GOVERNMENT ORDERS

AN ACT TO AMEND CERTAIN LAWS RELATING TO FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we do not mind that Orders of the Day being changed halfway through the day. As you know, we were talking about the amendments by the other House to Bill C-70. Now we find, with no consultation, we will be debating Bill C-82.

We think of the co-operation that we have given the government side on the tobacco legislation and other legislation. Now we find, with no consultation whatsoever, it changes the order of business and we are now expected to debate another bill today when we have been talking about the harmonized sales tax all morning.

I am wondering where the government is coming from in changing the Orders of the Day like this.

The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will appreciate that Standing Order 40(2) states that:

Government Orders shall be called and considered in such sequence as the government determines.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?

Mr. Silye: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: No, I am not going to listen to any more.

Mr. Silye: Well, it is a new point of order then.

The Deputy Speaker: That will be judged very quickly, whether or not it is a new point of order.

Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, prior to question period starting at two o'clock, I was on my feet during my 20 minute allotment. I was not finished. I was told by the Speaker who chaired question period that I would get the floor after Routine Proceedings. I do not have the floor. I was given a certain amount of time to finish my speech because I have some very important things to say on that bill.

(1525 )

The Deputy Speaker: The member has raised an interesting point. Speaker Parent did give an undertaking that the member for Calgary Centre would speak right after question period. Undoubtedly the Speaker thought that the bill would be recalled and the member could finish his intervention.

Of course, if there is unanimous consent, we can do anything that the House wishes to do. I wonder if the member wishes to ask for unanimous consent to complete his intervention.

Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps when Bill C-70 is brought back there would be favourable winds to having the hon. member finish his speech at that time.

The government has the prerogative to call what business it wishes. I know you have already ruled on that. I would remind my hon. colleague from St. Albert to refer to the House business

statement that was given on Thursday which clearly indicates that Bill C-82 is coming forward today.

The Deputy Speaker: It goes without saying that the hon. member will be entitled to finish his intervention the next time that matter is called.

I take it from the comments of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader that there will not be unanimous consent to allowing the member to finish his remarks.

Accordingly, we are caught by the Standing Order. I have heard enough on that point of order. The Standing Order is very clear. The government can call any order it wishes at virtually any time.

Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I had the floor prior to question period. As a member of Parliament, my privileges are that I am allowed to give a speech with a certain allotment of time.

Because question period comes at a certain time and interferes with my speech, I should not be denied my right as a member of Parliament to finish my speech which has four minutes left.

If this government is in such a darn hurry to get on with other legislation without letting me finish my four minutes, this is just another example of the dictatorial power that these-

An hon. member: Order.

Mr. Silye: I had the floor, Mr. Speaker. My privileges are being denied.

The Deputy Speaker: There was the possibility of a solution which, obviously, is not one that is acceptable to all the members of the House as it must be. Accordingly, it is my duty under the orders to put the bill presently before the House.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You alluded to the fact that you thought there was no unanimous consent. I do not recall you seeking unanimous consent of the House to let the hon. member for Calgary Centre finish the four minutes of his speech.

The Deputy Speaker: That is correct. There was not a call for unanimous consent. Perhaps the easiest thing to do is ask if there is unanimous consent to let the hon. member for Calgary Centre finish his speech?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: No.

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair heard a no, therefore there is not unanimous consent.

Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If we are not going to debate Bill C-70 this afternoon as I was told we were, could you advise us please on what day next week we will be debating it?

The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Saint John probably does not realize that the Chair does not know these things. The Speaker is not able to do that. Perhaps the hon. Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions will do that in his remarks.

(1530)

Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I have a quick question which I hope you can answer. The Speaker told me as a member of Parliament that I would have the floor after question period for four minutes. That Speaker left and there was a transition when the Speakers changed. If that is what happened I still stand in my place and I insist that I get my four minutes.

The Deputy Speaker: The same point was made before. I will try to put it in other words. The government is entitled under our rules, which have been passed by all members, to change the order of business whenever it wishes to do that.

Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to add my voice to those of hon. colleagues in the government in support of Bill C-82. I hope my other colleagues will be equally supportive.

I attach particular importance to the consumer protection measures in Bill C-82. We live in a period of rapid evolution in the financial sector. Technological advances, globalization of financial services markets and a changing competitive landscape are some of the broad trends at play. All of these trends have major implications for consumers, most of which are positive in nature.

Canadian consumers enjoy more choice and convenience in the financial services market than ever before. Long gone are the days when we had to go to the bank between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on a week day to take out money and write cheques to make payments. Now we can get cash at any hour of the day or night through automated banking machines. Payments can be made using convenient new mechanisms like direct debit and pre-authorized debits. In addition, we can do the basic banking we want, apply for loans or seek insurance coverage from our home computers or by telephone.

Technological innovations have been accompanied by an ever-increasing array of financial products from a range of service providers. For example, insurance products can be tailor made to fit an individual's circumstances. Consumers who carry credit card balances can reduce their interest costs by using one of the new low rate credit cards on the market, and consumers can satisfy many of their financial needs through one stop shopping. For example, they can take out mortgages, invest in guaranteed investment certificates and buy mutual funds from the same trust company.

These innovations bestow countless benefits on consumers. At the same time, they have led to changes in the relationship between financial institutions and their clients. Consumers want this relationship to be balanced and fair, and have therefore expressed

the desire for better protection in their dealings with financial institutions.

The government agrees that consumer protection must be enhanced in the context of a rapidly evolving financial sector. Bill C-82 proposes several measures to accomplish this.

One key measure deals with privacy. Privacy protection is of utmost importance to the government. This is an age where technological advances permit increasingly easier access to and analysis of personal information. In this environment, consumers want to maintain control over their own information. They want to know why their information is being collected, how it will be used and how it will be stored.

In the financial sector the collection and handling of personal information is a significant issue. Financial institutions rely on extensive amounts of often sensitive information to offer their services. As a result it is important that they take privacy protection seriously.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, do we have quorum?

The Deputy Speaker: The member is correct. There is not a quorum. Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The Deputy Speaker: There are now 20 members in the House. We have a quorum. Resuming debate, the hon. secretary of state.

(1535 )

Mr. Peters: Mr. Speaker, financial institutions have made efforts to deal with privacy concerns. For example, they participated with consumer groups, government representatives and other business groups in the development of the Canadian Standards Association model code for the protection of personal information which was finalized in April 1996.

The government wants to build on these efforts. Accordingly, the bill provides the authority to make regulations in the area of privacy. Specifically, it allows for regulations requiring financial institutions to establish procedures governing the collection, retention, use and disclosure of customer information and to inform customers about these procedures. In addition, the bill provides the authority to require financial institutions to establish procedures for dealing with complaints on privacy and to report annually on complaints received and actions taken to respond to them.

Following passage of the bill, the government intends to establish regulations to implement all of these requirements. I am sure that hon. members will agree with the merits of this proposal. Although privacy protection is an issue that cuts across industries, and the government is developing a broader approach to privacy protection, it is important to take this opportunity to respond to the immediate concerns of consumers of financial services.

Bill C-82 also provides for enhancements to the cost of credit disclosure provisions in the legislation. These provisions were designed to ensure consumers are informed about the cost of credit before they enter into loan contracts.

As part of the internal trade initiative, federal and provincial governments agreed in September 1996 to harmonize cost of credit disclosure requirements across jurisdictions. The objective of the harmonization exercise is to ensure uniform disclosure practices across the country and to ensure consumers benefit from a consistently high standard of protection.

Accordingly, the bill proposes amendments to the disclosure provisions in federal legislation. These amendments will allow the government to implement all aspects of the agreement with the provinces.

Under the new cost of credit disclosure regime, consumers will receive fair, accurate, timely and comparable information about the cost of borrowing. Armed with such information, they will be better able to assess credit options and obtain the most economical credit for their needs.

The government has been working to better protect consumers in other ways. I would like to report on significant initiatives in two areas: access to basic financial services and information about fees.

