parliamentary recess.
The presentations received by the committee were invaluable
groundwork for effective clause by clause review of this wide
ranging package. It will ensure that the legislation we approve will
fulfil the best interests of consumers, financial institutions and
their stakeholders, as well as the Canadian economy.
There is no question that sound, secure financial institutions are
a fundamental requirement for national economic well-being.
Canada is blessed with a world class system. The financial sector
is very much a part of a world of dramatic, accelerating change
driven by new technology, by surging globalization, by new
consumer demands and by heightened competition. That is why we
are introducing the legislation now rather than waiting for the
mandate in the 1997 review of financial regulations.
As I said in many forums, we are acting now not because the
system is broken, and it surely is not, but to maintain a dynamic,
competitive system. We must do our part to help it evolve with
market trends and respond to recent experiences. That is why Bill
C-100, dedicated to safety and soundness, responds to our
experiences with financial institutions that have recently failed.
The changes in Bill C-100 are not patchwork nor band-aid
measures. They flow from a series of basic principles outlined in
the white paper we issued last February. They include that the
ownership of a financial institution is a privilege and not a right,
that it is preferable to have early intervention and resolution of
institutions experiencing difficulty, that financial institutions must
operate with sufficient incentives to solve their problems in a
timely manner, and that there must be appropriate accountability
and transparency in the system.
The first principle, that ownership of a financial institution is a
privilege and not a right, is virtually a given, but good principles
are worth reiterating from time to time. More important, we
believe the principle leads to an important corollary. In certain
circumstances it may mean that the interests of depositors,
policyholders and creditors will take priority over the interest of
shareholders.
This is why we believe it is necessary to provide the Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions, OSFI, with the new
powers needed to resolve a troubled firm's problems early on.
Financial institutions need incentives to manage their risks
adequately. When an institution fails to manage its risks and
experiences financial difficulty, it is then to the advantage of
depositors, policyholders and creditors of the company to have the
situation resolved promptly.
This would not necessarily mean that the institution would be
closed. For example, the institution could develop a plan to
implement changes that would solve its problems. The simple fact
is that early resolution is likely the best way to prevent substantial
losses to depositors, policyholders, creditors and potentially
shareholders.
The legislation stakes out the clear position that if an institution
is facing difficulty owners do not have the right to continue in
business until they hit the brick wall and cannot pay liabilities as
they come due. This leads to another closely related point. Our
regulatory approach must recognize that the failure of a financial
institution does not in and of itself represent a failure of the
supervisory system.
16764
In a vibrant, competitive marketplace firms can and do fail. No
system can forestall every institutional failure unless it is given
the authority and the resources to oversee all management
decisions and unless institutions are severely restricted in the loans
and investments they can make. Canada could not afford the price
of such a failure safe system, even if it did work. My experience
of almost 40 years in financial institutions clearly indicates to me
that it would not. However, even if it did work, the result would
be to strip the industry from contributing to the dynamism, growth
and evolution of the economy.
One final principle is the need for transparency of the
supervisory system. It is important that financial institutions
understand the steps authorities could be expected to take if the
financial condition of an institution deteriorates. Furthermore the
supervisor must have a clearly defined role.
(1010 )
A new legislative mandate for OSFI notes the importance of
OSFI taking prompt action to deal with institutions in trouble. The
guide to intervention we have also set out clarifies the actions that
could be expected and the role of OSFI and CDIC.
I have highlighted the key principles underlying our proposed
legislation. Let me now turn to some of the specifics of Bill C-100.
The legislation includes amendments to what are collectively
referred to as the financial institution statutes including the Bank
Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Insurance Companies
Act and the Co-Operative Credit Associations Act.
A key thrust of the new regime as highlighted is to allow the
superintendent, where circumstances warrant, to take control of a
troubled institution earlier than at present including the authority to
close an institution before its capital is depleted.
The function of the Minister of Finance will also be affected. He
or she will no longer have to come to an independent view of the
solvency of an institution. The legislation places this responsibility
more appropriately in the hands of the regulator involved with the
day to day activities of the instutition.
Other changes are being made to move responsibility for
approving matters of a more technical, supervisory nature from the
minister to the superintendent. The minister, however, will
continue to play a key controlling part in the process with final
responsibility to determine whether or not it is in the public interest
to close an institution.
Increasing OSFI's scope for early intervention provides an
incentive for problem prevention, not just a means of resolution.
Under the proposed legislation troubled financial institutions will
understand that OSFI will take action if its concerns are not dealt
with promptly.
Another important element of Bill C-100 deals with information,
which is a critical commodity for effective public and regulatory
decision making. That is why we are amending the statutes to
facilitate the release by federal financial institutions and by OSFI
of more information on the financial condition of institutions. I do
not, however, believe that financial institutions or OSFI should
disclose information regarding regulatory actions. Doing so could
create self-fulfilling prophecies with detrimental consequences for
the institutions.
I emphasize that OSFI's role is not and cannot be to mirco
manage financial institutions. Nor do we deploy an army of
examiners to scrutinize federal financial institutions. That is why
we must place constant emphasis on corporate governance. The
boards of directors are on the frontlines ensuring problem
prevention and good management. Bill C-100 takes important steps
to strengthen the effective, independent corporate governance that
is a vital part of strong, prudential framework.
First, the legislation proposes that the superintendent will have
the power to designate certain directors as affiliated for purposes of
the requirement that one-third of directors of an institution be
unaffiliated.
Second, the legislation proposes changes that will prevent the
board of a financial institution from being identical to an
unregulated parent firm. This will help ensure there are directors of
a regulated institution who will focus primarily on the institution's
interests.
Third, the legislation will empower the superintendent to veto
the appointment of directors and senior officers of troubled
institutions.
Legislative amendments are being made for insurance
companies so that the superintendent can employ the services of an
external actuary at the company's expense in certain
circumstances. There will also be a separation of the function of
corporate chief actuary from certain other executive positions to
avoid potential conflicts. OSFI will have the explicit authority to
develop standards of sound business and financial practices for
insurance companies.
Now let me turn to the amendments that Bill C-100 makes to the
Winding-up Act. As part of the early intervention policy these
amendments will provide additional grounds for obtaining a
winding-up order for a financial institution.
(1015)
The act is also being amended to provide more flexibility to
restructure, under court supervision, the affairs of insurance
companies in liquidation. As a result of these provisions a
liquidator will have greater scope to enhance the value within the
estate and improve recovery of assets disposed of by the liquidator,
all of which will go to the benefit of policy holders.
16765
The principal changes are designed to provide for earlier closure
of problem federal financial institutions in cases where this would
reduce the loss to consumer stakeholders.
I will touch on a third area of action under Bill C-100, the
amendments to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, or
the CDIC act. This is another aspect of our emphasis on the
principle of incentives for timely problem solving. The act is being
amended to allow the CDIC to develop a system of varying
premiums on member institutions based on the risk rating of
specific firms, reflecting the risk they could bring to the deposit
insurance fund.
The risk rating would provide a clear signal from the CDIC to
the company's board of directors and management concerning the
level of risk. More important, such an approach will recognize
firms for good management.
As well, the government is making changes that will allow the
CDIC to act as receiver of an unhealthy member institution's assets
and to sell those assets along with a package of liabilities to a
healthy institution. This should permit CDIC to obtain more value
than it would if the institution was liquidated and its assets sold.
I want to turn to a final important area of change proposed by
Bill C-100, which is one dealing with transactions between
financial institutions here in Canada and with the rest of the world.
Through this legislation we are proposing a new act, the payment
clearings and settlement act. It is designed to ensure that major
clearing and settlement systems for financial transactions are
designed and operated properly.
By the term ``properly'' we are addressing two clear concrete
objectives. The first objective is to reduce or eliminate systemic
risk to the Canadian financial system by ensuring that the failure of
one participant in a clearing system will not lead to a domino effect
by bringing down other members of a group. Second, it will
enhance the international competitiveness of Canada's clearing and
settlement systems.
The key components of the legislation are as follows. They will
give the Bank of Canada explicit powers in the oversight of
clearing and settlement systems that are potential sources of
systemic risk. Again I emphasize systemic risk. Systems
designated by the bank would be subject to bank oversight.
Second, they will provide the Bank of Canada with the capacity
to participate in aspects of these clearing and settlements, such as
the large value transfer system, or LVTS, as well as to serve special
functions, such as guaranteeing settlement.
Third, they will give statutory recognition to netting
arrangements in payments and other clearing and settlement
systems in order to ensure that Canadian participants in derivative
markets have greater certainty that their transactions will close.
This will ultimately mitigate systemic risk.
I want to dispel concerns raised by the Quebec government last
August. Systemic risk is an issue internationally and it is the
central banks that have led in the development of measures to deal
with systemic risk concerns in various fora, such as the Bank for
International Settlements, the BIS.
Let me be very clear. The proposed federal legislation is not
aimed at, nor will it result in, the regulation of securities markets.
The focus of the Bank of Canada's oversight role is very different
from that of the provinces. It does not in any way infringe on any
province's jurisdiction.
(1020 )
I have talked at some length because this legislation covers much
ground and deals with important issues. I believe Bill C-100 will
help Canada's financial sector preserve and improve its world class
stature to the benefit of all stakeholders and all Canadian citizens.
The measures we have proposed strike a critical balance between
on the one hand, protecting the rights of depositors, policyholders
and creditors and, on the other hand, facilitating innovation and
growth in economic activity.
Canadians expect the government to ensure that their hard
earned savings and investments will be well protected. The
legislation will ensure we have the best and most efficient
regulatory system, one that recognizes the interests of
policyholders, depositors and creditors as well as one that promotes
dynamic economic growth.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the subject of Bill C-100, an act to
amend, enact and repeal certain laws relating to financial
institutions. Permit me first to say that the Bloc Quebecois
disagrees with three aspects of Bill C-100.
The objectives of the bill are highly laudable, particularly the
one aimed at reducing the potential for systemic risk-the creation
of the domino effect-within financial circles. For those who are
not familiar with these financial terms, there is potential for
systemic risk when one financial institution is unable to meet its
obligations and drags the entire financial sector along with it. It is a
sort of domino effect where one institution is unable to pay another,
the other cannot pay the next, and so on. In short, we end up with a
financial catastrophe such as we saw recently in western Canada.
Reducing the potential for systemic risk is highly laudable.
However, when it serves as a pretext to slip through the back door
into exclusive provincial jurisdiction, and specifically that of
Quebec, it is no longer acceptable. I refer here to the securities
sector. Securities do not escape from the application of the new
provisions on financial institutions. Under subsection 92(13) of the
16766
Constitution Act, 1982, jurisdiction over the securities sector is a
matter for the provinces, for the Government of Quebec.
This jurisdiction, based on the Government of Quebec's
exclusive powers over property and civil rights, was confirmed by
the case law of the Supreme Court of Canada, which added
provincial regulation of the securities market to property and civil
rights. It has been clear since 1982. Now the bill is directly
targeting the field of securities.
This is strange. We are barely over a constitutional debate, a
referendum campaign, in which our colleagues opposite argued:
``Yes, we will make certain changes to the system. Yes, we will
respect Quebec's jurisdiction. Yes, we will have a good
understanding in the future''. This is what they told Quebecers,
they said: ``If you vote no to Quebec sovereignty, things will go
well, you will see''. A few weeks after the result, Quebec is being
treated with arrogance and cynicism with the tabling of a bill such
as Bill C-100.
What is more, this bill, in addition to invading Quebec's
exclusive jurisdiction, accords unheard of powers to the Bank of
Canada and the Department of Finance.
(1025)
I am referring to the provisions on pages 117 and 118 of the bill,
which stipulate that the Bank of Canada may enter into an
agreement with a clearing house or a participant, or both, in respect
of: netting arrangements; risk sharing and risk control
mechanisms; certainty of settlement and finality of payment; the
nature of financial arrangements among participants; the
operational systems and financial soundness of the clearing house.
In addition, the Directives section of the bill provides that, and I
quote: ``Where the Governor of the Bank is of the opinion that a
clearing house or participant is engaging in or is about to engage in
any act, omission or course of conduct that results or is likely to
result in systemic risk being inadequately controlled-the excuse
of systemic risk, or-that the designated clearing and settlement
system in respect of the clearing house or participant is operating
or is about to operate in a way that results or is likely to result in
systemic risk being inadequately controlled, the Governor may
issue a directive in writing-not a proposal or suggestion but a
written directive-to the clearing house or participant requiring it
to cease or refrain from engaging in the act, omission or course of
conduct, and perform such acts as in the opinion of the Governor
are necessary to remedy the situation''.
Do you know what this means? It means that the Governor of the
Bank of Canada could issue directives not only to clearing houses
but also to participating institutions telling them how to conduct
their business. It means that, if the institution is a participant, as
specified in this provision, the Governor of the Bank of Canada
could tell this institution what to do; it makes no difference whether
this institution is a provincially chartered bank or a player in the
securities industry.
Under this bill, the Governor of the Bank of Canada may issue
directives to a clearing house or a participant. This means that he
could-he has the authority to do so-issue directives to an
institution like Fiducie Desjardins, Lévesque Beaubien Geoffrion
and Leclerc, and Desjardins' central branches for example. These
are all provincially chartered institutions in the securities industry.
Such an invasion is unacceptable.
I would say that this invasion is even worse than the recent
federal invasion in the area of manpower training for example. It is
worse in the sense that it touches one of Quebec's sacred cows. It
touches an area under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Government
of Quebec, as recognized in the Constitution imposed on us by the
current Prime Minister in 1982.
It takes a great deal of self-righteousness and cynicism to do
something like that.
Mr. Boudria: Thank you for your generosity.
Mr. Loubier: I can hear my Liberal colleagues, and the Liberal
whip in particular, scoff at the arguments we are putting forward.
Mr. Boudria: Not at the document, at you.
Mr. Loubier: I would tell the hon. member that his friend Daniel
Johnson, in Quebec, Daniel Johnson himself took offence at this
federal invasion. Daniel Johnson himself wrote to the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, because he found appalling that a bill
has been on the table since last year to invade one of Quebec's
areas of jurisdiction.
So, Mr. Speaker, when even strong federalists like Daniel
Johnson, like the government whip who scoffs at the arguments we
put forward, take a stand similar to ours, this goes to show that
there is major consensus on this issue in Quebec.
It is a unfortunate that the people across the way show this kind
of an attitude. Instead of listening to our arguments and amendment
proposals concerning the bill, they poke fun at us. Such an attitude
is unacceptable in this House, and it has been going on for about a
month, since the referendum campaign has been over.
I do not know if you can do something about it, Mr. Speaker, but
I would really like our friends opposite to listen to what we are
suggesting instead of acting like they are this morning, throwing
arguments without substance at us and mocking us.
Can you call for order, please, Mr. Speaker? He is making me
lose my concentration.
16767
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Sometimes the House gets
somewhat animated and that is understandable. However,
following the request made by the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, I am asking for the co-operation of the
House, so that members who have the floor can speak in an
atmosphere of mutual respect.
(1030)
Mr. Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is rather unusual to see
a whip get involved at this stage.
I was mentioning the powers given to the Bank of Canada
regarding clearing and settlement houses. Let me quote the brief
recently submitted by the Quebec securities commission: ``The
powers given to the Bank of Canada regarding the clearing and
settlement system would constitute an infringement on the
authority given by the Quebec legislator to the securities
commission. Most of the powers given to the Bank of Canada are a
replica of those delegated to the Quebec securities commission
more than 10 years ago. The only difference is that the Bank of
Canada's authority, as provided in the schedule to Bill C-100, is
based on a desire to control the systemic risk by invoking the
national interest, while the authority of the commission relates to
the overall market regulations''.
If we look at the bill, we see, given the schedule and the new
powers delegated to the Bank of Canada, that the bank, through its
authority to give directives to a clearing house and a participant,
does exactly the same as the securities commission. For example,
under Bill C-100, the Bank of Canada would exercise powers
which are an integral part of the authority given to the securities
commission, such as giving clearing houses and their participants
directives akin to an order to do or not do something. Such power is
given to the Quebec securities commission through its
incorporating act.
``Since the Bank of Canada should be informed of any change in
the internal regulations and rules of operation of the clearing
houses, this means that it exerts a supervisory power over these
changes. The Commission des valeurs mobilières also has the
power to approve these modifications. Finally, the Bank of Canada
is empowered to inspect clearing houses, which duplicates the
power assigned to the Commission''. This is a quote from the
Commission des valeurs mobilières.
Not only, then, is there encroachment on an area of jurisdiction
that belongs exclusively to Quebec, but they have also taken the
luxury of creating duplication and overlap in times of austerity
budgets, after all we have heard from across the way in that
connection. After hearing the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs, the Prime Minister himself even, saying that action will be
taken to reduce duplication and overlap, now we are presented with
a bill that does exactly that, creates a double structure, a double
role, which encroaches on an area of Quebec jurisdiction, which
makes institutions such as the Bank of Canada duplicate the work
of others. It is inadmissible and nearly unbelievable on the one
hand, and on the other it creates flagrant inefficiency through
overlapping of resources in the area of financial institutions.
As for systemic risk, as I have said, we agree with the objective
of reducing it. It is a most praiseworthy objective and one shared by
all nations throughout the world. It is, however, a false pretext for
giving such a broad and powerful mandate to the Bank of Canada,
particularly in an area of jurisdiction that belongs exclusively to
Quebec, securities.
