36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 200
CONTENTS
Friday, March 19, 1999
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
| BANK ACT
|
| Bill C-67. Second reading
|
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
1010
1015
1020
1025
1030
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1035
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1040
1045
1050
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
1055
| THE FRANCOPHONIE
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| ANDRÉ FRÉCHETTE
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| ST. JOSEPH
|
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1100
| RIGHTS OF CHILDREN
|
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
| ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| SHERBROOKE
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1105
| ST. JOHN'S HARBOUR
|
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| THE FRANCOPHONIE
|
| Mr. Mark Assad |
| ROYAL CANADIAN AIR CADETS
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| CRIME RATES
|
| Ms. Beth Phinney |
| JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
1110
| BULK WATER EXPORTS
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| SLEDGE HOCKEY
|
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| POVERTY
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1115
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1120
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL FORUMS
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1125
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1130
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| TRANSITIONAL JOBS FUND
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1135
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| TRANSITIONAL JOBS FUND
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1140
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| MOVEMENT OF GRAIN
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| BLACK LAKE BC MINE
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1145
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| MOUNT ROYAL COLLEGE
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| PUBLICATIONS
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1150
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| DISASTER RELIEF
|
| Hon. Sheila Finestone |
| Ms. Beth Phinney |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1155
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| AGRICULTURE CANADA
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1200
| Mr. David Iftody |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
1205
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for Concurrence
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| PETITIONS
|
| Groundfish
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Employment Insurance
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1210
| Water Exports
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Nuclear Weapons
|
| Mr. John Bryden |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| BANK ACT
|
| Bill C-67. Second reading
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
1215
1220
1225
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1230
1235
1240
1245
1250
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1255
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1300
| Mr. André Bachand |
1305
1310
1315
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1320
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1325
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
1330
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Bill C-260. Second reading
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1335
1340
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1345
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1350
1355
1400
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1405
| Mr. Charlie Power |
1410
1415
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1420
1425
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 200
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, March 19, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
BANK ACT
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-67, an act to amend the Bank Act, the Winding-up and
Restructuring Act and other acts relating to financial
institutions and to make consequential amendments to other acts,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-67 at
second reading stage, I hope with the support of this House that
this bill will go to committee.
We are moving forward on second reading today to allow foreign
banks to establish certain types of commercially focused branches
in Canada. Establishing this branching regime will undoubtedly
enhance competition for banking services within the Canadian
market. This will help to provide a wider and better range of
financial services for all Canadians.
The essence of Bill C-67 is that it will remove unnecessary
regulatory barriers by allowing foreign branches to offer
specified services in Canada through branches rather than
requiring them, as at present, to set up a separate subsidiary in
Canada with all of the regulatory implications and capital
implications that that involves.
The major benefit that we will be giving to the foreign banks
coming to Canada is that they will be able to draw on the capital
base of their parent. They will be able to draw on their global
capital in order to back up their Canadian lending operations.
They will be spared as well the expense of having here in Canada
a separate board of directors and the different committees that
are required by our regulators to ensure that they are compliant.
This will give to foreign banks greater flexibility in how they
structure their Canadian operations. We believe this to be a
useful step to help stem what has been over the years a
withdrawal of foreign banks from Canada.
Yes, there has been a reduction in the number of foreign banks
in Canada since we allowed them to come in here in a subsidiary
form in 1980.
[Translation]
The cost-effectiveness of foreign banks operating in Canada is
noticeably lower than that of the Canadian banks. The reason
given most often for this difference is the cost structure
relating to the activities of foreign subsidiaries.
1010
But it must also be acknowledged that our Canadian banks are
truly competitive worldwide, and this may well be the real
reason.
A considerable number of foreign banks have cut back on Canadian
activities, or pulled out of Canada altogether. Between 1990
and 1998, the number of foreign banks with subsidiaries in
Canada dropped from 57 to 45.
[English]
I do not believe that this is something we should ignore. Any
unwarranted damper on the ability of foreign banks to maintain a
presence in Canada runs counter to our efforts as a government to
encourage competition in the market for financial services. We
want and need this competition in order to ensure maximum choice
and value for consumers of financial services in Canada.
We believe that maintaining the status quo would likely rule out
the prospect of more new foreign banks establishing operations in
Canada. Simply put, they have plenty of opportunities throughout
the world to expand their efforts and their operations. Their
investment choices and decisions will be made on the basis of
where they can get the best return on their capital. Removing
some of these impediments will enhance the capacity of these
foreign banks to develop higher returns because of the lighter
regulatory burdens.
I would also point out that not only throughout the G-7 but
throughout the entire banking world, there are only two countries
today, and unfortunately Canada is one of them, that do not
permit this type of foreign bank branching in the host country.
[Translation]
In order to remedy this, in February 1997 the government
announced its intention to allow foreign banks to open branches
in Canada. The following September, it published a consultation
paper on the foreign bank access policy, followed by extensive
consultations with all interested parties, as well as an
examination of the regimes other countries had put in place in
connection with foreign banks.
The regime set out in Bill C-67 is the outcome of these
consultations. The key parameters of the proposed framework are
similar to those of our main trading partners. The proposed
regime will enable foreign banks to set up subsidiaries in
Canada which would focus mainly on commercial banking activities
and lending operations of a more general nature.
[English]
The regime would offer two options to foreign banks wishing to
establish branches in Canada. They could establish either a full
service branch or a lending branch.
Let me begin by explaining that neither type of branch would be
permitted to take retail deposits. That would mean they would be
limited to deposits of $150,000 or more. There is very good
reason for this. If foreign bank branches were allowed to take
retail deposits, then we could not offer them as attractive a
regulatory regime. We would have to impose the full measure of
regulations in order to protect those depositors.
In any event, foreign banks already have the option in Canada to
take retail deposits by setting up a fully regulated subsidiary.
This option remains open to them. Let us recognize right from
the start that most foreign banks will not set up retail
operations. They have indicated that their interest is in
expansion in the commercial wholesale banking market.
1015
Accordingly, these foreign banks would not be permitted to take
retail deposits and since there would be no Canadian retail
depositors' funds at risk they would naturally face this lighter
regime of regulations.
Looking at the two types of branches that we are allowing,
lending branches and full service branches, it is only the full
service branches that will be permitted to take deposits of
greater than $150,000. The lending branches will not be
permitted to take deposits, large or small.
As well, the lending branches would be restricted to borrowing
only from other financial institutions. As the name implies, the
lending branches, the most lightly regulated of these branches,
would be in the business of providing loans to Canadians.
[Translation]
The availability of two options for branches will make the
regulatory framework more flexible. Regulatory requirements may
be adapted to the nature of the activities of foreign banks in
Canada.
Since lending branches will not be able to accept any deposits,
they will be subject to fewer regulatory requirements than the
full service branches.
Foreign banks choosing to operate lending branches will not be
able to operate either a deposit branch or a full service
branch. However, they will be able to operate other types of
financial institutions that do not take deposits, such as
insurance companies or other financial services. Foreign banks
choosing to operate full service branches will also be able to
operate deposit taking branches.
These options should be attractive to foreign banks already
operating in Canada and those perhaps contemplating setting up
here. I have had indications from a number of foreign banks
that, with the new Canadian system, they will consider setting
up business here.
The manoeuvring room associated with these options and the more
flexible regulatory requirements adapted to each category of
activity should reduce the costs to foreign banks of operating
in Canada.
[English]
What does this mean for Canadian consumers of financial
services? Since the foreign bank branches would be prohibited
from taking retail deposits they would not be competing with
fully regulated foreign bank branches or domestic banks in the
retail deposit market.
However, we believe that they can make a positive contribution
to the Canadian market in terms of lending to small and medium
size businesses, corporations and some areas of consumer lending
such as, for example, credit cards.
We believe in addition that the domestic banks stand to gain
from liberalization. More often access to the Canadian market
helps to promote fair and open treatment of our Canadian banks
abroad and from 1980 when we allowed foreign banks to come into
Canada this of course was always the main—
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have to rise on a point
of order to ask my hon. friend a question. He just said that
this new legislation will provide many opportunities in the
retail banking sector, particularly for small business. How can
he say that with a straight face?
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid the hon. member for
Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys knows that is not a point
of order.
Hon. Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, we have seen how foreign
competition such as the Wells Fargo operations directed at small
business have actually sparked some lending in Canada to small
businesses which is not based on balance sheets.
1020
We have seen how foreign operations through electronic banking
here in Canada have encouraged Canadian banks to get into all of
these areas. We have received indications from a number of these
foreign banks that the areas they will concentrate on are
certainly commercial; big companies of course, but also hopefully
the smaller businesses that may not have options under existing
regimes.
Let me talk about the conditions for entry. I emphasize that
the government will maintain control over which banks will be
allowed to enter our market. Let me highlight some of the
standards they will be required to meet.
A foreign bank must obtain the approval of both the Minister of
Finance and the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. As a
condition of establishing a branch in Canada, the foreign bank
must be regulated in its home country in a manner satisfactory to
the superintendent. Furthermore, we will be looking to see
whether it has sufficient size, experience and financial health
to support its branch operations in Canada because, above all
else, we do not want to see banks in Canada going under, even if
they are not taking retail deposits.
More specifically, a foreign bank wishing to branch into Canada
must generally have a proven track record in international
banking, must have demonstrated a favourable financial
performance over the last five years and must be widely held.
These are the guidelines which are in place. In addition,
foreign banks wishing to set up a full service branch must have a
minimum of $5 billion in worldwide assets.
Safety and soundness in the financial sector is our top
priority. Let me explain how these banks would be regulated.
First, they would be required to maintain a minimum deposit with
an approved financial institution in Canada. For full service
branches the deposit would be the greater of 5% of the bank's
liabilities or $10 million. Since lending branches would have no
depositors but would only be permitted to borrow from other
financial institutions, they would be required to maintain a
lower minimum deposit of only $100,000.
The only way to establish a foreign bank in Canada is by
establishing a subsidiary, not a branch, and presently the
minimum deposit is $10 million. The bank's parent is naturally
incorporated in another jurisdiction and its primary supervisor
would be the authorities in its home jurisdiction. However, its
business in Canada would be supervised by the superintendent.
OSFI would be given adequate regulatory powers to carry out this
role, including the ability to order that a branch maintain
specific additional access with an approved Canadian financial
institution if this were deemed necessary to protect depositors
and creditors of the branch.
In the case of insolvency, OSFI could take control of the assets
of the foreign bank which are in Canada. If the proceeds from
any liquidation that might occur were not sufficient, the
depositors and creditors could seek recourse from the liquidator
of the foreign bank in its home jurisdiction. While foreign bank
branches would be exempted from many regulations, I emphasize
that they would be subject to all of the rules that we have in
place for the protection of consumers, such as regulations on
disclosing the cost of borrowing, interest and other charges.
I will touch briefly on four technical changes contained in the
bill. First, if the foreign bank is a member of the World Trade
Organization, then it would no longer have to seek our approval
to establish individual branches in various different locations
in Canada. In other words, we would remove one regulatory
impediment to their further expansion.
Second, there are proposals to eliminate the reciprocity
provisions in the financial institutions statutes to reflect the
most favoured nation principle of the WTO. Under this principle,
parties to the agreement must not discriminate among financial
institutions from different countries and must grant most
favoured nation treatment. This means that Canadian firms can
expect to receive the same treatment in other jurisdictions as
those host countries offer to any other foreign institution
coming to them.
1025
A third amendment will be that OSFI can accept delegated
legislation or regulatory responsibility from the provinces in
Canada. We are trying to harmonize a lot of the regulatory laws
and rules governing financial institutions in Canada and this is
a major thrust in that direction.
There are federal rules and there are provincial rules. This
causes unnecessary red tape. We will continue to try to
eliminate this overlap and duplication, this totally unnecessary
burden, by offering to take over the regulatory functions of
provincial regulators so that we have one regime.
We are working to encourage the provinces, where they do not
want to give up regulatory control by delegating it to the
federal government, to at least harmonize provincial laws among
the 10 provinces and territories and with the federal government
so that at least people can understand that there is only one
regime they need comply with.
Last, an amendment to the law would provide authority to OSFI to
make regulations restricting the disclosure of supervisory
information by financial institutions.
We are attempting to enhance the competition in our financial
services sector. This is in accord with what the MacKay task
force recommended, with what the Senate committee recommended,
with what the House committee recommended and with what the
committee chaired by the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina
recommended. We are proceeding with this and we look forward to
this law being passed.
Let me conclude by saying something about the entire banking
structure in Canada. Our domestic banks are in favour of this
legislation. It will subject them in certain areas of business
to even greater competition from abroad. That is a sign of the
confidence which they have in their own future.
I want to put on record very clearly that I could not be prouder
than to be the secretary of state dealing with Canada's financial
institutions. By all objective criteria, Canada's financial
institutions are among the finest in the world in terms of the
service they offer their customers and in terms of what they have
contributed as an industry to our country.
Our banks, for example, employ directly over 200,000 Canadians.
That does not include the thousands upon thousands of other jobs
which they generate, such as those found in marketing, accounting
and in other areas. They are the most highly taxed industry in
Canada. Forty per cent of the their income comes from abroad.
They have penetrated foreign markets throughout this world.
In spite of the fact that 40% of their income comes from abroad,
fully 85% of the global taxes they pay are paid right here in
their home jurisdiction, Canada. Ninety per cent of their global
jobs are in Canada.
I would defy members of this House, if they wanted to set up a
new industrial strategy for Canada, to find an industry which is
contributing more in terms of exports, taxes and jobs than our
banking sector.
Maybe it is in fashion to criticize our institutions. I am not
saying that they are perfect any more than I am perfect.
However, this does not mean that we will renounce our obligation
to continue to work with all groups in Canada to make sure that
our banks provide not only world class service, but that they are
world class players.
Let us look objectively at what the banks have achieved in
Canada and around the world. Let us give them the credit that is
their due.
1030
I look forward to the comments of members, to the bill going to
committee and to its eventual passage into law.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to be speaking to Bill
C-67 which amends the Bank Act to permit eligible foreign banks
to establish branches in Canada. The bill also amends the
Winding-up and Restructuring Act and a number of acts relating to
financial institutions, and makes consequential amendments to
other acts. In plain English, Bill C-67 would allow foreign
banks to open branches in Canada but under strict regulation.
The bill was required as part of the commitment Canada made to
the World Trade Organization. We are happy to support the
efforts of the government.
I will be splitting my time with the member for Esquimalt—Juan
de Fuca. You will find unanimous consent for me to do so, Mr.
Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its unanimous
consent so that the hon. member may split her time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, we will not be seeing
foreign banks on every street corner as we do our Canadian banks.
The new full service foreign banks are restricted to taking
deposits of $150,000 and up, so that will eliminate the everyday
person who does not have that kind of deposit to make. Basically
that is out of reach for the vast majority of Canadians. They
would cater to those individuals who receive the largesse of the
government.
New lending banks will not be permitted to accept deposits or
borrow except from other financial institutions. It is hoped
that these foreign banks will serve as sources of funds for both
small business and credit card users.
Both the full service and lending branches will be allowed
access to Canada's clearing and settlement system with the
approval of the Bank of Canada. An analysis of the bill would
show that there will be more choice, but for the most part choice
is limited to businesses and wealthy Canadians.
The reality is that few foreign banks have any interest in
coming to Canada to set up expensive brick and mortar branches on
the main streets of our communities. In today's world of
e-commerce banks want to compete electronically. However the
average retailing banking customer will benefit from the trickle
down effect.
More banks will be fighting for business customers which means
that more money will be available for customers. If the banks
lose some of their small and medium size customers they will be
more competitive going after the average private consumer.
Most other countries in the world allow direct foreign banking.
The Liberal government has been promising the same for Canada
since February 1997. It has taken two years to introduce the
legislation. We are pleased to see it is finally here today.
As mentioned the World Trade Organization has been the impetus
for these measures as there is a June 1999 deadline to comply
with the agreement.
Some of the most ardent protectionists believe that we must
protect Canadian banks. They believe that Canadian businesses
cannot compete without protection. This attitude has been one of
the factors in the drop in Canada's productivity over the last 20
years. In today's global economy it is crucial for all sectors
of the Canadian economy to compete internationally. That
includes facing foreign competition at home.
It was less than 20 years ago that foreign banks were allowed to
have any access at all to the Canadian market. However these
banks have had to set up separate Canadian subsidiaries that were
not connected to their parent banks in terms of capital,
governance and accounting.
There has not been a steady growth in foreign banking activity
in Canada.
In 1987 there were 59 foreign banks operating in Canada. Last
year there were only 45. In 1990 foreign banks had a 12% share
of total banking sector assets. Last year that was down to 10%.
This means that Canadians and Canadian businesses have been
deprived of a large pool of capital. How will foreign banks
react to the legislation? Only time will tell.
1035
While the protectionists rail against the entry of foreign
banks, we in British Columbia have been living with the largest
subsidiary of foreign banks for over a dozen years. The Hongkong
Bank of Canada was incorporated in Canada on July 1, 1981. It
rose to prominence in western Canada in 1986 when it acquired the
Bank of British Columbia. With this acquisition the Hongkong
Bank of Canada went from being the 20th largest bank in Canada to
the 9th largest bank.
In 1988 the Hongkong Bank of Canada bought Midland Bank Canada
and in 1990 it acquired the Lloyds Bank Canada. These last two
acquisitions provided the Hongkong Bank with retail branches
across most of the country.
Despite the name, the Hongkong Bank of Canada is a subsidiary of
HSBC Holdings of London, England, the fifth largest bank in the
world. The Hongkong Bank of Canada is the largest bank in Canada
and is headquartered in British Columbia. Both the chief
operating officer and the senior executive vice-president were
educated at the University of British Columbia. Thus many
British Columbians have more attachment to this bank than they do
to the Canadian banks headquartered in Toronto.
The Hongkong Bank of Canada is a good corporate citizen. In
British Columbia some of the events it sponsors include the
Whistler Winterstart Festival, the Okanagan Wine Festival and the
Yuletide Lights of Hope fundraiser for the B.C. Children's
Hospital.
More important, it has generally provided good banking services
to its customers, both individuals and businesses, but what is
most intriguing about the Hongkong Bank of Canada is that it has
gone international with offices in Seattle, Washington and
Portland, Oregon. This is the future of banking, banks that
transcend borders in a global economy.
In summary, the official opposition supports the legislation
even though it took the government more than two years to get it
before the House of Commons. We support it because in the long
term the presence of foreign banks in Canada will benefit all
Canadians. Canadians should never fear foreign competition. We
should have enough confidence to realize that we can compete in
today's global economy.
If we could just get the Liberal government to dump its high
taxation policies, Canadian business could be at the forefront of
the global economy instead of trailing along behind. Bill C-67
is a good step in the right direction, but the government has a
long way to go.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-67. I thank
my colleague for allowing me to share her time.