During the course of the 1997 review, several consumer groups expressed concern that low income individuals often have difficulty in getting access to basic financial services such as opening accounts and cashing cheques. For example, it was pointed out that financial institutions' identification requirements often include credit cards and a driver's licence which not everyone has. To remedy the situation the government held discussions with consumer groups and with financial institutions.

I am pleased to report that the major banks have made a number of important commitments to improve access. In particular, banks have agreed that they will require only two pieces of signed identification instead of three to open accounts or to cash cheques. They will also accept sponsorships from responsible customers known to the branch. In addition, employment will not be a condition of opening a bank account. Bank staff will be trained to follow these policies and to be sensitive to the needs of low income individuals.

The government has also encouraged improvements with respect to information about service fees. While consumers have access to a broad range of accounts in deposit taking institutions, they often find it difficult to compare the changes applicable to various accounts and therefore choose the best account for their needs. After discussion, the major banks have agreed to ensure that clear information about their products and services is available in publicly accessible areas of their branches. This will include information about low cost accounts and tips on minimizing fees. The banking industry is also working with Industry Canada to

provide information about bank accounts on Industry Canada's Internet site.

(1540)

I believe that the measures I have discussed today will provide important benefits to consumers of financial services. We are confident that these initiatives will help ensure a healthy balance in the relationship between financial institutions and their clients.

In closing, on behalf of the government I would like to extend sincere appreciation to the various consumer groups that played a role in shaping these initiatives. These groups gave freely of their time and energy to ensure that the consumer voice was heard in this review, and the government has listened.

I call on my colleagues in the House to do the same by giving their support to Bill C-82.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, more than anything else, Bill C-82 is a technical revision of the Bank Act. It does not contain major changes such as the deregulation of financial institutions, for example, allowing banks to sell insurance and the merger of major banks.

The government does, however, propose some legislative novelties, one might call them, which, although they do not go as far as the white paper and the Liberal finance committee report, do merit our further attention.

In addition to technical amendments to the Banking Act, Bill C-82 seeks to modify or develop legislation on two main themes: enhancing consumer protection, on the one hand, and lessening the burden of regulation imposed on financial institutions on the other. It must be noted that implementation of a new access system for foreign banks will, it seems, come in a separate act slated to come out by the end of the year.

The government will adopt clauses on the protection of confidential information, better information on the cost of credit, and protection of consumers from tied selling. After discussions with the government, the banks will take a number of steps to improve access by low-income individuals to basic financial services, as well as information on banking services which, we must admit, have been virtually non-existent until now, possibly to the detriment of users of banking services. Banks must also adopt a policy on tied selling, and set up mechanisms to handle complaints on this. Some banks have already taken such initiatives.

As for tied selling, the government is naive almost to the point of complacency. These measures apply only to banks, while the same thing is not required of other financial institutions. This is because banks fall under federal jurisdiction, while the other institutions, such as insurance companies, come under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government should let the provinces set the rules and require its federal institutions to adhere to the provincial legislation. This is the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois. That way, the legislation would not have the double standards it does at the moment.

The government also states that the clauses to amend the Bank Act so as to prevent high-pressure tied selling will come into effect only if they prove necessary. Banks are being asked to create their own internal complaint handling system, and the act will apply only if this proves insufficient-but using what criteria?

The government is therefore doing nothing concrete about tied selling. What is proposes to do eventually is not even the right thing, in our opinion. It just refers to tied selling in order to gain brownie points as the elections come closer, but in actual fact it strikes us that this is nothing but hot air.

(1545)

If the government wants to do something concrete, it should make the banks subject to the same legislation as financial institutions that come under provincial jurisdiction, which offers consumers genuine protection.

We deplore the fact that the federal government is trying to interfere, through the back door, with areas under provincial jurisdiction. Under sections 254 to 259 of the Insurance Companies Act, an insurance company with a federal charter or a foreign company regulated under this act is currently prohibited from selling its policies in Canada to another insurance company that is provincially regulated.

Since most foreign insurance companies operate in Quebec under a federal charter, Quebec insurance companies cannot buy their policies when these companies withdraw from the Quebec market.

This is unfair to Quebec insurance companies for the following reasons: first of all, they cannot freely enter into transactions with another insurance company that is federally regulated, even to purchase a block of policies that are all held by Quebec policy holders. Second, it is against the spirit of NAFTA because through Ottawa, artificial trade barriers are being created in Quebec. Third, banks and trust companies do not have the equivalent in their legislation, so that a federally regulated bank or trust company may buy blocks of business from their provincially chartered counterpart.

In other words, Quebec insurance companies are not treated as well as foreign companies and this, in their own country. In a joint brief dated February 1996, the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, the Canadian Bankers Association, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, Canada Trust, the Trust Companies Association of Canada and the Credit Union Central of Canada-this is starting to look like quite a crowd-asked the federal government to allow, with the approval of the minister, the transfer of policies in Canada

from a federal insurance company to a provincial insurance company.

The Government of Canada did not respond to this request in Bill C-82, thus perpetuating the unfair treatment of provincially chartered insurance companies like those in Quebec. If nothing is done, C-82 will continue to restrict the opportunities for expansion of provincially regulated insurance companies, so that many will prefer to obtain a federal charter. Let us not forget that insurance is a strictly provincial matter. The federal government has always tended to forget that.

The reason the federal government is prohibiting the sale of policies by a federally chartered company to a provincially chartered company is that the latter is outside its control and supervision. On the other hand, the federal government is permitting the sale of blocks of insurance policies by a provincially or federally chartered company to a federally chartered company-the reverse is not permitted-on the grounds that the latter is under its supervision and must be a member of the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Compensation Corporation.

Clearly, it is a one way street: what goes one way does not go the other. It has been this way since 1867, always to the federal government's advantage. Over time, companies, and especially the major ones, end up with only a federal charter, because a provincial charter penalizes them by preventing them from acquiring blocks of policies from a federally chartered company.

The provincial market, which is shrinking as a result, may well disappear. Sooner or later, if there are no more companies with a provincial charter, the province, as we know, will become a redundant lawmaker, and this is how the federal government will take total control of an area that, under the Constitution, comes totally under provincial jurisdiction.

(1550)

In such a situation, the Bloc certainly has nothing against the protection of consumer information, but this is a matter of civil law, an area of provincial jurisdiction. Quebec already has legislation on consumer protection, on the protection of personal information, on insurance and on market intermediaries, which is to be reviewed shortly.

The aim of the federal government is to be able to make additional regulations in an area of jurisdiction where it has no business, by duplicating and overlapping what already exists. In this regard, federal policy never changes.

This is to be found in section 459 of the Bank Act, which is amended by clause 55 of Bill C-82, which is before the House today. The government claims in its fine speeches to want to eliminate overlap and allow the level of government best suited to provide the public with the services it needs to do so. In fact, however, it continues to trample all over fields of provincial jurisdiction.

It cites an agreement between the provinces in order to legislate in this area. That is not what federalism is about. It is not because ten provinces agree on a subject that the federal government has the right to make laws and regulations in an area of jurisdiction that is not its own.

The federal government claims with Bill C-82 to be improving access to basic financial services for low income Canadians. For instance, only two pieces of identification instead of three would be required to open an account or cash a cheque, photo ID being considered desirable but not mandatory. This is a mere facade, since the problem remains.

The federal and provincial governments forbid banks to ask for some identification that most Canadians carry, including their social security number. The solution would be to think of a piece of ID that everyone has and that banks are allowed to ask for to check the identity of individuals. More often than not, the only cards they can ask for are credit cards, which very few low income people have.

Banks are not allowed to impose undue pressure on their clients, but the legislation does not say what constitutes undue pressure. In any case, it is up to the provinces to define this undesirable practice, as consumer protection is a provincial responsibility. However, the federal government reserves the right to make regulations in an area under provincial jurisdiction where there is already duplication and overlap, as pointed out earlier, in the case of Quebec. This is unacceptable to us, Bloc members.