All that the government could do to reduce systemic risks would
be to improve what is called the large value transfer system, by
putting into place an electronic clearing system which will ensure
the final character of the clearing transaction, and will make it
possible to pay out, perhaps not immediately, but within the day. If
the Secretary of State is familiar with such a system-and I am not
convinced that he is all that familiar with it, judging by the
responses he gave to the finance committee, but let us assume his
familiarity-this was specifically one of the recommendations by
the internationally renowned group of 30. This was precisely what
they said in 1989, that it was necessary to implement and perfect a
large value transfer system, so as to reduce the systemic risks on
the financial market.
(1035)
This recommendation by the Group of Thirty was so good that
the Governor of the Bank of Canada, speaking to members of the
financial community this summer before he appeared before the
finance committee on August 15, acknowledged that it was enough
to improve the large value transfer system in order to reduce, and in
fact, if I remember correctly, he did not say reduce, he said
eliminate, in referring to the most ambitious risk taking that went
on, more ambitious than most people are prepared to undertake. In
other words, to eliminate systemic risks, all we had to do was
improve the large value transfer system.
There is no need to intrude in the jurisdictions of the
Government of Quebec. There is no need to give the Governor of
the Bank of Canada extraordinary powers to issue directives to
provincial chartered institutions involved in the securities sector.
There is no need to create unnecessary friction between the federal
government and the Quebec government. All we have to do is
improve the large value transfer system. That is all.
So why does it again boil down to encroaching on one of
Quebec's jurisdictions? Why give the Governor of the Bank of
Canada considerable powers and take away from the Government
of Quebec its power to control the development of the securities
sector? Why?
Again, I put this question to the Governor of the Bank of Canada
on August 15, but I did not get an answer. I asked him about the
difference between the speech he made before the finance commit-
16768
tee and the one he made this summer, when he said: ``I do not need
additional powers; all I need is a better large value transfer
system''. The debate became very political, and I agreed with the
Governor of the Bank of Canada that his role was not that of a
politician. However, I think everyone realized that the federal
government was again trying to centralize all powers, including
prerogatives explicitely recognized under the Constitution Act,
1982.
In fact, as I pointed out earlier, this is not sovereignists against
federalists, it is simply a matter of common sense and respecting
the prerogatives of Quebec as conferred on the province by the
Constitution. So much so that on February 16, 1994, when the
federal government's intentions with respect to financial
institutions were already known, and the bill was already on the
table, not the bill as such but the proposals to invade the securities
sector, Daniel Johnson, the Premier at the time who was to be
Premier for a short while yet, wrote to the President of the Privy
Council and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the hon.
member for Hull-Aylmer, to tell them that he disagreed with the
bill.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will quote what he said:
``Perhaps I may remind you, first of all that the Government of
Quebec has never supported an expanded federal role in the
securities sector, which is the exclusive responsibility of the
provinces''. This is not Mr. Campeau or Mrs. Marois but Daniel
Johnson when he was Premier of Quebec. I will continue: ``In fact,
it has regularly indicated it was opposed''-strong language for
Mr. Johnson-``to federal initiatives in this respect, as were several
other provinces regarding the recent reform of federal legislation
on financial institutions, which came into force in June 1992''.
I will continue this quote from Mr. Johnson's letter: ``In the
quinquennial report she tabled in the National Assembly last
December, the minister responsible for finance reiterated Quebec's
concerns about the federal bill to regulate the securities sector
which would be part of this legislation. She stressed that federal
regulations would be inappropriate, both constitutionally and from
the point of view of efficiency''. This still according toMr. Johnson, a staunch federalist, who in this letter warned the
federal government against meddling with the securities sector,
which is Quebec's exclusive responsibility.
To continue with the letter from Mr. Johnson, who is still a
federalist today: ``Such regulations would mean duplicating both
existing regulations and the supervision involved and would
inevitably add to the administrative and financial burden on
issuers, investors and intermediaries''. Mr. Johnson goes on to say
the following: ``If the purpose is to reduce duplication and improve
efficiency, it seems to me it hardly makes sense to create a new
structure and additional regulations''.
As I said before, if the Bloc Quebecois and Daniel Johnson
agree, it is because a broad consensus exists in Quebec.
(1040)
The federal government must amend its bill in order to withdraw
from the area of securities which is a field of exclusive jurisdiction
for the Quebec government. This is the unanimous feeling in
Quebec. It must not invade this area. It must not give the Governor
of the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance new powers to
issue directives not only to clearing houses, but also to
participating institutions or establishments.
It must not give the Governor of the Bank of Canada powers to
issue directives to the Fiducie Desjardins, for instance, or Lévesque
Beaubien Geoffrion and Leclerc, or the Caisses centrales
Desjardins. This is none of its business. This is the Bloc's position
in this matter.
The Quebec finance minister is still waiting for an answer to a
letter he sent the Minister of Finance on August 15. No abuses. The
Quebec government does not need the kind of abuse it got from the
Minister of Finance the day after he received the letter. All the
Quebec government wants is explanations, assurances and changes
to Bill C-100.
To this day, these basic requests have remained unanswered on
the part of the federal government. This is not normal, especially
since federalists claim to be open to reforms and willing to foster
greater harmony between Quebec and the federal government, and
eliminate inefficiencies and duplications. Between words and
actions, there is a big gap, not to say a huge discrepancy.
There are two other aspects of the bill which annoy the official
opposition. The second aspect of Bill C-100 with which Quebec
has a serious problem is clause 133, the clause dealing with the
Winding-up Act. The notion of insolvency is broadened-we
acknowledge that it is an area of exclusive federal
jurisdiction-but by widening it, once again the federal does not
take into account the role of a major player in Quebec, namely the
inspector general of Quebec financial institutions.
I can hear them laughing and mocking on the other side. This is
the kind of reaction we have been getting for the last month
whenever we tell the truth. the pretence of wanting to increase
stability and reduce uncertainty in the financial sector, they added a
player and thereby added the possibility for dispute by institutions
which could be found wanting by Quebec's Inspecteur général des
institutions financières.
That opens the door to disputes which could go all the way to the
Supreme Court. Let me give you an example. If the inspector
general sees that an institution is not fulfilling its obligations and
issues directives that it must follow, and then that institution, given
the new bill, the new provisions respecting the Winding-up Act,
decides to ignore these directives, it will have the possibility to do
so because the bill adds some ambiguity, it adds another player
16769
whose objectives and powers are exactly the same as those of the
Inspecteur général des institutions financières.
Therefore, they say they want to increase the predictability of the
financial market, that they want to eliminate uncertainty and
reduce systemic risk, but they are adding another element which
could interfere with the decisions and the orientations of Quebec's
Inspecteur général des institutions financières.
If that is what they mean by reducing uncertainties, increasing
stability, we are no longer on Earth. We are on another planet. With
this bill, the federal government is stretching the notion of
insolvency, it is creating uncertainty on the financial market and
ambiguity in the evolution of institutions in the financial sector
which could adversely affect the proper operations of these
institutions.
This will not improve anything, this bill does not propose
improvements. What the bill proposes, I tell you, is quite harmful.
At a time when financial institutions, as everybody knows, need
stability and certainty, a federal bill is adding uncertainty to the
market. It is adding a nebulous provision which will deny the
Quebec Inspecteur général des institutions financières his
exclusive role, his directives will no longer be exclusive. Which
directives will financial institutions abide by? Those of the Quebec
inspector general or those issued by the federal government under
Bill C-100?
(1045)
The financial sector can do without such ambiguous situations. It
is hard enough to manage in this sector without possible challenges
over the role of the Quebec Inspecteur général des institutions
financières and without added uncertainty.
There is also a third aspect of the bill which raises questions, and
this will be my last point. It is on page 11 of the bill where it says:
``from now on, premiums payable to the Canada Deposit Insurance
Corporation will be based on a risk factor assessed by the
institutions''. The principle may be excellent, but once again, they
are disregarding a Quebec institution in the area of securities called
the Régie de l'assurance-dépôt du Québec, which did not consider
necessary to implement this kind of system and was never
consulted on the rating system that the federal government is trying
to implement through the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.
We have mixed feelings about this new rating system which will
set the rate which will apply to a given institution following a risk
analysis. Let us take for example Fiducie Desjardins; it is just an
example, but let us take this one. About 95 per cent of its deposits
are from Quebec and only 5 per cent from the rest of Canada. With
this bill, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation would be
empowered to give Fiducie Desjardins a bond rating on 5 per cent
of its deposits on a Canadian basis. It would issue a rating on only 5
per cent of its deposits.
By issuing a rating on 5 per cent of deposits, this rating becomes
a signal for all financial markets, including in Quebec. This signal
can be as private as the one given by ratings from agencies such as
Moody's, Standard & Poor, Dominion Bond Rating and Canadian
Bond Rating. If this rating becomes public-and there is a risk that
it will-, that would mean that Fiducie Desjardins, which would
have been rated according to the risk associated with 5 per cent of
its deposits, would be given this rating for all its deposits. In other
words, that would become a risk signal for 100 per cent of
Desjardins' deposits. And that risk is very real.
These are the three aspects that I wanted to underline and for
which we did not get a satisfying answer from the government
when Bill C-100 was tabled this summer. We hope that the analysis
that the official opposition has just made will result in valuable
answers from the government and that, when Bill C-100 is
examined clause by clause, the government will propose
amendments to assure us that, first of all, Quebec's exclusive
jurisdiction, that is its securities sector, will be respected.
Second, that no extraordinary powers be granted to the Governor
of the Bank of Canada just to reduce the systemic risks of issuing
guidelines to the clearing houses and the participating institutions.
So, that no new powers be granted that would directly infringe
upon the powers of the Quebec Securities Commission.
We should also get rid of the new role given to the Deposit
Insurance Corporation that could lead to an increase in financial
market concentration and also to a rating that would apply to all
deposits made in Quebec institutions, but not to the deposits made
elsewhere in Canada.
Third, that the extension of the concept of insolvency should not
be used to disregard the role of the superintendent of financial
institutions in Quebec.
So, these are the three provisions that bother us and we will try
hard to urge the government to amend them. We hope that the
government will respond to these three objections made not only
by the official opposition, but also by the Government of Quebec
and even the leader of the opposition at the National Assembly,
Daniel Johnson.
(1050)
If the government does not amend the bill in this manner, we
shall move, during clause by clause consideration of the bill, some
amendments to Bill C-100 that will meet respond to these
objections.
16770
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
expressions of the Bloc member are an absolute classic example to
the House and to all Canadians that Her Majesty's Loyal
Opposition fundamentally represents or thinks that it represents 25
per cent of the people resident in Canada.
I took particular note of the fact that the prairie provinces,
British Columbia, Ontario and the Atlantic provinces somehow
were completely apart from any concern of the so-called official
opposition. I find that exceptionally unfortunate.
For the duration of this Parliament the Reform Party has been the
national opposition. I will be responding to the bill in light of our
concern on behalf of all Canadians no matter where they live,
including in the province of Quebec.
I should like to put on the record the Reform Party understanding
of the bill. It brings amendments to the Bank Act, Co-Operative
Credit Associations Act, Insurance Act and Trust and Loan
Companies Act dealing with first, the disclosure of information;
second, the elimination of appeals in relation to certain matters;
third, the disqualification of persons from becoming officeholders
in an institution; fourth, the taking of control of an institution by
the Superintendent of Financial Institutions; and, fifth, changes to
the duties of the superintendent.
There are also amendments to the Winding-up Act respecting,
first, the circumstances and procedures for winding up an
institution and, second, a revised part III dealing with the
restructuring of insurance companies. There are also amendments
to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act. It is this area that
I will be addressing in the balance of my speech.
Continuing with our observations, the amendments to CDIC
concern, first, the business affairs of the corporation; second, the
restructuring of institutions by means of vesting of shares and the
corporation becoming a receiver; third, the assessment and
collection of deposit insurance premiums; and, fourth, the
enforcement of the act.
As I mentioned, the amendments to the Canada Deposit
Insurance Corporation Act is the primary concern of the Reform
Party. The bill is as a result of the government's review of the
safety of financial institutions. It follows upon failures of a number
of financial institutions and is the government's response to
concerns regarding financial institutions. We also note that the bill
is a prelude to the Bank Act review scheduled for 1997 that
promises to be much wider in scope.
I have been approached in my office by a number of people with
respect to the Bank Act review. There is much concern on the part
of businesses with respect to the encroachment or the potential
further encroachment of the chartered banks into the insurance
business. I look forward to the review in 1997.
As I noted at the start of my speech, the Bloc Quebecois is being
irresponsible in its position as official opposition in that it is very
myopic in taking a look at the concerns of only 25 per cent of
Canada's citizens, but I would be remiss if I did not make some
comments about the government.
The bill we are speaking to today is important. It concerns the
fundamentals of controlling money or at least the affairs
surrounding money. Money as the medium of exchange whether it
be in Canada or around the world must have government control.
We respect that the act is of some value. However, in the context of
all other legislation or non-legislation the government has been
bringing forward and the way it keeps taking us as parliamentarians
through a void of any meaningful legislation, the act although
important to Canadians is yet another way of getting around the
fact that we should be getting on with other affairs that are
important to Canadians rather than simply wasting time on
housekeeping issues.
(1055)
I do not suggest that the act is a waste of time. I am just saying
that it falls into the context of avoiding any review of UI, for
example. There are all sorts of leaks to the press about what will be
happening with UI and about items promised by the government
over the last two years about which nothing has happened.
Speaking specifically to the bill, there is a very little difference
between the thought processes of the Liberals and the
Conservatives. Liberal, Tory, same old story. The same kind of
thought processes would come from the either of the old line
parties. The Liberals are trying to engineer results of the gain. With
the act, particularly as it relates to the Canada Deposit Insurance
Corporation, they are continuing to attempt to interfere in the
natural process in the marketplace. Liberals, as was the case with
the Conservatives, want to engineer the results of the gain. They
want to make the rules of the game such that they can ensure what
the results will be.
Basically this imposes external and extraneous pressure on an
international commodity such as the trading medium of money. It
brings values into the marketplace that would not be there if it were
not for blatant government interference, as is shown in its
proposals relative to the CDIC.
It makes me think a lot of the way that the Liberals and their
predecessors, the Tories, have gone about interfering in the
marketplace in the area of regional development and regional
development grants. There is an absolute parallel between regional
development and the way they are looking at the CDIC
amendments.
16771
In regional development we see countless Canadian dollars
going into marketplaces under western economic diversification,
FORD-Q, ACOA or any other program. The Canadian taxpayers'
money squandered through these programs basically ends up
distorting the marketplace. Why? It is because most frequently
they end up supporting non-competitive companies that cannot
make it on their own. There is no natural cleansing process to the
marketplace. The biggest problem that creates is distortion or
disadvantage for the firms that are competitive.
It is tremendously ironic that the competitive, healthy firms are
paying the taxes. Their taxes are being taken in by big government,
by the Liberals, and in turn are being put into firms that are less
competitive, thereby creating competition for the firms that are
competitive. The bottom line is that it costs taxpayers lots and lots
of money.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I hesitate to interrupt the
hon. member, but it being 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30
the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
The hon. member for Kootenay East will have his remaining
time after question period and daily routine of business.
_____________________________________________
16771
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
This week the newly elected members of the Northwest
Territories Legislative Assembly selected their government leader
and cabinet. Of the eight-member cabinet, four are from the
Eastern Arctic and four are from the west. There is one female, and
there is Inuit, Dene, and Métis representation in the cabinet.
Congratulations to veteran MLA and former cabinet minister
Don Morin as the new premier of the Northwest Territories. I
congratulate as well John Todd, Kelvin Ng, Manitok Thompson,
Goo Arlooktoo, Jim Antoine, Charles Dent, and Stephen Kakfwi as
new cabinet ministers.
On behalf of the Government of Canada, I wish the new
territorial government well. There are many challenges ahead of us
leading up to the division of the territories in 1999. We look
forward to working closely and co-operatively with the new
government.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we learned this week that the leader of the separatists will
soon be leaving the House to become the anointed premier of
Quebec. Constituents in my riding will be happy to see his
anti-Canada rhetoric exiting the House.
Meanwhile, the other 52 Bloc members appear to be in for the
long haul. After all, they did vote in favour of the MPs pension plan
and they are very comfortable sitting here receiving their federal
salaries and their federal perks at the expense of the Canadian
taxpayers.
Most Canadians are sickened at seeing the separatists continue to
sit in the House. They have every right to feel that way, because the
Bloc is committed to the destruction of Canada.
If constituents in my riding had their way, Bloc members would
be dragged kicking and screaming from the House and charged
with treason.
The Speaker: Colleagues, we cannot use words taken from
another source and repeat them in the House. We have to claim
them for our own.
I would like the hon. member to please withdraw the last line of
his statement and I would ask him to do so right now.
Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I was reflecting the
thousands of comments I have heard. If I was out of order in the
House, I do withdraw that.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member, and I would encourage
all members of the House to stay away from this type of language,
either in statements or in questions. I appreciate very much the hon.
member's withdrawing. I do not think it does us any good in the
House to use these types of terms.
The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton.
* * *
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in each session of Parliament I offer a challenge to the pages who
serve us in the House of Commons. The current group was given
the challenge of producing a picture of their home area. The contest
included a box of Crayola crayons, which are produced in my
riding of Victoria-Haliburton in the town of Lindsay, and a single
piece of white paper. The contest was judged by Hélène Monette, a
security guard in the lobby.