Bill C-67 was necessary to bring competition into the banking
sector in our country. We have had for quite a few years banking
centralized in the hands of a very few number of large banks
which were subject to decreasing confidence in the eyes of the
public. There is an increasing amount of scepticism as to what
they are doing and whether they are servicing the Canadian public
well.
By introducing these smaller banks or banks from other countries
we are introducing an element of competitiveness that will
actually decrease the monopolies we have had in the country for a
long time. By doing that we will be able to hopefully decrease
the cost to the Canadian public.
At the end of the day this is about trying to improve service
and decrease costs to the Canadian public and to enable our
economy to move in a much more aggressive and competitive
fashion.
1040
Unfortunately the new banks will be forced to receive deposits
of more than $150,000. This is unfortunate because the banks
will not be accessible to the average member of the public. That
should have been changed in the legislation. Any new bank that
comes into the country should be able to compete on a level
playing field with other banks. All Canadians should have access
to those new banks, not just small and medium size businesses and
large corporations which will be able to derive benefits from
them.
In the last 20 years the number of banks in the country has
diminished. In the last 10 years the number has gone down by
10%. We do not think that is correct. Bill C-67 will increase
competitiveness and thereby give companies a greater choice. As
I mentioned the government could have and should have made a
level playing field for the new banks so that the average
Canadian would have access to this increased competition.
We applaud the regulations that there has to be the approval of
the Minister of Finance, that there has to be an established
customer compliance procedure, that all services have to be
disclosed and so forth. However, I wonder whether or not the
checks and balances the government is putting in place are good
enough to ensure the solvency of those banks in their home
countries.
We have seen banks in other parts of the world, particularly in
Southeast Asia, collapsing because of gross mismanagement. We do
not want those types of banks to be allowed into this country. I
have not seen whether or not the appropriate checks and balances
are there to ensure the banks coming into our country are not
some fly by night institutions or institutions that are on shaky
economic and fiscal ground. This is information the government
will have to bring to the House to ensure a clean passage of the
bill.
The hon. parliamentary secretary has made some very cogent
points about the banks in Canada. There are a lot of myths
surrounding banks, both positive and negative. The negative myth
is that the banks are not paying taxes, that they are somehow
taking money from the public and that they are not employing many
people. The fact of the matter is that the banks provide a lot
of taxes for governments. Some 80% of the taxes they pay are
paid in Canada and 90% of the people they hire on a global basis
are here.
However all Canadians have seen service charges go up. They
have seen the banks introduce things such a tied selling. This
is bullying and is an unfair practice. If the banks want the
confidence and the support of the Canadian public, they better do
a far greater job than what they have been doing in terms of
letting the Canadian public know that it is giving good service
for its money.
With the downsizing which is taking place many individuals who
frequent banks have found services to be decreased. They are not
happy with that. If the banks want the increased confidence of
the Canadian public, as the international community has in them,
they better been seen to be acting in the best interest of the
public. Anything less will prevent them from having the things
they want in the future such as bank mergers.
The banks aggressively lobbied the House and the Minister of
Finance for the government to introduce and approve legislation
which would allow them to merge. They did not do a good job of
explaining to us and the public how the public would benefit from
bank mergers. We want them to be internationally competitive, as
the secretary of state mentioned.
1045
However, the banks must explain to the Canadian public how the
average person is to benefit from their expansion into mega
banks. We want them to compete internationally but not at the
expense of the Canadian public.
Bill C-67 is rooted in globalization and free trade. Again
there are a lot of myths around free trade. The last
Conservative Party leadership race showed clearly that putting
forth the argument that free trade is bad for Canada resonates
well among a significant part of our population, but is it the
truth? We have actually benefited from free trade.
However, Canadians could have benefited more if the government
had be able to give our Canadian companies a level playing field
with other companies from around the world. The high taxes we
have, the overregulation and the culture of dependence that
governments instituted and supported within our country are
having a deleterious effect on Canadian companies to compete on a
level playing field with other companies from around the world.
If Canadian companies had that level playing, the benefits to
Canada in terms of employment and a healthier economy would have
far exceeded what we are seeing today. Unfortunately the
government only did half the solution. It opened up
international and domestic markets to free trade but did not do
the other side of the coin which would have enabled companies to
be competitive in that environment. >It opened up these companies
to competition but at the same time tied one hand behind their
back.
We have often heard in the House about the need to lower taxes,
to decrease rules and regulations, to provide financing for
education and to do innovative things to ensure our students will
have the skills to be competitive in the future.
Finally, I would like to talk about the international financial
institutions. The government, along with representatives from
the IMF, should look at ways to deal with short term capital
flows which were so destabilizing to the international economy
last year. This will happen again. We need some kind of check
and balance to make sure short term capital flows across the
world will not have the destabilizing and destructive effect to
not only economies but to people around the world.
There are some innovative things being done now. I challenge
the Minister of Finance and the secretary of state to bring these
ideas to the House now so we can have and support internationally
a comprehensive plan to limit short term capital flows. Forty
per cent of short term capital flows are moved in and out of
countries within two days or less. In 48 hours large term
capital can flow in and out of a country that can have a massive
negative effect not only on the economy but on the people of that
country. These can be long lasting.
Another issue concerns international financial institutions
providing money to countries that are unstable and engaging in
actions that profoundly affect international security. There are
over 45 countries right now that are engaged in bloody, brutal
conflicts where individual civilians are caught in the middle and
pay the price 80% of the time. What fuels those conflicts and
the purchase of those arms? It is cold, hard cash. Most of these
countries rely heavily on international aid and moneys from
international financial institutions.
By providing money through these organizations to countries that
are purchasing arms to commit atrocities on certain groups within
and outside their borders, we are actually providing the fuel
that fires the wars and conflicts.
1050
If we are able to deal with these conflicts, if we can prevent
the situation in central Africa, the situation in Sierra Leone
where people are having their eyes gouged out and their arms
chopped off, the situation in Angola where the diamond producers
and purchasers are fueling a conflict that is costing hundreds of
lives every day, if we are to continue to support the regimes in
the Sudan that are supporting a war that has cost the lives of
hundreds of thousands of people, then we are almost as guilty as
the people who are pulling the trigger in those countries.
If we are to deal with these situations in a pre-emptive way, if
we are to prevent the bloody conflicts that are occurring around
the world, we have to ask our representatives at the
international financial institutions to prevent those moneys from
going into the hands of those people who would purchase arms to
fuel a fire to create international instability and conflict,
death and destruction.
The last point I want to make is with respect to the United
States. The United States I believe will not be paying up its
dues to the United Nations as of May 1999. The money it owes is
essential for the United Nations to function. If the U.S. does
not pay up in May 1999, the U.S. will lose its vote. If the U.S.
loses its vote, one can argue that it is a very unfortunate thing
because it is a powerful country. More important, the billions
of dollars that the U.S. owes to the UN will probably not be
paid. What we will see is a potential significant collapse in
the ability of the United Nations to engage in peacekeeping,
peacemaking and international humanitarian operations in which it
is engaging now that save millions of lives around the world.
I strongly advise the Minister of Foreign Affairs to work with
the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State for
International Financial Institutions to bring up these issues on
the international stage. If we do not do that, all of us will
pay a price not only internationally in increased demands for a
defence budget and an international aid budget but also at home.
When conflicts brew and take place half a world away, they come
home to roost right here at home, because there is an egress of
refugees, some of whom will ultimately come to our shore, and
there will be an increased demand on our own social programs.
It is not to say that we are somehow against individuals coming
to our shores, but certainly people would like to live in their
own homes, in their own countries and in their own culture rather
than come to a world that is alien to them.
The failure to deal with this now will cost all of us millions
if not billions of dollars and potentially the loss of human
lives and probably Canadian lives too.
I implore members and ministers on the other side to deal with
these issues internationally and do it now. We cannot continue to
fail as we have in the past. It is resulting in increasing
international instability and increasing destruction to economies
around the world, which also affects our economy.
In closing, we will support Bill C-67. I will ask again
that the minister look at the international implications of this
bill to make sure that the small banks, the banks that are coming
here, will have checks and balances to make sure that
those banks are solvent back home. They should make sure that
without a shadow of a doubt, banks that are on unstable grounds
do not come into this country and somehow create great
instability within our own economic system.
Last, they should ensure that the banks ultimately will be able
to provide better, cheaper service to the Canadian public,
because at the end of the day the thing that counts the most is
to make sure Canadians will benefit from this bill.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I am told it is the turn of the hon. member for
Sherbrooke to speak. Since statements by members are about to
begin, perhaps the hon. member could wait until after oral
question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
1055
[Translation]
THE FRANCOPHONIE
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Francophonie is a modern language, a culture that evolves, a
sense of belonging and exchanges between the various communities
in Canada that share a common language and culture.
Young people represent the future of the Francophonie and it is
important to recognize their desire to live in French.
The Liberal government is counting on young Canadians to make a
valuable contribution to the debate and to get involved in
projects that will stir people into action, so as to protect and
promote the French language and culture in Canada.
Highlighting the economic benefits related to the French
language for businesses that are part of the Canadian and
international francophone community, finding a niche for French
in the world of technology, encouraging those who will take
over, such are the goals.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the immigration system is broken and the minister of immigration
either cannot or will not fix it.
Honduran drug dealers are posing as refugees to sell crack
cocaine on Vancouver streets. What is the government's response
to the problem? The Liberal government says there is no problem
and when the issue is raised by the official opposition it calls
it nonsense. I guess any issue that involves B.C. is nonsense to
these arrogant Liberals.
Yesterday the Liberals voted against shutting down refugee drug
dealers in Vancouver. The Liberal member for Vancouver Kingsway
voted against stopping bogus refugees from selling drugs to
children in her community. She toed the party line and voted
against her constituents once again.
British Columbians are concerned about the situation. The
attorney general for B.C. is calling for action from Ottawa. The
RCMP, Vancouver police and community leaders are all calling for
action. Unfortunately no one in the Liberal government is
listening and it wonders why it needs a western alienation rescue
team, or should I say WART.
* * *
ANDRÉ FRÉCHETTE
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last week former chief page André Fréchette added
another remarkable achievement to his career. Many colleagues
will recall when we bid a happy retirement to my good friend in
December, 1994 after 42 and a half years of service as a page.
Some 42 months later André bowled the perfect game, hurling 12
straight strikes for a score of 450 at five pin bowling in the
Vanier Francophone Centre. He also achieved a triple of 1,000
points and even won the 50:50. Tonight he will be awarded some
prizes but he says the best prize was making his grandson David
proud of him.
David is celebrating his eighth birthday today and his
grandfather says David is also becoming a good bowler.
André says he misses this place but he has been enjoying his
retirement, including time for another favourite hobby, picking
berries and turning them into jams and jellies.
Happy eighth birthday, David. Please give your grandfather a
hug from his old friends here in the House of Commons and make
sure he uses the number 42 on any lottery tickets he buys.
* * *
ST. JOSEPH
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Wednesday last many Canadians of various cultural backgrounds,
including Mr. Speaker, came together to celebrate St. Patrick's
Day, the feast day of the patron saint of Ireland.
Today, March 19, is the feast of St. Joseph, the patron
saint of Canada. He is also the patron saint of fathers and the
patron saint of workers.
His feast day has special meaning for all those who do work,
both paid and unpaid, for all fathers and indeed for all
Canadians.
St. Joseph has been honoured in Canada since the early days of
our history, most visibly through the work of the Sisters of St.
Joseph. They have built hospitals and nursed the sick for more
than a century. They have taught young boys and girls in
elementary schools but they are most famous for the education of
young women in both high schools and universities.
Several women in this Chamber are products of the education
provided by these dedicated nuns.
On the occasion of his feast I wish the Sisters of St. Joseph
and all Canadians a happy St. Joseph's Day.
* * *
1100
RIGHTS OF CHILDREN
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the European Network of Ombudsmen for Children urges governments
to establish independent institutions to promote and protect the
rights of children. This network welcomes the trend toward
creating special offices to monitor and support the full
implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Children need a special office like a national children's
commissioner to protect their human rights. Children lack a
political voice as they do not have the right to vote. Children
are particularly vulnerable. They are more affected than adults
by the conditions under which they live and by the action or
inaction of government. Canada's children need a national
children's commissioner.
* * *
ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, racism
wounds. It hurts, it stunts lives, it weakens us all.
Sunday, March 21 is the International Day for the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination. The United Nations declared this day in
1966. Canada was one of the first countries to show its support
for this declaration.
I am saddened to stand in this House, the first black MP ever
elected from the province of Nova Scotia, knowing that
discrimination on the basis of race still exists today and that
it has negatively affected so many people in so many ways. We
see it in legislatures, in our law firms and in our schools.
I am heartened however to stand in the House knowing that people
all across my riding, my province and my country are working hard
to end racial discrimination, especially young people like those
working with the Youth Against Racism project in Nova Scotia. I
also commend the organizers of the Harmony Brunch being held at
the East Preston Recreation Centre in Nova Scotia.
The March 21 campaign for the elimination of racial
discrimination aims to make Canadians aware that the scourge of
discrimination exists in our communities. It also serves to
inspire each of us to take action against racial discrimination.
Let us all strive to do our part, not just on special days but
every day of our lives.
* * *
[Translation]
SHERBROOKE
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with pride
that I rise in the House today to point out that Sherbrooke is
the best place in all the G-7 countries to locate a business.
With its highly competitive labour force and the many
competitive advantages it affords businesses in all categories,
Sherbrooke offers great potential as a business site.
In fact, a study of G-7 countries ranks Sherbrooke first among 64
cities in which industrial corporations are likely to locate.
This study, which was released last Thursday in Ottawa by the
internationally acclaimed KMPG, was submitted to the Minister
for International Trade.
This is excellent news for all residents of the riding of
Sherbrooke, including myself. Such recognition can only be a
plus for the economic future of our lovely region.
Once again, I say bravo to the people of Sherbrooke.
* * *
[English]
ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Sunday
will mark the 10th Canadian campaign for the elimination of
racial discrimination.
Although acts of ignorance, intolerance and racism are the sins
of a few, their destructive nature plagues society as a whole.
For this reason we must all play a part and take personal
responsibility to fight the evils of racism.
[Translation]
All members of society, whatever their age and ethnic
background, must be allowed to take their rightful place. This
sends a clear message: Canadians reject discrimination in favour
of respect, equality and diversity.
[English]
As a first generation Canadian, I have lived the enriching
experience that is Canadian pluralism. While some individuals in
this nation are quick to emphasize what divides us, I prefer to
view diversity as Canada's greatest strength.
[Translation]
Only when we are able to live harmoniously in our own country
will we be able to serve as a model internationally.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian Pacific Railway has donated 1,600 kilometres of
abandoned railway right of way to the Trans Canada Trail
Foundation and is basking in the warm glow of its public spirited
gesture. Time for a reality check.
Thanks to the gravel topped grade that runs down the centre of
the land, thousands of tonnes of cinders dumped on it during the
steam age and contamination from a century of leaching of toxic
wood preservatives, the gift is essentially wasteland. For tax
purposes CP valued it at $40 million and received a $13 million
tax break. That break alone is three times the market value of
the land and the company is relieved of its responsibilities to
pay real estate taxes, suppress weeds and so on.
CP tries to justify the high price by referring to urban
segments in Nova Scotia and B.C., but they are minimal. Shame on
Revenue Canada for approving this scam.
* * *
1105
ST. JOHN'S HARBOUR
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
today alone, as was the case yesterday and will be again
tomorrow, more than 120 million litres of raw sewage and
municipal runoff will be dumped directly into the harbour of St.
John's, Newfoundland.
The chemical and bacterial cocktail being thrown daily into St.
John's harbour is really a national disgrace that could be
corrected if government would demonstrate the political will to
tackle this problem.
The waste water treatment system so urgently required by the city
of St. John's could reduce phosphorous and nitrogen loadings by
up to 80%, biochemical oxygen demand materials by up to 90% and
bacterial loadings by greater than 99.9%.
I and my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative caucus
applaud the efforts of the St. John's Harbour Atlantic Coastal
Action Program. We join with the concerned citizens of the
capital city of St. John's, as well as the city of Mount Pearl
and the town of Paradise in urging the government to immediately
draw attention to this environmental disaster.
* * *
[Translation]
THE FRANCOPHONIE
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Francophonie
is alive and well in Canada and throughout the world.
Spanning five continents, it comprises 400 million people in 52
countries. French is the official language in a number of
countries and is spoken in bilingual countries such as Canada
and Cameroon and multilingual countries such as Switzerland and
Mauritius.
Through the years, the Francophonie has grown. It now
encompasses language, culture, cooperation, the economy and
politics.
French culture is diverse and all the richer for it.
I want to thank all those who work hard to promote the
Francophonie on the national and international scene.
* * *
[English]
ROYAL CANADIAN AIR CADETS
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
welcome the 85 member 296th Royal Canadian Air Cadets Cambridge
Squadron who are visiting from my riding.
Formed in 1943 as the Galt Squadron, this select group of youth
originally devoted their time to preparing for the day when they
would serve as aircrew members of the Royal Canadian Air Force.
Fostering leadership, responsibility, discipline, good
citizenship and loyalty to country, today's cadets train weekly
and participate in special training sessions at Canadian forces
bases during the summer.
The Royal Canadian Air Cadets are supported through a
partnership between the Canadian forces and the Air Cadet League
of Canada.
I join all members in welcoming the 296th Squadron to our
nation's capital.
* * *
CRIME RATES
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there has been a reduction of 14.2% in the overall crime rate in
the Hamilton-Wentworth region.
The Regional Hamilton-Wentworth Police Services Board announced
this week that not only have violent crimes gone down, including
murder, but also that property crimes and auto thefts have been
significantly reduced.
Homicides went down 54.5% in 1998 compared to the previous five
year average. Property crimes have decreased by 16.6% as
compared to the previous five year average. There was also an
18% decrease in the number of fatal accidents last year.
I want to congratulate the chief of police, Kenneth Robertson,
and the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police for their continuing
and diligent efforts to make the streets of Hamilton and the
surrounding areas a safer and better place to live.
Indeed, local police forces across the entire country deserve
our congratulations and our support for all the work they do to
keep the crime rates down.
* * *
[Translation]
JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow,
March 20, we will celebrate la Journée internationale de la
Francophonie.
To belong to the Francophonie is to be part of a rich
geopolitical group of 500 million people in 49 countries and
governments with French as a common language.
It is absolutely vital for Quebec to belong to the Francophonie,
since our proximity to the American giant is a reminder that our
culture, although rich and vibrant, is always at risk.
The defence of Quebec culture is the responsibility of the
people of Quebec and not the federal government, which does not
recognize it and tries in every way possible to bring it under
the maple leaf.
I invite every Quebecker and all the francophones of the world
to join in the festivities marking the Journée internationale de
la Francophonie to celebrate their membership in this vast
global community based on the use of the most beautiful language
in the world, French.