In addition, Bill C-82 makes a distinction between undue pressure and favourable tied selling in subsections 459.1(2) and (3).

This policy raises major questions, since the goods that are tied seldom have the same life or expiry. This will make control extremely difficult, in a word, it cannot work. Why not require banks to comply with provincial consumer protection and tied selling regulations?

We know that, for the federal government, streamlining and duplication are synonyms, while harmonization really means interference. But this must stop, particularly if the government wants to fulfil the commitments made in the last speech from the throne. We feel that Bill C-82 provides the government with a good opportunity to show that it intends to fulfil its fine promises by not legislating and by not adopting regulations that duplicate and overlap what is already being done at the provincial level.

The federal government is imposing on banks standards that are not imposed on other institutions that come under provincial jurisdiction. Given that all these financial institutions are ultimately competing against each other, the only way to ensure they are subjected to the same rules is to let the provinces decide how these

institutions, including banks, must deal with the issue of consumer protection, including complaints relating to tied selling.

(1555)

The Insurance Brokers Association of Canada fears that federal regulations in the financial planning sector would interfere with what is already being done. According to the association, the code of ethics on the disclosure of personal information, which is currently adhered to on a voluntary basis, is too soft on banks, given what is required of intermediaries in the marketplace.

The Bloc Quebecois expressed a number of reservations regarding Bill C-82. The government should correct the irritants that we mentioned today. Then, and only then will we be able to support Bill C-82.

Mr. Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member sitting next to me just made an excellent speech. He gave some advice to the government, but I notice that there are more Bloc Quebecois members than government members, or even Reform Party members, in the House of Commons. I am asking the Chair to check to see if there is a quorum.

And the count having been taken:

The Deputy Speaker: There are now more than 20 members in the House, we can therefore resume debate.

[English]

Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to address Bill C-82. I would like to go over a number of issues and review some of the items that are in the bill which the parliamentary secretary has pointed out.

I would also basically like to submit to the House a lot of the work that was done by my colleague from Okanagan Centre who is our critic for industry and who has been monitoring and following the impact of this bill on Canadians and the four pillars of our financial institutions in Canada. A lot of what I do will be some work that he has done and that he has monitored.

I will express the overall outline of the Reform Party and then explain to Canadians who are watching how standing committees work, what actually is presented at standing committees by various groups and how that has an impact or no impact on final legislation. I will then read into the record a report by the member for Okanagan Centre which he has sent to the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions. That way our position as a party and our contribution to this debate on this issue will definitely be moved forward.

The Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions indicated that Bill C-82 was really about protecting consumers. In a sense that is right but there are objections I have to that comment. How do we protect consumers when we increase their taxes? How do we protect consumers when we confuse them across this country, for instance, with the harmonized sales tax in three provinces but not in the other provinces? How can we implement tax reform and how do we encourage financial institutions and the four pillars to know what is going on when we have one tax regime in three provinces and a different one in other provinces?

(1600 )

We saw that big flaw. We saw that the direction of the government in terms of taxation was the wrong direction. We saw that in terms of another bill we debated earlier today, Bill C-70, the harmonization tax, the blended sales tax or the tax inclusive pricing which the Senate sent back to the House. I thought we were finished with it.

Although the amendment is headed in the right direction on that bill, tax inclusive prices in three provinces confuses consumers and lenders. The bill does not go far enough. I do not see why the bill should not have had, along with being open and visible, a national harmonized sales tax, not a partial one, and a single rate, not a mid-double digit rate. A lower rate would force the federal government to keep its expenses down and not overspend. There should have been another amendment to allow doctors to claim the GST on input credits.

The Liberals are very lucky they have a Senate and senators who went on a trip. Because of the power they have in the other place they were able to send the bill back to this House. At least they understand the meaning of representation and what is in the best interest of an area or a community. The Liberal premier of New Brunswick also understands the meaning of representation. He puts the people of New Brunswick first and not the Liberals. He puts the people he represents first and not his party. He puts his province first and not the Liberal federal government. Many Atlantic MPs will benefit from that decision.

I said many times that the harmonization effort was not really based on economic benefits for Canadians. I submitted sufficient proof that it bears a high cost. Yet the parliamentary secretary just said on Bill C-82 that he is worried about consumers.

Consumers are taxpayers. Taxpayers have had to pay three provinces $961 million. Taxpayers are consumers. They have a traditional cost in terms of their businesses and government transitional costs of $200 million. They are over a billion dollars now. There will be a huge increase in costs to consumers when the blended sales tax is applied in the three provinces after April to goods and services the provincial sales tax never applied to before. It will represent a 7 per cent tax increase to consumers.

I have read all the news about the government and what the Liberals are doing by introducing this bill and that bill and by jumping back and forth one to another. A new issue has come up that amazes me and disappoints me. The Liberals truly sound like the Conservatives before them.

During the Charlottetown accord Mulroney labelled anyone who voted against his accord as enemies of Canada. Now certain Liberals feel threatened by the actions of the Liberal premier of New Brunswick, Frank McKenna, in terms of the Liberals' re-election chances federally. They are angry he did a flip-flop on the harmonized sales tax. They are angry he did an about-turn and does not support the harmonized sales tax the way it was being shoved down the throats of Atlantic Canadians.

McKenna sided with the Senate banking committee to defer tax inclusive pricing, much to the embarrassment of the Liberal government and in particular the finance minister who claims that he was representing the consumers of Canada, the consumers of Atlantic Canada. Yet he is contradicted by the Liberal premier.

A disgruntled Liberal MP claims that ``people are getting tired of his shenanigans'', referring to Premier McKenna and his actions. The Liberal MP goes on to state further ``on the condition of anonymity''. This is a public servant elected by people and he speaks on the condition of anonymity. Does that shows real courage? He says: ``I have never seen a premier accumulate so many enemies in three and a half years''.

Because a Liberal premier, no less, disagrees with the federal government on what is best for the constituents of New Brunswick, he is labelled an enemy of the federal Liberals. Shame. Arrogance abounds on the government side.

(1605)

All members of Parliament should be evaluating the consequences of increased taxes. All members of Parliament should be evaluating the consequences of tied selling, allowing banks to get into all businesses and becoming a stronger oligopoly. All MPs should be interested in representing the wishes of their constituents.

Our job as politicians is to represent voters across the country, not just the wishes of the federal Liberal government. If they do not agree with the government they should not be labelled as enemies of the country, as enemies of Canada, or as enemies of the Liberal government. If the Liberal government cannot keep an election promise it is not the fault of those who oppose. Nor should they be labelled as enemies.

I spent some time on the aspect of consumer protection. That is what Bill C-82 is all about. After the review will the bill improve things for the people of Canada, the consumers, as the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions claims?

Let us look more specifically at what the legislation does for Canada and for Canadians. Some of the more notable clauses in the bill provide that more detailed information be available to the consumer regarding cost of credit disclosure. They require simplified and improved dissemination of information to consumers about basic financial services, low cost options and fees on products and services. They also allow non-deposit taking institutions to opt out of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation and loosen subsidiary requirements. So far so good.

They introduce regulations to allow financial institutions to enter into joint venture agreements and propose changes that permit mutual insurance companies to issue participating shares. They require that large mutual insurance companies remain widely held after conversion to a stock company. They also permit foreign banks to be regulated as Canadian banks.

In terms of foreign competition the Reform supports competition in the financial sector. We support permitting foreign banks to be regulated as Canadian banks. The Reform feels that competition leads to the best service and to a lower cost for the delivery of that service.

There is also an item called coercive tied selling. The whole issue of tied selling is probably the single most controversial aspect of the bill the government will have to address and be held accountable and responsible for. The issue raises serious concerns with regard to tied selling. Subsection 459.1(1) in clause 55 states:

A bank shall not impose undue pressure on, or coerce, a person to obtain a product or service-

Although subsections (2) and (3) are intended to be interpretative clauses for the courts, it is our opinion that they permit tied selling and give the banks considerably more power than they enjoy now.