This session's winner is Katheryn Lyons of the
Montreal-Kirkland area. Congratulations to all the pages who took
part in the contest with such enthusiasm.
16772
If members wish to view the art work, it is on display in the
government lobby. The prize is an assortment of Crayola products
and a certificate to prove the bragging rights that go with winning
any contest.
* * *
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will
be pleased that a clerical oversight that deprived the Lincoln and
Welland Regiment of two World War II battle honours has finally
been corrected.
(1105 )
Regrettably, the regiment failed to receive honours for the unit's
final two battles when scrolls were presented to Canadian military
units in 1951. The oversight was recently detected, and scrolls
citing exceptional conduct and courage at the Battle of Kusten
Canal in April 1945 and the Battle of Bad Zwisehenahn in May
1945 were presented at a reunion for veterans.
Seventy-two men of the regiment died and approximately a
hundred more were wounded in these two campaigns. These two
scrolls recognizing the regiment's efforts in these two very intense
battles during the closing days of the war are proudly placed on the
armoury wall beside 16 others.
Peace and freedom were purchased for us with the sweat, toil,
tears and blood of those like the Lincoln and Welland Regiment
who walked the road before us. My congratulations go out to the
Lincoln and Welland Regiment for this well deserved honour. My
sincere appreciation goes out to veterans everywhere.
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the
House today to pay tribute to Mr. Hans Daigeler, who tragically
died on November 9, 1995, at the young age of 50 years.
Hans represented the provincial riding of Nepean from 1987 to
1995. He was a very special man, whose basic goodness impacted
on all of us who knew him. His loyalty to the riding of Nepean and
its people was legion. This commitment permeated his community,
his province, and his country through all his interventions in the
Ontario provincial legislature.
I knew Hans well. He was both my friend and my provincial
Liberal colleague. His memory will live on through the dignity,
compassion and justice that he so personified. To his wife Beverly,
his son Christopher, and daughters Elyssa and Amanda, I offer my
heartfelt sympathy.
We will miss you, my friend.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, CP Rail's
move enlightens us on the lack of ethics shown by the no side
during the referendum campaign. They told Quebecers that a yes
vote could lead to a move by CP Rail when the decision had already
been made for business purposes only. And two days ago, the
Prime Minister added insult to injury when he blamed
sovereignists for the move of CP Rail's head office.
To have the Prime Minister tell us that Quebec's economic
problems are caused by the sovereignist movement is an insult to
all Quebecers who work hard to build a strong Quebec.
The Prime Minister should stop playing politics on the back of
Quebecers and support them by addressing the real problems. After
all, he is the Prime Minister of all Canadians, including the 49.4 per
cent of Quebecers who voted yes in the referendum.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the government spoke with pride about what a
great price it is getting for CN Rail shares and how selling them in
foreign countries helped to increase that price. What really helped
to increase the share price was the amount by which the
government reduced CN's debt.
In committee the government talked about reducing CN's debt
by approximately $1 billion and that very little if any would
actually come from the Canadian taxpayer. In reality, the
government reduced CN's debt by $1.4 billion, and all of it came
from the taxpayer except for what can be realized from the sale of
non-rail real estate assets with a book value of $235 million and no
appraisal to the contrary.
This pay-down may well have contributed to the enhanced share
price. However, if the government is going to use Canadians' tax
dollars to enhance the value of shares, should it not have offered
the first chance of those shares to Canadians? As it now stands, 40
per cent of those shares are being sold outside of Canada, despite
the fact there appears to be sufficient interest inside Canada. If this
government is going to continue to run huge deficits, at least let
Canadians be the beneficiary of that debt.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
management of forest resources in Yukon has been one of the most
mismanaged federal issues I have ever seen in my years in Yukon.
The lack of a comprehensive forestry policy has resulted in sit-ins,
16773
week long demonstrations, and lawsuits. Surely this has to be a
wake-up call that all is not well.
The only positive thing that can be said about the federal
government's handling of this issue is that its ineptness has
managed to unite the politicians of all parties, First Nations,
loggers, and a very large percentage of the population. It should do
so well on national unity.
Northern affairs has managed to introduce casino logging by
calling three lotteries for timber permits and then cancelling them.
It has not instituted the promised forestry advisory committee on
reforestation and has caused unnecessary expenditures by both
First Nations and taxpayers for failing to foresee the possibility of
legal action.
The minister of Indian and northern affairs must take charge, do
a full review of the management of northern affairs in Yukon, and
institute immediately a full and public review of forest policy.
* * *
(1110 )
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last November 9, six Canadians were inducted into Canada's Sports
Hall of Fame: Bob Gainey, who played with the Montreal
Canadiens for 16 years and was a key part of five Stanley Cup
winning teams; Paul Henderson, who scored the winning goal for
the Canadian hockey team in the series of the century against the
Soviet Union in 1972; Kerrin-Lee Gartner, who won a gold medal
at the 1992 Albertville Olympics in downhill skiing; Mark
Tewksbury, who won a gold medal in the 100 metre backstroke
event at the Barcelona Olympics in 1992; Paul Dojack, a Canadian
Football League official for 24 years, involved in 550 games,
including 14 Grey Cups; and Debbie Muir, head coach for our
national synchronized swimming team from 1981 to 1991, who
shared in the success of Carolyn Waldo, Sylvie Frechette and many
others.
Congratulations to the six new members of the Sports Hall of
Fame and best of luck to all up and coming athletes, coaches and
officials.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, recently the industry committee and Canada's major
banks agreed to a set of small business lending standards that will
benefit all Canadians. This represents progress for the small
business men and women in this country. It is an example of what
can be accomplished when industry officials and federal
politicians work together to achieve change.
Small business constituents can now insist their lenders adhere
to a code of conduct. They can take advantage of an alternative
dispute resolution system. They can take complaints to an internal
ombudsman, and if they are still not satisfied they will now have
access to an independent industry-wide ombudsman as well.
Finally, every three months parliamentarians will see the banks'
small business borrowing statistics. These standardized statistics
will be our tool to monitor progress.
To paraphrase a famous quote, this is not the end of ensuring that
the banks will live up to their responsibilities. It is not even the
beginning of the end. But it is perhaps the end of the beginning.
There is much to be accomplished.
* * *
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to congratulate the residents of Beaches-Woodbine, in
particular Mr. Michael Liebson, for their perseverance in helping to
prevent offshore dredging in Lake Ontario. The residents of the
Toronto Beaches area are pleased that the Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources has turned down an application to dredge in
Lake Ontario.
Bedrock Resources Inc. put in a proposal to the Ontario Ministry
of Natural Resources to dredge sand in Lake Ontario off the shores
of my riding. The health and environmental issues raised by this
proposal were critical. In its correspondence, Environment Canada
stated that the quality of the material makes it acceptable for
on-land use as aggregate, but it is not acceptable for open water
disposal. The proponent will be separating and saving the larger
grain size material, while discharging the fine silts and clays back
into Lake Ontario. In our view, this is open water disposal.
Environment Canada also found that the sediment plume
modelling, as conducted by the proponent's consultants, was
inadequate.
In addition, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans stated in its
correspondence that dredging will result in the harmful alteration,
disruption and destruction of fish habitat. As well, in the opinion of
the-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during
the referendum campaign, the Prime Minister of Canada promised
Quebecers that his government would recognize Quebec as a
distinct society and give the province the right to veto any
16774
constitutional change. He even repeated this promise a few days
after the referendum.
But, once again, it was just an empty promise. The Prime
Minister, trying to buy time or to make us waste ours, decided two
weeks ago to create a phoney committee that has absolutely no
substance to it.
The Prime Minister is so troubled by the criticism expressed
with regard to this puppet committee that he is now claiming that
he never promised anything and that Bloc members are liars. Take
some rest, Mr. Prime Minister, and try to regain your memory
because you can be sure that Quebecers have not forgotten and will
never forget.
The Speaker: My dear colleague, maybe it would be preferable
not to use the word ``liar'' even though it is applied to oneself. I
would ask you not to use this word in the House.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the fisheries
minister said that he consulted the industry when he dreamt up his
new tax, but he sure did not listen. Here are just a few of those who
wrote in protest to the minister: the Eastern Fishermen's
Federation, Southwest Nova Fixed Gear Association, the Fisheries
Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, the South West Nova
Tuna Association, the New Brunswick Fish Packers' Association,
the Fundy Weir Fishermen's Association Inc., the Ontario Fish
Producers' Association. The list goes on: the Atlantic Herring
Co-op, the Fisheries Council of British Columbia, the Canadian
Council of Professional Fish Harvesters, the Alliance des pêcheurs
professionnels du Québec, Fishermen Food and Allied Workers,
the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association, and many
more.
(1115 )
They all said no new taxes. Fishermen are not going to let the
minister off the hook. If he does not back down he is going to be
done like dinner.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister of Canada is rejoicing at the bad news affecting
Montreal. Just this week, he applauded the move of CP Rail's head
office. Ottawa is making no real effort to ensure sustainable
economic recovery in Montreal. What is the minister responsible
for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec doing?
It is no wonder that FORD-Q is reported, in the document tabled
this week by the auditor general, as not seeing itself as a strategic
organization in terms of development policies. If the minister
responsible for regional economic development in Quebec cannot
even ensure that federal policies reflect Quebec's interests, what
good is he? This is another example of how sharing responsibilities
with Ottawa can only lead to a weakening of the economy in
Montreal and in Quebec as a whole.
* * *
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government and the hon. Paul Martin have taken upon
themselves to put their fiscal house in order.
[English]
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member not to use a person's
name, just a title.
[Translation]
Mr. DeVillers: I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of
Finance. Since federal transfers to the provinces account for nearly
20 per cent of federal expenditures, they cannot be ignored. On the
other hand, these transfers account for only three per cent of the
provinces' revenues.
We made deeper cuts to our own expenditures on goods and
services than to transfers to the provinces. Saskatchewan and New
Brunswick have been able to balance their budgets while taking
into account the new federal transfer payments. The Quebec
government is lagging behind, because of all the energy it is putting
into separation plans and referenda. In view of the fact that the
transfer cuts contemplated amount to only a few percentage points
of provincial revenues, is it fair to say that actions taken by the
federal government are solely responsible for provincial cuts to
come?
[English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, we are going into question period
immediately. Over the last little while I have found that the
preambles to questions are getting a little longer and the answers
are sometimes getting a little longer.
May I ask today before we begin that hon. members cut back a
little on the preambles to questions in the hopes that more hon.
members can ask questions during the question period.
Of course I will help in this respect if it is needed.
>
16775
16775
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the phoney
committee that was set up in a mad rush to save the face of a
government that is incapable of keeping the Prime Minister's
promises, this phoney committee headed by the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs has now started its work and apparently
has sent a progress report to the Prime Minister's office.
Since this report is supposedly essential to the survival of
Canada, does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs who chairs
the phoney committee intend to release this report, so that
Canadians can look at the recommendations?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted with the interest the hon. member for
Roberval has shown in this committee, which is of course a
contradiction of his preliminary remarks since, as I said before, the
ultimate phoney committee is the regional commissions that were
set up in Quebec for the benefit of partisan members only.
In this case, we have set up a committee of ministers who report
to the Prime Minister and whose statements are confidential. If the
Prime Minister feels it is appropriate to publish the
recommendations, he will do so.
(1120)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, here is my
supplementary.
Are we to understand that the minister refuses to release any
recommendations or clarifications of any kind with respect to the
proceedings of this committee? Perhaps he prefers not to embarrass
his friends on the No committee, the provincial Liberals who are
meeting in Quebec City on the weekend and who would otherwise
realize that the minister and the government have strictly nothing
to offer Quebecers.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last Tuesday, the Leader of the Official Opposition was
asked this question:
[English]
``Is it even theoretically possible that premier Bouchard could sign
any deal which would see Quebec remain in Confederation?''
[Translation]
Mr. Bouchard replied: ``No, that is impossible, I am a
sovereignist''.
In that case, I fail to see why the official opposition or the hon.
member for Roberval would ask about the ways in which we are
trying to deal with the current problem, since they have already
said that, in the circumstances, they are not interested and that their
only objective is to destroy the federation.
The Speaker: Again, my dear colleagues, I would ask you to use
the title of the member to whom you refer during question period.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is so
obvious. A cabinet minister tries to find reasons why they should
not keep the promises made by the Prime Minister, and it is not
their fault. I have never seen anything like it.
Is it not true that the purpose of the phoney committee headed by
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is merely to play for time
so that the government can slowly but surely downgrade its
commitments to Quebec and ultimately make them compatible
with the interests of its Canadian friends?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we must recognize the facts. The Prime Minister repeated
in the House what he said in Verdun, and I mentioned both
statements yesterday to show they were consistent. However, it is
also time to realize that the Leader of the Official Opposition and
the members of the official opposition are neglecting the duty they
have, as the official opposition, to defend the interests of their
constituents. They have now stated they do not intend to co-operate
with the federal government at all, and consequently, their only
goal, as their leader said, is to achieve sovereignty. Their only goal
is to destroy Canada and consequently, their questions no longer
have any credibility because they are not trying to improve the way
the government operates but are only trying to achieve their goal,
which is to destroy Canada.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): So, Mr. Speaker, we can
say we are protecting the interests of our constituents when we ask
questions of the government in order to discover its intentions
toward Quebec.
What they want to know, precisely, is the federal government's
intentions with respect to commitments it made less than a month
ago, in the last days of the referendum campaign. It is obvious that
the deliberations and recommendations of the phoney committee
are a well kept secret.
16776
Can the minister at least tell us whether, in the interim report
transmitted to the Prime Minister, the option of a simple House
of Commons resolution on the distinct society is the one favoured
by that phoney committee?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I feel obliged to repeat once again what the Prime
Minister said, which is that to ensure the change and modernization
of Canada, no change is excluded. And what he said in the House
on Wednesday, which is:
I said we were going to make changes to the federation, constitutional changes, if
necessary.
Thus there is no contradiction between the two statements. What
we are doing in the unity committee is preparing a series of
recommendations for the Prime Minister. The recommendations
the group of ministers make to the Prime Minister are confidential,
as they must be, because the person who makes decisions on behalf
of the government is the Prime Minister. Once those decisions have
been made, he will make the announcement.
(1125)
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can the
minister at least confirm to us that one of the hypotheses selected
by the phoney committee regarding administrative decentralization
is based on the principle set out by Pierre Elliott Trudeau two
weeks ago, namely that no decentralization toward the provinces is
possible without an equivalent transfer to the federal level, which
would mean increased centralization of economic powers at
Ottawa?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to use the same vocabulary, this is a phoney question,
clearly void of content.
We repeat what we have said: the Prime Minister's promises are
correct. And as long as the opposition continues to ask phoney
questions like this one, when its goal is the destruction of Canada,
it does not deserve an answer.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we are pleased with the recent peace agreement signed between the
governments of Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia. This is a welcome step
toward peace in that troubled region.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Frazer: Yesterday the Prime Minister stated that Canada
would commit troops and also promised a debate in the House to
acquire Parliament's approval.
To date however the government has paid only lip service to the
principle of consultation. On September 21 last year the debate was
only nine days before the renewal. This year on March 29 the
debate was only two days before renewal and then the commitment
was extended by two months without any reference to Parliament.
Will the government commit this time to having the debate on
Canadian forces deployment to the former Yugoslavia after the
details are known and before any cabinet decision is taken?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister signified yesterday that it would be his intention for
Parliament to debate the potential deployment for the NATO force.
That debate will be scheduled in the next week or so after
consultation between House leaders.
This is a further example of how the government has restored
Parliament's role in the debate of major foreign engagements.
The hon. member has criticized only the matter of timing of
these debates. The fact is that members of Parliament have been
able to express their views before commitments have been made
and that is the course that will be followed.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is all very interesting but in my previous question I asked if we
would debate after the details are known. I suspect they will not be
known next week and we will not know what we are debating.
The Minister of National Defence yesterday stated that because
the successful formation of the NATO force will depend on
American troops being committed, we will have to await the
decision of congress. It is reported that the Americans are talking
of a commitment of one year.
Does the minister think the mission will be accomplished in one
year and will he consider proposing a specified period for any
Canadian commitment with a declared intention to withdraw
Canadian forces at the end of that period?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with great
respect, these are all questions and ideas that should be raised in a
parliamentary debate.
The government would be quite interested to know from the
Reform Party and other members the degree of commitment we
should make, the numbers that we should be sending and in what
proportion. All of those questions really are matters the govern-
16777
ment will be interested in before the government makes its final
commitment to NATO.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it seems that the government will not commit to having a realistic
debate on the commitment of Canadian forces.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Frazer: I am concerned that Canadian troops have already
been stretched past the limit by their commitments in the former
Yugoslavia. Some soldiers are in their fourth and even fifth tours of
duty and this is cause for great concern.
I recently read a report from a chaplain who wrote: ``We do not
know the emotional ramifications of psychological layers being
built up by these repeatedly rapid deployments''.
Will the Prime Minister consider other options, such as offering
NATO an air squadron rather than a land unit, in order to lessen the
burden on our under equipped and over taxed land forces?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been
discussing with our NATO allies the requirements for this kind of a
force. Next week at the Defence Planning Board meetings in
Brussels these commitments will be examined in greater detail.
I will take the hon. member's comment as a representation that
Canada should offer air support. That will be very interesting.
Other members may have a different view but we want to hear the
views of all members before we decide.