* * *
1110
[English]
BULK WATER EXPORTS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
some weeks ago in this House we passed a motion unanimously
calling for an immediate national moratorium on the bulk export
of water. We had an announcement the next day from the
government which did not live up to that motion. Instead, we had
a call for 10 provincial moratoriums.
Yesterday in Montreal we saw the inadequacy of that approach.
Apparently the Quebec government has indicated its intention to
consider proceeding with the bulk export of water. If that
happened, it would prejudice the ability of Canada as a nation to
bring in a ban on bulk water exports because it would set a
precedent under NAFTA.
I would urge the federal government to bring in the moratorium
immediately to respect the motion. I would urge the Quebec
government not to act in a way that prejudices the ability of the
rest of Canada to bring in a ban on the bulk export of water by
doing something precipitous.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, hon.
members will have read in today's Ottawa Citizen the latest
account of the Reform Party's involvement in Canada's WTO trade
dispute with Brazil.
First the member for Red Deer denied that the Reform Party gave
documents to Brazil. The next day the Reform Party admitted that
it had, but Reform claimed that the documents were available to
the public, including on the Internet. What Reformers do not
mention is that they caused civil servants in 13 government
departments and agencies to work countless hours to provide the
Reform Party with that information.
Today we learn that the Reform Party provided its research
document dated October 22, 1996 to Brazil. It was not until one
month later that the Reform Party posted this information on its
web site.
Surely the 60,000 Canadians from coast to coast who are employed
in our aerospace industry deserve better from a political party
that purports to represent Canadians.
* * *
MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-61 effectively reduces outstanding merchant navy concerns
to one. After 55 years, Bill C-61 finally gives merchant navy
veterans recognition as war veterans, prisoner of war benefits
and recognition for ceremonial days, but it ignores the issue of
compensation completely.
The merchant navy was truly comparable to the other three
services yet veterans suffer from government imposed poverty.
They are not seeking great wealth, only the respect and benefits
given their armed forces brethren.
This final issue has existed for over 50 years. Merchant navy
veterans have little time left to enjoy restitution for
inequalities. They want our government to act now, not later.
Our merchant navy veterans' final concerns should not be a new
millennium project.
* * *
SLEDGE HOCKEY
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Kitchener-Waterloo
Sidewinders and wish them good luck when they host the
International Sledge Hockey Tournament in my riding of
Kitchener—Waterloo this weekend at the Waterloo Recreation
Complex.
Sledge hockey is a form of ice hockey played by people who have
physical disabilities. The game is played with players on a sled
that has two skate blades under the seat. Players move around
the rink on these sleds using two short hockey sticks which have
picks on one end for pushing and a blade on the other end for
shooting.
The opening ceremonies taking place tonight will be hosted by
Ron Maclean of Hockey Night in Canada. Teams from across Canada,
the United States, Holland and Norway are expected. A total of
30 teams with 700 players will be taking part in this exciting
tournament.
I wish to congratulate the Kitchener-Waterloo Sidewinders for
hosting this event. I wish them the very best for the
tournament.
* * *
POVERTY
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
opposition parties such as the Reform Party can rant and rave
against every idea that comes along, but unless a party is
prepared to seek out and propose solutions to real problems, it
can never hope to form a government.
It was in the spirit of finding workable solutions for real
Canadians that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada
established our national caucus task force on poverty and
homelessness.
As an associate member of this important task force, I am
pleased to say that today marks the launching of our cross-Canada
consultations in Saint John, New Brunswick. The task force
members will meet with several anti-poverty organizations in New
Brunswick and with individuals who live in poverty.
The growing incidence of poverty is a national disgrace.
Parliamentarians need to take a leadership role in developing
concrete solutions to the problems facing low income and homeless
Canadians. As Joe Clark said, the PC Party of Canada will
provide that leadership. This task force will demonstrate to
Canadians our desire to make Canada a better place to live for
all of its citizens.
I wish the task force good luck.
* * *
1115
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a
recent court decision in Ontario striking down discriminatory
provisions of the elections act concerning smaller parties was a
significant decision.
I recently attended a press conference as a result of this
decision to uphold and support the fundamental principles of
democracy and fairness in Canada. How we conduct elections is
fundamental to our democratic system. The discrimination faced
by smaller parties is shameful. These provisions have been
struck down.
Now it is up to the government to be clear that it will not
appeal this decision and will indeed bring in amendments to the
Canada Elections Act to eliminate punitive and discriminatory
provisions as struck down by the court.
Will the government give an assurance that it will do the right
thing?
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday at 2.15 in the afternoon the Prime Minister told us
that Canada's productivity is still on the rise. But yesterday
at 3 p.m. the industry department released a study called “The
Productivity Gap between Canada and U.S. Firms—as of February 5,
1999”. That is the name of the study.
It showed that as recently as last month Canada's standard of
living was still plunging. According to the report, the gap
between Canada and the U.S. “has been widening”.
Why does the government continue to deny that Canada's standard
of living is lower than in the United States by $7,000 per person
per year?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, apart from the fact that the hon. member is mixing
apples and oranges, let me simply say that what the productivity
gap which the Department of Industry demonstrated is that in fact
over the last 15 years there has been a decline in productivity.
The study began in 1985. What we are dealing with are numbers
throughout that period and a tale from that period. At the same
time, let me be very clear that as a result of the actions of
this government and of Canadians across the country, more
recently the numbers have begun to turn around. That is what the
Prime Minister has said, that is what I have said and it is what
the Minister of Industry has said.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that may be what the finance minister says, but it is not what
our manufacturers and exporters are saying. Yesterday they
released a statement in response to the finance minister saying
“The finance minister is simply off base when he says Canadians
should not worry about falling living standards”. That is from
the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters. It said that the
current situation is not adequate to ensure continued growth in
Canada's place in the international marketplace. It said that
last year Canada had gone from fifth place in the G-7 in terms of
productivity to last place.
Is the finance minister telling us that the Alliance of
Manufacturers and Exporters is wrong when it says that Canada—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I have met with the alliance on numerous
occasions. In fact the productivity numbers differ substantially
from industry to industry. One of the problems that we have, as
an example, is that obviously there are more productivity
improvements in the higher value added area, the newer economy,
than there are in a number of our older industries, those which
produce basic commodities.
That is why it is so important to emulate, for instance, what
has been done in the oil and gas industry where a lot of the
newer technologies are involved and are in fact improving
substantially our productivity.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
let me get this straight. Last month the industry minister gave
a speech in which he said “Canada's productivity is falling. We
are $7,000 per person behind the United States”. Yesterday the
industry department released another report saying that as of
February of this year we are falling behind.
Yesterday the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters said that
we have fallen from fifth to seventh in the G-7 in terms of
productivity and this finance minister still stands and denies
the cold, hard facts.
Why does he not agree that we have a problem and develop a
solution in terms of tax relief and debt reduction to improve
Canada's productivity?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, not only is the hon. member misquoting the Minister of
Industry, the fact is that he is misquoting me as of about one
minute ago.
There is no doubt that we have had a long term decline in our
productivity, going back well into the eighties. There is also
no doubt that it is absolutely crucial that this be reversed and,
if we look at the more recent numbers, we are in the process of
turning that around. That is why we put money into research and
development. That is why we reduced the debt. That is why we
have reduced taxes and put money into education.
1120
There is no doubt that we have to continue to work on improving
productivity because it is the source of wealth. There is also
no doubt that we have a long way to go—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the finance minister likes to talk about quotes, so let me read
for him what the industry minister said. He said “The debt is
simply too large”. He also said that “taxes are 20% higher
than they should be”. One of the ministers is wrong and I want
to know which one it is.
The Liberals are embarrassed by the dropping standard of living
which has been found by these reports. Now we know. It is out
in the open. They have to admit there is a problem before they
can deal with that problem.
Which minister is right about the dropping standard of living?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member continues to make perceptive glances
into the obvious. Of course our debt is too high. That is why
we have been reducing it. We have taken the debt to GDP ratio
from 71% to where in two years it will be 62%.
Yes, we want to reduce taxes. They were too high and that is
why we reduced them in the last budget. That is why we reduced
them in this budget and that is why we will reduce them in the
next budget.
Yes, we have to improve our productivity. There has been a long
term declining trend. We have now arrested it and we have to do
everything we possibly can to make sure we have an upward trend
in the future.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister likes to brag about tax cuts, but
the chief economic adviser for CIBC says that there are no tax
cuts after the bracket creep and after taking a look at the real
effects of what this government has done.
The industry minister said that the debt is simply too high and
that taxes are 20% too high as well. Is that something which
this finance minister is going to address to help improve the
standard of living for Canadians which has dropped so
dramatically under his guidance and leadership?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member has been for the
last four or five years. We have addressed it in every single
budget. We are one of the very few industrial countries that is
actually paying down debt. The income tax cuts which we brought
in, $16.5 billion over the course of the next three years, will
more than compensate for bracket creep, and every economist in
the countries knows that.
What I would really suggest to Reform is that instead of writing
its supplementary, it actually listen to the answer and then pose
the question based on that.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL FORUMS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, not only does
Quebec have trouble gaining the ear of federal politicians, the
Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in
particular, but now the ambassadors are getting involved too.
Jacques Roy, Canadian ambassador to Paris, has apparently stated
that Canada would never give Quebec the status Belgium has given
the Walloons and the Flemings.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the opinion
expressed by Ambassador Roy was personal, or whether it was the
government's position?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after having their bid
for separation rejected twice by Quebeckers, the PQ and the Bloc
Quebecois are now developing a new strategy which requires
outside support. The leader of the PQ refuses to acknowledge
the existence of such a strategy, but the new adviser to the
Bloc Quebecois, Jacques Parizeau, is frank enough to admit it.
In Paris yesterday, Mr. Parizeau stated “Yes, that is exactly
the strategy we need, and what is more, it is very timely”.
Meanwhile, Mr. Bouchard is trying to convince us that this new
strategy has nothing to do with his separatist designs. So
which one is right, the old leader of the Parti Quebecois, or
the new one?
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, someone ought
to have told him, when his reply was being prepared, that asking
the questions is our job. He is supposed to give the answers.
I will repeat my question, and I would very much like an answer
from the government, because this is an important issue.
Can someone in authority tell me whether Jacques Roy was
expressing the position of the Government of Canada, or his
personal opinion? No parliamentary secretary is in a position
to tell me that.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
has always been our intention to help promote the French culture
of our country throughout the world.
Unlike the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois, we are
working to help French language and culture flourish across
Canada.
As well, we are seeking to do the same thing throughout the
world, under the leadership of the federal government, the
national government.
1125
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, even
the very federalist Liberal opposition in Quebec City is
reminding the federal government of the need to accord Quebec
its rightful place in international organizations where language
and culture are concerned.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the federal
government will continue in its isolation as it has since the
start of this matter or will it heed the consensus in Quebec and
listen to basic common sense?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are doing exactly the opposite, namely expanding Quebec culture
and the French language across the country and around the world.
The Bloc and the Parti Quebecois are trying to isolate one
million French Canadians outside Quebec, and they should be
ashamed of this lack in their policy.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can
the Deputy Prime Minister tell us then whether the federal
government intends to honour the consensus in Quebec expressed
by the premier and the Liberal opposition on negotiating an
administrative agreement to establish Quebec's place in
international forums?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are already working to help Quebec have a role in international
forums, but under the aegis of the federal government, the
Government of Canada.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, for almost five years this government has known that the
reuse of disposable medical devices is potentially dangerous.
For almost five years this government has known that reused
disposable devices like catheters and tubes going into stomachs
and intestines can cause the transmission of disease and can even
break down in the patient's body. For five years this government
has known that hospitals want this government to act and they
want national standards.
Why did this government, when it had a choice to act or do
nothing, choose to do nothing and put patients at risk?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the role of the government is to set the
standards, and the federal government has done that.
The provinces and the individual hospitals get involved in the
reuse. The minister has indicated that he is prepared to sit
down with health professionals, the provinces and the hospitals
to discuss this issue. It will very likely be a topic of
discussion at a meeting of ministers in May.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, this is my point. The government has not set standards
for the reuse of disposable medical devices. As a result,
patients are at risk. We know that from a study that goes back
to 1994. We know that the Canadian Health Care Association has
called for national standards. All we are getting is the
minister saying that he is going to study the matter and consider
national standards.
We want to know today if this government is prepared to stand
and say that national standards will be implemented immediately
and that patients will not be put at any unnecessary risk.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I clarified and explained very clearly to
the hon. member that the minister is prepared to sit down, but it
can only take place and be effective if it is done in
consultation with the provinces and with the medical profession.
He is prepared to do that and he will be having that discussion.
* * *
CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation.
Bill C-66 will retroactively legalize its mortgage insurance
underwriting program. Given that CMHC has eliminated appraisals
on applications for high ratio mortgages, will the minister tell
the House what practices are in place to measure the conditions
of Canada's housing and to ensure there is no fraud in the
marketplace? Does the minister think it is fair that the
Canadian home purchaser should pay for this policy change by
higher insurance premiums?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the new program,
called the emili, was implemented by CMHC.
Since 1996 the industry has been involved in this program. There
was a period so that underwriters could be ready for it. As late
as last December I met with the Canadian Institute of Appraisers
to discuss this issue.
1130
The purpose of the program is to speed up the length of time it
takes so that Canadians can have their mortgage insurance as soon
as possible and can enjoy—
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. John's West.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
would like for the minister to explain why the Canadian Mortgage
and Housing Corporation has eliminated appraisals on these
mortgages at the same time as its counterpart in the U.S. is
demanding more up to date and better appraisals.
Could the minister explain why this difference takes place? Why
are property appraisals being swept aside? Does the minister
agree that Canadian consumers could be better protected by
professional appraisals on their properties at the time of
purchase?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said, the
reason is to accelerate matters. As a matter of fact the office
is also open on Sundays so that they can have very speedy, easy
and fast assessments.
Naturally that does not stop individual buyers having personal
appraisers if they feel the general appraisal we do with the
financial institution is not satisfactory or is not enough.
We believe that we have a good system. The results are there.
As I said, last December I met with the Canadian Institute of
Appraisers. We discussed how we could implement this program.
They have been giving good service in the past and we are sure
they will continue to work—
The Speaker: The hon. member for South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley.
* * *
TRANSITIONAL JOBS FUND
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's apologists say that
he was just acting as an ordinary member of parliament when he
helped Yvon Duhaime secure a federal grant, but everybody here
knows that the Prime Minister has more power than all the
backbenchers combined.
Three years ago the current Minister of Transport had to resign
from cabinet when his staff intervened in an immigration case
because he was a cabinet minister and not just an ordinary member
of parliament.
Why did the Minister of Transport have to leave cabinet for
interfering on behalf of a friend, yet the Prime Minister seems
to think he can get away with the same thing?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the program in question is structured so that MPs are
consulted on each and every one of the applications under the
transitional jobs fund.
The Prime Minister, through his representative in his riding,
did exactly the same thing as the member for Prince George—Peace
River, the member for Okanagan—Shuswap, the member for
Nanaimo—Alberni, the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
and I could go on and on and on.
The input in question was exactly as required by the program and
the Prime Minister conducted himself totally appropriately.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government's claim that the Prime
Minister was acting just like any other ordinary MP is ludicrous.
As the Minister of Transport can attest, that argument did not
hold water three years ago and it does not hold water today.
If the government is certain that the Prime Minister did not act
in any improper fashion, will it release every document relating
to this grant, or is it hiding something?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as a matter of fact, what the hon. member is complaining
of is done every day by members of her own party. Why does she
not admit that if she wants something out in the open?
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, based on the data
compiled over a period of 26 years, the cost of the employment
insurance program has always followed the unemployment rate.
The report on employment insurance that was tabled yesterday
confirms this fact by pointing out that half of the reduction in
benefits can be attributed to the changing labour market.
How can the Minister of Finance claim in his budget that the 11%
cost increase for the EI program can be attributed to an
improved economy, thus contradicting 26 years of statistics and
the EI experts?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
clearly, when the economy is doing well, salaries are higher and
many more people qualify for benefits because more people are
working, that is they have not been unemployed for extended
periods of time.
1135
I can assure the hon. member that it is because the economy is
doing well; many more people are working and salaries are
higher.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, everyone knows
that the Minister of Finance is taking $5 billion out of the
employment insurance fund to eliminate his deficit. But he is
also hiding a cushion of at least $1 billion in that same
employment insurance program.
Either that surplus was hidden to allow the Minister of Finance
to boast, come the next budget, or the government refuses to
admit that it has no choice but to improve the EI program.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
we look at the figures, it is very clear that there is indeed a
surplus. When we took office, there was a deficit of $6 billion.
I personally think it is much better to have a surplus.
* * *
[English]
TRANSITIONAL JOBS FUND
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
more I look at the Prime Minister giving a government grant to
his friend Yvon Duhaime, the more I am reminded of the situation
back home in British Columbia.
Glen Clark had a friend too, a contractor who built a deck for
him. The Prime Minister had a friend who took a money losing
hotel off his hands. Glen Clark is being investigated because
his friend received a casino licence. The same thing here: the
Prime Minister is under fire because his office lobbied to have a
grant given to a friend. I hope Glen Clark is not the new
ethical adviser to the Prime Minister.
At the very least will the Prime Minister do what Glen Clark has
done? Will he release all the documentation surrounding this
affair?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the
questioner and all my colleagues in the House that funds from
this program are available in every area of high unemployment.
Shawinigan is one of those areas. It has a set of criteria.
Those criteria were met by the Shawinigan project. One of the
criteria is that all local MPs are consulted.
By his question, the questioner is suggesting that MPs should
not be consulted. If that is the case, he is expressing a total
lack of faith in his colleagues in his party and in all of us. It
is a lack of faith that we on this side do not share.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would say to the hon. parliamentary secretary that MPs with a
shred of integrity would have absented themselves from those
meetings if a friend were involved.
There is another similarity between Glen Clark and the Prime
Minister. They both look like a deer caught in the headlights.
There is a difference, though. At least Glen Clark has called
for an independent inquiry. He is releasing all the documents.
In fact, he is even doing interviews with the media. Imagine
that.
Will the Prime Minister at least live up to Glen Clark's level
of integrity? Will he release all the documentation and will he
start talking about this event so we can get to the bottom of it?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, questions are being asked and informative answers are
being given every day in the House of Commons.
One thing that my hon. friend neglects to put on the record is
that this transitional jobs fund grant created 19 direct jobs. I
guess they are against creating jobs for unemployed people. Also
this project had to be reviewed and approved by the Quebec
provincial government, no friend of the Prime Minister and no
friend of this party.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
not only is the Minister of Finance helping himself to $5
billion from the surplus in the EI fund to pay down the deficit,
but he is apparently planning an additional estimated cushion of
$1 billion to $1.5 billion.