We recommend that these clauses be deleted. If not, the banks will have the ability to pressure individual and small businesses to consolidate their financial activities and requirements into a single provider. This would not be considered fiscally prudent. Having assets under one roof increases the relative influence of the bank to determine who is granted loan capital and who is denied access.

(1610 )

In order to ensure a balanced system that respects both the interests of the consumer and the integrity of Canada's financial

institutions it is necessary to ensure that legislation such as the Bank Act is clear in its meaning and intent.

We must be prudent in all cases and ensure that access to capital is freely available without constraints of any kind. That point is trying to strengthen the argument that tied selling is a very delicate and potentially divisive issue. It deserves further review and discussion.

Earlier I said I would talk about some items raised in the Standing Committee on Finance in October last year. This is where the issue was discussed and certain groups came before the committee to make representations.

I will read the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Finance of October 1996 under tied selling:

Tied selling occurs when a vendor requires a customer to purchase one produce or service as a condition of purchasing another one. As the white paper points out ``concerns have been raised that the special nature of the relationship between financial institutions and their customers renders their customers especially vulnerable to coercion and that market forces and the Competition Act may not provide sufficient safeguards for these consumers''.

The committee is concerned that tied selling must not be confused with cross selling. Cross selling, in essence, involves offering a lower price for a particular product or service if the customer agrees to purchase another product or service.

Non-coercive cross selling may actually result in savings to customers who often find package sales attractive. As well, banks may find it worthwhile to make small business loans only if other services to that customer are part of a package, and the committee does not wish to discourage lending to small business. It is not always a simple matter, however, to distinguish between tied selling and cross selling.

The Independent Investment Dealers Association brought three specific cases of alleged coercive tied selling by banks before the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. The Canadian Bankers Association has disputed that these cases involve tied selling. Without investigating the details of each case, the committee cannot judge their merits. Suffice it to say, however, the committee remains concerned about the possible abuse of power by not only banks but by all financial institutions and insists that their customers not be subjected to abusive practices involving tied selling.

The Competition Act currently prohibits tied selling by ``a major supplier of a product in a market that is likely to

(a) impede entry into or expansion of a firm in the market,

(b) impede introduction of a product into or expansion of sales of a product in the market, or

(c) have any other exclusionary effect in the market with the result that competition is or is likely to be lessened substantially''.

The committee does not believe that any of its concerns about tied selling of financial services can be dealt with by the Competition Act prohibitions since undue pressure on an individual customer would not meet the test of substantially lessening competition in that market. Accordingly, arguments to the effect that the Competition Act can resolve this committee's concerns about tied selling are specious.

In addition to the Competition Act prohibitions against tied selling, section 416(5) of the Bank Act states as follows:

``No bank shall exercise pressure on a borrower to place insurance for the security of a bank with any particular insurance company-''

The committee received representations from both the Canadian Bankers Association-and the Independent Investment Dealers Association-on this provision.

The IIDA asked that section 416(5) be amended to read as follows:

``No bank shall exercise pressure on a borrower to purchase or obtain any financial product or service from any particular supplier''.

The CBA objects to the use of the word ``pressure'' as it currently applies, and to the expansion of its prohibition beyond ``insurance for the security of the bank'' to ``any financial product or service''.

The committee shares the concerns of the CBA that the word ``pressure'' is not defined and that many aspects of selling could involve an element of pressure. As stated by the Consumers' Association of Canada, what is important is that the pressure not be undue or coercive. The committee therefore recommends that section 416(5) of the Bank Act be reconsidered with a view to reflecting that it is not just any pressure, but only undue or coercive pressure, that amounts to unacceptable behaviour.

Secondly, the committee recommended that the prohibition in section 416(5) of the Bank Act against undue or coercive pressure should apply to the provision of ``any financial product or service'' and not just ``insurance for the security of the bank''. There is no reason why such pressure should be permitted in any instance.

Thirdly, the committee recommends that a provision similar to section 416(5) of the Bank Act as amended above apply to all federally regulated financial institutions. Undue or coercive pressure should not be prohibited only among banks. Recognizing the possibility that constitutional issues might arise, the committee recommends that the government undertake discussions with the provinces with a view to obtaining this protection for consumers of all financial institutions.

Fourthly, the committee recommends that financial institutions would be required to:

designate a senior level officer in each financial institution to implement procedures for dealing with consumer complaints;

provide customers with details on how customers can make complaints; and

report annually on the complaints received and the actions taken to respond to these complaints.

Fifthly, the committee recommends that customers who believe their complaints have not been dealt with adequately by the financial institution concerned shall be informed of their right to complain directly to the Consumer Protection Bureau-under the Minister of Industry, and the CPB shall report to Parliament on such complaints.

Sixthly, in the event the largely self-regulatory regime proposed herein proves inadequate to protect customers against undue or coercive pressure from tied selling, stronger measures should be undertaken.

Lastly, the committee recommends that officials study the laws and jurisprudence in other jurisdictions to assist in determining more precisely the difference between tied selling and cross selling. For example, section 106 of the 1970 Bank Holding Company Act of the United States spells out in some detail the instances of activities of banks that are not considered to be tied selling and which are therefore presumably for the benefit of consumers. Various provincial laws dealing with this issue might also prove helpful.

One can see how technical this issue is in the sense that it is hard to understand and is hard for anybody to really get it clear in their mind the difference between tied selling and cross selling, when they are going from one by placing conditions into the other where they are just suggesting a better deal or a lower rate and a real benefit if they are offering cross selling.

I would like to read from a document written by the member for Okanagan Centre, our chief critic of industry, who is not here today. It is just a short article that he entitled ``It's Time to Stop and Take a Good Look at the Financial Sector''. Having read this, I share the general thrust and view of his position on this.

(1620)

He goes on to write:

[The finance minister] surprised many in his 1996 budget speech by assuring Canadians that banks would not be allowed to sell insurance through their branch networks-this year. This soft ball, so deftly tossed our way, neither assuaged our concerns or addressed the issue.

The real issue is not whether the banks should be allowed to sell insurance or enter into the car leasing business but whether true competition exists within the financial sector and thus whether the consumer and the economy will benefit if banks are allowed to enter other markets.

The banks assure us that their own industry is competitive and not the oligopoly that Canadians suspect. This is difficult to believe when the six largest banks in Canada move en masse to raise or lower interest rates every time the bank rate so much as twitches. The only competition in this case is, who will move first.

The four pillars of the financial sector, banking, insurance, trust companies and securities dealers, have crumbled as deregulation and technological progress has blurred the lines of distinction. The banks have been applying pressure ever since to sell insurance in their branch networks, enter into auto leasing, and increase their interest in the securities market. Further deregulation and the subsequent increase in the size of banks, however, could reduce competition in the financial sector and hurt consumers. These are perennial issues in Parliament particularly when a review of the Bank Act is scheduled. Major reviews are conducted every 10 years, interspersed with minor reviews every 5 years.

1997 brings a minor review but it is a major review that is required. We need to know a good many things: How do our financial institutions interact? How do they operate in relation to other sectors of the economy? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current regulatory structure? Not only will the answers reveal whether or not true competition exists within the banking sector and thus, whether or not they should be allowed to expand into other financial services, the answers will determine the veritable strength of our financial sector as it heads into the 21st century. Until such a review is completed, a moratorium should be placed on making further decisions about financial institutions.

Furthermore, Parliament must be the venue, perhaps in the form of a joint committee of the finance and industry committees. It is the only way we can assure all interests will be recognized and the process will be both accessible and transparent. Canadians must be able to see the process in order to put faith in it.

As lobbyists from all sides pressure members of Parliament to take sides and others to try to frame the issue within the overly political constraints of a war between big and small business, the challenge will be to keep our eye on the ball. That is, to ensure true competition exists and is free to function within the marketplace, that stability is maintained in respect of financial sectors, and a prudent regulatory structure is in place to protect the consumer.

If the bottom line is met, Canadians and the economy will indeed emerge as winners.