(1130)
The hon. member also talked about the overstretching of
Canadian forces. He knows that was a legitimate argument to make
18 months ago. As a result of the deliberations of the committee of
which he was a member, the white paper signalled an intent to put
more people into the sharp end of the army. We are now recruiting
so that we have more people available for such duty.
I also underscore the fact that with the pullback from Croatia,
Canada now has significantly fewer people in the field than we had
six months ago. The criticisms the hon. member has been making
this morning are not fully justified by the operational facts today.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The recently published public accounts reveal that the Minister
of Canadian Heritage awarded a grant of $5 million to the
Bronfman Foundation to fund historical vignettes on Canada's
heritage for television broadcast. His own officials recommended a
grant of only $1 million.
How does the minister explain his decision to give the Bronfman
Foundation five times the amount his officials recommended, when
he is cutting subsidies to francophone associations outside Quebec
and everywhere in the area of cultural development?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is not clear in my colleague's question whether he
feels these minutes of heritage were badly done and did not warrant
funding. In my opinion, they provide an excellent look into
Canadian history, which may be of no interest to him, but which
interests me.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
is not answering my question. We are not talking about product
quality, but, rather, the fact that it cost $5 million when it was
supposed to cost $1 million.
As my supplemental, I would like to know whether the
minister's sudden generosity was intended as an unobtrusive
injection of several million dollars worth of propaganda on the eve
of the recent referendum campaign?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if our colleague believes Canada's history is
propaganda, he should not be sitting in this House. Our history is
our history, our roots are our roots, and we may be justifiably proud
of them.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians were justifiably shocked to learn that the
Communications Security Establishment is eavesdropping on
Canadian citizens.
In response, the defence minister said that he would not
comment on issues of national security. The Deputy Prime Minister
clearly stated that CSE did not have a mandate to spy on Canadians.
Not surprisingly, the Prime Minister said that he did not know what
CSE was doing.
Does the Minister of National Defence know what CSE is doing
and who gave CSE authority to invade and violate the privacy of
Canadians by intercepting private communications?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member
knows from my previous answers in this place, I certainly know
what is going on in the department and especially at CSE.
16778
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, two
former employees of the spy agency have publicly stated that CSE
has spied on Canadians.
The law is clear. Any interception of communication of
Canadian citizens is an offence under part VI of the Criminal Code.
How dare the government spy on its own citizens?
Has the minister's department reviewed the allegations of
former CSE employees Frost and Shorten? Is he prepared to have
charges laid against those CSE agents who have broken the law?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I fully reject the
premise of the hon. member's question, but with respect to recent
comments that have been made by a third party, the government is
certainly looking into them.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
In announcing budget cuts, the President of the CBC explained
that between 600 and 1,000 positions would be eliminated before
March 1996. According to him, the exact number of jobs to be cut
will depend on whether or not the federal government decides to
contribute to the funding of Radio Canada International.
(1135)
Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage confirm that his
government has decided to stop funding Radio Canada
International?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as our colleague must know, the international
component of the CBC's mission is outlined in its current mandate.
We will review the CBC's entire mandate, including this
component, in light of the mandate committee's recommendations.
The whole mandate will be reviewed, and the status of Radio
Canada International will be determined at that time.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since Radio
Canada International is Canada's international showcase-
Ms. Copps: Are you interested?
Mrs. Debien: Since Radio Canada International is Canada's
international showcase and helps promote Canadian culture
abroad, does the minister not feel that it would be irresponsible to
stop funding this service, and can he give us advance notice of his
intentions in this regard?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, allow me to correct the preamble to our colleague's
question. Radio Canada International is a vehicle that promotes
Canada around the world. I just got back from TV5, through which
francophone Canada has gained international renown. Radio
Canada International is not the only broadcaster to further our
country's interests.
In response to her question, I would add that we should not put
the cart before the horse. We have to make a decision on the CBC's
mandate and its international component will be part of this
decision.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Thousands of people are demonstrating today across Ontario
because of the intention of the provincial government to cut child
care services and subsidies.
In our red book there is a promise calling for the creation of
50,000 new child care spaces each year following a year of 3 per
cent economic growth.
Does the government intend to address this acute social need and
alleviate a crucial problem faced by so many Canadians?
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the hon. member for raising a very important question on an
issue that is very close to the Liberal government.
We are strongly committed to child care. We have already made
progress in a number of areas such as the $72 million program to
establish or improve a total number of 6,000 spaces within First
Nations and Inuit communities over the next three years. We have
also invested $6 million annually for a child care vision.
The Minister of Human Resources Development last week met
with his provincial counterparts to discuss ways of finding new
financing arrangements so that the red book commitment could be
honoured.
There is no question the focus would be on enhancing and
expanding child care services. Our position is crystal clear.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, blatant
Liberal pork barrel patronage by the revenue minister rewarding
Liberal law firms on Vancouver Island is going on and on and on, in
spite of six months of feeble assurances to the House by the justice
16779
minister. Yet again on Wednesday of this week, when a drug
trafficking case was called in Victoria no federal crown prosecuting
lawyer even turned up for the case.
How many more drug cases will be fumbled, lost or dropped
before the justice minister exhibits some competence in getting the
revenue minister's cronies in line?
(1140 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member knows perfectly well that the Minister of Justice
has made outstanding appointments in every appointment he has
made.
If the hon. member would simply praise the minister
occasionally instead of constantly harping and carping, he might
find that he gets better service in his constituency.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what a
joke. Speak of praising, I have had personal conversations with the
justice minister about this issue over a six-month period. I have a
fat file on it. One patronage appointed lawyer is unprepared and the
charges are dropped. Another patronage appointed lawyer does not
show and the charges are dropped. Another patronage appointed
lawyer mishandles the charges and the charges are dropped.
How far does this have to go? The Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice last time said-
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to put his question.
Mr. Abbott: If the firms are not incompetent, if the justice
department is not incompetent, if the justice minister is not
incompetent, why do we end up with all these cases screwed up on
Vancouver Island?
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Justice has had all his appointments screened by
officials before they were made and he is confident that these are
very competent lawyers. The confidence is reflected in the fact that
22 of the 42 firms appointed in B.C. are reappointments. Half the
agents were appointed by the previous government.
There have been isolated difficulties on Vancouver Island. The
minister admits that fact. Preliminary reports suggest that the
failure of certain former agents to co-operate with the new
appointments may have contributed to the problem. The hon.
member should be encouraging the former agents to co-operate
with the new ones instead of carping and yelling in the House every
day about the odd failure that occurs. These people are competent
and they will do their jobs.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Last summer, the federal government wasted several million
dollars in a failed attempt to refloat the Irving Whale. We are
currently unable to get from the environment department the exact
amount spent on that botched operation.
How can the minister justify her department's refusal to reveal
the terms of the contracts and the amount spent on the failed
attempt to refloat the Irving Whale?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the operation did not fail. It
is underway and will be completed next year, following the
recommendations made by the former Bloc Quebecois critic for the
environment, who said that the Irving Whale was like a time bomb
for the environment and had to be refloated.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, does the minister not realize that the public is
concerned that, in opting for the cheapest solution under the
circumstances, without any regard for the safety of the operation,
she started a process which could end up costing taxpayers a lot
more than anticipated because of the bad decisions she made?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the total costs of the
operation will be borne by the private sector. Moreover, the hon.
member and his colleagues should have heeded the advice of the
Magdalen Islands RCM board, which is asking the federal
government to assume its responsibilities and not fail like the
former environment minister, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, who
received letters from Magdalen Islands fishermen, but never
bothered to answer them.
We, at least, have taken our responsibilities and are following the
unanimous recommendation of the Magdalen Islands RCM to
proceed with the operation, so as to get rid of that time bomb for
the environment, as the former Bloc member called it.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a few bad apples
on the Stony reserve west of Calgary have resumed illegal tree
cutting. Grassroots natives have shut down the logging trucks the
minister of Indian affairs said he would shut down.
16780
Who will stand on the government side today and justify this
environmental mess?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister of Indian and
northern affairs indicated in response to an earlier question by the
member that the government expects the law to be respected both
on and off the reserve, and it will be respected.
(1145 )
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
made a promise in the House, a promise he has failed to keep. Rank
and file natives have kept that promise for him while the minister,
his officials and band and council on the reserve sit in their ivory
towers. Once again, who in this weak-kneed government is going
to stand up and stop this environmental pillage?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to believe that
the member accuses the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development of not being close to the grassroots. In fact, over the
last two years he has met with more band members, more chiefs
and more aboriginal people than certainly has the entire caucus of
the Reform Party.
I would underscore that the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development has the full confidence of the aboriginal
peoples unlike their view of the Reform Party which is certainly
not their greatest ally.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
would appear that the Minister of Environment has finally seen the
light on the
Irving Whale issue.
Last week, she showed some common sense when she
announced an investigation by the RCMP into possible criminal
activities, as well as a new environmental impact review.
Can the minister assure us that the public servants and other
individuals who are being investigated by the RCMP will not take
part, either as witnesses or as commissioners, in the new
environmental assessment she has ordered?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously, the government
rreferred this issue to the RCMP so that it can investigate at every
level.
This being said, the PCB assessment will take into account
everybody's public testimony and, obviously, those who are being
investigated will be excluded from the process.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
would the minister not agree that, now that she has recognized the
existence of criminal activities surrounding the refloating
operation of the Irving Whale, the only way to give credibility to
the process would be to strike a totally independent expert panel,
one that has ho connection with her department?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member's allegations
are false. Moreover, if he wants the investigation to be conducted
properly, it must not be interfered with.
But if he means that an investigation should be conducted
independently from the Canadian government, Environment
Canada has the responsibility to carry on environmental impact
assessments, and we do not want to avoid our responsibilities, we
want to take them the same way we did when we became the first
government to tackle this ecological time bomb.
I would like to point out that the RCM of Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
the fishermen of the Magdalen Islands-
[English]
The fishermen of Prince Edward Island, of Atlantic Canada,
support the position of the government. I only wish the Bloc would
help us to rid ourselves of this ecological time bomb.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board and
is about the public service.
[English]
Reports indicate that the early retirement and early departure
incentive programs have been so favourably received by public
servants as to cause a larger expenditure than expected.
[Translation]
Will the President of the Treasury Board assure the public
servants and the Canadian public that the government does not
intend to lay off employees or cut services to compensate for the
overspending under these programs?
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all,
we will be true to our fiscal commitments and operate within the
established targets.
True, more people than expected indicated that they want to take
advantage of the government offers. This simply shows that there
will be more spending in the beginning, but we will be able to make
up for all that. True, this could amount to almost $2.3 billion, but
16781
at the same time, this will be offset by savings of $4.2 billion.
Thereafter, $2.2 billion will be saved each year.
(1150)
[English]
Concerning the public service, I am convinced we shall continue
to have a service that reflects the needs of Canadians. Members
well know that as a result of the program review we have had to
reduce it, but we will continue to have a competent and committed
civil service that will respond to the needs of Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when the
Minister of National Revenue amalgamated Canada customs and
taxation he claimed the department would become more efficient
and more effective. The auditor general disagrees. In his report last
week the auditor general points out that taxpayers are now waiting
26 days longer for disputes to be resolved and that Revenue Canada
missed collecting $17 million in interest charges on overdue
accounts.
How can the minister claim this reorganization in his department
has been anything but a failure?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue
answered that question when the auditor general's report came out.
If the member looks closely at the report, he will see the auditor
general acknowledged the changes the Minister of National
Revenue introduced and the savings that have been realized.
Naturally, the time period is not of sufficient length for the auditor
general to draw any conclusions. If the member reads the report
very carefully he will see that at the moment the auditor general is
being complimentary. He encourages the department to continue
and it will continue in this manner.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, with all due
respect, I believe the parliamentary secretary is out of touch with
this department.
Over the last couple of months I have received evidence that
there are questionable management practices. There is evidence of
racism. The morale is low and there is a lack of fulfilment in the
department.
The minister of revenue and taxation has to do a better job of
controlling the department. Tax time is coming up. Budget time is
coming up. We know the friction between taxpayers and Revenue
Canada collectors.
When will the people responsible for the department improve the
image of national revenue and taxation?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe the member did not have
a supplementary prepared and just went on a rampage of making
allegations. If the member has evidence of specific cases of
wrongdoing by people working in the department, he should come
forward and give them to the minister and make them public. Then
the minister will definitely look into the matter.
Since 1993 when this government took office we have made the
necessary changes in the department. Canadians are receiving their
tax refunds faster than before. The amalgamation of the two
departments has created savings in the millions of dollars and this
will continue.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the heritage minister.
Yesterday, David Peterson, a former premier of Ontario,
submitted a brief to the heritage committee, on behalf of the
Canadian Booksellers' Association. Mr. Peterson predicted that the
impending arrival of two mega-booksellers from the United States,
Borders, and Barnes and Noble, would have disastrous
consequences on the book market in Quebec and Canada.
Before the Minister of Industry allows American booksellers to
invade the Canadian market, will the Minister of Canadian
Heritage undertake to set up a committee of experts to assess the
economic and cultural impact of the arrival of these two
booksellers on the Canadian market, like it did for Sports
Illustrated?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let me advise the member clearly of what the existing book policy
is of the government.
The policy prohibits the establishment of a new retail book
selling business by non-Canadians. Non-Canadians may only
engage in book retailing as minority investors in Canadian
controlled joint ventures. Any proposed joint venture that may be
brought forward will be carefully examined under the existing
powers under the Investment Canada Act to ensure that control in
fact is exercised by the Canadian investors.
(1155 )
We do not contemplate in any way softening or weakening that
policy in favour of any proposed investment. I believe the interests
of the Canadian booksellers will thereby be truly protected.
16782
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it does not seem as though Mr. Peterson feels all that
reassured. Would the government's eagerness to close that deal
have anything to do with the fact that the Canadian partner of the
giant American Borders corporation is Heather Reisman, a member
of a well-known Liberal family, as reported by the Globe and Mail?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, I want to thank the Bloc member for her interest in
Canadian heritage.
[English]
As for the rest of her question, I will not dignify it with a reply.
* * *
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, about 72,000 Canadians are registered fur trappers, about
half of them being native or Metis. Another 30,000 work on
trimming, storing and creating garments with fur and selling them.
As a former trapper myself, I would like the Minister of
International Trade to explain now that native trappers have
convinced the European Union to postpone for one year its ban on
furs caught with leghold traps, how will the government use that
one year reprieve to ensure that an EU ban on Canadian wild furs
never takes place?
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are aware that we
have one year within which to work out the proposition. We are
quite encouraged by the European Union decision to grant us the
extra year. We are going to work with the industry, the provinces
and all of the interested parties. We hope to be able to come up with
what is believed to be a proposition which is in the best interests of
everybody, including the people who are benefiting from trapping
in Canada.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not as if this is a new problem. The European Union
now buys about 75 per cent of Canadian fur.
Will the Minister of International Trade explain what action he is
taking to broaden the market for Canadian wild fur and reduce our
dependence on the European buyers?
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are quite concerned
about this issue. Thousands and thousands of people depend on
trapping for their survival.
I take this opportunity to congratulate Canada's aboriginal
community which worked extremely hard with our government, as
well as with governments in Europe, to ensure that our position is
well known to Europeans and others abroad.
I assure the member that whatever we do on this issue is going to
be in the best interests of the aboriginal people and the best
interests of the Canadian industry.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in
1993 the Liberal Party promised to expand child care in Canada by
50,000 spaces each year that follows a growth of 3 per cent. Last
year real growth was just over 4 per cent and still the government
has not lived up to its commitment. It has broken its promise to
Canadian families.
The parliamentary secretary responded to an earlier question that
the government is working on this matter. I therefore ask the
Deputy Prime Minister, exactly how many child care spaces-and I
presume it will be at least 50,000-will the government create this
year to maintain its promise?
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thought I answered that question earlier on. I will take the
opportunity to outline other measures the federal government has
taken to not only address child care, but to also address the issue of
child poverty.
Campaign 2000 recently released a report card which did not
take into account some very positive news which occurred last
year. Last year for the very first time in a long time, the average
family income increased by almost 2 per cent. This speaks to the
fact that the jobs and economic growth agenda the Liberal
government has introduced over the past year is not only creating
jobs, but is helping the issue of child care and child poverty.
(1200 )
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister will be very
brief.
Exactly how many child care spaces will be created by the
federal government this year in keeping with its promise?
Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the
same way that we have honoured our job creation program, that we
have lowered unemployment, that we have increased exports, that
we have increased the gross domestic product, we will continue to
honour all the commitments made in the red book.
16783
[Translation]
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have a two-part question for the Minister of Finance.
[English]
We have heard more and more concerns about the Canada
pension plan. Last week a leading actuary maintained that we are
unable to pay even the pensions of those already retired.
Can the minister tell the House if the Canada pension plan is in
danger and what he intends to do about it? The second part of my
question is what does he think of the Reform plan?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the chief actuary did
indeed raise a number of very important concerns relative to the
Canada pension plan. The departmental officials from the federal
government and from all the provincial governments, because this
is a joint responsibility, are indeed meeting to address those plans.
The Canada pension plan is not in danger, but it does require
modification, it does require change. We will bring those changes
in to ensure that the Canada pension plan is there for young
Canadians when their time comes to retire.
The fundamental flaw in the Reform plan is that while there are
interesting things in the margin, it makes sure that the rich are
richer in retirement and the poor are poorer in retirement. This
government will never accept that.