Since the Minister of Finance has let women and youth carry the
load long enough, could he not make this $1 billion plus cushion
available to his colleague, the Minister of Human Resources
Development, so that the system can be improved and made less
discriminatory towards youth and women?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
simple fact that when unemployment goes down the number of claims
and benefits paid out also goes down.
We think this report has some good news in it too. It tells us
that our measures to help people are working. The 450,000 new
jobs that were created last year made it the best year in a
decade.
Of those 143,000 were for youth and 300,000 were for women.
1140
If the member wants to know what we are doing for youth and
women, this is what we are doing: we are helping them by getting
them jobs.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
with such large surpluses in the EI fund and such a damning
report on women and youth, does the Minister of Finance really
believe he is managing EI wisely and not just exploiting people?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: I would ask members to be a bit more judicious in
their choice of words.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member's
question reveals an attitude toward our young people with which
this side disagrees. That attitude suggests that youth should
receive more EI. On the other hand we think young Canadians
should be given the opportunity to go to school and to get a good
job. That is how we are trying to help them.
Most Canadians share these values with us. The 143,000 new jobs
for young Canadians is the best performance in youth employment
in 20 years. Let us give credit where credit is due and let us
allow young people to have an optimistic—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Wetaskiwin.
* * *
MOVEMENT OF GRAIN
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, time
and time again Canadian farmers have been forced to endure the
effects of work stoppages at west coast ports. Last night in
debate in the House the President of the Treasury Board indicated
that he was looking at all options to rectify this situation.
Could he tell us if all options include final offer selection
arbitration, a long term remedy as recommended by Justice Estey,
by the west coast ports inquiry, and by the Reform Party?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are looking at all options and I do not want to limit them.
We have been looking at arbitration but as the member knows
arbitration was suspended by law in 1996. At present we are
looking at how we can indicate to the union that the correct
course for it and for all Canadians is to come back to the table
and stop making excessive demands which it knows cannot be met.
We are asking the union to stop taking Canadians as hostages. We
hope that this will be concluded very soon.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when the Canadian Wheat Board figured it was losing a
few dollars by farmers exporting their own grain, the government
was quick to react and throw a few of them in jail. Because of
the negligence of the government, 120,000 farmers are now losing
millions because of the strike at Vancouver.
Who will be thrown in the clink this time? Could it be the
treasury board minister? Could it be the labour minister, or
could it even be the wheat board minister? Western farmers feel
it should be all three.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
members of the Reform Party have to learn that there are some
laws in the country which give the unions the right to strike.
They have to recognize that the laws are there and that they,
like all Canadians, have to obey them. In this case, if the
right to strike is being abused, we listened to the emergency
debate last night. We learned the position of the Reform Party.
We will take the decision that is favourable to all Canadians
very soon.
* * *
[Translation]
BLACK LAKE BC MINE
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
January 28, the federal government announced that it was making
a lump sum payment of $111 million for employees affected by the
decision to scale back operations at the Phalen mine in Cape
Breton. This plan included an early retirement program,
severance pay, and a training allowance.
Why does the Minister of Human Resources Development not
introduce a similar program for former employees of the BC mine
in Black Lake, who have had to settle for the minister's
rhetoric since the mine was closed?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only answer with respect to the
Cape Breton development issue. In this case a workforce
adjustment package of $111 million will be provided to workers
with fair severance and early retirement packages.
1145
A $68 million economic development package has been made
available to invest in the Cape Breton economy. This is in
addition to some $80 million already planned for investment
through the budgets of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. How severe is the hurt to
our international reputation from this on again, off again public
servant strike against private grain company terminals on the
west coast?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I informed the House yesterday, the
Canadian Wheat Board has already lost at least one sale of $9
million. Other customers are saying that because of their
hesitancy and their confidence in the reliability of supply that
they do not even want to talk. Farmers have taken enough of a
blow to their incomes because of export subsidies in other
countries and international prices.
We ask the workers to come back to the bargaining table, to do
the right thing, bargain in the reality of today and get the
grain moving for the benefit of the whole industry.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Paul Gervais is a twice convicted pedophile. Instead of
being locked up for molesting nine boys this child predator was
awarded a conditional sentence and sent home free. It is not bad
enough that his victims suffered from his abuse but now they must
endure the abuse of a failed justice system.
I met with five of these young men last night. They asked me
some tough questions. On their behalf I ask the justice minister
why she will not change the law so that rather than setting child
molesters like Paul Gervais free, they go directly to jail.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have had occasion to speak on this question often in the House.
Obviously the opposition does not get it. The minister has
written to the justice committee asking the committee to study
this issue.
Some hon. members: Oh. oh.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: They do not care about due process.
The Supreme Court of Canada will be rendering a decision very
soon. If the supreme court and the justice committee recommend
it, the minister will make the changes. She has said so in the
House.
* * *
MOUNT ROYAL COLLEGE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Mount Royal College in Calgary borders on the now closed Canadian
Forces Base Calgary. This college is overflowing in capacity and
has been that way for years now. There is a desperate need for
more room. It has been trying to negotiate a fair price with the
federal government for a portion of the military base that has
been abandoned but the government wants profits instead at the
expense of students.
Will the President of the Treasury Board put the educational
needs of the students ahead of profit and give Mount Royal
College—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public Works and
Government Services.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the policy of the
Government of Canada is to transfer land to anybody at market
value. Therefore if the Government of Alberta wants to negotiate
it can do so with Canada land. For example, a school on the base
was sold to a private school at market value.
The Government of Canada has transferred a certain amount of
money to the province through the Minister of Finance for
education, health care and other social programs. I think the
Government of Alberta should negotiate and pay market value for
that piece of land.
* * *
PUBLICATIONS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It has to do with
a recent interpretation by Heritage Canada which puts at risk
several catholic newspapers in the country, the Catholic
Register, the Prairie Messenger and a number of others.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister say whether the government is
prepared to abandon this interpretation and ensure the survival
of these catholic newspapers and other religious journals that
may be affected by subsequent rulings if the government does not
come to its senses on this?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the adjustment to the
policies is a result of the decision by the WTO to which the
Government of Canada is responding by complying. That has been
the consequence of the change in administering the subsidy. Some
magazines have been advised that they would lose their subsidy.
The government has agreed to review that in an attempt to
accommodate these magazines in the future, as we have in the
past. That review is being carried out as we speak.
1150
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I cannot believe the reach of the WTO is so deep that it
would threaten these newspapers. We truly have a world
government and no national government when this kind of thing can
happen.
I have a supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister
also having to do with freedom of expression. The Deputy Prime
Minister will be aware of a recent Ontario court decision having
to do with the elections act and various provisions in it with
respect to smaller parties.
I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister could tell the House
now that the government will not be appealing this decision and
in the upcoming amendments to the elections act these provisions,
which have been struck down, will be changed so that there will
be greater freedom of access for smaller parties to the Canadian
electoral system.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as minister responsible for the
Canada Elections Act, I can tell my hon. colleague that the issue
is presently being reviewed. We are reviewing and analysing the
court decision in reference to the Figueroa case.
We will able to make a determination as to whether there will be
an appeal probably within the next week or so.
In terms of when we will be introducing the revisions to the
elections act, I hope to be able to do so within the next few
weeks.
* * *
PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
we have learned that cost of operating the ministerial regional
office in Fredericton for the first year is $484,000. Only three
cabinet ministers have used this office in the past year. That
means it cost taxpayers over $161,000 for each meeting. One can
get a hotel suite with an adjoining board room in Fredericton for
$175 a day.
Will the minister shut down this money pit and end this
embarrassing habit?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there used to be 26
regional offices. We have cut them to 11, a 21% saving. At the
same time we have had a 34% increase in service. I think we have
done the right thing by reducing them from 11 to 26 . When
ministers travel they use common services which are a savings. We
also give service to Canadians.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, although I could stand here and make fun of the
minister's math skills all day, the reality is that those MROs
should be closed and the money should be put to better use.
For example, in Plaster Rock and Florenceville, New Brunswick
kids have no recreation complex in which to play sports because
the government claimed there was no money for infrastructure
grants.
What is the minister's priority, giving ministers and expensive
office they almost never use or providing kids with a place to
learn and grow?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this member is a
member of the Conservative Party. It had more than 26 regional
offices. We have reduced them to 11. We are looking to cut costs
as soon as possible. Wherever possible, we will use space where
a crown property exists. We are looking at every expenditure.
We will make sure that when a minister travels across Canada
there are no obstacles to them serving and receiving Canadians.
* * *
DISASTER RELIEF
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian citizens who suffered from the ice storm of 1998 and
were in receipt of disaster relief are very concerned about how
their tax measures are to be handled by the Minister of National
Revenue.
What type of tax relief is being considered by the federal
government? Can the minister clarify the situation?
Ms. Beth Phinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the revenue department
is sensitive to the losses to ice storm victims in eastern
Ontario, parts of Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
To assist Canadians in areas affected by the ice storm, in the
interest of fairness and flexibility, the department is offering
relief to the taxpayers who received financial assistance to help
them through their period of hardship. Ice storm victims will
not have to include the amount of assistance in their income when
they file their 1998 income tax returns. The employers who gave
financial assistance to their employees will be able to deduct
those payments as business expenses.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as if farmers did not have enough problems fighting for
their survival, the minister of agriculture has now created a
bureaucratic nightmare.
1155
The disaster application forms are 40 pages long and accountants
are charging farmers $500 and $1,000 to fill them out.
Why is the minister giving western grain producers more bills to
pay instead of the disaster assistance they desperately need?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the comments the member just made are
absolutely false. I reviewed the package in the lobby this
morning an hour ago. There are a number of pages at the
beginning that are explanatory and obviously necessary so people
and accountants know. There are pages at the back of it that
list beginning inventory, ending inventory, income and expenses.
All an accountant has to do is transfer from the income tax and
from the business statement of the farm for the year over to
there. They do not have to create any new numbers whatsoever.
* * *
[Translation]
AGRICULTURE CANADA
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week we
asked the Minister of Agriculture to look into the case of
Lucien Beaupré, an elk breeder who lost his entire herd due to
the negligence of Agriculture Canada veterinarians.
Has the minister looked into this, and can he tell us whether he
plans to award Mr. Beaupré fair and adequate compensation, as
was done for the Prince Edward Island potato growers some years
ago, when they were the victims of an error by Agriculture
Canada?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the producer in question and those that
have animals destroyed because of reportable diseases are treated
according to the act and the regulations. The individual was
treated in that way and it would be the same way whether it is an
elk producer, a sheep producer, a cattle producer or whatever.
They were treated equitably, as we always do.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Human Resources Development's progress report on employment
insurance confirms my findings during my tour across the
country: the minister's cuts are having painful results.
Naida was refused sick benefits because she was two hours short.
Kelly, Sarah and numerous others did not get maternity benefits
because the minister requires 400 more hours than before.
The minister said he was waiting for the report before making
changes. Now that he has it in front of him, is he going to
make changes to employment insurance right away, to finally meet
the needs of the workers of this country?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course
the report is giving us the information with which to analyse the
results of our EI reform. We will do that. We have to find out
exactly why in certain areas the number of claims did go down.
We want to do that.
I think the member is wrong on his maternity description. The
birth rate went down 4.6% but the number of claims, and therefore
benefits, went up slightly. As a percentage rate the number of
women receiving maternity benefits from the EI system has
increased, not dropped.
* * *
[Translation]
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade.
On November 25, a special panel was set up at the WTO to decide
on France's rejection of asbestos. However, the members of this
famous panel have yet to appointed, because the two countries
cannot agree. Under WTO provisions, if, after 20 days, there is
no agreement, one of the countries can ask the director general
of the WTO to appoint people to this special panel.
The panel has not sat. Is the Government of Canada today in the
process of asking the WTO director general to appoint the
members of this special panel in order to reach a decision?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada is negotiating the composition of the WTO
special panel. We think that agreement on the composition is
imminent, but should no agreement be reached soon, Canada is
prepared to ask the director general of the WTO to designate the
members of the special panel.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
accessibility to many communities in Northern Quebec is difficult
and often expensive due to reliance on air and sea
transportation.
The Cree of northern Quebec have particularly been affected by
the situation.
1200
Can the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development tell
this House what the department is doing to respond to the
challenges faced by Cree communities in the James Bay area?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to thank the member for his interest in this issue
and his good work on the standing committee on Indian affairs.
I am pleased to report to him and to the House that while we are
here today, my minister is in the community of Waskaganish in the
northern Quebec region signing an agreement with her Quebec
counterpart on a new $40 million road. It will connect for the
first time all the Cree communities to southern Quebec. I am
pleased to make that announcement. I thank the hon. member for
his good work on this file.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official
languages the government's response to 10 petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 63rd report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
associate membership of the Standing Committee on Finance. If
the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this
report later this day.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I wish to seek unanimous consent for the following:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of
this House, a bill in the name of the President of the Treasury
Board, entitled an act to provide for the resumption and
continuation of government services, shall be disposed as
follows:
1. Commencing when the said bill is read a first time and
concluding when the said bill is read a third time, the House
shall not adjourn except pursuant to a motion proposed by a
minister of the crown and no Private Members' Business shall be
taken up;
2. The said bill may be read twice or thrice in one sitting;
3. After being read a second time, the said bill shall be
referred to a committee of the whole;
4. During consideration of the said bill, no division shall be
deferred.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon.
government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House
to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
1205
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1,
I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of
this House, a bill in the name of the President of the Treasury
Board, entitled an act to provide for the resumption and
continuation of government services, shall be disposed as
follows:
1. Commencing when the said bill is read a first time and
concluding when the said bill is read a third time, the House
shall not adjourn except pursuant to a motion proposed by a
minister of the crown and no Private Members' Business shall be
taken up;
2. The said bill may be read twice or thrice in one sitting;
3. After being read a second time, the said bill shall be
referred to a committee of the whole;
4. During consideration of the said bill, no division shall be
deferred.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Will those members
who object to the motion please rise in their places.
And more than 25 members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): More than 25 members
having risen, the motion is withdrawn.
(Motion withdrawn)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the House gives it consent, I move that the 63rd
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the motion as presented by the deputy government House leader. Is
there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[Translation]
PETITIONS
GROUNDFISH
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two petitions in the
House.
In the first, 128 petitioners from the riding of Acadie—Bathurst
call on Parliament to set up a program to help those affected by
the groundfish moratorium.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition is signed by 616 Canadians from across the country and
calls for the creation of an independent EI fund.
In addition, they are asking that EI benefits be more easily
accessible and of longer duration.
1210
[English]
WATER EXPORTS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is again an honour to present a
petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of
residents of Chase, Salmon Arm and the general Shuswap Lake area.
The petitioners are concerned about the recent developments
regarding the export of water and list a number of concerns they
have.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from
constituents in my riding. They call on the government to
support a timetable by the year 2000 for the abolition of nuclear
weapons worldwide.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all
remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
BANK ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-67, an
act to amend the Bank Act, the Winding-up and Restructuring Act
and other acts relating to financial institutions and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is of course
with great pride that I accepted to participate today in this
important debate on Bill C-67, which deals with the establishment
of foreign bank branches in Canada.
First, I would like to comment briefly on the speech of the
Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions,
which is most indicative of the quality of Bill C-67.
He said “This bill will allow us, we hope—”. We hope. If I
introduced a bill, it would aim at achieving specific goals
through practical means. I would not merely make a wish, hoping
it will fulfil itself.
Before explaining the position of the Bloc Quebecois on this
bill, I must say that the attitude of the finance minister shows
he is true to himself. This minister is unable to look at the
big picture with respect to national finances. He has lost all
credibility as our national treasurer, because of both his
budgetary forecasts and his financial achievements.
The Minister of Finance always tries to deal with a complex and
general situation with a careless approach and in a piecemeal
fashion.
We will recall how he dealt with the MacKay Report on the future
of financial services. The minister decided to ignore the true
issues raised in this massive report and dealt with only one
aspect of the document, bank mergers.
Acting unilaterally, and without waiting for the publication of
the complete report of the Standing Committee on Finance, the
minister took position on the bank merger issue and, based on
incomplete preliminary data, decided to oppose the merger, “for
the time being” as he said, adding that he would see later what
could be done. This minister, who improvises on a daily basis,
is an amateur financier who has no strict timeline for his
political agenda.
The finance minister continues in the same vein with Bill C-67,
an act to amend the Bank Act, which will allow the establishment
of foreign banks. To allow foreign banks to open branches in
Canada without affording any protection to financial
institutions in Quebec and Canada is to open our market without
protecting ourselves. How re-assuring it is to be represented by
such a government on the eve of negotiations with the World
Trade Organization.
Like his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, who weakened
Canada with his recent positions, the Minister of Finance is
about to act incoherently by opening our market against the
interest of our institutions.
1215
Did the finance minister take the time to read the MacKay
report? Is he really aware of the impact of this review? I doubt
it. The finance minister, like his Liberal colleagues, hastens
to say he consulted various socio-economic stakeholders involved
in this issue. I submit that is pure bunk.
I would like to know if the finance minister consulted the
Deputy Premier of Quebec before introducing Bill C-67. Was the
president of the Mouvement Desjardins, Claude Béland, consulted?
If so, how?
The analysis of Bill C-67 leads us to the conclusion that this
piece of legislation introduced by the Minister of Finance is an
attack on the know-how and expertise of Quebec.
I draw your attention to clause 128, which amends the Office of
the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act. Let us have a
closer look at clause 7.1, which says, and I quote:
7.1 (1) The Minister may, with the approval of the Governor in
Council, enter into agreements with the appropriate authority of
a province
It goes on:
(a) with respect to the administration, application and
enforcement of provincial legislation in respect of trust, loan
or insurance companies incorporated or regulated by or under an
Act of the legislature of the province;
(b) in order to authorize the Superintendent to exercise or
perform the powers, duties and functions on behalf of the
appropriate authority of the province, that the Minister may
determine, in respect of trust, loan or insurance companies
incorporated or regulated by or under an Act of the legislature
of the province; and
(c) in order to
(i) make applicable the Trust and Loan Companies
Act, the Insurance Companies Act or this Act, or any provisions
of these Acts, and the regulations made under any of these Acts,
with the modifications that the Minister considers necessary, in
respect of trust, loan or insurance companies that are
incorporated or regulated by or under an Act of the legislature
of the province, and
(ii) limit the application of provincial
legislation in respect of trust, loan or insurance companies that
are incorporated or regulated by an Act of the legislature of the
province.
We can see once again an undisguised attempt by the Minister of
Finance, through this legislation, to get involved in areas that
come under Quebec's jurisdiction.
Every day, the Bloc Quebecois condemns the numerous federal
intrusions in areas of provincial jurisdiction, including those
of Quebec. This is why we are opposed to the principle of the
bill and will vote against it, unless satisfactory amendments
are made to section 7.1, which allows the federal government to
squarely intrude into Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.