Mr. Silye: That is the opinion of the hon. member for Okanagan Centre, who was our chief critic on industry.

I would like to continue, but I notice members on the opposite side are either wanting to take a breath of fresh air outside or they want me to finish speaking.

I want to add that if I would have been given unanimous consent, which Liberal members denied me, I would have finished that four minutes, I would have gone back to my office and I would not be making these people yell ``time''.

For the sake of clarification and for their benefit, I would like to let them know how much time I have left in this speech. I believe I have another 15 minutes, if I am correct. Will the Liberal members kindly indulge me and allow me to finish my remaining 15 minutes without yelling ``time''?

Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, could you please clarify that. I understood that the member had 20 minutes for his speech. He has now spoken for approximately 25 minutes. He seems to be under the impression that he has more time remaining.

(1625 )

The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is allowed 40 minutes for his intervention. He has 12 minutes and 26 seconds left in his intervention.

Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, would you add another minutes for this intrusion and please make it 13 minutes and 20 seconds. These people want to rush things through in such a dictatorial undemocratic fashion. They have used closure more times than the previous government, which is not democratic. Now I am off on a tangent which I will take a minute to do.

When you are in opposition you have the rules of the House which are here to protect the interests of the minority. Obviously the Liberals have such a strong majority and they are representing the wishes of those people who put them in here. But for the protection of all Canadians and all provinces the Liberals have to take the time and give us time to be heard. They have to allow us to tell them what we think is right or wrong about a bill. They have to give us the opportunity to point out what we feel on a constructive basis could make the bill better.

If they do not have the integrity or the fortitude to sit there and listen, then they are not really interested in the people of Canada; they are interested in themselves. They have no place to go this afternoon. They have nowhere else to go except for here where they can sit and listen, and that they will do at least while I have the floor for another 11 minutes and 20 seconds.

This is meant to be a democratic institution. I wish government members would recognize that just because they have a majority they do not have the right to trample over our rights in the minority. We have to be heard. We insist on being heard. The games this House leader plays and the way the Liberals fool around with the government orders with no notice, a lack of notice on this bill. Our chief critic is not here. He is not able to tell the people what he really thinks. He has been in the standing committee. He could shed a heck of a lot more light on this bill than I could.

I have some experience with banks and financial institutions so I feel qualified as a businessman to speak on this bill. I will get little

more personal if not as technical on this bill once I have read this letter which was sent by my colleague from Okanagan Centre to the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions. This is the kind of work that Reform Party members do. It is a sample of the kind of hard work that Reform members of standing committees have done.

My colleague from Capilano-Howe Sound sits on the Standing Committee of Finance and has been our chief finance critic. He has made a number of valuable interventions in standing committee. They have been good, open, democratic and non-partisan suggestions. Here is an example from the member for Okanagan Centre. I hope the government listens to what he has to say. The reason I want to read this into the record is to show Canadians how things work in Parliament. It is not just debate and question period. For the media and for a lot of people it is just question period, it is theatrics. The real work is done right now on debate like this where people get up and put forth their arguments for or against a bill. Then the bill is sent to committee where people come forward as witnesses and argue their points of view, how they feel a certain bill will impact on them. And then there is the work that gets done behind the scenes.

Here is a sample of some work behind the scenes, a letter to the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions written by the Reform member for Okanagan Centre:

Dear Minister,

As the Reform Party critic for financial institutions, I wish to express a concern that a growing number of small business people and I have with Bill C-82, an act to amend certain laws relating to financial institutions.

Specifically our concern rests with clause 55, section 451.1 subsections (2) and (3).

While 459.1(1) states explicitly that no bank shall impose undue pressure on, or coerce, a person to obtain products and services, subsections (2) and (3) appear to contradict 459.1(1) by allowing the banks to do just that. In our opinion these provisions for tied selling give the banks considerably more power than they enjoy now.

As acknowledged by your officials, the definitions of tied selling and coercive tied selling are numerous. While sectors do practise tied selling or product bundling, we feel caution must be exercised where coercive or pressure tied selling is concerned. Any legislation which could be interpreted as giving the banks the ability to coerce or exert pressure is grievous. Mechanisms such as conditions for preferred rates on loans and/or products and services which unduly influence the consumer to consolidate assets within one financial institution is not prudent in our opinion.

While we understand subsections (2) and (3) are considered to be interpretive and are intended to assist the courts, the Reform Party feels it would ultimately be in the best interests of all concerned to delete (2) and (3) thereby allowing 459.1(1) to stand on its own merits and to remove any chance of misinterpretation which would give the banking sector grounds for unfair advantage. Any resulting confusion can be adequately clarified by the provisions set out in 459.1(5) via the regulatory powers of the Governor in Council.

Barring this amendment, we would like to suggest an alternative amendment to Clause 45 and Clause 55 be deleted.

We are extremely aware of the time constraints inherent in the Bank Act which emphasize a preference for speedy passage of Bill C-82 through the House. The Reform Party does not wish to unduly delay the passage of this Bill. However, since a growing number of small business people, including members of the casualty and property insurance sector, share our concerns, I feel it would be irresponsible of me as a critic to advise our caucus to support Bill C-82 as long as Clause 55 stands as is.

We would like to see an amicable resolution to our concerns and wish to express our support for the merits of this legislation. Our main objective is and will always be to ensure that the integrity of our financial institutions remains intact and the interests of the consumer and the small business person are balanced with the interests of the financial sector.

I ask that you give fair and reasonable consideration to these concerns.

It is signed by the Reform member of Parliament for Okanagan Centre.

As members can see, our main concern with this bill lies in that aspect which controls tied selling and the difference between that and cross selling. One must be very careful when passing legislation and making laws that one does not step on people's toes or infringe on the rights of the corporation or the individual.

Banks are in a position to offer a lot of services. However, when looking at the size of banks and the number of people who are dependent on them, there has to be in anyone's mind some concern that legislation is not passed that allows the banks to have an unfair advantage over smaller or specialized businesses. That specialized business may be a large insurance company which offers just one service. It is not in a position to cross sell its product or offer volume discounts unless a person takes out a bigger life insurance policy or leases a more expensive vehicle or something like that.

When these smaller businesses are involved in their own specialized niche, it is important that when dealing with the banks that legislation is not imposed that gives the banks more power than the other financial institutions and investment dealers raising money, who can be offering chequing services and who cannot.

I have heard arguments from people who are anti-bank or bank bashers who say that the banks can get into any business they want. They can lend money for any purpose they want, provide insurance services or provide leasing facilities or whatever. We should then allow other people like investment dealers or other institutions to get into the banking business.

They do not like that so why not allow that so that we can have these specialized businesses if they have sufficient capital to offer other services? It seems to me that insurance companies have sufficient cash around. They could be in the deposit taking business, chequing business or credit card business which is a big business. We notice in the the Eaton's bankruptcy application that the most successful portion of its business is the credit card business and it is highly profitable.

We are trying to review the Bank Act, trying to make it fair for consumers and, at the same time, not make it punitive for the banks. We have to make sure that while one is applying for a loan for a house and the bank is approving the mortgage, it can suggest

one may need insurance for the house, so while one is there the bank might like to show its package.

The problem is how can one be inside that room or how can we pass legislation that puts one inside the law inside that room? We do not know what the bank manager or the account manager is saying.

(1635 )

The manager is telling the customer that the bank is giving him or her a mortgage. There is a big difference between your mortgage is approved, you have the proper credit facility and you know what, we can offer you insurance. Here is our package and I think it is a heck of a deal. You should take a look at it. That is okay and is cross selling in my mind. However, if the manager says that your mortgage is approved if you also take this insurance policy on the house, they come together, that is tied selling. That is not right. That is coercive. That is undue pressure on the consumer.

I feel that a lot of my intervention today was technical in nature, but I wanted to tell Canadians that a lot of work goes into bills like this. A lot of different people with different points of view make contributions. It is not easy: tied selling, cross selling, the difference, who is inside that room, how do you know.