_____________________________________________
16783
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to four
petitions.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the tenth report of the
Standing Committee on Industry, on Bill C-99, an act to amend the
Small Business Loans Act, with amendments.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 102nd report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership and associate membership of some standing
committees.
(1205)
With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in this
report later this day.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-109, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and
Insolvency Act, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, and
the Income Tax Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-358, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (consecutive sentences).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce my
private member's bill. The bill would see consecutive sentences
imposed upon those convicted of multiple violent crimes against a
person. I believe such an amendment should be supported by all
MPs. I know the changes would be welcomed by the millions of
Canadians who have lost faith in the operation of our justice
system.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.
I move:
That the 102nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
16784
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in response to the outcry of Canadians for this
government to take a more serious stand on dangerous offender
legislation, I am adding 1,770 names of Canadians who are asking
Parliament to enact legislation against serious personal injury
crimes being committed by high risk offenders by permitting the
use of post-sentence detention orders and specifically by passing
Bill C-240.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
move that all questions stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
16784
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-100,
an act to amend, enact, and repeal certain laws relating to financial
institutions, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I know
that with the wonderful words of wisdom I was expressing to the
House prior to question period, the Speaker will recall that I was
speaking about the fact that the Liberals and Tories all seem to
enjoy the process of interfering in normal natural processes within
a marketplace. The proposed bill is a classic example of exactly
that.
The Liberals have an opportunity under the Canada Deposit
Insurance Corporation Act to make some substantive changes that
would continue to protect Canadians while giving Canadians a
responsibility for their own lives, their own affairs.
(1210 )
It makes me think a lot of an occasion when I was in my
constituency in the town of Invermere a few weeks ago. There was
a gentleman who was the park warden from Glacier National Park
in the United States, which I am sure members will recall is
considered to be part of the Peace Park. It is right across the border
from Waterton Lakes National Park. They have a wide swath cut
from mountaintop down through the valley up to the other side of
the mountain approximately 60 feet wide to designate the border.
The superintendent was saying it does not really make any sense
for us to have this wide swath out in the middle of the wilderness.
Here we are talking about this being a peace park, about how there
is this desire on the part of Canadians and Americans to come
together in the Peace Park, so why do we have this 60-foot wide
swath? He was going to be proposing to the powers that be that this
wide swath be permitted to simply regrow. What it would mean is
that no longer would there be vegetation-destroying chemicals put
into the area. It would save money. Above all, it would make sense.
At that point I put up my hand at the back of the room and he
acknowledged me. I told him he had a serious problem: you are
proposing to the governments of the United States and Canada
something that makes sense and saves money; you do not have a
chance of this passing. Unfortunately, in spite of the fact that I said
that with tongue in cheek, it is exactly this kind of problem we have
with the old line parties, with this government. If it saves money
and makes sense we can count on the fact that the Liberals are
going to reject it.
What am I referring to specifically? We propose a different way
of handling the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. We call it,
as it is called in the industry, co-insurance. This bill rejects deposit
co-insurance.
Since the introduction in 1967 of 100 per cent deposit insurance,
that is up to the maximum value, 30 financial institutions have
failed, with 20 failures in the last 10 years. This has cost the CDIC
about $5 billion as of March 1994.
Before 1967 there were no bank failures. Governments over the
years have exhibited a reluctance to institute market based
measures of reform such as co-insurance instead of opting for more
regulation and oversight.
The use of the market through the implementation of
co-insurance and market based criteria as early warning signals
would alleviate the problem in the financial system in a less costly
yet more effective manner than proposing further regulatory
change. Regulatory attempts to mimic the efficient results only
achievable by the free market will always be more costly for all
parties involved and will rarely, if ever, achieve the same quality of
results.
Under the proposed system, depositors are only encouraged to
seek out the best rate, regardless of the risk profile of the institution
in question, since they know that they will be fully compensated by
the CDIC in the event of a failure. This facilitates the entrance,
growth and eventual failure of risky and recklessly managed
institutions. It also discriminates against healthy, strong, financial
sector players who minimize risk by conservative lending and
borrowing policies. The act does set the stage for risk based CDIC
premiums.
16785
It makes me think a lot, in terms of the government interference
the Liberals and Conservatives have always practised, of a Canada
Cup hockey game between Team Canada complete with Wayne
Gretzky and all the rest of the superstars against Team Jamaica.
The government would not set the rules for the game. It would
set the rules for the result. It would probably make the Canadian
goal the goal line, that is from side to side on the ice, and make
the Jamaican goal the size of a shoebox. That way we could know
what the results of the game were going to be. That is the attitude
that has consistently, without fail, been the approach of both the
Liberals and the Conservatives in the way they have governed
Canada.
(1215)
We have to realize that money is a medium of exchange. Money
has no morality nor does it have nationality. We must restore
balance in the marketplace, which is what this bill is about.
I am referring to making the depositor take some responsibility
because what is going on right now is that the solid financial
institutions are being basically penalized. The people investing in
those solid financial institutions are being penalized by people who
know they can invest up to the limit covered by CDIC and bear no
risk as long as those deposits are guaranteed by CDIC.
The 100 per cent coverage creates a situation parallel to the
situation I described with regard to regional development grants, in
that it shifts the responsibility away from the depositor and on to
the backs of (a) the larger, more responsible financial institutions
that have a long track record and (b) ultimately the taxpayer.
Let us get government interference in the marketplace under
control. Maybe that is too much to expect from the Liberals. We
can only hope. But above all, I ask the members of the government
side to consider this. Canada has to be prepared to compete in the
real world. This issue of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation
is just one small indicator of the kind of government interference
that is distorting an orderly marketplace. It is reflective of the real
world and of that marketplace. As long as we continue to shift
responsibility ultimately from the people in that marketplace, we
are not doing anything to create any health, vibrancy or cleansing
within the marketplace.
It is for that reason, the fact that the government refuses to
consider the prospect of co-insurance, that we will be voting
against this bill.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate today on Bill
C-100. I am pleased to have the opportunity to express my support
for this legislation which will enhance the safety and soundness of
the Canadian financial system.
I would like to focus on the issue of early intervention when an
institution is experiencing financial difficulties. It is an area where
Bill C-100 establishes a dramatic shift or enhancement in the
philosophy of financial institution regulation. It is a reform that I
believe all consumers should applaud.
As the hon. secretary of state pointed out earlier, the logical
underpinning for early intervention in problem situations begins
with the principle that ownership of a financial institution is a
privilege, not a right. This reflects the absolute vital role in terms
of economics and public confidence that such institutions play in
an open market economy.
The legislation before us takes this principle to a natural and
essential conclusion. It recognizes that when a financial institution
is experiencing difficulty, the owners do not have the right to
continue business until the bitter end. In other words, the
obligations of management include a duty to depositors,
policyholders, creditors, as well as shareholders. This means that
an institution's owners do not have a natural authority to carry on in
the hope of some miraculous turnaround, until capital is depleted or
they cannot pay liabilities as they come due.
(1220 )
Bill C-100 translates this view into concrete measures. It makes
clear that if early intervention in and resolution of institutions
experiencing difficulty need to occur it can occur. This is
specifically recognized in a new mandate for the Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions. This mandate is given
bottom line reality to changes in the statutes to permit this
institution to obtain a winding-up order for problem firms earlier
than this is warranted.
I should point out that this new mandate represents an important
clarification of the mission statement of OSFI. Prior to Bill C-100,
this institution was guided very informally by the objectives to
maintain public confidence in the Canadian financial system.
However the bill provides the regulator with a detailed,
legislative mandate which recognizes OSFI should contribute to
public confidence. It will do so by recognizing the interests of
depositors, policyholders and creditors of Canadian financial
institutions.
Prescribing such a mandate more formally in legislation is an
important step. This will give the regulator greater accountability
for its actions. It also lets institutions and other stakeholders know
that the regulator will deal with them in an expeditious manner
should problems arise.
Greater transparency with respect to the role of the regulator
provides all financial institutions, healthy or troubled, with a
greater incentive to monitor their affairs more prudently.
16786
I firmly believe the very fact that the early intervention is a clear
and concrete part of the OSFI mandate is in itself an incentive
for better management.
Bill C-100's mandate for this institution extends beyond simply
requiring the regulator to take immediate action with institutions
experiencing financial difficulty. OSFI has a broader responsibility
to promote the adoption by senior management of financial
institutions of sound policies and procedures to control their risks.
After all, financial institutions must bear a greater responsibility to
their stakeholders for managing their exposure to risk adequately.
This is consistent with the principle that ownership of financial
institutions is a privilege and not a right.
Supervisory systems must be designed in such a way to create an
incentive for corrective action by financial institutions themselves
to set right and salvage firms where possible.
However, earlier resolution alone cannot ensure that a troubled
financial institution will not fail. In an open market environment,
especially in today's increasingly competitive global arena, firms
may fail. Therefore it is extremely important, when closure of a
financial institution is imminent, the supervisory system be
prepared to shut down an institution in a manner that protects the
interests of all stakeholders.
In this regard, Bill C-100 provides the regulator with sufficient
scope to close down a troubled institution before the value of the
firm has been fully depleted.
The legislation includes amendments to the winding-up and
restructuring act which provides OSFI with additional grounds for
obtaining a wind-up order for a financial institution. The act is also
being amended to provide more flexibility to restructure, under
court supervision, the affairs of insurance companies in liquidation.
This should provide protection for stakeholders if closing down is
required. The liquidator will have greater scope to enhance value
within the estate and improve recovery on assets deposed of by the
liquidator to the benefit of all policyholders.
(1225 )
Again, the interests of financial consumers stand to be
recognized under Bill C-100 revised closure policy. I believe this
legislation acts on the aspects of good regulation and good
management, fairness and openness.
In other words, there is a fundamental need for transparency of
the supervisory system. If we are to encourage the most positive
attitudes and behaviour within institutions, it is essential that they
understand the steps that the authorities can take if the financial
situation deteriorates. We must be prepared to deal with situations
where firms make mistakes and face difficulty.
We must have a more transparent system in place so that
messages to the company management are clear. That is why the
secretary of state is proposing a guide to intervention that clarifies
the actions that can be expected, a guide that clarifies the role of
OSFI and the CDIC, the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation.
This guide sets out four stages of intervention. Each stage makes
clear to institutions what type of regulatory action will be taken. It
includes a number of fairly technical supervisory measures that
may be measured and used by OSFI in recognizing the interests of
stakeholders.
It also spells out actions by CDIC in fulfilling its legislated
objectives to control risk to the deposit insurance fund and
minimize its exposure to loss.
These regulatory actions range from the initial stage one
situation, where the regulator takes a number of small steps when
the institution is experiencing difficulty. At this stage, OSFI could
require the external auditor to expand its work. If the company
continues to decline, there are two other stages of more direct
action that can be taken by the regulator, where a more hands-on
approach is taken. By stage four, firm action is required because
insolvency is imminent.
The institution approaching this stage will have warning that
unless it improves its situation it will be shut down. Bill C-100
provides that in such a scenario, OSFI could seek a winding-up
order while the institution still has positive capital.
This is clearly to the benefit of the depositors, the policyholders,
the creditors and other stakeholders. It is consistent with the
institution's mandate.
The legislation before us is largely technical in content. It does
not have the drama of some other high profile issues, but this
should not obscure its vital importance, nor its real benefits to our
economy and to the security of millions of Canadians.
Consumers have come to expect that regulatory authorities take
prompt action to deal with the problem of financial institutions. A
sound, dynamic financial system is important to all Canadian
consumers and an essential component to economic strength, the
strength that ultimately, as we know, produces jobs.
The legislation enhances the soundness that Canadians expect
from their financial system. A sound, dynamic financial system is a
fundamental foundation for personal financial security and public
confidence. The legislation before us will ensure that such
confidence is fully justified.
I urge all hon. members to approve this legislation. It is in the
interest of all our constituents and our nation as a whole.
16787
(1230)
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise in this House as a member of the Bloc Quebecois to address
Bill C-100, an act to amend, enact and repeal certain laws relating
to financial institutions.
I listened closely to the previous speakers' speeches, especially
that of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, who
explained a number of guidelines followed by the government in
the drafting of this bill.
First of all, he told us that the purpose of the government was to
regulate in the best possible way certain aspects of the financial
system in Canada, certain financial institutions, so that Canadians
who put their trust in these financial institutions and deposit money
in them will not have their trust betrayed because of a shortcoming
in the regulations or abuses from the financial institutions
themselves.
Seen from this angle, any Canadian or Quebecer would think that
the federal government is fully justified in introducing the bill now
before us.
The parliamentary secretary also mentioned global issues,
changes in the global financial system, new technologies, the
diversification of financial needs, competitiveness, everything that
makes up globalization. He told us Canada must act to make sure
that our financial system will react adequately if financial
institutions have problems that could put at risk the money
deposited by Canadians and Quebecers.
Seen from this angle, one would think that all is well, that the
government must indeed take action. Later on, I listened to the
official opposition financial critic, my colleague from
Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, who stressed other aspects of the issue.
He said that, yes, the government was justified in taking some
measures but that, while doing so, it must respect the provinces'
jurisdictions. I would say that the hon. member clearly underlined
different aspects of the bill which infringe upon the jurisdiction of
provinces such as Quebec.
During his speech, I was looking at government members and
thinking that they were elected to the House of Commons to
represent their constituents. In a sense, they are forced to listen to
arguments which tend to become repetitive, because, no matter
what bill is being debated in the House, the official opposition will
criticize it in terms of federal and provincial jurisdictions. Of
course, it can be tiring for hon. members, who are elected to
represent their constituents honestly, to see all their bills come
under attack from a particular angle by Bloc members.
I understand that, but they must also recognize the position of a
member from Quebec. I was reading a letter sent by Mr. Johnson,
the former Quebec premier, to a federal minister concerning the
bill, in which he was generally using the arguments presented by
the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot. In other words, he
was arguing that Quebec's jurisdiction should be respected. So it is
not just a sovereignist member's point of view that has been put
forward, but the point of view of a member from Quebec who
wants to represent his constituents well, as is proper under the
constitutional traditions of Quebec.
(1235)
Once again, at the risk of displeasing some colleagues, I will tell
you why a piece of legislation like this one, which at first glance
appears fully appropriate and normal under the circumstances, is
questionable.
It is questionable, first of all, from the standpoint of the
Constitution. It is all very clear in the Canadian Constitution that
private property and the Civil Code are under the Quebec
government's jurisdiction. It is clear and it is there for all to read.
This means that any laws or moves the federal government makes
to regulate to some extent private property or items covered by the
Civil Code are, in and of themselves, unconstitutional. It is with
some hesitation that I use the word ``unconstitutional'' because it is
a fairly strong word, but the fact remains that those laws or moves
are intrusions by the federal government into another level of
government's jurisdiction.
The Quebec government is not alone in saying this, as we saw
last summer, when the chairman of the Ontario Securities
Commission made the same argument, saying that the draft
legislation put forward at the time-it was being considered by the
committee-flew in the face of provincial jurisdiction over
securities regulation.
Of course, when the representative of the Ontario Securities
Commission showed up before the committee which was
examining this bill last summer, he had changed his mind and said:
``Look, maybe it is important that the federal government legislates
in this area''. At that time, we were about to embark upon a
referendum campaign and the people of Canada who sincerely
believed that Canada should not be divided and should remain
united after a referendum were sticking together. That is why he
changed his tune a little bit.
But you have to understand that, at the outset, he had examined
his powers and the provincial jurisdiction and had noticed that this
bill would infringe upon this area of provincial jurisdiction.
This all goes to explain why this is the first concern of hon.
members from Quebec-and I am not only talking about
sovereignist members of Parliament-when they examine a bill. Of
course it may not cross the mind of the members from the Yukon,
from British-Columbia or from Ontario when they examine a
federal bill. But it is a reflex that we, the politicians of Quebec,
have developed over many decades. We have done so since
Confederation, under the governments of Duplessis, Lesage,
Lévesque, and the Johnsons, both father and sons. The elected
representatives of the people of Quebec have always been especial-
16788
ly careful to remind the federal government that it must respect the
various areas of jurisdiction.
Again today, the elected representatives of the people of Quebec,
as the official opposition, want to remind everyone of this basic
rule of the Canadian federal system, which is the existence of
various levels of government, with different areas of jurisdiction
under the Constitution that ought to be respected.
On the very face of it, this bill does not respect the Quebec
government's power to exercize jurisdiction over securities,
because securities are private property. If private property and the
Civil Code come under provincial jurisdiction, then securities also
fall under provincial jurisdiction.
(1240)
What is the purpose of Bill C-100? It grants the Bank of Canada
jurisdiction over securities clearing houses, which, as I amply
demonstrated-I believe-at the beginning of my speech, are
already regulated by the provinces. The bill gives the federal
government powers which go beyond its jurisdiction under the
Canadian Constitution.
It even goes as far as giving a power to issue directives to
clearing houses and their participants. Therefore, for a Quebec
representative, this is not right, this is unacceptable. That is why we
are condemning it.
The second aspect mentioned by my colleague had to do with the
whole issue of so-called systemic effects. This referes to a situation
where a financial institution that is in difficulty because it is unable
to meet certain obligations would endanger another institution,
creating a kind of domino effect where a weaker financial
institution can doom other financial institutions perhaps better
administered or more prosperous. A schedule was added to this bill
for the purpose of controlling this phenomenon.