This one-way provision would allow the government to appropriate
and control Quebec's know-how. This is why the Bloc Quebecois is
asking for the following amendments, which are essential in the
current context.
First, any agreement mentioned in section 7.1 should be the
result of government-to-government negotiations.
Second, section 7.1 should be amended to provide for
reciprocity. Under such reciprocity, the appropriate authority
of a province, and a provincial government, would enjoy the same
privileges as those enjoyed by the superintendent and the
federal government under section 7.1.
In other words, the Inspector General of Financial Institutions
and the Government of Quebec could subject federally chartered
financial institutions to Quebec laws.
Let us take a look at the main amendments found in Bill C-67.
The amendments set the general requirements that must be met by
a foreign bank to establish a branch in Canada, the type of
business that such a branch can conduct, and the standing
regulatory requirements that will have to be met. The bill also
includes a number of changes concerning the access by foreign
banks to the financial services sector.
1220
Under the proposed system, on top of being allowed to establish
a Canadian subsidiary, foreign banks will be able to set up
either a full service branch or a loan branch.
We bemoan the lack of overall vision on the part of the
government regarding the future of the Canadian banking system
and financial markets.
Since 1993, the finance minister, who does not know where he is
going in this issue, has been improvising. He is putting at risk
one of the pillars of our economy, the financial services
sector. He should listen to what the Bloc Quebecois has been
telling him for years now, namely first strengthen our national
industry, then open the market, and finally liberalize.
The Bloc Quebecois has always been of the opinion that the
merger debate should be seen as part of a broader debate on the
future of financial institutions. The same is true of the bill
before us today.
The government is acting irresponsibly and, by refusing to
proceed cautiously according to the logical order suggested by
the Bloc Quebecois, is leaving Quebec and Canada open to
inconsistencies and discrepancies in the quality of services
between poor and rich regions, a glaring and on-going lack of
fairness.
Let us not forget that, under the federal Insurance Companies
Act, a federally chartered insurance company or a foreign
company cannot sell policies in Canada to an insurance company
set up under provincial legislation. Only a federally chartered
insurance company, with the approval of the Minister of Finance,
can buy these blocks of business. This situation is unfair to
Quebec insurers.
This situation shows clearly that while our financial markets
are about to become more and more open to financial
institutions, there are still barriers between our own
institutions and we do not have full competitiveness within our
own borders.
I remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois had proposed a
three-step approach which provides for a methodical opening up of
financial markets.
As a first step, the Bloc asks the federal government to change
the ownership rules for banks and some of the accounting rules
in order to allow and foster the grouping of medium and small
size financial institutions into financial holdings.
For instance, a bank could join with a life insurance company,
an investment funds company and a brokerage.
This first step would allow the establishment in Quebec and in
Canada of giant financial institutions which would be able to
truly compete with megabanks.
The government should allow a period of two to three years for
the establishment of these holdings, which would be subject to
the 10% rule and whose operations would remain
compartmentalized, as is already the case for banks. We should
begin by taking the necessary means to encourage competition
with new major players on a global scale.
Second, the federal government could then allow bank mergers.
For instance, we would have on the Canadian market eight to ten
players of similar size and strength and we would therefore have
sound competition in our domestic financial sector.
Sound competition is vital if we want consumers and small and
medium size businesses throughout the country to have easy
access to services at competitive prices.
In the interest of fairness, the bank mergers should occur at
the same time that the multisector holdings become operational.
All players should be able to start at the same time.
At the same time, the Bloc Quebecois would call for a greater
democratization of banks and financial holdings along the
proposals of the Quebec association for the protection of savers
and investors.
We would also ask for a mechanism to encourage and measure the
investments of banks and financial holdings in communities.
In view of the human aspect and of the socio-economic efforts of
this reform, the Bloc Quebecois will support measures aimed at
protecting access to financial services for the whole population
throughout the territory.
1225
We will also be calling for a mechanism for parliamentary
follow-up in order to measure the impact of the changes made on
competition, service charges, employment, access to credit,
transparency, and services to outlying and disadvantaged
communities, so as to be able to make the appropriate
corrections and adjustments as we go along, if need be.
Third, the federal government could open up the Canadian
financial services market completely to international
competition.
Having made it possible for the small players in Quebec and
Canada to join forces, there are less grounds for concern that
they will disappear or pass into the hands of foreign companies
as soon as the market is opened up to international competition.
I remind hon. members that our concern has always been, and will
always be, to increase the competitivity of all sectors of
financial services in Quebec and in Canada, and to increase the
competition in all of Quebec and Canada. More competition means
better and better-priced services for consumers and small and
medium-sized businesses throughout the country. Enhancing
competition is one of the concerns of the Bloc Quebecois.
We are also concerned with making these changes equitably. All
those involved in the financial sector must have an equal
opportunity to make changes so as to enhance their domestic and
international position, for example, by allowing financial
holdings which bring together institutions from various sectors.
Hon. members will agree with me that today's debate is liable to
have a great impact on our society.
We must always remember that public interest comes first and
that there are people behind the figures.
In this sense, the Bloc Quebecois has always advocated the
establishment of a parliamentary committee to oversee banks and
financial institutions, which would periodically check whether
consumers and SMBs are well served at competitive prices
throughout Quebec and Canada, regardless of their personal
wealth. We have advocated the entry of new players into the
market to increase competition and thus improve service to
consumers.
I should mention that Quebec is at the forefront in protecting
consumer interests. In October 1998, Quebec announced the
establishment of the Bureau des services financiers to protect
the public.
It receives public complaints, ensures the law respecting the
distribution of financial products and services is applied, sets
up an insurance information and reference centre to give
consumers access to clear and complete information, establishes
a fund to provide compensation in the event of fraud, keeps a
record of offices, independent companies and independent
representatives and issues certificates to representatives.
To avoid overlap, the federal government should give Quebec the
role of protecting consumers in the area of financial services.
The Bloc Quebecois also advocated greater democratization of the
banks. We share the concerns of Yves Michaud in this regard.
Moreover, I want to remind you that the Bloc Quebecois is the
only party to have tabled a bill on community reinvestment. We
want the banks and other financial institutions to fulfil their
social role and to be transparent about the means and objectives
involved.
To conclude, I repeat that without appropriate amendments to
permit government to government negotiations, we will vote
against Bill C-67.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge my Reform friend for
co-operating earlier. I appreciate it very much.
1230
Bill C-67, an act to amend the Bank Act, the Winding-up and
Restructuring Act and other acts relating to financial
institutions and to make consequential amendments to other acts,
is opening the door to foreign banks coming into Canada. Let us
make that clear.
We have heard about some of the concerns raised by others, some
of the benefits and so on. I will venture out and do something
that I think is unusual for a politician and attempt to predict
the future. I have no corner on wizardry or looking into a
crystal ball, but it does not take much crystal ball gazing to
figure out what is going on.
The other day I said that sometimes when I stand in the House to
make a speech I feel a bit like a eunuch. I do not mean that in
any kind of personal sense. I mean it in a helpless sense, in
kind of a worthless sense. What is the point? It is sort of the
opposite of the Viagra issue. Why are we doing this? Sometimes
I feel like I am a great big thick rubber stamp with ink all over
one side of me, and every now and then I am asked to rubber stamp
something that is going on.
I have a choice. I am either a eunuch or a rubber stamp. I
will probably go with the rubber stamp classification. Why do I
feel this way? Those in the gallery, those watching television,
those listening in and those who will read Hansard or
perhaps watch the CPAC version later today will be under the
impression that we are debating whether or not to proceed with
allowing foreign banks into the country. There will be some good
ideas, some bad ideas, concerns and so on, but there will be an
impression that we are actually debating this issue and that the
debate has some consequence.
It does not. It has no consequence at all. Just as sure as the
sun came up this morning, the legislation will pass
expeditiously. It is not because most parties will support it.
It will pass expeditiously because the government has committed
to the World Trade Organization to pass the legislation by end of
June.
What does all this mean? Let us look at the details. First we
got a clue, not from the Canadian government, not from any
government press release, but from the Wall Street Journal.
Those of us who read the Wall Street Journal on November
10, 1997, would have noticed the article “Financial services
talks heat up”. That article stated that Canada would submit a
revised offer committing itself to open branch banking to other
WTO members. In other words, Canada made a commitment on
November 10, 1997 to open up its doors to foreign banks. We did
not learn about that in Canada. We had to read it in the Wall
Street Journal.
On December 12 a government press release came out stating that
Canada welcomed WTO financial services agreement. Services such
as banks and insurance companies of a foreign nature would have
access to Canada. That was the formal announcement.
Just a few days later guess what other announcement was made? It
was the announcement that the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal
were to merge. They had read the newspapers as well. They were
aware that the Canadian government had negotiated a deal with the
World Trade Organization to allow foreign banks to come into
Canada. The Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal said they had to
do something about it. They had to get a little tougher and
bigger and merge in order to confront the foreign banks being
allowed into Canada and made that announcement. This apparently
shocked the Minister of Finance.
Knowing the discussions that take place around these issues, I
suspect the banks were aware of the discussions in the World
Trade Organization regarding financial institutions. I am sure
the Department of Finance would have been in touch with the major
banks of Canada to alert them to this fact.
What did the Minister of Finance expect, that the Canadian banks
would just sit there and say that any foreign bank could come
into the country and be able to operate? They had to take some
steps to protect themselves, and merging was one of the options.
I will make a prediction today. Soon, because of the foreign
banks that will be coming into Canada, in particular at the
commercial level, and because of the increased competition from
these great big foreign banks we will have to revisit the idea of
bank mergers.
In order to compete the Canadian banking industry will have to
take on the international banking giants. They are too small to
do it on their own so they will have to merge in some form. Will
the Minister of Finance be open to some aspect of merging?
1235
We now understand the changing world conditions and the changing
conditions of international banking. We have huge American,
European and Japanese banks now operating in Canada at the
commercial level. We have to protect our Canadian banks and
allow them to grow. Then the debate will be over and mergers
will be announced in due course.
That is my prediction. I hope I am wrong in my prediction but
that is the way I suggest things are likely to evolve.
What does the legislation do? I listened to my friend, the
secretary of state for financial services. He is a man of great
integrity. He is a man whose words I listen to carefully and
whom I often support. I am encouraged by his openness. We will
notice in today's issue of Hansard that on the issue of
whether foreign banks coming into Canada will help the small
business community he said hopefully. That was his word. He was
hopeful the foreign banks would be providing services to Canadian
small business that are in search of capital.
I give the minister credit because he certainly did not say that
this would be good news for small business. He said that he was
hopeful. I give him credit for being hopeful at least. Surely
we ought to do something more than simply being hopeful that
small business will have better access to capital. I will set
that aside for now.
Anybody who believes for a moment that Bill C-67 will result in
foreign banks coming in and providing much needed competition for
the citizens of Canada is dreaming in Technicolor. That will not
happen.
It is clear. They are here. They are interested in commercial
banking. Their primary interest is not in retail banking. They
tried that. We had all kinds of foreign banks coming to Canada
in an effort to provide retail competition. Most of them have
left or have identified a small niche market which they are in at
the moment.
By and large, expansion in the retail banking sector by a
foreign bank will simply not happen. The big Canadian banks have
that market pretty well sewed up. There will be a creaming off
of the system. We will have increased numbers of foreign banks
competing with our national banks to get the best business.
One thing about big business is that it does not now rely on
Canada's banks. Big business has access to capital on a global
scale. It can access capital in Europe. It can access capital
in the United States. It can access capital in Asia.
This is not necessarily a problem. Basically we will have some
big banking giants competing with our banking giants for the very
lucrative top end commercial market. That is fair enough. That
is what will happen. That is what the banks say they are
interested in. They are not interested in providing more
competition at the retail level.
In other words, they are not interested in providing competition
that will benefit the people of Canada in any meaningful way.
They will not open branches in small communities. They will not
open branches in rural communities. They will not provide better
services in small towns of Canada or in the suburbs of our
cities.
They will be on the main street. They will be on the Bay
Streets of Canada competing for the international global capital
market. That is where they will be. Let us understand the
average Canadian citizen will not benefit by the existence of
foreign banks in this country.
For those people who are operating small businesses in Canada,
for those people who are probably operating medium size
businesses, for those people who are self-employed, running home
based businesses or small operations, foreign banks will be of
little if any help at all. That is not the market foreign banks
are looking for.
In terms of the problems of accessing capital, the problems of
establishing good operating lines of credit, and the problems of
accessing money for small entrepreneurs, for small business
operators and for self-employed individuals will not be assisted
in any meaningful way by allowing large foreign banks to open
operations in Canada.
1240
The legislation says that to open an account the minimum deposit
is $150,000. How many people have $150,000 to deposit into a
bank just like that? We are talking about a certain amount of
people, not average individuals interested in the banking
services of Canada.
When I listen to some of my friends saying this will create
competition for Canadian banks in terms of getting them to lower
their service charges and so on, it is just by and large dreaming
in Technicolor. That will not happen.
An hon. member: They will probably go up.
Mr. Nelson Riis: As my friend from Winnipeg says, they
will probably even go up.
An hon. member: They will be losing money to the other
guys.
Mr. Nelson Riis: They will be losing money to the other
guys and have to go elsewhere for their profits. Service charges
are a lucrative aspect and something they could easily introduce.
Let us acknowledge very clearly the debate we are having today.
The legislation will go to committee, come back here for debate
and off to the Senate. That is essentially meaningless because
it is a done deal. The government commitment at the World Trade
Organization back in December 1997 was that it would do this.
Therefore parliament is irrelevant. Parliamentarians are
irrelevant. The finance committee is irrelevant.
Let us consider what we are doing today. We are talking about a
major change to Canada's banking. We have just gone through a
long process of looking into the future of Canada's financial
services sector. A huge report was recently tabled.
The government says it will come out with a white paper to talk
about the future of the financial service sector in Canada over
maybe the next decade or two or three. Why are we taking this
decision today on introducing foreign banking? This seems to be
the cart before the horse. The horse is not out of the barn and
the cart is already running down the road. There is something
wrong with this process.
An hon. member: You know what the cart is full of.
Mr. Nelson Riis: My friend says that we know what the
cart is full of. Yes, we probably do know what it is full of.
That is why I say I feel like a rubber stamp today. I know that
by and large the debate is absolutely meaningless in terms of
having any influence on the future outcome of the legislation. It
is incredibly frustrating.
There is another aspect to the legislation. I listened
carefully to the explanation of the secretary of state on how
this would be helpful to the average citizen. I made some notes
as well. I probably used my own wording. I do not think he said
it was some version of the trickle down approach, but that was my
interpretation of what he was talking about.
If we could provide large foreign banks with an opportunity to
come into Canada and compete with our banks at the upper end
level of huge corporate business, he said that the benefits would
eventually trickle down to the normal folks of the country. In
other words, give a break to the large international banking
community, the large international banks, be patient and
eventually the benefits will trickle down to the average citizen.
An hon. member: There are no breaks.
Mr. Nelson Riis: I hear what my friend says. We are just
changing Canadian legislation to allow greater access for large
foreign banks to come into the country. That is a pretty major
change in how banking is conducted here.
The secretary of state for financial services said that he had
faith in the trickle down approach. He said if we waited long
enough eventually the good things would trickle down on us. If
average Canadians were asked if they wanted to be trickled on,
they would say no. Being trickled on is not something they find
attractive. They probably feel they have been trickled on for a
long time.
An hon. member: They are probably trickled off.
Mr. Nelson Riis: They are probably trickled off at this
point. Getting trickled on, which is what the legislation is all
about, is not the kind of thing we want to see in Canada.
We would maybe welcome a change in legislation if in fact it
meant that there would actually be real competition so the
average citizen would benefit by lower service charges, by a
greater range of services and by easier access to financial
services. The legislation will do the opposite. It will put
pressure on the existing banking system to cut back to enable it
to compete at the high end level.
What does cutback mean? It means a whole bunch of people will
lose their jobs. A whole bunch of people will lose access to
branches in their various communities. Branches will be closed.
The banks have already acknowledged this. The Royal Bank the
other day suggested that it would have to cut back at last $400
million in the next little while.
Cutting back $400 million means a whole lot of people who have
jobs today will not have them. A whole lot of people will be
inconvenienced so that the Royal Bank of Canada can compete at
the upper end of the commercial lending market.
1245
What is our job here? Is it not our job as elected representatives
to protect the interests of ordinary people? We do not have to
protect the interests of banks. Goodness, they have small armies
of lawyers, financial experts and lobbyists and unlimited amounts
of money. They do not need our protection.
The average Canadian expects us to represent their interests.
That is why the folly of this debate today and this discussion is
to give the illusion to people sitting in the gallery that
somehow this is an important debate when the deal was cut two
years ago when the Minister of Finance said “I promise that we
will pass legislation permitting foreign banks in Canada before
June 1999”.
What are we doing here? We all are like a bunch of rubber
stamps. Stamp, stamp, stamp, that is all we end up doing now. As
long as we understand we are just rubber stamps, then that is
fair enough, but let us not pretend to anybody listening to this
debate that this is meaningful in any way. The Minister of
Finance has decided on this.
Let us understand what this reveals. Who runs this country? Who
runs this government? Is it the members of parliament elected by
their constituents who make decisions? The answer is clearly no.
Is it the cabinet that sits there in secret and makes decisions?
The answer is absolutely no. One person sitting over there makes
all the decisions, the Minister of Finance. He made the decision
on whether we should have foreign banking. Was it discussed
among the Liberal caucus members? No, it was not.
An hon. member: Read our report.
Mr. Nelson Riis: The report came after this was signed.
My Liberal friend reveals the problem. The Liberals did not start
the report until after this was signed, sealed and delivered. He
reveals the fact that he actually thinks he is not a eunuch. He
actually thinks he has some energy, that he has some role to
play. He does not. He is just a nice piece of backdrop that
every now and again is asked to bleat, what we call voting, and
that is his job.
Let us understand that when we debate legislation like Bill C-67
we are acknowledging one more time in a long list of
acknowledgements that one person runs this country and runs this
government, the Minister of Finance. He decides now on education
policy. He decides on health care policy. He decides on
environmental policy. He decides everything.
Once again, should we have foreign banks? My friend says there
was a committee roaming the country looking into this. I am on
the finance committee. We actually study this. It was all after
the fact, after the Minister of Finance had committed to the
world that this is what the Government of Canada would do on a
particular day, and that is what we are doing. That is why this
is really a frustrating place sometimes.
I like the Minister of Finance. He is a smart guy. He is not
an expert on health care, education and so on. Maybe foreign
banking is getting close. That is not the way we are supposed to
work in this place. Members of parliament are supposed to have
some role in deciding on the appropriateness of certain
legislation.
I lament the fact, I regret the fact that we are living in a
dictatorship. It is a kind of elected dictatorship, because we
do elect the dictator every four or five years, but basically
once that is done, that is it. We are all a bunch of rubber
stamps. We sit here and stamp ourselves and that is it, and the
Minister of Finance decides what will go on.