Although the intent of the bill is is necessary and we agree with the majority of it, the one area that we are still unhappy with is the area of the tied selling in that clause.

Consequently, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``that'' and substituting the following therefor:

``Bill C-82, an act to amend certain laws relating to financial institutions, be not now read a second time; that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Industry''.

Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I would think that great herd of Liberals could somehow manage to maintain a quorum.

An hon. member: There is a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I guess for some of the members opposite math is difficult.

The hon. member for Calgary Centre has carried on in a diatribe about his not being permitted to finish the last four minutes of his speech on the previous bill. I am sure which all members look forward to hearing from him on Bill C-70 when it is taken up again.

I want to point out, because he has harped on this, that in the Thursday question the House was informed that the government would commence consideration of Bill C-82 with respect to financial institutions no later than 3 p.m. today, Monday and that is exactly what we did.

[Translation]

Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to start the second reading debate on Bill C-82.

This legislation proposes important measures to better protect consumers of financial services, to lighten the regulatory burden of financial institutions, and to define some of the provisions in the legislation affecting these institutions.

These measures are the results of a thorough consideration process and of widespread consultations. Therefore, I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to thank, on behalf of the government, the many consumer groups, industry members and other stakeholders who shared their opinions with us.

I want also to mention the very helpful participation of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance and of the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce.

(1640)

Canada has one of the strongest financial systems in the world, a system that is effective, efficient and stable. It strikes a balance between our financial institutions' competitiveness and their stability. We want this to continue. That is why the Canadian government is keeping a close eye on the evolution of the financial sector and considering ways of evaluating the system.

In 1992, we eliminated a large number of restrictions that prevented financial institutions from freely competing with each other. The consensus seems to be that these changes had a positive effect. When the 1992 bill to amend the legislation on financial institutions was passed, it was agreed that the legislative framework would be reviewed five years later. That is why the legislation contained provisions calling for a review in 1997. We embarked on this legislative review with two objectives in mind: to determine whether the measures adopted in 1992 had yielded the desired results and to see whether the legislative framework was still appropriate in view of the financial sector's evolution.

Following extensive consultations and in-depth analysis, the government came to the conclusion that the framework put in place in 1992 was working well in general and that its main components had to be maintained. The majority of stakeholders agree with this evaluation. However, we believe it is possible to make a number of

major changes to give consumers better protection and to bring the legislation more in line with the new realities of the markets.

[English]

Let me now turn to the specifics of these adjustments. They involve amendments to statutes governing financial institutions and related acts, including the Bank Act, the Co-operative Credit Associations Act, the Insurance Companies Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act and the Canada Payments Association Act.

Several of the proposed adjustments are aimed at strengthening consumer protection. Relationships between financial institutions and their clients are in constant evolution and regulation needs to reflect this changing environment.

The bill proposes a number of amendments to improve protection for consumers in their dealings with financial institutions. The first of these changes involves privacy. The protection of personal information is an area of growing concern to consumers. Accordingly, the bill provides the authority to require financial institutions to establish procedures governing the collection, retention, use and disclosure of customer information, to implement complaints handling procedures and to report annually on complaints. Regulations will be passed to implement these requirements.

The bill also proposes to enhance cost of credit disclosure provisions in the financial institutions statutes following the recent federal-provincial agreement on harmonization of disclosure requirements. These changes will result in improved and uniform disclosure practices throughout the country.

Another matter the government will address is tied selling. The matter is a complex issue and, indeed, members opposite have been talking about it for a few minutes and should hear the reply.

Tied sales can be beneficial in many situations where a consumer pays less for one product if he or she purchases a second product. However, concerns have been expressed about the potential for financial institutions to exert undue pressure on consumers when selling financial products. In response, financial institutions will be asked to adopt a policy on tied selling and establish procedures for dealing with complaints in this area. While the government is confident that this is the best approach, we are prepared to go further if the need arises. The bill includes an amendment to Bank Act to prohibit coercive tied selling.

The Secretary of State for Financial Institutions issued a press release on February 14 which suggested that the government would proclaim this amendment if necessary. After additional consideration, the government is now prepared to set a specific date for proclaiming the amendment. We intend to bring it into force on September 30, 1998.

At the same time the government wants to provide an opportunity for the institutions to address the tied selling matter through the establishment of appropriate policies and procedures. Therefore, the government is requesting that, before the proclamation date, the House of Commons finance committee carry out a review. This review would assess the degree to which tied selling remains a problem and the extent to which financial institutions have responded to the challenge. It would also consider methods to differentiate between beneficial practices such as when discounts are offered for taking more than one service, something the hon. member for Calgary Centre did not want consumers to have the advantage of, and those forms of tied selling that might be anti-competitive. These matters would be reflected in regulations.

(1645)

Consumers raised other issues during the 1997 review, including the difficulty many low income individuals face in getting access to basic financial services and the difficulty of comparing service charges across financial institutions. While the government is not proposing legislative changes in these areas, I am pleased to report that discussions with major financial institutions and consumer groups have resulted in concrete commitments to address these problems. I am confident that these commitments will result in significant improvements in access and information on service charges.

The government recognizes that to promote a proper climate for economic growth and jobs, we need to ensure regulatory requirements that are fair and necessary. The bill identifies several areas where the regulatory burden on financial institutions can and should be eased.

First, several rules governing the operations of foreign banks in Canada will be modified. These will streamline regulatory requirements and lower costs for foreign banks. In particular, the legislation removes the requirement for regulated foreign banks which own a schedule II bank to own other financial institution subsidiaries only through a schedule II bank. It also includes changes to ease regulatory requirements for near banks.

Near banks are entities that do not generally take deposits and are not regulated as banks in their home jurisdiction but provide banking type services. Approval requirements will be reduced for near banks in certain circumstances and near banks will be permitted to own non-bank financial institutions.

Another element of the bill that will reduce regulatory burden is deposit insurance opt-out for eligible institutions. Many banks in Canada specialize in serving wholesale customers whose deposits far exceed the amounts insurable by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. Such institutions will be permitted to opt-out of Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, CDIC coverage, provided they are not affiliated with another CDIC member. As a result they

will no longer have to fulfil the reporting requirements associated with CDIC membership. Banks serving retail customers are still required to be members of the deposit insurance program.

In addition, subsidiary requirements will be eased. Currently financial institutions can engage in certain types of business only through subsidiaries. To reduce operating costs the legislation will permit financial institutions to carry on both information processing and specialized financing activities in-house.

The bill also includes a number of changes to streamline the self-dealing regime. These involve streamlining the operations of the conduct review committee, narrowing the range of related parties and allowing subsidiaries of a federal financial institution to transact with each other.

Changes are also necessary to keep the financial institution statutes current with evolving trends. The bill proposes a number of changes in the area of corporate governance. Although the corporate governance provisions were updated in 1992 and are generally considered to be working well, changes are needed to keep the legislation in tune with evolving standards. The bill proposes measures to update and improve corporate governance procedures, including clarifying the duty of the audit committee and enhancing policy holders' rights.

Regulatory adjustments will also be made to provide more flexibility to financial institutions seeking to enter into joint venture agreements. The requirement that the eligible joint venture be controlled by a financial institution will be removed. These adjustments will enhance the ability of financial institutions to compete both in Canada and abroad.

The legislation includes a number of amendments to enhance access to capital for mutual insurance companies. They will be permitted to issue participating shares. In addition, the demutualization regime will be extended to apply to all mutual life companies and added flexibility will be provided. Large mutual insurance companies will be required to remain widely held after conversion to a stock company.

(1650 )

The Superintendent of Financial Institutions will have the authority to exempt companies on specific aspects of the demutualization regime on a case by case basis. The Minister of Finance will have the authority to exempt companies in financial distress from any aspect of the demutualization process. Details will be set out in regulations to be developed in consultation with industry participants over the coming months.

Bill C-82 also includes a number of amendments of a technical nature that are aimed at further streamlining the statutes governing financial institutions and the agencies that govern them.