It is clear that, in the context of globalization, governments must
closely monitor such phenomena. We read from time to time in the
newspapers that the problems of a bank in Hong Kong can affect
another bank in England, which happens to have interests in
Canada. This situation can in turn create problems for that bank's
branches and institutions in Canada and in Quebec. I understand
that those things have to be regulated.
But under the pretext of having to regulate such situations, Bill
C-100 encroaches once more on provincial jurisdictions, in areas
which are presently regulated by the Commission des valeurs
mobilières du Québec. This agency has opposed passing of the bill
in its present form precisely because it saw that the federal
government, mainly through the Bank of Canada, was encroaching
upon the mandate it received from the Government of Quebec.
Indeed, the schedule of the bill dealing with clearing and
winding up empowers the Bank of Canada to issue directives to
clearing houses and participant institutions, without regard for the
charter of the institution. As we know, some institutions have
federal charters. We can understand that the federal government
must regulate such institutions, but there are also institutions with
provincial charters. Quebec has many. There are ten trust
companies, 25 personal insurance companies, 60 damage insurance
companies and 1 300 credit unions with a provincial charter in
Quebec. That is a lot.
It is a lot and credit unions are a special concern to Quebecers.
You are all familiar with the success of the caisses populaires
Desjardins in Quebec. They gave Quebecers from humble
backgrounds the opportunity to found institutions based on co-op
principles, so that there are now 1,300 caisses populaires
throughout Quebec. These institutions were built in parishes and
villages and really represent a major achievement for Quebecers.
We can see that, through this bill, the federal government is
giving itself some powers over these provincially chartered
institutions. We are against this.
(1245)
We are not against the fact that we must protect ourselves against
systemic risk that an institution could endanger another at some
point. We disagree, however, with the federal government's
approach. Instead, the government should have fine-tuned the large
value transfer system, as a group of international experts, the
Group of Thirty, proposed in 1989. The Governor of the Bank of
Canada admitted as much last summer when questioned on the
issue of systemic risk in the financial sector.
Of course, by the time he appeared before the finance committee
last summer, the Governor of the Bank of Canada had changed his
tune, as did the Chairman of the Ontario Securities Commission.
We think that he changed his tune for political reasons. That is
not surprising. I can appreciate that, given the situation last
summer before the Quebec referendum, those who believe in
federalism and want to maintain this system in Canada may have
agreed to certain things and qualified their previous proposals or
statements so as to avoid embarrassing the federal government.
But the fact remains that, had the proposal to improve the large
value transfer system by streamlining it been approved by the
federal government, the government would not have felt compelled
to give itself powers that I would describe as outrageous over
Quebec financial institutions that are well managed.
16789
Not one single financial institution in Quebec has declared
bankruptcy in the last ten years. Some insurance companies have
merged in the interest of their shareholders and policyholders, but
there has not been any bank failure among Quebec credit unions,
trust companies or major insurance companies in over ten years.
Of course, there have been problems in Canada. There have been
problems in Western Canada and the government had to intervene.
It think its probably did what was best for the people of Canada and
Quebec at the time, but, just the same, the federal government
cannot justify invading one of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction by
saying that, over the past ten or twenty years, Quebec has not been
taking its responsibilities with respect to regulating the securities
industry or financial institutions.
Again, this is seen by members from Quebec as typical of the
kind of insensitivity Canada has displayed toward what could be
called Quebec's unique view of federalism.
When I spoke in this House yesterday on Bill C-96, establishing
the Department of Human Resources Development, I put forward
the same arguments. It is all fine and well for the Minister of
Human Resources Development to ensure that the moneys spent
for communities and individuals in Canada are spent as efficiently
as possible. But this is one more intrusion-let us say it as it is, a
federal intrusion-in areas of provincial jurisdiction: occupational
training, manpower, and so on.
Today, the Bloc Quebecois would like to once more condemn the
federal government's approach in regulating financial institutions.
Rest assured that, in committee, our members will do their utmost
to ensure that these clauses, which obviously are not in keeping
with a harmonious federal system, are deleted from the bill.
(1250)
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the hon. member for Jonquière,
who in my estimation made a good analysis which, along with the
one made this morning by another Bloc member, clearly illustrates
the problems with Bill C-100. There are several problems which
affect Quebec but, more importantly, this bill is yet another
example of federal interference in an area of exclusive provincial
jurisdiction.
The hon. member pointed out that, almost every time a bill is
introduced in the House, Bloc Quebecois members rise to condemn
the fact that it infringes on an area of provincial jurisdiction. This is
a rather recent phenomenon here. Indeed, in the last 15 or 20 years,
there have been Quebec MPs in this House who were not Bloc
members but who rarely got up to condemn federal interference in
areas which come under Quebec's jurisdiction.
This is explained by the fact that, whenever Quebecers were
represented here, it was by Conservative or Liberal members who
were in a minority position and who had to toe the party line within
their caucus. Since their caucus was formed by a majority
representing the rest of Canada, they had to defend the interests of
Canada before those of Quebec. This applied even when there was
an obvious consensus in Quebec, that is when federalists and
sovereignists of all political colours were of the same opinion.
The hon. member just mentioned the fact that Daniel Johnson
sent a letter to the minister, in which he described precisely our
position. Therefore, there is obvious consensus on Bill C-100,
among federalists and sovereignists alike in Quebec, with respect
to this intentional intrusion on matters of provincial jurisdiction,
and I hope that the government will take this into account.
Another obvious example of consensus in Quebec being ignore
by the government is the fact that manpower training and
everything connected with manpower training should be handed
over to Quebec. Every political party and all of the stakeholders in
Quebec, be it management or labour, obviously agree on this, yet
the federal government is not responding. We in the Bloc
Quebecois have every right to defend these positions.
It is a well known fact that movements such as the Parti
Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois were born as a result of the
realization that we were a political minority. And when we played
the power game, whether within the Conservative Party or the
Liberal Party, we remained a minority and, as such, had to defend
Canada's interests. This the origin of the emergence of the
sovereignist movement in Quebec; we realized that we were caught
in an ongoing process of being reduced to a political minority.
My question to my colleague, who has studied several pieces of
legislation similar to Bill C-100, is: does he not realize that, for
several years now, we have tried to explain to our fellow citizens
what being a political minority means, and that, to a certain extent,
being a political minority leads to becoming an economic minority,
and that, when we deal with Quebecers, we should add this
dimension to our debate?
Mr. Caron: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies for his question.
It is obvious that politics has an impact on the economy. Indeed,
I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Finance had partly justified the
introduction of this bill by the government by putting it in the
context of some sort of globalization.
He spoke of global issues to justify that the bill is written in such
a way as to regulate or influence securities throughout Canada and
to insure that Canada has a single voice among other nations with
16790
regard to securities regulation, in order to avoid negative impacts
from outside the country.
(1255)
If we, in Quebec, are not careful, the arguments of globalization,
of competitiveness, of the need for the economy to adapt to the
global context will be presented every time that the government
wants to make Canada stronger, more visible, more efficient and
more aggressive at the international level, bacause to be strong,
efficient and aggressive, we must speak with one voice.
Faced with this reality, Canada wants to speak with one single
voice. However, Canada forgets that there is a major voice in
Canada, albeit a minority voice, as my colleague has remarked;
there is Quebec's voice, which has represented a nation, a people,
since the beginning of the Canadian Confederation. This voice has
always made itself heard. Today, considering the globalization of
economies and the fact that Quebec feels somewhat threatened by
this globalization from the economic viewpoint, and not only from
the viewpoint of its culture and its language, the economic
argument becomes an important one for nationalists in Quebec.
In the past, we wanted to achieve sovereignty in order to
maintain our language and our culture. That is fine, and that is still
the most important reason, at least as far as I am concerned.
However, in the last ten years or so, we have come to realize that
the economic argument is gaining increasing importance.
Quebecers realize that they too must speak with one single voice if
they want their people, their nation, to continue developing in a
global context.
I agree with the representatives of Canadian federalism that, in
the global context, we must speak out loud and clear, with a single
voice, and that timing is a major consideration. It is also one of the
reasons why sovereignists in Quebec have been saying for many
years that sovereignty should not be achieved only to preserve our
language and our culture, but also to give Quebec the economic
health and vitality it needs to maintain its place in the international
community.
I thank my colleague for his question. It allows me to
demonstrate, although I recognize the merit of our federalist
colleagues' arguments from a Canadian viewpoint, that the
sovereignists' arguments are also of an economic nature. I hope
that some day, in a newly defined partnership with Canada, we will
be able to accommodate both sides so that both Canada and Quebec
can get what they want economically as well as play a leading role
in the world economy.
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in this
debate concerning Bill C-100, once again we see the separatists
grabbing at an opportunity to attack a Canadian bill, not because it
is a poor one, but simply because it is one that would be good for
Canada. In other words, if a bill is good for Canada, they are going
to attack it.
What they have told us today is that Bill C-100 is an
encroachment into provincial jurisdiction, in other words one more
intrusion by the federal government. But that is not true in the least.
What is it? This is not a bill aimed at regulating co-operatives in
Quebec or elsewhere in Canada. It is a bill that will reaffirm the
vital role played by the Bank of Canada in protecting all Canadians
and all Canadian institutions against systemic risks that may
originate anywhere in the world.
(1300)
We have witnessed the collapse of Barings Bank, which could
have caused many problems in our country. What we are proposing
in this bill is to give the Bank of Canada the power to guarantee
transactions between financial institutions, either in Canada or
elsewhere.
This means that if a Canadian banking institution or even a credit
union had received a cheque, say for $100 million drawn on
Barings Bank and had deposited that cheque, but Barings Bank had
gone bankrupt before the cheque cleared, while in the meantime,
counting on the $100 million, the institution had paid some of its
debts, that institution would have sustained a heavy loss.
What we need to do from the time a cheque is received by a
Canadian institution, is to be sure that it can be counted on. But
they do not want this. Why do they not want a system which would
entitle all Canadian institutions to certainty when financial
transactions are concerned?
[English]
The fact that the Bloc members are complaining about an
intrusion in their constitutional domain is typical of what they will
do with every bill we see in this House that is for the good of all
Canadians, including Quebecers. They are going to try to find some
way to knock it down so that they can say that Canada does not
work. Their agenda is not the better working of Canada, it is the
destruction of this very country. Canadians are not going to be
fooled; Quebecers are not going to be fooled.
Let us get down to some of the essences of Bill C-100. Part of the
genesis of it was the failure of Confederation Life which shook all
Canadians. We had not expected it; a great financial institution
went down.
The insurance industry put in place an institution called
CompCorp where it contributes funds to protect the policyholders
when there is a failure of an insurance institution. The government
was concerned that perhaps there was not enough federal regulation
in terms of CompCorp, that maybe some of the interests which we
needed to have on the table, acting for all Canadians, were not
going to be there.
16791
The minister proposed a new type of institution using the
insurance companies but also having a greater federal presence.
The insurance industry came back to us and said it did not like
our federal proposal, but it recognized that there were some
improvements it had to make in the way CompCorp was run. The
industry said it would make the changes in order to respect the
needs of all Canadians.
This was a remarkable process. The minister put out a challenge
and the industry responded on its own. The government is not
involved in yet another program that could cost it funds, but the
industry has assumed this responsibility in a way that will even
strengthen the protection available to policyholders.
I commend the industry for coming up with this solution. It is the
way we have to work. It was the spirit in which all of the measures
in Bill C-100 were addressed.
One of the other issues which came before the committee was
addressed by my colleague from the Reform Party. His party will
not be supporting the bill because it believes we should not have
Canadian deposit insurance which covers every last cent owed to a
depositor up to $60,000. Reformers want a system of co-insurance
so that if someone deposits funds in a financial institution which is
regulated by the federal government, the depositor cannot be
guaranteed 100 cents on the dollar to the first $60,000 he or she
deposited.
(1305)
There is a rationale for what the Reform members say and it does
have some merit. The merit is that if I as an individual am
responsible for part of the risk on that $60,000, I will be more
prudent in selecting the institution in which I deposit my funds. I
will investigate whether it is credit worthy. I will look around with
due diligence before I make that deposit.
In theory that makes a lot of sense but in practice I wonder
whether it would really work for the vast majority of Canadians.
How many of them have the opportunity to investigate on their own
whether a financial institution is really solvent, whether it is really
solid, whether it is going to pay back their deposit within five years
if it is a term deposit for that amount of time?
Can we really look five years down the road if we are making a
term deposit, even if we have access to all of those financial
documents? I am not really sure it is reasonable to expect everyone
who deposits in a bank or a financial institution to do that, and most
people do have deposits. Is it reasonable to expect all Canadians to
undertake this with due diligence? Even if they do undertake it, is it
reasonable to expect that they can look five years down the road
when their deposit is to mature?
I like the idea of Canadians taking a greater role in looking at
their returns and not just going for the highest return. If somebody
is paying more than the going rate, perhaps there is a reason for it.
Perhaps they are desperate for the funds and they will take them at
any price. I suspect that what we have to do as a federal
government is make sure through our federal institutions that the
deposit taking institutions are solvent. Through the Superintendent
of Insurance and other federal agencies we have undertaken that
greater role of making sure those institutions to which we have
given the privilege of taking deposits will hopefully be safe in the
future.
This is why I believe it is important in order to protect the vast
majority of individual Canadians that we continue to maintain the
full level of deposit insurance. This does not mean we cannot look
at this issue in the future and perhaps look at other ways in which
we can achieve the same results.
I want to go back to the process by which we looked at Bill
C-100 and how it evolved. It can serve as an example for other
federal legislation.
The Secretary of State for Financial Institutions put out a white
paper last spring. He gave the industry about three months to
respond to it. The industry studied it and came back with its
considerations. The minister took those considerations into mind
when he introduced the bill which came down last spring.
The finance committee sat in the month of August and heard
testimony on the bill. The committee did not wait for the House to
give it this reference. The bill has not even achieved second reading
yet. It had just been tabled in June but we thought it important to
get feedback from the industry again.
The finance committee held two very intensive days of hearings
here in August. About 15 recommendations for modifications to
the bill were made. The industry was very enthusiastic that we had
accepted what it had proposed for CompCorp which was the major
issue, to try to protect policyholders of our insurance companies in
the future.
(1310 )
The industry came back with some concrete and constructive
suggestions as to how Bill C-100 could be improved. We have
noted those suggestions. The vast majority of the recommendations
made at the hearings were very constructive.
We are now at the stage that even before the bill has been
officially given to the committee by the House, we are looking at
the recommendations made by industry. We are having discussions
with officials, and we are continuing discussions with members of
the industry. I am sure by the time the bill sees the light of day
again it will have a number of constructive amendments attached to
it. The amendments will not be arrived at through confrontation nor
by saying: ``Here it is; take it or leave it''. It will be through the
constructive, co-operative efforts of those of us here in Ottawa, of
16792
the officials who are knowledgeable and of those from the industry
who are concerned with achieving a proper legislative result.
I commend the minister for this approach. I commend the
industry for the very constructive role it has taken. There is only
one sour note we have seen in this whole bill.
[Translation]
It was when the committee sat during the month of August. The
separatists tried to attack the bill on the grounds that it was a
federal intrusion in a provincial jurisdiction. That was not the case
at all. It would have been ultra vires for the federal government to
do so.
What we did was give the Bank of Canada the power to provide
better protection for all Canadian institutions, including the caisses
in Quebec and all the co-ops and banks, against major risks, the
systemic risks in the financial system as a whole.
The separatists themselves asked to keep the Canadian dollar. So
would they prefer to ignore a better way to protect financial
institutions and the dollar? Even if Quebec were an independent
country, it would be necessary to protect the large value transfer
system and prevent systemic risks.
However, they do not want it now and never will. We all know
that the Bloc strategy, the separatist strategy is to attack us every
time we do something good for all Canadians.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I note our hon. colleague has just said, and, very much
to the point, I think, that the aim of the bill was never to invade
Quebec's jurisdiction, and I believe him. I do not think the
ministers opposite and our Liberal colleagues spend their time
trying to think of ways to create bills to invade Quebec's
jurisdictions.
That is absolutely true. I think their aim is probably to come up
with good bills that will apply to all Canadians, in Canada's best
interest. I am not questioning this, but the effect of the bill is to
invade Quebec's jurisdictions-there is no way round it. Even
Daniel Johnson, a Quebec federalist, agrees.
All this, because, on the whole, Canada is pursuing an orderly
and intelligent course of development, which obliges it to
centralize its powers. Mr. Trudeau recently stated that Canada
cannot be decentralized any more than it is, because it is the most
decentralized confederation.
(1315)
Clearly, in order to become a strong country, Canada must
centralize its powers in Ottawa, and this is in fact what the
government is doing.
The effect of this centralization of powers in Ottawa is to rob
Quebec of its powers. This is Canada's big problem. We have two
sets of jurisdiction pursuing different interests for the most part.
This has not been so obvious until now, because the Quebecers we
sent to the House were lost in parties like the Conservative or the
Liberal Party, where they were in the minority and where they were
entitled to speak in the House only to toe the party line.
Now there is the Bloc Quebecois, which truly represents the
interests of Quebecers and is truly in keeping with Quebec's
history. This position is being defended not only by the
sovereignists, but has been defended by events in Quebec since
1950 and earlier. The position has been defended by Quebec's
premiers, whatever their political stripe-federalist or
sovereignist.