It is an elected dictatorship in the hands of the Minister of
Finance who now decides all types of economic and social policy
and all types of foreign policy. Look at our defence budget. Who
decides on the nature of Canada's armed forces? Is it the
minister of defence? No, it is the Minister of Finance because
he decides on the financial ability of our armed forces to
develop the infrastructure they require.
This is frustrating. I am frustrated. I know other members of
parliament are frustrated. They are shaking their heads. Even
some Liberals are shaking their heads one way or the other. I
know the people of Canada are frustrated because they know that
the government ignores them. They say they feel alienated. They
feel left out of the circle. Of course they should feel
alienated because they are left out. They are not considered.
Their views are not considered.
We do not support the trickle down theory of economics. We do
not like the idea of foreign banks coming into the country and
not providing any useful services to the average Canadian. We
lament the fact that this debate is irrelevant. What I am saying
is that we will not be voting in favour of the legislation.
1250
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question. I could
have asked him off the record but then the people of Canada would
not have benefited from his answer. The member was speaking
about the way this legislation has its origin in the WTO and in
the international financial services agreement which was signed
by this government a day before the Royal Bank and the Bank of
Montreal announced their intention to merge or issue their
wedding bands or however one wants to describe this.
That was no coincidence. What struck me at the time was the
false outrage of the Minister of Finance who claimed to be
totally shocked and surprised that the banks might be considering
this when in fact the day before the government had signed an
agreement which in some ways precipitated the banks' considering
the advisability of merging, something we are against but which
nevertheless we recognize was effected by the signing of this
financial services agreement.
Would the member care to comment more on that sequence which is
something I do not think the Canadian public was fully aware of
then or is fully aware if now? There is the way the government
prejudiced the outcome of the entire organization of our banking
industry by signing this agreement with no debate in the House of
Commons beforehand, and still no debate until today. Now it
expects us to pass something as significant as this after about
two hours of debate. Clearly this is not something we are
prepared to co-operate in. We feel this kind of thing should
receive more debate and I am sure the member would want to help
that happen by commenting on what I have just said.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, once again the member for
Winnipeg—Transcona has asked the kind of intelligent, thoughtful
and probing questions we do not hear enough of in the House. My
friend asked me to give a short history lesson.
People who read the Wall Street Journal would have noticed
on November 10, 1997 a small article stating that Canada would be
submitting a revised offer on that day committing itself to open
branched banking to other WTO members. We were perplexed by this
because we had not heard about the government negotiating WTO's
openness for foreign banking. There had been discussions of
foreign banking but we thought it would wait until the finance
committee report was submitted to the House and until other
reports underway had been completed.
We were perplexed so we made some inquiries in the House. We
found out that the government had been negotiating changes to the
financial services act for some time, that it had been
negotiating the best way to open up Canada to foreign banks. This
made everybody's ears perk up.
On December 12 we got an elaborate news release stating that
Canada was now welcoming the WTO financial services agreement
which would open up Canada to foreign banks and foreign insurance
companies. There was no debate here, not even a ministerial
statement. Unless we had the inside track through the office of
the Minister of Finance, there would be no way the ordinary
citizen even knew this was taking place until it was announced.
Was it announced in the House of Commons? No. That would be the
last place. It was announced in the national press theatre. That
is where the announcements are. Why would you make an
announcement in such an irrelevant place? It feeds into this
cynicism.
As my friend said, then the banks came out with their notice.
They said if the Government of Canada has just allowed the
floodgates to be open for foreign banks, they have to do
something and they have been thinking about a merger so they will
announce their intention to look at merging.
1255
We see the sequence. I add one more element to what I said
earlier. Now that the foreign banks are coming in, and the
biggest foreign banks now have access to Canada, we will soon
hear a case to lower the 10% ownership level for our banking
system. Then we will see more bank mergers announced because we
will have no choice under the WTO.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. I
thought it was a great speech.
I really do not have a question for him other than I would like
to hear him elaborate at greater length about the elected
dictatorship in this country.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, this is a little off the
topic but I guess not really when we are trying to make the point
that the Minister of Finance essentially runs the show now and he
is run by the WTO.
What we are saying is that we are becoming irrelevant now in
terms of what is important. Earlier today in question period my
friend asked a question about catholic newspapers. The
parliamentary secretary indicated that one of the reasons they
took this action was because of the World Trade Organization. Now
catholics from coast to coast to coast who are looking forward to
their publication on a regular basis may not see it anymore
because of the World Trade Organization's ruling. What does the
World Trade Organization have to do with whether catholics get a
decent news letter? That is what it has come to.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys is an
experienced member of the House but I am wondering if his
constituents are listening. If he feels eunuch like, maybe the
constituents would be better advised to send a member of the
government side to this Chamber.
As part of a task force chaired by the member for
Trinity—Spadina, it was the members on this side who recommended
strongly against the bank mergers. Lo and behold the government
did not allow the bank mergers to go through. Maybe the member
over there feels eunuch like, but not the members on this side.
I ask the member a question with respect to his comments. He
talked about the trickle down theory and about all the breaks
that were being given to these foreign banks. I wonder if he
could cite any of those breaks. What this bill is about, if the
member had read the bill, is breaking down the barriers to entry
and creating more affordable and accessible financial services
for all Canadians. Can he identify the breaks to the foreign
banks mentioned in this bill?
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I thought my friend
actually answered his own question when he said what changes are
being made to benefit foreign banks.
That is what the whole act is about. There are 141 pages of
ways and means to permit, encourage and enable foreign banks to
access the Canadian capital market. That is what this is all
about. In other words, it removes the barriers that presently
exist against foreign banks. If that is not helping foreign banks
I do not know what is. We are saying we are now open for
business for foreign banks to come in and cream off the top of
the market. That is what this is all about.
My friend reminded me of something that I forgot to say in my
speech, the Liberal task force on bank mergers. I will ask this
rhetorical question. Did the Minister of Finance have the
courtesy to ask the members of the House of Commons who represent
all the people of Canada, not just those who support Liberals but
people who support the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois, the
Progressive Conservative and the New Democratic Party, to seek
the views of Canadians as to whether the banks should merge? No.
He asked some of his backbenchers to keep him out of trouble.
It must get awfully boring sitting there bleating all the time.
Rather than bleat for the next few weeks they can go out, travel
around and then he will tell them what to say in the end.
I use that again as an example of the Minister of Finance and
the government abusing this place. They do not ask MPs to do
something. They ask a bunch of Liberal flacks in the back row to
do something. That is not the way it is supposed to work.
1300
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
followed this debate with a great deal of interest, including
the comments of the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and
Highland Valleys, who displayed an unprecedented degree of
frustration with government members.
The hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys has
been here for quite some time. He can usually live with his
frustration. If he ever has problems, he can always go to a
therapist, including one from the Reform Party.
My colleague and friend, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, also
expressed a great deal of concern about clause 7.1.
I hope the decision not to support the bill will not be based on
clause 7.1. After all, that clause includes the key word “may”.
As members know, there are many problems concerning financial
institutions in Quebec.
What happens is that the financial system is changing because of
the WTO, among other factors. But the problem is more global
than that. It is not the first time that we go through this kind
of major change. We experienced a similar situation 25 or 30
years ago, when federal and provincial legislation was adjusted.
Quebec had made legislative changes to prepare the ground for
the major shakeup that had taken place.
These changes had a very negative impact on certain lending
institutions in Quebec but, in the end, consumers were the
winners.
What is clear is that today's bill is the result of WTO
negotiations.
This bill should have been debated in the House shortly after
the WTO hearings. Officially we were told we had to wait for the
report on bank mergers, but in truth, the finance minister
wanted to wait for the decision on bank mergers to avoid giving
the banks any legal argument regarding the fact that foreign
banks are beating a path to our door. They are now in. It is
made official by this bill, they are moving in.
Is Canada ready for this? Is Quebec ready for this? Probably
not. The government made political hay on the issue of bank
mergers. I can guarantee that this same government. which
prevented bank mergers from happening in 1998, will allow them
to go ahead in 2000 or 2001. Mark my words. It said no then, it
will say yes later. Why? It will argue that the international
environment has changed.
The proof will be in the fact that Bill C-67 will have been
passed by this House.
The move towards bank mergers in Canada is not over. What we and
others fear however is that bank mergers will lead to a massive
concentration of financial markets, insurance and car loans.
It was also feared that bank mergers would bring about a major
reduction in services to savers in Quebec and Canada,
particularly in rural areas. Guess what is happening today? Bank
mergers are not allowed to go ahead.
A number of banks announced massive layoffs. Many banks, big and
medium one, will announce branch closures.
In Quebec, the flagship caisses populaires have announced—and
will be discussing on the weekend—a major reorganization of local
caisse populaire federations. Over 300 small caisses populaires
in remote areas are going to close. Massive layoffs are taking
place throughout Canada's financial sector. And there have been
no bank mergers yet.
This has been made into a strictly political issue and the
broader picture largely ignored. Yes, foreign banks are
entering the country and yes, foreign banks will increasingly
take hold. Yes, it is true that, with computer technology, an
American credit card can be used to pay bills in the United
States, that a car can be bought through the Internet, and an
American loan taken out as well. All that is true.
Bill C-67 legalizes only a small part of what is now going on
internationally. Whether we like it or not, even though the
major banks have not been allowed to merge, major changes are
still taking place.
1305
And yet, the number of branches is still dropping. And yet, the
job losses expected to follow bank mergers are occurring; it is
just less obvious. The Minister of Finance has arranged not to
be held responsible for branch closings and job losses by saying
no to the bank merger.
These branch closings and layoffs are therefore being blamed on
the nasty Canadian banks and Quebec's mean caisses populaires.
It is their fault, and the ministers of finance in Ottawa and
Quebec City are off the hook.
A wonderful opportunity has been lost to set up a financial
safety net for the savings of Canadians.
We missed an opportunity. At present, there are no bank mergers
but there is no financial safety net either. In remote areas in
Quebec and Canada, branches are closing, services are being
reduced and fees are rising. This is what is going on. And yet,
there have been no bank mergers.
Bill C-67 will legalize something we already know is coming.
There will be a complete reorganization. At the end of this year
or at the beginning of the year 2000, there will be other
applications for mergers.
We can be wiser, because Canadian banks know that the American
and foreign institutions are coming. There could be a
legislative change which would not bring official mergers of
Canadian financial institutions. However, the legislation says
nothing about services agreements, at present.
We should not be surprised if the Royal Bank, the Bank of
Montreal, the Toronto Dominion Bank, the CIBC and Scotia Bank
sign service agreements without going as far as merging.
In a town with a population of 6,000, for instance Asbestos in
Quebec, where there are several bank branches, we can be sure
that one of these branches will close while the other remains
open. There will be service agreements. Each branch will keep
its sign outside, but the number of branches of each bank will
be reduced.
If there are no legislative changes, the government will have to
deal with the situation and allow one or several bank mergers,
or pass a bill at the last minute to set terms for bank mergers
or service agreements between financial institutions, otherwise
the market in Canada and Quebec will be taken over by foreigners
and we will not be prepared for it.
Yes, we are open to competition. Yes, we are not afraid to have
our institutions and businesses compete in the United States.
Yes, we are prepared to let the Americans into our country with
their financial services. But can we be prepared with a
financial safety net, which will guarantee that the people of
Quebec and of the rest of the county will be protected?
Reduced service charges, more customer services, continued
services to rural areas, these are some of the demands that were
made when the whole issue of bank mergers was being discussed.
Unfortunately, the issue got rather clouded and today Bill C-67
reflects only part of the discussions.
Bill C-67, which was to be voted on in the House, was held up in
order not to give the financial institutions that wanted to
merge the legislative argument that “Yes, it is true, the
foreign banks are on the way here”.
If one goes out and asks people in the street, they will say “We
are fine now. Those big bad banks did not merge, so we will be
protected. I'll still have my local branch. I'll still have my
teller; service charges won't go up too much; I won't have to
deal with that darned banking machine too often”. That is what
they think, but that is not what is going to happen.
If there is an agreement, what we need in this country is not
subsidiaries, but actual branches. There is a $150,000
investment, and some people see this as positive, as an element
of protection. The only ones that will benefit from competitive
service will be the people who are better off.
That is a pity, because it was one of the arguments used by the
Reform Party.
They also said that the $150,000 figure was negative, since it
deprived all Canadians financial consumers, all Canadians
wishing to save money, of any entitlement to more competition.
1310
Unfortunately, we do not have the overall picture. The MacKay
report was good, because it did provide the overall picture. But
who has read the report among those who use their bank cards
daily or go to the bank every Thursday to deposit their pay
cheques? No one. The only thing that is remembered from the
MacKay report is that it was against bank mergers. But it did
not end there. It was much more than that.
It was a wake-up call about what we can expect from the banking
industry at the international level, but the issue was not
addressed in the House. We will miss the boat.
I mentioned the MacKay report.
Bill C-67 only provides that foreign banks have to open
branches, instead of subsidiaries. There is no one on the face
of this earth who can make any sense out of this bill.
What it means is that, first of all, the financial environment
will make it easier for foreign banks to set up shop in this
country. Second, branches will close, jobs will be lost,
services charges will go up and services will be reduced in
rural areas.
The new legislation will come into force and people will say “We
have a problem. One option is to reduce the minimum $150,000
loans.” Foreign banks will be brought down to the level of other
banks, to the level of branches, not subsidiaries, just
branches. Watch out for what will happen during the next two
years.
At that point the foreign banks will do their lobbying.
Financial institutions, including the caisses populaires in
Quebec—do not be surprised of they make agreements; they have
already done so, but the Mouvement Desjardins will be reaching
agreements with others in order to meet the competition—will be
amalgamating and entering into service agreements more and more.
Then there will be a problem in the regions and with the SMBs.
BDC reports will prove there are financing problems for SMBs.
The government will be running around trying to put out as many
fires as possible. They will not be prepared for the
inevitable, that is, international competition within a country.
That is today's reality—international competition within a
country. That is today's financial reality, and we have to live
with it.
Credit is even harder for people to obtain, and yet banks will
not be amalgamating.
There is nothing. People earning a lower or middle income have
a lot harder time borrowing today than five or ten years ago.
And yet the interest rates are low.
Look at consumer protection groups. Look at what is happening
in Quebec with the difficulty in borrowing. The guarantees they
want are incredible. In the past, they wanted your shirt; now
they want your pants, your underwear, your socks and those of
your parents and your uncles. That is what they want when you
borrow these days. Why? Because the banks and the caisses
populaires in Quebec cleaned out their financial portfolios.
Financial institutions have financial ratings for borrowers like
you and me. Mr. Speaker, I know yours is excellent. A bank
may, for example, have a rating between 1 and 9.
One is the best rating and it is yours, Mr. Speaker. A Reformer
would probably get a rating of nine. Why? Because that party is
almost at the end of its political life. We do not know what
rating the Conservatives would get.
An hon. member: And what about the Bloc?
Mr. André Bachand: The Bloc? That would be 5.5.
What happened is that financial institutions did a cleanup. One
of them, which I will not name, decided that it would get rid of
all its customers' accounts with a rating of 6, 7, 8, 9 and even
5. This means that if you are a customer and have a hard time
making ends meet, when the time comes to renew your personal
loan or whatever, the bank informs you that it will not renew
your loan. It cleans up its financial portfolio.
1315
All of sudden, the customer is faced with the bank's refusal to
renew the financing. Think about the person who goes looking for
alternative financing. In the old days, Household Finance, not
to mention it, was there just in case. Even that institution has
tightened up its lending conditions, now.
The situation regarding our country's financial institutions was
not planned properly. Many changes occur and people are very
concerned. If we look at what is going on in Quebec, or in the
rest of the country, we can see that people are worried about
what will happen to services.
I see my Bloc Quebecois colleague nodding. People in Quebec are
very concerned about what is going on. My colleague, the member
for Sherbrooke, explained it very well. Right before an
election, the Government of Quebec introduced a legislative
amendment allowing people to be more closely involved, by filing
complaints about financial institutions in Quebec, including the
caisses populaires.
What power does this body have? To receive complaints, the way
the ombudsman does? It has no legislative authority, just
political.
Bill C-67 represents an obligation, with international agreements
that must be observed. I cannot examine the bill from a fiscal
point of view today. I am sure members would be able to follow
me, but I do not really know myself what I would say. It is a
very complex issue.
My criticism is that this bill should have been discussed
rapidly after the agreement between all the WTO countries with a
view to standardizing the international financial system. That
is when it should have been done. This was a political issue.
I use the word political, rather than economic or financial,
advisedly. The political issue was bank mergers.
Apples and oranges were compared, oil was thrown on the fire,
and things were confused generally with respect to the banking
issues. It is most unfortunate.
In future, I hope that the necessary time will be taken to
ensure that there is a financial safety net for Quebeckers and
all Canadians. They will need one.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, some
aspects of our colleague's speech were most interesting, even
though he got carried away at times.
Regarding his assessment of the Reform Party's political future,
I think we would have a consensus. Regarding the Bloc Quebecois,
I think the mark would be close to 9. And regarding the
Conservative Party, I understand everything is possible.
Having said that, I want to ask my colleague a question. I
believe there is one concern he shares with many members of the
House, namely access to financial services.
I represent the riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. In 20 years, the
number of bank branches in my riding went from 20 to four.
Access to financial services has become a problem for the most
disadvantaged among us.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Then why did you support bank mergers?
Mr. Réal Ménard: I do not know whether the member for
Ottawa—Vanier is speaking up to encourage me to go on, but the
fact is—
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Why did you support bank mergers?
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, the member for Ottawa—Vanier is a
little confused, but I will straighten things out for him.
The Bloc Quebecois was almost unanimous in saying that it would
accept bank mergers as long as there would be guarantees with
regard to access to capital, the Community Reinvestment Act and,
most importantly, the ability of people to be served at any
branch.
That said, the question I want to put to my colleague from
Richmond—Arthabaska, an interesting speaker in this Parliament,
is the following. Would he agree that, if we did what the
United States has done and passed a law on community
reinvestment, it would be the best thing to happen to the
economically weak?
My colleague, who agrees with me, knows what a law on community
reinvestment can do, which is to evaluate the involvement of
each bank in its community.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You would do better to get your act
together.
1320
Mr. Réal Ménard: That is what we need, and the member for
Ottawa—Vanier agrees with me.
I ask the member for Richmond—Arthabaska if he agrees with my
assessment. I am not asking him to comment Quebec's potential
independence, except to say that it is inevitable.
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, what is inevitable is that,
even within the Bloc Quebecois, there is no consensus on this.
Perhaps the addition of a few Conservatives to the membership
has confused things a bit, who knows.
One thing we do know is that the presence of former
Conservatives within the Bloc Quebecois sometimes gives rise to
worthwhile logic.