Among the technical amendments are changes to the Bank of Canada Act to remove outdated impediments to certain activities of the bank. These include expanding the range of instruments that a bank may buy and sell in clarifying the ability of the bank to carry ancillary activities such as licensing anti-counterfeiting technology.

The bill also includes technical amendments to the Bank Act, the Co-operative Credit Associations Act, the Insurance Companies Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act and consequential amendments to the Winding-Up and Restructuring Act and the Greenshield (Canada) Act.

[Translation]

The financial services sector is in constant evolution. It is absolutely necessary to update constantly the regulations governing this important sector of our economy to reflect the various changes that occur.

Even though it is agreed that the system works well in general, as I said earlier, it will be improved immediately through the bill before you. We are still focused on the future. That is why we have established a task force on the future of the Canadian financial services sector. The task force will be responsible for advising the government on the appropriate framework for the financial sector in the 21st century, a framework that will promote economic growth and job creation.

We have also undertaken a review of the payment system. Moreover, we are reviewing the access rules for foreign banks, which will lead to a system for establishing branches. Legislative proposals on this subject will be made public by the end of the year.

We have to approach tomorrow's challenges intelligently, but the same applies to the changes before us today. This is an important bill for many Canadians and I urge the House to adopt it as quickly as possible.

[English]

Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a couple of questions of the parliamentary secretary to the finance minister.

One of the amendments to the bill allows foreign banks to branch directly into Canada. I do not disagree with that. It is a good thing. It helps increase the number of service providers. It increases choice which should lead to more efficiency and lower cost of services.

I would like to ask the hon. member, on the other side of the coin, has the government addressed the Canadian banks' concerns regarding what they need? What is the government doing to help our banks compete in foreign markets?

Foreign banks are now allowed to come in here. What have the big banks, if anything, said to the finance committee with respect to their expansion abroad? What has the government done there? That is one question.

The second question I would like him to touch on is with respect to tied selling. In the press release that the government issued, it said that it would introduce tied selling safeguards. I do not think he would argue that there is a difference between tied selling and cross selling, and that one is good and yet the other we have to be careful about. I know that even in my intervention I used terminology which is difficult to understand. If we do not go slowly it is difficult to convey the message we are trying to pass along to consumers.

(1655)

What specific protection is the government providing for consumers, as the bill stands now? What are the safeguards against tied selling? I assume the member is also against allowing the big banks to do it.

Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I regret, because I have great regard for the member opposite, that he has it wrong. The bill does not allow foreign branching. There was an announcement at the time the bill was introduced that a foreign branching regime would be put in place by the end of the year. However, a great deal of study needed to be done about many features of the foreign branching proposal. He is not quite right on that, but he makes an important point about how that will enhance competition in certain sectors.

He is right, there is a flip side to that, which is the position of Canadian banks abroad. I can assure the member opposite that the government would not have taken the step of announcing the possibility of direct branching, as opposed to the current regime, unless it was assured that in those major jurisdictions where Canadian banks operate, namely the United States and Europe, they were gaining additional access.

If he talked to bankers today he would learn that the doors have been increasingly opening south of the border to allow greater expansion for Canadians doing business there. Recent changes, particularly under their securities acts, have made that an even more hospitable environment than just a few weeks or months ago.

I am glad the member asked the question because it gives me a chance to reinforce something which I said in French and will now say in English, that is, the establishment of the task force on the future of the financial services sector. That task force, which is under way and will report to the minister roughly 18 months hence, will address the very question of what the shape of the sector should look like, both to ensure that our institutions can be competitive internationally and to serve the needs of Canadian consumers.

That brings me to the last point, which dealt with tied selling and cross selling. I agree with the member opposite that there are a lot of terms involved which can be quite confusing. As a former competition lawyer I can tell him that it is a very interesting but complex field.

If he was concerned, as he asserts, about the ability of banks to grow and compete internationally, then I invite him, when the finance committee studies further this issue, to read up on it, do a bit of work on it, talk to people who know something about the field and share his views with the committee.

Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I do not appreciate the answer I was given. I asked two questions. On the first issue the member gave a nice political speech about foreign banks and what is not in the legislation.

He said that I am confused. Yes, maybe I am confused. I am confused because the government shoves legislation down our throats, does not even give us a copy of the legislation and expects us to debate it.

The press release to which I referred was issued by the government on February 14. That was four weeks ago. It said what it was going to do. It said that it had listened to everybody. It said that the matter had been reviewed, that it was different from the June 1996 white paper and that it was going to include a new regime allowing foreign banks directly into Canada. That is where I obtained that information. If the government can change its mind in four weeks, maybe it should give all of us notice.

The member did not answer my second question on tied selling. The question was: What safeguards are in the legislation for my benefit as a person who has not had a chance to read the final version of Bill C-82? I wonder how many Liberals have read the final version. What is in the bill that will satisfy the concerns which some Canadians have about the issue of tied selling? What is in there to protect the consumer from undue pressure and coercion? What is in the bill which allows the banks to hold their heads up high and claim they are not doing it? What is in the bill? I would like an answer to that question.

(1700)

Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if I offended the hon. member opposite. He has not done his homework by his own admission. When I rise to ask questions on questions and comments I have usually read the sections I am asking about, read the press releases properly, and know generally what I am talking about.

The foreign branching regime will be the subject of additional legislation in place by the end of this year. It is not in the bill. The press release makes that perfectly clear. That was his first question.

His second question was on our banks abroad. I answered it.

His third question was on tied selling. I am tempted, as lawyers say in court sometimes, to respond to all three questions by saying asked and answered.

Specifically on tied selling, we have proposed a change in the law with respect to coercive tied selling in direct response to the testimony we had. We would welcome the member's input at the finance committee on what he thinks should be done.

The Deputy Speaker: The motion of the hon. member for Calgary Centre is acceptable as to form.

[Translation]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are: the hon. member for Frontenac-agriculture; the hon. member for Mackenzie-railways.

Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party indicated, in 1992, the federal government conducted a comprehensive review of the legislation governing the operation of financial institutions and changed things that had remained unchanged for 50, or even 60 years, in some cases.

At the time, the industry asked that the act or amendments thereto be reviewed after five years to see what, if anything, had gone wrong with the 1992 reform. That is why we are doing this now, in 1997.

We have before us Bill C-82, an act to amend certain laws relating to financial institutions. My hon. colleague from the Reform Party referred to this bill as a highly technical 250-page bill, which it is indeed. These amendments will affect a fair number of acts. It will affect the Bank Act, the Cooperative Credit Associations Act, the Insurance Companies Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act and the Canadian Payments Association Act, to name a few.

This bill is very much a symbol and an object lesson for Quebec. A symbol because, once again, it contains provisions that encroach upon Quebec's jurisdiction-but I will get into that later; we have used the word ``encroachment'' so often in the past three and a half years that it is beginning to stick in my craw-encroachments that fly in the face of the Canadian Constitution.

It is kind of funny to see Quebec being taken to the Supreme Court of Canada to find out whether we have the right, under the constitution, to take a democratic step in this country, while every day, the Liberal Party, the government in office, encroaches on, invades provincial areas of jurisdiction without even bothering to ask permission, thus violating its own law. It even amended the Canadian constitution in 1982 without asking Quebec's permission. In fact, it did so in spite of the unanimous opposition of Quebec's National Assembly, which included federalists. The federal government uses the constitution when it wants to and the way it wants to, while forcing Quebec to comply with it.

I want to take this opportunity to stress that the decisions to be made in the next Quebec referendum will not have to take into account what the Supreme Court of Canada thinks, what the Minister of Justice thinks, or what the Prime Minister of this country thinks. Quebecers will make a decision that concerns them alone. I am reminded of a famous line coined by Mr. Bourassa, who was a known federalist in Quebec. He used to say: ``Quebec is, today and forever, the master of its own choices and of its destiny''.

(1705)

The bill is also a great object lesson in that it tells us a lot of interesting things I will get back to later.