There was Maurice Duplessis, who said, on Quebecers' behalf,
``Rendez-moi mon butin à Ottawa'', calling for the return of the
province's powers, and he got them too. There was Jean Lesage,
who started the Quiet Revolution, and talked of ``Maîtres chez
nous''. What did he mean? He realized we did lack some of the
tools we needed for our development. Then there was Daniel
Johnson, Sr., who said ``Égalité ou indépendance'', and yet he was
not a sovereignist. Toward the end of his term of office, he realized
that it was absolutely necessary for Quebec to retain its powers
and-if possible-obtain new ones for its economic and political
survival. In this ever-changing political environment, René
Lévesque managed to launch the sovereignist movement. This
movement is still influential; it has led to the presence in this
House members of the Bloc Quebecois, which is representative of
Quebec.
Of course, there are representatives of Quebec within the Liberal
Party. But these are isolated cases. Quebec is represented by the
Bloc quebecois. I know that Canada needs to centralize its powers.
I would like to ask my colleague a simple question. Does not he
think that it is time-I know that the Prime Minister has said or at
least implied, maybe not to us, but to Quebecers, that he might
decentralize Canada or some minor services, when we know
perfectly well-
Mr. Bryden: No, no.
Mr. Pomerleau: Yes, as a matter of fact. Well, there will be no
decentralization, but the fact remains that the Prime Minister
indicated to Quebecers there would be some decentralization.
Does my colleague not agree basically, if we consider the
situation in a simple and rational manner instead of an emotional
manner, that Canada needs to have all his powers in Ottawa, that
Quebec feels that its powers should be centralized in Quebec City,
and that any attempt to transfer powers from Ottawa to Quebec is
bound to fail?
Mr. Peterson: Never, Mr. Speaker, will we give the provinces
power over our monetary system.
The Bank of Canada's powers are based on its responsibilities
for guaranteeing large value transfers, to create a safer, more
responsible system for all Canadians, including Quebecers. Why
16793
decentralize? Destroy what? Our monetary system, the Bank of
Canada system? That would be stupid, and the hon. memberknows it.
Why, during the referendum campaign, did they ask for the right
to use the Canadian dollar? Were they afraid of using another
monetary system? Of course they were. Why did they spend so
much money to support the Canadian dollar when the markets were
almost predicting Quebec's separation? They were afraid. That is
why the Bank of Canada must be able to control and guarantee
transfers as provided for in Bill C-100.
(1320)
I will not get into a debate on the other powers that could be
devolved to the provinces. There is certainly a great deal of overlap
and duplication in powers. Our Prime Minister said that it would be
better to work together with all the provinces to better serve
Canadians in reducing spending, red tape and duplication.
As far as manpower is concerned, almost a year ago, the minister
wrote the Quebec government in an attempt to negotiate something
in the sector mentioned by the hon. member. He never received an
answer. This shows the hypocrisy of the Bloc in this House. They
want to get powers, money and independence without contributing
to the debate affecting all Canadians. They will continue to do so,
but we will not be fooled. Even without the Bloc's co-operation, we
will continue to build with all the other members of this House a
more effective, more profitable, more generous, more prosperous
country. And we will do so in spite of the separatists.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I applaud
the comments of the member for Willowdale. I agree completely
with everything that he said. The opening comments of my speech
on this issue were reflective of that.
Getting to the issue at hand, co-insurance is very important. It is
important because there has to be accountability in the marketplace
and a responsibility if we are going to have monetary controls, if
we are going to be able to give people any sense of comfort.
We must end in a way with the small depositor in particular,
having some form of protection. As I pointed out in my speech, the
difficulty of having 100 per cent protection and not having
co-insurance is that the government then has to step into the
monetary market to an extent that the small investor is absolved of
responsibility for his or her investment decisions.
That is bad because money is not moral, money is not national.
Money is neither of those things. Money is a way of exchanging
value within the entire world community. To isolate depositors to
federally controlled institutions from the reality of that is to
introduce into Canada a system of insulating us from the reality of
trading money.
I point out that there is an almost universal consensus for
co-insurance. In spite of diverse interests, the banks, the insurance
industry, both the present and the past superintendents, the
chairman of the CDIC, the Canadian Institute of Actuaries,
academics, including most recently the Public Interest Advocacy
Centre which studied the issue from the consumer's point of view
and the Senate banking commission, have supported co-insurance.
In light of this virtual universal acceptance of the idea of
co-insurance, would the member who is the chairman of the
Standing Committee on Finance support an amendment put
forward at report stage by the Reform Party to seek co-insurance,
instead of what is currently proposed in this bill?
(1325 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Much to the regret of the
House, the hon. member will not be able to respond because the
time for questions and comments has lapsed. As much as the
member for Willowdale might like to reply, time has run out.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the
opportunity to add my voice to those of my hon. colleagues in the
government in support of Bill C-100.
The government has taken the position that the state and its
officials should not try to do what others can do better. This is
particularly true when it comes to the world of business and when it
comes to making sure that we do not stand in the way of private
sector dynamism. Furthermore, never in Canada's history has it
been so important to control the cost of government. Our fiscal
situation demands it and so do Canadians, who are suffering from
tax fatigue.
I raise these points because they represent important
underpinnings for some of the measures before us: specifically, the
actions that Bill C-100 will implement regarding corporate
governance.
Underlying the changes to the governance framework is a very
basic assumption. The simple fact is, no system can forestall any
financial institution failure unless it is given the authority and
resources to oversee all management decisions and unless
institutions are severely restricted in the loans and investments
they can make. However the price of such a failure safe system,
even if it did work which I doubt, would be to strip that industry
from contributing to the dynamism, growth and evolution of our
economy.
This is where the issue of cost also raises its head. To try and
implement greater micro-management of the financial sector will
16794
require a veritable army of additional auditors and regulators. This
is the approach used in the United States. However, at a time when
governments must downsize, I do not see this as an option anyone
here wishes to embrace.
The alternative is to take a governance oriented regulatory
approach by putting greater onus for the well-being of financial
institutions on the management and the board of directors of
financial institutions. This is an approach employed by the United
Kingdom regulators.
Whether either approach could be characterized as a more
efficient system of governance is difficult. Each system functions
at opposite ends of the spectrum and it would be difficult to
advocate that one approach was somehow foolproof in preventing
failure, or better than the other, given the global environment in
which institutions must operate.
As the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions
has argued so well, and I concur, our supervisory and regulatory
systems cannot be positioned as a mechanism or regime dedicated
to preventing an institutional failure. If we tried to do that, we
would limit the potential well-being of the financial sector and its
ability to serve the economy and Canadians. Rather, any specific
supervisory approach should be built around the fiscal, business
and economic environments. It is important that the regulatory
tools be responsive to changes in these environments.
The changes in Bill C-100 to the governance for financial
institutions strike a balance. They are not intrusive. Rather they
clearly recognize that the role of the Office of the Superintendent
of Financial Institutions is not, and cannot be, to micro-manage
financial institutions. They give OSFI due authority but not
excessive authority to intervene in the governance of financial
institutions but only when circumstances warrant.
I should also highlight that the changes in Bill C-100 build on
and enhance changes introduced in the wide ranging reform of
financial statutes of 1992. It was during the 1992 reforms when the
statutes were revised to require that no more than two-thirds of the
directors could be affiliated with a financial institution. In other
words, at least one-third of the directors would have no relationship
with the company and as a result, would not in any way be
beholden to management.
The 1992 reforms also implemented the requirement that
important board committees, such as the audit committee, be
comprised of a majority of unaffiliated directors. These were valid
and valuable changes, but they left some unfinished business that
Bill C-100 will complete. They enhance the balance which would
place onus on management and directors for their own governance
and yet allow the regulator to intervene where circumstances
warrant.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I regret to interrupt the hon.
member, but it being 1.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
16794
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Parliament should adopt specific
measures to enable and ensure access by members of Parliament to all judicial,
quasi-judicial and administrative hearings held under the provisions of the
Immigration Act, the Young Offenders Act and the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion exhorts the government to put
in place measures that would allow members of Parliament access
to what are now closed door procedures under three separate
federal statutes. The exhortation is for access, not a procedure for
making submissions or representations. It is merely for access,
presence or entry into procedures which deal with the rights and
liberties of Canadians behind closed doors.
I have three short anecdotes gained from my several years of
experience as a member of Parliament where, as have all of us in
the House, I confronted barriers to access for members of
Parliament when fulfilling our duties.
The first anecdote has to do with an Immigration Act refugee
hearing about five years ago. Someone came to me to ask for my
assistance in gaining a visitor visa for a brother. I did what I could.
In the end after two or three interventions and a lot of work a visa
was issued. The brother came and in complete disregard of all that
had happened and the good faith of the family, he made an
application for refugee status. I knew the man was a liar. I also
knew he had put forth false information. I knew that the applicant
would be presenting that false information at a refugee hearing.
Therefore I followed it very closely, particularly because what
had happened was an abuse of my office and collectively involved
the offices of all members of Parliament. I owed a duty to my
constituents and to Canadians to make sure that my MPs office was
not abused.
I went to the hearing where to my surprise I found that it was a
closed door hearing and I could not be admitted. As things turned
out, the hearing was adjourned. I made an application for access
and it was granted. I was allowed to be present at the hearing but in
16795
the end I did not have to present evidence. The application was
denied and the man was deported. Under a federal statute a hearing
can take place and under a law enacted by the House MPs do not
have access. That case worked out reasonably well but it caused me
concern.
(1335)
There were two subsequent cases, one involving the prosecution
of a young offender charged with murder under the Criminal Code.
In that case I did not need to have access at the time, but I did take
note of the provisions of the Young Offenders Act that can exclude
individuals or groups from young offender hearings. A little light
went on and I thought it was not healthy to have a statute enacted
by the House excluding members of Parliament not specifically but
generically. That was another case.
A third case involved parole hearings. Under current legislation
there is no provision for access by any of the public to those
hearings. In one particular Parole Act statute, and I do not know
when it was repealed, MPs and senators were given access to parole
hearings. Under the current Corrections and Conditional Release
Act there is the absence of any provision to provide access to MPs
or to allow the public access to those hearings.
I was at the Warkworth Institution about four years ago and had
the benefit of attending a hearing, thanks to the decision of an
inmate and his solicitor. It was useful to walk through the process
at the time. There is hardly a member of Parliament in this place
who will not be called upon at some point in his or her career to
address issues involving hearings under the three statutes. My
motion raises the issue for consideration by the House.
We are accountable to our constituents for the effectiveness and
fairness of every procedure under all federal statutes. We are
responsible to ensure the collective rights and liberties of our
constituents are protected and are not abused by the procedures. We
enact the laws and we are accountable to our constituents for them.
We are legislators but as history has evolved members of
Parliament are also ombudsmen. That second role means that we
must have as much access and freedom as an ombudsman in any
provincial government, in any municipal government or at the
federal government level. At the moment in the three federal
statutes there are barriers to that access.
To the extent that MPs are unable to access the procedures, we
run the risk of impairing our role as ombudsmen. The purpose of
the motion is to get us all thinking a bit about our roles in particular
under the three statutes. We must consider what we do when we
enact statutes in the House and roll back to some degree the present
barriers.
For the sake of the record I will cite the sections of the three
statutes. In the Young Offenders Act it is subsection 39(1) and
subsection 39(3). In the Corrections and Conditional Release Act it
is subsection 140(5). In the Immigration Act it is subsection 69(2).
I wish to make a few comments about how the role of members
of Parliament has evolved over the years. I have mentioned the
legislator role and the ombudsman role. Parliament has evolved
over the years, but in terms of the newer role of ombudsman it has
not evolved sufficiently. Our ombudsman role is carried out in part
based on the privileges of members of Parliament which are fairly
well articulated, constrained and referred to directly and indirectly
in the Constitution, in the Parliament of Canada Act and in the
common law handed down to us when Parliament was created 128
years ago.
(1340)
I do not have to go over them but I will point out that in every
session of Parliament it is important for MPs to resubmit our
request to the Sovereign for confirmation of our privileges in the
House of Commons. The words read somewhat archaically but in a
real way:
We humbly claim all of our undoubted rights and privileges especially that
they may have the freedom of speech in their debates, access to Your
Excellency's person at all seasonable times, and that their proceedings may
receive from Your Excellency the most favourable construction.
As obscure as some of those words are, they are the request for
the body of privileges and rights we collectively have in the House
of Commons. We need them for the most important modern roles
we have as members of Parliament, legislators and ombudsmen.
I was somewhat shocked about two months ago to read a legal
opinion submitted to a committee by a body created by the House
for the purpose of assuring Parliament and Canadians of the rights
and liberties of Canadians in a particular field. The opinion was
essentially that the body appointed by a statute enacted in
Parliament did not have the obligation to answer questions put to it
by members of Parliament at committee. It is a very serious issue
for members of Parliament and has been for hundreds of years.
The legal opinion appeared to me to be completely ignorant of
parliamentary law, which as I stated earlier is part of the
Constitution. It verged on being contemptuous of parliamentary
law. I simply put that on the shelf and say that hopefully there will
be more on the issues of privilege and disclosure to
parliamentarians in the new year.
There are two ways to address our role as ombudsmen. First, we
could expand our privileges. Some of us believe that is not a great
way to go, that there are more effective ways of addressing the
problems. However we need to ensure our rights and privileges are
vital, responsive and evergreen in what we need to do in our job as
members of Parliament. Second, we can be vigilant when enacting
16796
legislation to ensure that our role as MPs is not impaired in
connection with procedures under the statutes. The motion before
us today is attempting to roll back barriers that we have placed in
the statutes.
(1345)
Canadians want to know that their MPs are equipped, fully aware
and conversant to deal with all of the procedures under federal
statutes. We enacted them, so we had better know what is going on
under those procedures. In order to know fully what is going on on
behalf of our constituents, I say that access is fundamental.
When I say access I am not saying that we have to change the
procedures to allow MPs to make representations, submissions,
arguments, and get involved in the process; I am simply saying
access. We should not close the door to ourselves in fulfilling our
work as MPs.
I ask my colleagues, the officials of government, and the
ministers to take note of this important issue.
I will not close without putting on the record what should be to
all of us in this place self-evident. In our system of government the
ministers sit in the House. They have burdensome responsibilities.
I am sure they live 26-hour days. However, in doing their work they
would be more likely to be ministers of government and less likely
to be parliamentarians working for Parliament. Their job as
ministers is to work for the government. They sit in Parliament. I
suppose that most of them are good parliamentarians, but in terms
of addressing the parliamentary agenda, very few of them would
take the initiative to address matters directly on behalf of
Parliament. That is somebody else's job. Whose job is it? It is not
the ministers', it is the parliamentarians' job. It is the job of every
member of Parliament and every senator who sits in Parliament.
In dealing with this issue we must not look to government. We
must not look to ministers. We must look to ourselves. Hopefully
the ministers will acquiesce in the constructive, positive things we
do for Parliament.
Everything we do for Parliament will be handed down to our
children and their children. We must not let this place atrophy. We
must ensure that Parliament and its procedures are responsive to
and vital for Canadians. It is our job to do that.
I leave this motion with the exhortation that it is our job to do
this. Hopefully there will be support for this type of initiative, not
just in this motion but as we pass legislation in the future.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
speak today to Motion M-39, moved on January 18, 1994, by the
hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River, which reads as
follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Parliament should adopt specific
measures to enable and ensure access by Members of Parliament to all judicial,
quasi-judicial and administrative hearings held under the provisions of the
Immigration Act, the Young Offenders Act, and the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act.
This motion refers to three acts. As a general rule, court hearings
are public. In camera hearings are the exception. It is not very hard
to understand that confidentiality may be required when the life,
freedom or security of a person could be put at risk by public
hearings.
In immigration matters, the court that rules on refugee status
claims is the Immigration and Refugee Board, the IRB.
(1350)
The IRB is made up of three divisions: the Refugee Division,
where proceedings are normally held in camera; the Appeal
Division, where normally proceedings are public; the Adjudication
Division, where normally proceedings are public also.
Section 69(2) of the Immigration Act provides that: ``Subject to
subsections (3) and (3.1), proceedings before the Refugee Division
shall be held in the presence of the person who is the subject of the
proceedings, wherever practicable, and be conducted in camera or,
if an application therefor is made, in public''. This is the provision
the member's motion deals with.
Subsection (3.1) adds that: ``Where the Refugee Division
considers it appropriate to do so, it may take such measures and
make such order as it considers necessary to ensure the
confidentiality of any hearing held in respect of any application
referred to in subsection (3)''. The legislator has therefore
established the confidential nature of hearings before IRB
commissioners, since the refugee claimant may have to give details
about his life and the dangers he had to face. Sometimes, as is the
case with rape victims, they have to describe intimate situations
and circumstances that the public does not have the right to know.
On the other hand, confidentiality is not needed in appeal cases
dealing mostly not with facts but points of law. Thus, sections
80(1) provides that ``Subject to subsections (2) and (3), an appeal
to the Appeal Division shall be conducted in public''. This is the
general principle.
The exception is covered by subsection 80(2). It reads: ``Where
the Appeal division is satisfied that there is a serious possibility
that the life, liberty or security of any person would be endangered
by reason of the appeal being conducted in public, the Appeal
Division may, on application therefor, take such measures and
make such order as it considers necessary to ensure the
confidentiality of the appeal''.