Mr. Réal Ménard: That's the United alternative, an appeal to the
United alternative.
Mr. André Bachand: The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve
said that branches are being closed in his riding and, as I said
in my speech, this is happening even though the banks were not
allowed to merge.
Branches of banks and of caisses populaires are merging, and
people are afraid that this will happen primarily in less
advantaged communities and neighbourhoods. Unfortunately, rural
areas are always less advantaged, and the major urban
communities always have disadvantaged areas more likely to be
without any suitable financial services.
When we speak of a financial safety net for investors in Quebec
and in Canada, what we mean is that people need protection. If
there can be some kind of tax or refund to the taxpayer, why
not?
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I was interested in the remarks by the hon. member a few
minutes ago about the ideological confusion that exists within
the Bloc. He gave credit for that confusion to the presence of
some Conservatives within the Bloc.
I would certainly remind him that the Bloc was founded by
Conservatives. The influence of Conservatives in the Bloc has
been persistent throughout, particularly when it comes to
questions having to do with globalization, the WTO and the whole
question of free trade and the liberalization of trade and
investment.
I see now at least one new member of the Bloc who is questioning
the whole globalization phenomenon. Hopefully, he will have some
influence on his colleagues.
However, I did not rise to question the Bloc because the Bloc
was not speaking so I will try not to get diverted. I will ask a
question of the member who was actually speaking.
A number of things have happened over the last little while. One
in particular is our debate on this agreement which is much after
the fact. This is legislation to implement an agreement that the
Government of Canada signed over a year ago without parliamentary
debate or consultation.
The member's party has been an uncritical advocate of the World
Trade Organization and the global phenomena it represents whereby
more and more decisions that used to be taken by national
governments are now taken in the course of bureaucratic
negotiation at the WTO. Does this not give the member some pause
for reflection, some second thought about the wisdom of the past?
His party set our country on this path with the beginning of the
FTA and NAFTA, a direction albeit followed and accelerated by the
Liberals in spite of the fact that they had said they would do
otherwise when they were running in 1993. However, I do not want
to get diverted again and talk about the Liberals.
I want the member to say whether or not he has any concerns in
this regard.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I will not talk about the
Conservative Party either, except to tell the NDP member that
there is a Conservative government in Alberta, in Manitoba, in
Ontario, in Prince Edward Island and in Quebec. As members know,
there are two former Conservatives in Quebec: one is the
province's premier, while the other one is the leader of the
opposition. Therefore, there is a Conservative government in
Quebec. This is just a joke.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It is a good one!
Mr. André Bachand: As for the numerous international agreements
that were signed, it is true that, at some point, we begin to
wonder about what is going on. I remind the NDP member that one
the candidates for the Conservative Party leadership, Mr.
Orchard, raised that issue and often said “To regain our
sovereignty”.
1325
This makes us realize that we will have to be much more
sensitive to what is going on when the time comes to sign
futures international agreements.
Do we feel we are losing part of our sovereignty at the expense
of globalization? We must never forget that we cannot afford to
lose that sovereignty. If that concern surfaces, then we will
have to react.
Earlier, I mentioned that we must face international competition
even within our country. This may sound strange, but there is
international competition within a country. Such is the result
of the many treaties that we signed.
I am not saying we should revisit the agreements that we signed
in the past. We made the right decisions.
However, opening markets through international agreements such
as those does carry consequences. It impacts on those who live
in our country. Some people benefited from these treaties, but
let us not forget that others were adversely affected.
If we are aware of that, then we can continue to be a key player
on the international scene, while being even more sensitive to
the impact of any agreement or contract that is ratified.
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, further to the
remarks by the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, I am pleased to
hear that he is largely in agreement with what the Bloc
Quebecois said about the MacKay report.
He mentioned protection of employees' jobs, bank charges, access
to financial institutions, easier credit, and, of course, the
obligation to reinvest in the community raised by the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
In light of the arguments we advanced and the purpose of the
bill, as well as the reference to your credit rating being
number one, Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that the member for
Richmond—Arthabaska intends to boost his credit rating by joining
the Bloc Quebecois?
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, on the topic of credit ratings,
various polls showed the Progressive Conservative Party last in
the polls. I think we were even right off the scale and
certainly out of credit at one point. We are doing better now.
No, I will not be joining another party. It is true, however,
that the Progressive Conservative Party often has similar
concerns as well as ideas on the Quebec issue.
What we hope, however, is that the hon. members of the Bloc
Quebecois would also share certain ideas, certain interests and
a certain plan for Canada with the Progressive Conservative
Party in the future.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would not have mentioned
him but it is very interesting that the Conservative member
mentioned Mr. Orchard. He was a candidate for the leadership of
the Conservative Party who ran against the free trade agreement.
I thought it funny to run for leadership of a party that brought
in the free trade agreement when one is a virulent, anti-free
trade guy. I now understand why he always had so many unkind
words to say about the NDP. He was a Tory at heart who just
could not find a Tory party that fit his particular version of—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I will interrupt in
order to give the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska the last
word.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I think that all parties in the
House could learn from the experience of the Progressive
Conservative Party's openness, in its leadership race.
Mr. Orchard's contribution was to look at all the repercussions
and to always be mindful of all the treaties signed. His
candidacy kept us open to the world so that the world would be
open to Canada. At the same time, it should not be forgotten
that Canada is more than a name.
It is inhabited by people and we must not lose sight of this.
1330
I think that Mr. Orchard introduced many very human elements to
the leadership race and, make no mistake, this sensitivity to
the people who make up this country is a legacy that remains.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have received
notice from the hon. member for Wanuskewin that he is unable to
move his motion during private members' hour on Monday, March 22,
1999. It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of
positions in the order of precedence. Accordingly, I am
directing the table officers to drop that item of business to the
bottom of the order of precedence. Private members' hour will
thus be cancelled and Government Orders will begin at 11 a.m.
It being l.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
The House resumed from March 15 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-260, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating
my colleague and friend from Surrey North for putting this
private member's bill before the House.
I think back to the days when I sat on the justice committee and
the hon. member for Surrey North and his wife appeared before
that committee when it was dealing with Bill C-37, a bill to
amend to the Young Offenders Act. I remember comments that were
made after the hon. member and a number of other individuals
brought to the attention of members of the justice committee the
end results of the behaviour of young offenders. It caused me a
bit of concern when a Liberal member of that committee said to me
after the hearing that these people brought nothing to the debate
other than sentiment.
I think it is very important that all Canadians, including
Liberal members, understand that the feelings of Canadians are
very important when we talk about legislation. Canadians must
feel that they can support the legislation that is put before
them by the government.
The private member's bill which the hon. member for Surrey North
has introduced is really quite simple, straightforward and easy
to understand. He is merely asking that section 7.2 of the Young
Offenders Act be made a hybrid offence. That means that there
can be a fine imposed or incarceration as part of the sanctions.
Section 7.2 of the Young Offenders Act deals with the
responsibility that someone assumes in order for a young offender
not to be locked up; in other words, posting bail or whatever we
want to call it. It is interesting that the Minister of Justice
has obviously seen the merits of this argument. I understand it
is part of the new youth criminal justice bill. Therefore, I
have to assume, because the government has put it into its own
legislation, that it will be supporting this amendment to the
Young Offenders Act.
The reason it needs to be supported now and not put on the table
until the youth criminal justice bill is passed is very simply
this. It is extremely important, knowing the timeframe that some
of this legislation takes to get through the House, to have this
amendment in place sooner rather than later.
I would suggest to government members who may be looking for an
excuse not to support this bill because it is in the government's
legislation to deal with the issue. It is obviously supported
and it is obviously an important amendment to be made. I am
hoping that when the time comes to vote on this bill governments
members will be there to support the hon. member for Surrey
North.
As I mentioned, the amendment deals with the issue of
accountability.
People sign undertakings or bonds. There is an acknowledgement
or a responsibility for them to live up to what it is they have
signed.
1335
It is not just criminal matters where this happens. We run into
this situation in immigration. People agree to sign a document
indicating that they will sponsor an individual and that they
will assume financial responsibility for a person coming from
another country, and then they walk away from that
responsibility.
This issue is more of a justice issue in that it is a person
signing a document which says they will be responsible for the
actions of a young offender and that they will make sure the
young offender meets the conditions that have been imposed as a
condition of their release.
What this private member's bill is doing is showing that if a
person has wilfully failed to comply with the conditions they
agreed to, then something should happen. There should be some
responsibility laid upon them for having failed.
If a parent or guardian is unable to enforce the conditions that
are spelled out in section 7, then basically the young offender
should not be allowed to remain at large. That is the contract
which they have signed.
When a parent or guardian knows that they are not able to
control or make sure that the young person is where they are
supposed to be, or staying away from friends whom they are not
supposed to be mixing with, then the onus should be on the parent
or guardian to notify the authorities, who would then take the
young person into custody or control them in some other manner.
There is an obligation for parents or guardians to do that. The
obligation which they undertook was that if they could not handle
the individual they would turn the young person over to the
control and authority of the courts.
It really is a question of differentiating. I would suggest
that this bill is not trying to nail all parents because they are
unable to know where their kids are 24 hours a day. It is aimed
at the people who have entered an agreement, a legal
understanding, in order that the young person not be incarcerated
or held until the court case is heard. It is really earmarked or
geared to that specific situation. I do not think that anyone
should misunderstand that it is a broader brush, that it tries to
deal with all parents in all circumstances.
Canadian taxpayers, the parents and guardians of young people,
should realize that we are encouraging and supporting what the
youth criminal justice bill or the Young Offenders Act offers,
that young people can be released into the custody of parents or
guardians.
In most cases that is perfectly all right. It works out fine.
However, in those cases where somebody takes on that
responsibility and then does nothing to make sure their
undertakings are being fulfilled, there is something that can be
done about it.
The reason the hon. member is asking for it to be treated as a
hybrid offence is to give the courts the ability to put some meat
behind their decisions, to put some emphasis on the
responsibility that they are handing over to the parent or
guardian.
As it is now, because it is a summary conviction and there is
not any real penalty or sanction, it is too easy to walk away
from that responsibility.
I commend my colleague for bringing this weakness in the
legislation to the attention of the House. It is obviously a
weakness that the government has accepted needs to be addressed,
as it has done exactly that with the youth criminal justice bill.
1340
Again I want to ensure that my colleagues understand that if it
is good enough to put in a new act, then it is good enough to
support now so that it can at least be in existing legislation
rather than waiting for future legislation. We have no idea how
long it will take for the new legislation to pass through the
House and then the Senate after we have dealt with it.
For those of us who are close to the member for Surrey North it
is obvious why this is important. The failure to pass this and
put it into legislation can cause situations such as that which
happened to the hon. member for Surrey North. His son was
murdered by a young offender who was in the custody of his
parent. The conditions of his release were not fulfilled. We
are all very sympathetic with the reasons this bill was
introduced and we certainly support its intention. I urge all
government members to support this private member's bill when it
is voted upon.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
commend the hon. member for Surrey North for his contribution to
youth justice through private member's Bill C-260. We should all
be applauding his efforts and acknowledging the work he has done
on this issue.
It bears repeating that this amendment to the Young Offenders
Act would not create a general liability for parents based on the
crimes of their children. The proposed amendment would make the
existing offence of wilfully failing to comply with an
undertaking given to a court, made in connection with a young
offender's release from pretrial detention, a hybrid rather than
a summary conviction offence.
The proposed amendment to the Young Offenders Act contained in
Bill C-260 applies where a youth has been found to be ineligible
for judicial interim release under the Criminal Code test. The
current provisions of the Young Offenders Act allow such a youth
to be placed in the care of a responsible adult instead of being
detained in custody. The responsible adult must undertake in
writing to take care of the young person and to comply with
conditions set by the court. Currently, if the responsible adult
wilfully fails to comply with the undertaking, he or she could be
found guilty of a summary conviction offence.
The hon. member for Surrey North is proposing that the potential
criminal liability for wilfully failing to comply is not serious
enough. On March 11 the government introduced Bill C-68, the new
youth criminal justice legislation, which would repeal and
replace the Young Offenders Act. It should be noted that the new
legislation makes the offence of wilfully failing to comply with
an undertaking given to a court to act as a responsible adult a
hybrid rather than a summary conviction offence.
An undertaking to act as a responsible adult is a serious
responsibility and we have acknowledged that in the changes we
have made. It applies only to youth who would otherwise be
detained in custody pending their trials. We acknowledge that
some may well be dangerous and difficult to control. The wilful
failure of a responsible adult to comply with undertakings could
have tragic consequences for members of the public, as the hon.
member who introduced this legislation can attest to.
Equipping those in the system with the tools to make decisions
based on the facts of the case in front of them is a key
direction of the new legislation. Flexibility in the options
available and empowering those in the system with a full range of
tools that can be applied depending on the seriousness and
circumstances of individual cases are hallmarks of the youth
justice legislation.
While some favour automatic provisions and set tariffs, we
believe that the discretion and judgment of those in the judicial
system counts and leads to fairer and more constructive outcomes.
[Translation]
The bill stipulates that, in each and every case, teenagers
should face sanctions that promote responsibility toward victims
and the community, teach them good values and help them measure
the consequences of their action.
[English]
During the debate on Bill C-260 some members have commented on
elements of Bill C-68 and those comments must be addressed. The
hon. member for Crowfoot claimed that the government had
abandoned 10 and 11 year olds who, by their criminal acts, have
signalled to society that they are in need of help and
assistance.
1345
This government does not believe that criminalizing the
behaviour of 10 year olds is helpful. Child welfare and mental
health systems are more appropriate ways of providing safe and
effective help to disturbed children. These systems have access
to a wider array of services and are more age appropriate, family
oriented and therapeutic than those available to the criminal
justice system. I believe there is much consensus on that in the
public and here in the House.
We are not abandoning these children but are working with key
partners to ensure they do not fall through the cracks but get
the supervision and treatment they need.
The hon. member for Crowfoot also criticized restrictions placed
on the publication of names. The proposed legislation, Bill
C-68, strikes an appropriate balance we believe between two
legitimate and competing values, the need to encourage
rehabilitation by avoiding the negative effect of publicity on
the youth versus the need for greater openness and transparency
in the justice system.
Allowing for the publication of the names of youth who commit
the most serious crimes while protecting the privacy of those who
commit less serious crimes is an appropriate balance.
We look forward to further debate next week on Bill C-68 and the
opportunity to refute suggestion made by members to criminalize
10 year olds and scrap important privacy protections for youth.
The bill before us today, however, proposes a change in the
penalty structure for those who wilfully fail to respect
undertakings made to the court. I agree there is considerable
merit in this being a hybrid offence so that the decision to
proceed by summary conviction or by indictment could be made
based on the seriousness of the crime.
If we are to impress on youth that the justice system should be
respected, should foster values such as accountability and
responsibility and that criminal behaviour will lead to
meaningful consequences, then we must apply those values to
responsible adults in the youth justice system.
I thank the hon. member for Surrey North for bringing this
important proposal forward and I assure him that it is included
in Bill C-68.
[Translation]
Like a good number of Canadians, the hon. member for Surrey
North has put forward proposals to reinforce the Canadian youth
justice system.
Now that new comprehensive and balanced youth criminal justice
legislation has been introduced by the government and that a new
youth justice system will soon be implemented, we are looking
forward to work hand in hand with all Canadians who, like us,
want to solve the complex issue of youth crime.
We want to prevent youth crime by establishing sanctions for the
broad range of criminal acts committed by young people and by
helping to rehabilitate young Canadians and turn them into
law-abiding adults.
[English]
Once again I want to insist on the fact that, as the member
before me said, this provision existed in the Young Offenders
Act. We are increasing the sentence provision in the new
criminal justice act, Bill C-68. I again thank the member who
brought this forward and I commend his efforts to see it become
part of our new youth criminal justice system.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I join
in today's debate with a great deal of caution and earnestness.
I want to assure my colleague, the mover of the bill, that we
will keep in mind at all times the unfortunate events he lived
through, and which led him to enter political life.
However, after consulting with members from my party, I do not
think we will be able to support the provisions of the bill, as
mentioned already by the member for Berthier—Montcalm during the
first hour of debate.
Yet, the bill is an important one because it highlights a
fundamental issue, that of parental responsibility in the
process, admittedly often a trying one, that leads to criminal
behaviour and juvenile delinquency, and as members know, to deep
trauma in the communities concerned.
1350
I have been interested for years in the whole issue of crime,
especially as a member of Parliament. In my riding of
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, some segments of our community are
experiencing a serious crime problem.
I quickly learned that, when discussing these issues and holding
a debate on juvenile delinquency and crime, one has to deal in
nuance because of the different levels involved.
Crime can be a symptom: often emerging in the teenage years, it
is commonly linked to gangs or personal distress.
Often there is a connection between crime, the family
environment, the social surrounding, and finally failures in an
individual's life.
It is not the same kind of crime we are dealing with when we are
talking about bikers gangs, money laundering or immigrant
smugglers for example.
This being said, the question raised by our colleague is: What
part of the responsibility should be assumed by a parent? The
persons in charge could be the parents or anyone who has custody
of the child, who is still a minor. If the guardians are
negligent, that is if they have failed to exercise proper
supervision, as mentioned in the bill in question, if these
people have not been as vigilant as required under their
contractual obligation, it is asked that they be liable to a
longer prison term.
We come to our jobs as lawmakers with the sum total of our past
experiences. I have the utmost understanding, respect and
sympathy for the motivations behind the bill introduced by the
hon. member for Surrey North, and find them highly respectable.
Nevertheless, the question arises: what impact will holding
parents who have failed to meet their obligation of supervision
and guidance more responsible have on outcome? I believe that
the underlying question we have as a party is not a denial of
the existence of juvenile delinquency. It is not a refusal to
recognize that there are certain conditions conducive to the
development of youth crime.
It seems to me that there are two premises in the contributions
made by the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, himself a lawyer
moreover, and those made by our colleagues within caucus
discussions.
My understanding of the matter is that, first of all, it is
extremely difficulty to look at crime without examining a whole
set of factors. Is there not a wider responsibility, a more
general one, and is it not rather risky to focus essentially on
the family unit? This is the first aspect we question.
Second, does the bill not reflect—despite reasons which, I
repeat, for very personal considerations, are utterly
responsible and respectable—a desire to say basically, at 14,
15 or 16 years of age that you are an adult to some extent and
should be considered equal to someone of 30, 40 or 50 years of
age, whereas we know that the circumstances surrounding
behaviour at age 14, 15 or 16, however dramatic they may be,
must not prevent us from making distinctions?
Why not? First, because at age 14, 15, 16 or 17 we are at our
most vulnerable, our values are not entirely established and we
are still learning.