As for the Young Offenders Act, it states, under subsection 39(1)
that: ``Subject to subsection (2), where a court of justice before
whom proceedings are carried out under this Act is of the opinion
16797
(a) that any evidence or information presented to the court or
justice would be seriously injurious or seriously prejudicial to
(i) the young person who is being dealt with in the proceedings,
(ii) a child or young person who is witness in the proceedings, or
(iii) a child or young person who is aggrieved by or the victim of
the offence charged in the proceedings, or (b) that it would be in the
interest of the public morals, the maintenance of order or the proper
administration of justice to exclude any or all members of the
public from the courtroom, the court or justice may exclude any
person from all part of the proceedings if the court or justice deems
that person's presence to be unnecessary to the conduct of the
proceedings''.
This provision is very clear as it relates to young offenders. This
piece of legislation is based on the principle of rehabilitating young
offenders. While the need for punishment is recognized, the focus
is on rehabilitation into the community to preserve the public
peace. That is why it strongly protects the young offenders'
identity, disclosure of which to the media, as well as the disclosure
of any fact that could give away their identity, being forbidden.
Also, the presence of observers is controlled to ensure fair
treatment to all. There is a strict procedure governing admission to
hearings, and it is difficult to see why these measures ought to be
changed. Once can easily imagine what impact the presence of a
member of Parliament in the courtroom would have on a young
offender. And what use would this information be to the member,
since none of it can be disclosed in any case?
(1355)
The third statute referred to in the motion is the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act. Subsection 141(4) of that act provides
that: ``The commission may, to the extent deemed absolutely
necessary, prevent the communication of information to an
offender, if it has reasonable grounds to believe that such
communication would be against the public interest, would
jeopardize the safety of a person or of the penitentiary, or would
jeopardize the holding of a legal inquiry''.
Looking at the three above-mentioned statutes, I think that
Parliament was right, in the specific cases that were mentioned, to
allow in-camera proceedings and to protect confidentiality of files,
as well as the right to privacy of individuals.
I realize that the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River
seeks to facilitate the job of parliamentarians by, among other
things, ensuring that they can attend any judicial, quasi-judicial or
administrative hearing, if only to verify the administration of
federal statutes.
However, there are other ways of assessing the effectiveness of a
piece of legislation. Let us not forget that separating the legislative
and judicial powers is a basic principle to ensure a sound
democracy. In that sense, the presence of a member of Parliament,
who is a symbol of political power, would not always be a good
thing in the situations targeted by the hon. member's motion.
The Immigration Act best exemplifies the negative impact that
the presence of an MP could have on a refugee claimant, who may
never have appeared before a court in his country of origin, and
who does not really know Canada's rules and policies in that
regard. Such a presence could often be intimidating for the
claimant. This is especially true if the claimant knows that the MP
is not particularly receptive to his claim. This is sometimes the
case, as in the Malik affair, which took place in Toronto, in 1991,
and to which the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River just
referred.
These three statutes all authorize in-camera proceedings or
public hearings. At certain stages of the process, they require that
some restrictions be applied, so as to ensure protection of, among
other things, the right to privacy. Why should members of
Parliament be allowed to violate these rights, and what use would
they make of the information obtained?
This is the real issue. For all these reasons, I oppose Motion
M-39.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in my short period as a member of Parliament this will be
the third private member's bill I have had the pleasure to speak to
and in favour of. The first two were from the member for York
South-Weston and the member for Hamilton-Wentworth.
I am happy to see a motion such as this with the common sense
attached to it the Canadian people have been talking about for
many years, with government not listening. I am dismayed that
common sense motions that reflect the mood of the Canadian
people have not been forthcoming from the government and the
ministers themselves. They primarily come through private
members' motions.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 39
today put forward by the member for Scarborough-Rouge River. I
understand the intent of the motion. It is a terrific motion. It is long
overdue.
The motion seeks to open up judicial and quasi-judicial hearings
to members of Parliament. The member is quite right when he talks
16798
about how an MP's daily role now takes on the form in many cases
of an ombudsman. We are elected to represent our constituents.
The people come to us with many concerns they want us to help
them with.
(1400 )
A number of constituents have asked me what is wrong with the
system. Why is this person in the country when he has such a
terrible criminal record in the country he came from? Does no one
know about these things? What goes on in those hearings?
The case the hon. member was involved with, the Malik case,
was an example. It was not, as I understand it, criminal activity, but
the individual had entered Canada under pretences. I understand he
applied for a visitor's visa and the member went to bat for him on
it, and then when the person arrived as a visitor he promptly
claimed to be a refugee. Without the knowledge of this the refugee
board would have no idea about the deceptive method by which the
person came to Canada.
I disagree with the member for Bourassa when he said that this
person's position could have been prejudiced. Truth never
prejudices anything. Truth is always what we as MPs should be
looking to see prevails in every case.
In his motion the member refers specifically to such hearings
held under the Immigration Act, the Young Offenders Act, and the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act. As members know, in
our lifetimes we have been absolutely frustrated and bewildered at
times by some of the decisions that have come out of these three
institutions.
We ask how the parole hearings can possibly release this person
into society. We may never know why some of these things happen.
We would never know unless somehow we as MPs, as the
ombudsmen for our constituents, had some form of access. I am
sure the member is not talking about intervener status or advocacy
status. I believe that in the bill he is simply talking about automatic
observer access to hearings, so that when he as a member of
Parliament, a representative of the Canadian people, sees that
something is going on that is simply not right, he will be better able
to speak about it in the House of Commons and maybe in some
legislation to try to correct the wrong that is being done or the
interpretation of the rules that is not conducive to what the
Canadian people feel.
Certainly the three institutions the member lists are the very
three I have had the most trouble with in my lifetime with regard to
their decisions. I support the member's bill with regard to these
three institutions.
I am aware that particular members of my own party, the Reform
Party, have been involved in the process and have experienced first
hand some of the barriers that face MPs when they attempt to
attend some of these quasi-judicial hearings. I am referring to the
members for Fraser Valley West and Calgary Northeast.
The member opposite thinks this is a joking matter. But the fact
is in these two instances a refugee had committed some serious
crimes in Canada and the immigration people were trying to get
this person out of the country. The person went before a hearing
and the member for Fraser Valley West was in fact prevented from
attending it. The member had personal firsthand knowledge of
some of the things that may not have been brought out there. He
was not allowed to present them. I understand that; that is proper.
But the members of this quasi-judicial committee were not
regarding this case in the fullest sense of the circumstances.
(1405)
This was of great concern to the member for Fraser Valley West,
because he had the protection of society as his first thought in
mind. There was the very real possibility that if this individual had
been granted refugee status he would have been a threat to the
public safety of the citizens of British Columbia. He had a lengthy
criminal record, including a charge of rape. However, as these MPs
found out, the safety and the rights of victims are secondary to the
rights of a criminal before a quasi-judicial body.
I know that the member for Scarborough-Rouge River has had
personal incidents where he has run up against the same type of
situation, where he was barred from attending a hearing. Motion
M-39 would seek to change this situation by permitting automatic
observer access to these hearings. Based on the member's own
experience, I can fully understand the intent of the motion.
There are a couple of things we have to be very clear and very
careful about. I am sure the member in his motion does not imply
this in any way, but we have to be careful that MPs are not
permitted to interfere in any way with the operations and decisions
of these hearings as a participant. Nor should an MP be permitted
to put pressure on the people who are conducting the hearings.
I suppose the motion-and perhaps the member for Bourassa has
taken this opinion-could be interpreted in such a way that an MP
would have some sort of official status or presence in the hearing. I
do not think that is the intent of the motion. The wording should be
examined very carefully: specific measures should be adopted to
enable and ensure access for MPs. The word that needs to be
clarified is ``access''. This could be taken to mean a whole range of
things. I agree with the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge
River that his meaning of this is very specific and narrow.
However, it could be interpreted, as it was by the member for
Bourassa, as being perhaps prejudicial to any of these hearings.
Time goes quickly when speaking on a bill of such importance,
and so I will close. Although this bill will certainly enable the MPs
to do their job as ombudspersons for the people they represent and
it will go a long way to helping us, I really believe that ultimately
this government will have to take a look at the legislation that
covers these institutions and make major reforms to them so that
16799
the Canadian people once again can have some confidence in these
quasi-judicial bodies that are supposed to protect our society.
My party and I will support the member's motion. We wish him
success in this motion, wherever it may travel from here.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
proud to live in a country that is seen around the world as being
kind, compassionate and welcoming as a nation. Over the past few
decades we have opened our hearts to tens of thousands of
refugees. We have been a safe haven in a world of hunger, death
and tribulation.
(1410 )
A key element of our refugee determination system is the
Immigration and Refugee Board. The board was established in
1989 to allow refugee claimants the right to an oral hearing. These
hearings are usually not open to the public. There are a number of
very good reasons for this.
[Translation]
A number of applicants are worried that what they say during
their hearing with a view to obtaining refugee status might reach
the ears of groups involved in persecution in their country of
origin. Even if they are safe here in Canada, they fear that relatives
and friends may be exposed to reprisals for their statements.
[English]
We may have difficulty imagining that possibility from here in
Canada. It is sometimes hard to imagine that there are regimes
where you could be arrested, tortured, or killed for your beliefs or
for the beliefs of your friends and associates. We must remember
this. If we want the truth, and that is what the refugee hearings are
all about, we need to make sure the claimant feels that he or she has
the full opportunity to be heard.
We are also concerned with having a system that is open to the
public. Accountability is a vital and cherished cornerstone of our
governing system. That is why we have struck a balance between
the right of the public to know and the right of the claimant to
protection and security.
It is a principle of Canadian law that judicial and quasi-judicial
decision making take place in an open and transparent
environment. The hearings held by the immigration appeals
division, for example, are held in public. But as I have said,
sometimes there must be limits on that openness and transparency.
That kind of limit is indeed even enshrined in the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms in section 1, which talks about reasonable
limits prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in a
free and democratic society. The balance provided in the
Immigration Act between the rights of the claimant and the rights
of the Canadian public was intended to respect the competing
charter concerns.
There are two ways in which an individual or the news media can
gain access to the hearing: either the claimant can consent to the
presence of the individual, or the hearing panel can, in response to
an application, declare the hearing open to the public. In the latter
case, the burden is on the claimant to establish that the life, liberty,
or security of any person would be endangered by a public hearing.
[Translation]
It would be very worthwhile for members to let their constituents
know what really goes on in these hearings. It would be very
difficult to understand an applicant's objecting to the presence of a
representative of the Canadian Parliament, except in very unusual
circumstances.
[English]
Is an amendment needed to achieve this level of access to the
hearing process? Are lawyers and other counsel advising their
clients to resist access by parliamentarians to the hearings? Are
members of Parliament being left only with the recourse of
litigating the issue of access before the refugee division and the
courts? No, they are not.
Accountability is a hallmark of good government. The Canadian
government has always held the public's right to know to be
sacrosanct. It is a principle we will never abandon. Liberty, justice,
and freedom demand this. Sometimes the need for individual
security demands privacy. An individual's right to safety and
protection is another cornerstone of our society. It means we often
have to strike a delicate balance. I believe our system does this.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Motion No. 39. I
congratulate the member for Scarborough-Rouge River for
having introduced the motion.
He touches on something even deeper than what he remarked on
in his own speech. That is, while we all agree that judicial
processes should be as transparent as possible, this is particularly
important when it comes to order in council appointments.
One of the things he failed to touch on in his speech is what we
are dealing with here are boards and tribunals of a quasi-judicial
nature, which may have officers of the judicial body who are
appointed by government. The motion is very important in this
regard, for if you have a quasi-judicial body that consists of
government appointees and you do not have a mechanism whereby
the deliberations of that body can always be monitored by a
16800
representative of the elected people or by the public in some way
or another, then you have a very dangerous problem.
(1415 )
I looked at the Immigration Act where it describes the conditions
for in camera proceedings. I also noted the remark by the member
for Bourassa who said that only the refugee status hearings were
the ones held in camera. I submit that the refugee status hearings
are precisely those hearings where all the action takes place. This is
where we measure whether or not the quasi-judicial body is doing
its job. This is where we measure whether or not the people
appearing before it should be granted refugee status.
When it comes to the role of the opposition and the role of all
members of Parliament in all this, I would expect that opposition
members and government members would be extremely interested
in how a refugee board or a parole board was performing. This is
exactly what we should be doing. The member for
Scarborough-Rouge River has a very good point that at the very
least if we cannot open these hearings to journalists and the public
at large, a member of Parliament should be able to attend them
freely.
This is no worse a level of entrusting confidentiality than we
would to a minister, a priest or any other person who has a
particular position of confidence and importance in the public eye.
Who could be more important, if I may say, in the public's eye than
someone elected to represent the people?
The question that follows is whether the elected member will
hear something he or she should not hear. The member for
Bourassa was citing examples where there might be descriptions of
personal abuse. I expect members on all sides of the House would
respect the reasonable confidences of the innocent people whose
testimony they may hear.
On the other hand, members hear independently the performance
of the judicial board. For example, it is very important in the
interests of democracy to make sure that order in council
appointments are not gross patronage. We want to know that the
people appointed by the government are people of quality who can
do the job. How can we do that unless a member of Parliament
from either side sits in on the proceedings?
In the final analysis, the MP has an important role in all of this
quite apart from checking the quality of the job done by the
members of the tribunal or that justice has served the person
appearing before the tribunal. The member of Parliament has the
ultimate responsibility because he or she is the law maker. We are
the law makers. We cannot make laws unless we can see clearly for
ourselves in person that the laws are working. If there is any area of
government whatsoever where the law maker, the member of
Parliament, cannot go in and see whether the laws are working,
then we have a very serious problem.
I congratulate the member for Scarborough-Rouge River for
raising this matter because it is a very large and important issue. I
would suggest to the members of the Bloc that they should consider
this very carefully. They are always saying they believe in the
parliamentary system, parliamentary democracy and the need for
transparency, and I believe them. I would suggest they reconsider
this motion and give it their full support.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to stand and support Motion No. M-39 on behalf of
the member for Scarborough-Rouge River. This is the second
private member's motion brought forward by the member to which
I have had the pleasure and privilege of speaking.
The member for Scarborough-Rouge River is once again
bringing to all members of the House a problem that requires very
little effort to rectify. However it may cause members of
Parliament to be left in a difficult position when it comes to giving
proper representation to cases involving the Immigration Act, the
Young Offenders Act, and the Corrections and Conditional Release
Act. Members of Parliament must be allowed to represent the
people who elected them to the full ability they are given under the
law and to ensure that they have access to all information
concerning the aforementioned acts.
(1420)
At the present time an immigration hearing is off limits to
individual members of Parliament. This is a problem particularly if
the member is privy to information which may better represent the
truth than the story being presented.
If a family promotes a visitor to Canada through the assistance
and help of a member of Parliament and assures the member of
Parliament that the person will return to their native land on a
specific date, and if the visitor then applies for refugee status upon
arrival and asks for welfare in the interim, that is a direct abuse of
the system. It may well be that the member of Parliament is the
only person aware of the original application and the promises
which were made at that time. Therefore, why is the act very
specific in section 69(2), which reads that the proceedings before
the refugee division, et cetera are to be conducted in camera?
Members of Parliament are elected both to serve as legislators
and to act as de facto ombudsmen. In cases where the member of
Parliament has an interest and where he or she feels there may be
an injustice, they should be allowed observer status automatically.
That is not to say that any member of Parliament can attend any
closed door meeting going on at any time. The member must be
allowed to attend the meeting in which he or she has an interest and
may be in a position to dispel some of the myths which are present
at a number of these closed door meetings.
16801
In the case of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act of
which I am well aware from my experience on the parole board, the
parole board may decide at its option to exclude anyone it wishes
from the hearing. In other words, it may decide that no witnesses
are allowed: no family, no friends or character witnesses who may
help the person to gain parole or in fact lose parole. That is allowed
under section 140(5) of the act.
Once again a member of Parliament is removed from the role
even as observer status in a hearing which may affect the
community into which the person could be released on a parole
pass, even though the member of Parliament may have important
knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the release of the
offender.
The hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River is not asking
for a huge change in these acts. It is a change which can be
accomplished with the stroke of a pen if the motion is passed. It is a
necessary item of business which requires very few administrative
dollars. It opens up the system and makes it transparent. It will help
all members of Parliament to function in a more complete manner
for the people who have elected them.
I urge the support of all members for Motion No. M-39
sponsored by the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River. Let
us open up the closed door meetings of these agencies and allow
members of Parliament to further serve their electors in an effort of
fairness for all.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Scarborough-Rouge River, under whose name Motion No. M-39
stands, has asked the Chair if there would be unanimous consent to
grant him under right of reply one minute to close the debate. It
must be clearly understood that no one can speak after his
intervention.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as we wrap up debate on this motion I would like to thank
all members for their interventions.
I confirm that the intent of the motion is not to open up closed
door hearings completely and not to disclose confidences of
witnesses and parties to hearings. It is not to embarrass anyone. It
is to facilitate the work which we all do as MPs from time to time.
It is to ensure that in the future our legislation is sensitive to and
cognizant of the need of members of Parliament to have access to
these tribunals, to view them in operation, to see the appointees do
their work and to ensure that there is fairness and efficacy in our
federal system of government.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I thank the hon. member for
his co-operation.
The time provided for consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96, the order
is dropped from the Order Paper.
[Translation]
It being 2.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until next
Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.26 p.m.)