1355
Second, our opposition focuses on the fact that, as a society,
when things happen in the family that verge on the criminal,
should we not make resources available to this family? More
basically—and I want our position to be very clearly
understood—it must not prevent us from establishing whatever it
takes to provide a dissuasive effect and ensure the level of
juvenile delinquency in our society decreases. I think that is
what all the parties in this House want.
I hope to have a chance, later on, to make the connections
between youth crime, poverty and other factors which reinforce
this reality, but must we not also ask ourselves what this will
do to the rehabilitation process?
I would say the big difference between the Reform Party and the
Bloc Quebecois on this issue is our concern with rehabilitation.
As soon as signs of juvenile delinquency start appearing within
a family—and I also mean within a community—should we not ask
ourselves what it will do to the rehabilitation process if the
parent or guardian or the person responsible, the person who
signed the undertaking mentioned in section 7.2 of the act as
proposed in the bill is thrown in jail for two years?
In this type of situation, do we not have a duty to bring the
parent and the child closer together? Do we not have a duty to
make available to this family, that is going through a difficult
time, mechanisms that are based on mediation and dialogue where
we have to try to understand what went wrong?
If a 14, 15, or 16-year old kills one of his peers, commits
vandalism or commits any other offence under the Criminal Code,
that means that, at some point, the youth rebelled against
society. Of course there are different degrees of rebellion. I
can understand that.
The one criticism we can address to the Reform Party is that it
looks only at solutions centred on sentencing.
There may be something there worth looking into, but I notice
they have given no thought or consideration to understanding the
causes of such behaviour and the rehabilitation process.
This is why we are not very enthusiastic about the bill. This
being said, we are ready to consider it, as the member for
Berthier—Montcalm said on several occasions,. But how can we make
the rehabilitation process even more effective?
If the Reform Party could give us the assurance now that sending
parents to jail would ensure that the young offender will be a
better citizen in 5, 10 or 15 years from now, we would have no
difficulty supporting the bill, but we believe there is
something missing here.
We are not convinced that sending parents to jail for a longer
time, with a stiffer sentence, which would prevent the child
from maintaining contact with them, at least within the family
unit, will enhance the rehabilitation process.
With regard to young offenders, there is already a model in
Quebec. We have the expertise, we have the legislation. On the
basis of verifiable data, which deserve to be discussed, we
believe that the results were worth it.
I will conclude by saying that we understand and respect our
colleague's motivation, but we are not convinced that this is
the right way to go in order to reach the goals identified in
his bill.
1400
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the private
member's bill that was introduced by the member for Surrey North.
I thank the member for bringing this issue forward. It is not
always easy to bring forward a private member's bill for debate.
A lot of work is involved. Next week we will begin debate on the
new youth criminal justice act which is very important. I would
like to congratulate the member for having done the work on this
issue and for being part of a democratic process which ensures
that these issues are aired.
The member's personal circumstances surrounding this issue are
tragic. This is all the more reason that we need to debate these
issues, to ensure that our youth justice system works properly
and protection is provided not just for young people but for
society as a whole.
The purpose of this bill is to make an offence as set out in
section 7.2 of the Young Offenders Act a hybrid offence. As we
have heard today in debate the bill does not change the section
other than to make the penalty more serious. In serious cases
under section 7.2, parents or guardians could face a jail
sentence of up to two years if they fail to supervise their
children who have been released from custody. This would be an
increase from the current maximum penalty of six months in jail
and/or a $2,000 fine.
Normally when a child is charged with a crime under the current
Young Offenders Act, a parent or guardian signs an agreement with
the court to supervise the child and enforce certain conditions
until the charges are heard. This bill would increase the
penalty if the conditions are not met.
There will be a much fuller and comprehensive debate in this
House as a result of the newly introduced youth criminal justice
act, Bill C-68. While we welcome this private member's bill as a
good opportunity to debate something that needs to be aired, it
is important that it also be in the context of youth justice as a
whole. From that point of view it is important that the new youth
criminal justice act be debated on the next day of business of
the House.
We in the New Democratic Party very strongly support measures to
protect the public from serious violent repeat offenders. We
believe that youth who fall into this category and have been
determined to be a risk to public safety should be held in
custody.
One purpose of our youth justice system is to recognize when
violent crimes have taken place, if custody is determined to be
in the interests of the public, then those young offenders should
be held in custody. We will get into this more when we debate the
new act that has been introduced. We have some concerns about
the impact that provisions such as the one before us today may
have on families and their ability to meet conditions. What kind
of difficulty will imposing a stiffer penalty have for a single
parent, low income families or even families where both parents
are working full time?
It is important to put on the record that although there are
very good intentions around this bill, we have to have a balanced
approach. We have to look at whether or not this kind of penalty
will place a significant and unfair burden on some families and
parents who lack the resources to strictly enforce the
supervision orders. A bill such as this one may be something that
becomes discriminatory.
1405
In the last few weeks a lot of the debate in the House of
Commons has been about what is happening to Canadian families and
how they are under enormous stress. We have had debates from the
Reform Party about the tax system. There has been a lot of
useful exchanges in the House.
In today's day and age there is enormous stress on families.
Parents sometimes have one, two or three jobs. Wages are being
driven down. People are working longer and longer hours for less
money. All of those things create stress on families,
particularly on single parent families and low income families.
These are very difficult times.
I do want to be clear about our concerns on the impact this
bill, if it were approved, would have on some families in terms
of their ability to provide the resources and supervision
required under this bill and generally under section 7.2 of the
act. We have to make sure that the families that can least
afford the resources are not families that would be singled out
and unduly punished.
If we want to deal with the issue of youth crime or youth
justice, the NDP believes very strongly that we have to look at
the underlying causes of youth crime. We must have adequate long
term programs, not just a little bit here, a band-aid there, a
new announcement today, or a few more dollars here and there.
Governments at all levels have to make a serious commitment to
address things like chronic youth unemployment and the lack of
educational opportunities.
In my own community, I am sure every parent is aware that
education has a real impact on young people. Young people who
are seriously involved and doing very well in school and whose
needs are being met through the educational system are very
unlikely to get into trouble.
Education is a lifelong process. Young people must be supplied
with the educational, employment and training opportunities they
need. I and many other members in my caucus believe they are
fundamental and critical things we can address as a society to
ensure that we are actually preventing crime.
When kids are productive and involved in their communities and
in their schools, they are not getting into trouble. They are
not falling off the edge. They do not feel isolated, that nobody
cares about them, that they have no future and that they have no
hope.
Unfortunately, the converse is true. When we see the lack of
educational opportunities, the lack of training and jobs and the
lack of community support then we see kids who are very high
risk. They become vulnerable to the sex trade, to illegal drug
use and to youth gangs. All of those things become pressures on
young people.
From our point of view, those are the issues that need to be
addressed if we are serious about addressing the causes of youth
crime.
Next week for the first time, the B.C. government is declaring a
week to stop the sexual exploitation of children. Youth
awareness week is being very much supported by the RCMP as one
way to draw attention to some of the issues facing our young
people and how they get drawn into a criminal and marginalized
lifestyle. This is something we need to deal with and ensure
that there is an adequate response.
We appreciate this bill being brought forward. As we begin to
debate the youth criminal justice bill next, we want to deal with
these issues in a more comprehensive way. While we do support
the intent of what is being brought forward here, we do have some
concerns about the impact this provision would have on some
families.
We look forward to the debate that is coming forward in the next
few days around the youth criminal justice system.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
normal occasions we are very pleased to speak about issues that
affect our constituents but to speak about dealing with young
offenders, especially young offenders with some very serious
offences, is not something we prefer to do.
However we do not live in a perfect world and as such, we have to
deal with the issues we are faced with as parliamentarians.
1410
I agree with the member for Vancouver East who says that we
should do all these proactive things to solve the problems before
they happen. But it seems in our society the old days are gone.
In Newfoundland in the old days people would say if you had
three square meals a day and a roof over your head, the world was
a pretty good place to live. That world of food, clothing and
shelter being the only requirements for a person in society is
not something which now exists.
Our society has become unbelievably complex. We need a lot of
help from parliamentarians and from governments to make sure that
our society is safe, that we have the basics in life which now
include the requirement for a very significant social net. When
one is young, when one is aged, and certainly when one is sick or
disabled a lot of things are required to be put in place by
governments to make sure that one has more than just food,
clothing and shelter.
Education, as the member mentioned, is one of the things which
is needed in a more significant and increasingly aggressive and
progressive way to get at the problems before they become issues
which we have to deal with.
Besides having food, clothing and shelter, citizens require
safety and that governments address the fundamental things, for
example, the issues of crime and youth and adult offenders which
make us feel so insecure in our communities.
It is almost like insurance in reverse. We buy fire insurance to
protect our homes. Most of us will never see a fire. Most of
us, if we are lucky, will never see a violent offence.
There is criminal activity. We have seen some especially in St.
John's West. There have been terrible incidents all across
Canada. Violent young people whom we are speaking about today
commit the most terrible crimes. It frightens us all. It makes
us want to buy safety insurance because we have been touched by
this violence.
In Newfoundland recently we have had half a dozen terrible
examples of violence by young offenders against our senior
citizens, some of the most defenceless people in our communities.
Many times these young offenders are repeat offenders. They have
been in trouble with the law in many places. When it happens to
an aged person it frightens us all and makes us wonder where we
are going to go.
Like all the members who have spoken on Bill C-260, I want to
congratulate the member for Surrey North for bringing it to the
attention of the House and to the Canadian public. Obviously we
all deeply regret why the member has had to do this. I say
again, when one is touched by violence there has to be a reaction
to it.
I am disappointed that it took 18 months to bring the issue to
the floor of the House of Commons so we could discuss an issue
which plagues many Canadian communities and many Canadian
families. I wonder why that has had to happen. Everyone knows
the problem of young offenders, violent offenders and repeat
offenders. Why could we not deal with it when the issue was
first brought forward?
I remember a saying, I think it was by a president, that it
would be amazing how much we could accomplish together if we did
not care who got the credit. Sometimes in this place we are so
involved with policy, with procedure and with positioning that we
forget about the good idea. Last night we had an emergency
debate. We have done that a couple of other times. If there is
something that needs to be done and the Canadian public wants it,
demands it and expects it, does it make any difference whether it
comes from a backbencher from the Reform Party, a member of the
Conservative Party or a member of the government, either
backbencher or government minister? The idea is that the Canadian
public wants certain things done.
I want to concur with the comments made by our justice critic,
the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who spoke when
this legislation was last before the House. He said that some of
the progressive advances we are talking about are not going to be
seen in the government's bill, Bill C-68. Some of the better
ideas are here now in Bill C-260 that we could implement.
Some of the ideas that the provinces wanted to bring in are not
in Bill C-68. In many ways we think Bill C-68, the government
response which will become the law of this country, is going to
be regressive. It reverts to the not so good old days of the
juvenile delinquency act. The idea is that repeat young offenders
who are involved in offences which are less serious in nature
will be tried in court as adults but then sentenced as children.
Many people are left wondering why it is that it took the Liberal
government 12 months of head scratching to come up with a very
old idea.
1415
The government has come up with a bill that fails to adequately
protect Canadians from increasingly violent crimes committed by
young people. Public opinion on the subject is so strong that it
should be obvious to everybody, even the Liberal government.
While it seems it wants to project the image of a government
that has toughened up the Young Offenders Act, the reality is
that the patchwork legislation will do little to accomplish the
objectives the minister claims to support.
Age is part of it, lowering the age to 14 when 12 or 10 is
recommended. Parents, who are very proud of their young sons or
daughters, are sometimes asked how old they are. For some
strange reason they might say four going on forty or six going on
sixty. It seems that in our progressive society where change
takes place so fast some of our young offenders are ten going on
forty or fifty in the way they deal with the world.
In lowering the age to 14 at which young offenders could face
adult sentences for the most serious of crimes like murder,
attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault, the
government has failed to go as far as it should. Instead the
ever present Liberal spin doctors are treating the important
issue of youth justice as merely another public relations
exercise, apparently indifferent to the substantive effects of
the legislation the Minister of Justice has introduced.
Let me point out that even the minister's advisers in the
Department of Justice recommended that the age of accountability
should be lowered to 10 years. The minister chose to ignore this
advice and we as Canadians are left to wonder why.
Another problem with the minister's bill is the ambiguity in the
language it employs. This ambiguity will mean the implementation
will depend on the interpretation of the legislation after the
fact, instead of being clear and direct in the first instance. We
are left with the same problem that the courts will make our laws
for us. Some of the legislation as drafted is hundreds of pages
long. We begin to wonder if lawyers who draft legislation do it
so other lawyers will have reason to take it to court for appeals
on top of appeals until eventually we get a new law many years
hence.
I am not alone in identifying the serious deficiencies in the
proposed youth criminal justice act. It has been criticized
severely by the governments of Ontario and Alberta, both
provinces in which youth justice is a particularly salient issue.
It seems clear that the governments of these provinces are much
more in touch with the views and concerns of the residents than
the federal government. They know that window dressing is not
adequate response to a very real problem. They know that it is
not enough to want to be seen to be doing something and that the
kind of public posturing the federal government adopted with
regard to youth justice is worthless without meaningful
legislative measures to back it up.
I understand the spirit of the legislation introduced by the
member for Surrey North. It is an unfortunate fact of our system
that it has taken so long to get it here. It is also unfortunate
for members of the House, and indeed for all Canadians who look
to their governments for leadership on youth justice issues, that
since the introduction of Bill C-260 the Liberals have chosen to
bring forward such a weak response in Bill C-68.
I congratulate the member for bringing it to the attention of
all members of parliament and the public of Canada. It is an
issue that should be dealt with as quickly as possible.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak in support of the bill
of the hon. member for Surrey North. The bill is quite clear in
its intent to make section 7(2) of the Young Offenders Act a
hybrid offence to present clear and genuine penalties to people
who make a signed undertaking and then fail to live up to it.
People who post bail for accused offenders forfeit it if the
bail conditions are not met. Why should any responsible adult
who signs an undertaking to supervise a young offender not have
to pay a significant penalty for failing to meet his or her
commitment? The concept is fairly clear.
The hon. member for Vancouver East suggested that the proposed
legislation might discriminate against parents who for one reason
or another lack the means to provide necessary supervision.
Section 7(2) of the Young Offenders Act is specifically designed
to protect the public. It is not put there for the convenience
of the parent. It is to protect the public.
1420
Parents are not obliged to sign these undertakings. There is no
rule or coercion which says they must sign these undertakings.
If a parent voluntarily undertakes to accept responsibility, I
would submit the parent should be held responsible for his or her
actions. It is not something that can be done frivolously.
The speech of the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve left me
somewhat bemused. I did not know what he was getting at a lot of
the time. If I could cut through all of it, it would seem that
he rejects the concept of individual responsibility, not just for
juveniles but for adults as well. Bill C-260 is all about
accepting responsibility for personal undertakings.
The parliamentary secretary and others made reference to the
fact that the bill would duplicate one of the provisions of the
upcoming youth criminal justice act. It would be covered in
section 138 of the act, but I do not accept the premise that
because the YCJA may be coming down the road some time in the
future we should not be seriously considering this one small
amendment to the YOA at this time. One does not stop scrubbing
floors at home just because there is a plan to make major
renovations. One continues normal everyday maintenance.
Bill C-260 could be enacted now. The new YCJA was only tabled
last week. Heaven knows when it will become law. Hopefully it
will not become law in exactly the same form in which it is now.
It needs a lot of revision and renovation. We could make this
one quick fix to help the public, to benefit society in general
at this time, simply by enacting a bill that incidentally has
been coming down the pike for a year and a half. It has taken
that long to reach the point where we are now.
I get a feeling—maybe it is a misplaced feeling—in listening
to the hon. parliamentary secretary that there is a slight
Machiavellian motive here, the ploy that we should not worry
about Bill C-260 because the meat of it will be buried or hidden
away in the new youth criminal justice act when it comes down.
Maybe the broader bill is being gussied up a bit with the clause
to attempt to force MPs to support a pretty noxious piece of
legislation for the sake of one very valuable clause. It is like
the old story about a chocolate covered smartie buried in a bowl
of manure. Anyone wanting to eat the smartie knows what has to
be done. I do not appreciate that approach to legislation.
The parliamentary secretary diverged a little from the debate
today. I would like to respond to what she said about the child
welfare and mental health systems being all that we need to look
after 10 and 11 year olds caught up in the criminal justice
system. That is what we are relying on right now. That is what
we are doing.
We are trying to deal with the 10 and 11 year olds strictly
through child welfare and the mental health system and it is not
working.
1425
The new YCJA would do nothing to change an approach which has
been a dismal failure. I have not had a chance to read the bill
in any depth yet but on scanning the bill I cannot see very much
serious improvement in the YCJA over the old YOA. It is the old
car with a new coat of paint. Why are we taking this long and
tedious approach to doing nothing? The Muslims have a saying
that the elephant laboured and brought forth a mouse. That seems
to be what is happening with the new act.
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am delighted to join the debate. As a member from British
Columbia I commend the hon. member for Surrey North who has
worked hard to introduce Bill C-260, an act to amend the Young
Offenders Act. In many ways this is a timely proposal.
The government's strategy involves replacing the Young Offenders
Act with new youth justice legislation which has proposed
significant improvements to the youth justice system. The
strategy focuses on three key areas: preventing youth crime,
ensuring meaningful consequences for offences committed by youth,
and improving rehabilitation and reintegration for young
offenders.
The government's strategy for the renewal of youth justice
launched on May 12, 1998 sets out a vision for responding to
Canadians' concerns about youth crime. Clearly, Canadians want a
youth justice system that protects society.
It is in the context of addressing problems with the current
youth justice system through new youth justice legislation that
Bill C-260 has been considered. The bill, sponsored by the hon.
member for Surrey North, proposes making the offences of wilfully
failing to comply with an undertaking made in connection with a
young person's release from pretrial detention a hybrid rather
than a summary conviction offence.
One of the weaknesses of the existing system relates to pretrial
detention and judicial interim release. There is a failure to
distinguish adequately between those who should be detained in
custody prior to their trials and those who need not be. This
situation should be addressed through greater clarity on the
criteria for pretrial detention and enhanced program support to
ensure there are alternatives for those who do not need to be in
jail prior to trial. The hon. member for Surrey North's concern
relates to those who are released and improperly supervised.
The provision of the Young Offenders Act that is the subject of
Bill C-260 takes effect after the bail criteria have been applied
and the youth has been found to be ineligible for judicial
interim release. In such cases the current provisions of the
Young Offenders Act permit youth to be placed in the care of a
responsible adult instead of being detained in custody.
I thank the hon. member for Surrey North for bringing Bill C-260
forward and I assure him that it has been given every
consideration during the development of the new youth justice
legislation.
The new legislation will soon be introduced. It is an important
component of our broad, comprehensive strategy to address youth
crime.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of
precedence on the order paper.
It being 2.30 p.m. this House stands adjourned until Monday next
at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)