Generally speaking, we can live with the bill in its present form. However, we deplore the fact that the federal government is trying to interfere, as I was saying, in areas under provincial jurisdiction, through the back door as it were, as is often the case. That is why our main amendments-and I give advance notice, there will be a few covering the bill as a whole once we have gone over it in depth-will be along the lines that the federal government should just require federal institutions to respect, which they do not do, the provincial legislation in effect where they conduct their activities, when these activities come under provincial jurisdiction; insurance being strictly a provincial matter.

In a joint brief mentioned by my colleague, the member for La Prairie, some twenty minutes ago, which was signed by a number of people, including the Canadian Life Insurance Association, the Canadian Bankers Association, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, Canada Trust, the Trust Companies Association of Canada, and Credit Union Central of Canada-we are talking about a lot of people here-they all asked the federal government to allow, with the minister's approval, life insurance policies in Canada to be transferred from a federal to a provincial underwriter. This is not in the bill, with the result that the injustice to provincial underwriters and specifically those in Quebec continues to exist.

A provincial underwriter may not buy blocks of insurance policies from a federal underwriter under the law as it now stands. What exactly does this mean? It means that when underwriters want to obtain a charter, they are better off going for a federal charter, which lets them buy up blocks of provincial insurance policies, because the reverse is not permitted under law. In the long term, underwriters in Quebec and elsewhere will always be better off obtaining a federal charter, while Quebec already has legislation covering this. In the long term, underwriters will gradually switch over to federal charters, with the result that, in a few years, the federal government will be able to say that the legislation we

have in Quebec covering these fields of activity is redundant, without purpose, and should be abolished.

This is how the federal government has gradually taken over the provinces' and specifically Quebec's fields of jurisdiction. In the long term, the purpose of this interference is to increase Ottawa's powers. This has been going on for a long time. People have been talking about it as far back as 1867, well before my time. This is how they have gradually turned Canada from a confederation into a federation.

The term ``confederation'' has an extremely specific meaning. First of all, it is the name that was given to Canada: the Canadian confederation. A confederation is a group of virtually autonomous states which decide to provide themselves with a central government less powerful than the sum of themselves, to pool certain things. That is what we are seeing in Europe. Europe will be a confederation.

But, gradually, the central power has taken over certain jurisdictions, or taken over from some participants in this power, and the circumstances have gradually turned Canada into a federation. In other words, the central power is now greater than the power of the provinces, not what the Fathers of Confederation initially planned. This has led to the political impasse we are now at, going from one referendum to another, until the next one.

(1710)

The goal of all of the federal government decisions is to transfer more and more power to Ottawa, more and more political power, while the economic power is being transferred, generally speaking, to Ontario. To refer to Gordon Gibson's famous book, Plan B, which I think my Reform friends have read, he says that the major problem in Canada is not Quebec, the problem is Ottawa.

I recommend that my colleagues, who think we are the only ones saying this, read Gordon Gibson's famous Plan B, where he states that the federalists are the problem. The problem is Ottawa, and the senior public servants, the bureaucracy that exists here, which is perpetuated by inertia.

I will return later to a discussion of the invasion of jurisdictions, but this act is one of the many we have spoken out against since coming to this House. I could not begin to list the laws we have spoken out against as invading Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, as gradually transferring powers that belong to Quebec to the central power in Ottawa.

We know very well that being a political minority leads inevitably to being an economic minority. The one with power over the purse strings has control, and vice versa. The more power, the more control. Ottawa is gradually assuming all of the power by invading Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, and it is making the decisions. This bill represents a decision to invade one area of jurisdiction: insurance, which belongs literally to the provinces. It has been decided to pass legislation to cover all insurance, whereas Quebec already has a set of laws governing this.

So this is a minor decision in a 250-page piece of legislation that will have long term consequences for Quebec insurance companies.

I would like to give a few examples of minor decisions made in the past that have had disastrous economic consequences in the long term. Take for instance when they dug the St. Lawrence Seaway. At one point it was decided to dig the St. Lawrence Seaway. What have the consequences been for Quebec? Well, Montreal lost its basic economic infrastructure. As you know, ships used to stop in Montreal before the seaway was built, and all the plants were there. The government wanted to shift the economic centre to Toronto to have direct access to the core of the U.S. market: Chicago, Detroit and Milwaukee, via the Great Lakes.

So they created the St. Lawrence Seaway, which took away Montreal's basic economic infrastructure, and you do not have to take my word for it. Mordecai Richler said as much himself in his book Oh Canada! Oh Quebec! My dear friend Mordecai tells us:

[English]

``Once the St. Lawrence seaway was in place Montreal's slippage was inevitable''.

[Translation]

Once the St. Lawrence Seaway was built, Montreal's decline started. It was inevitable. A minor decision made in Ottawa which had disastrous consequences for Quebec, in the long term, exactly like those we find in Bill C-82.

Another example, much more recent, is the Borden line. In 1963, the federal government started to regulate the sale of crude oil by establishing the Borden line. All oil sold in Ontario had to be western oil, and the pipeline built from the west to Sarnia ended in Sarnia. At the time, the petrochemical industry was in the east end of Montreal, in my riding, in Montréal-Est, in Anjou. That is where the oil companies were. We were refining the oil.

So what happened as a result of this minor political decision? The oil companies in Montreal that were refining oil had to get the oil in Sarnia, refine it and return it to Ontario. In the long run, the oil companies realized they would be better off if they transferred their refineries to Sarnia, got the oil locally, refined it and then delivered the finished product to Quebec. We lost 8,000 jobs when four of our six major oil companies moved out.

A minor decision was made in Ottawa, with disastrous economic consequences in the long run for Quebec, like the decision we see in Bill C-82.

What about the auto pact? The entire automobile industry was established in Ontario. Quebec never got any of the tens of thousands of jobs in that sector.

Air transportation: more minor decisions were made in Ottawa.

(1715)

They decided one day to build the Mirabel airport, because Dorval was busy and had too much air traffic. Once the Mirabel airport, which cost an arm and a leg, was built, and tens of thousands of people were moved out of their homes, a minor political decision was made: the requirement that air carriers arriving from the east serve Montreal ahead of all other Canadian cities was lifted. The requirement was eliminated.

What costs airlines the most is not flying time, but take offs and landings. So it is to their advantage to land in only one place to serve Canada, and of course they chose Toronto.

Once Mirabel was emptied, hundreds of millions of our dollars were allocated to expanding Pearson airport in Toronto. Money was spent to empty the place, because a decision was made in Ottawa, just like the decisions that appear in C-82.

What happened as the result? Ottawa could then question the use of having the air traffic controllers' school in Montreal, when Toronto was where the action was. So the school was moved to Toronto, and the head office of Air Canada was moved to Toronto, because that was where the action was. A minor decision to transfer things to Toronto had dreadful economic consequences.

In the energy system, what about the billions of dollars that were spent? I think $12 billion was spent in all over 20 or 25 years in Ontario to create 40,000 jobs in atomic research, whereas Quebec all on its own developed the single it controls, hydro electricity. One quarter of the $12 billion came from Quebec and went, because of a government decision, to the development of atomic energy in Ontario, which will eventually become a competitor.

Then there was the tobacco debate. Today in Oral Question Period, we saw that the federal government has been doing research up to now to increase levels of nicotine. I worked in the tobacco fields in Ontario for a number of years, and the research centre is in Delhi. I know this city well, because I spent some time there.

They did studies for about ten years in order to increase the nicotine content in tobacco and then they turn around and, choking with emotion, make decisions in the House to show their concern about smoking among young people and they abolish tobacco company sponsorships.

Where does most of the tobacco sponsorship occur? In Quebec. In two to three years, we may lose the Montreal Grand Prix, the Jazz Festival or the Benson & Hedges Symphony of Fire because of a government decision. All this is happening because the government has decided to pass laws and make decisions encroaching on our areas of jurisdiction.

All those cases are examples of small decisions with catastrophic consequences, the same way a small provision in Bill C-82 encroaches on Quebec's jurisdiction. The government is trying to justify this-and what an object lesson it is-by claiming that the transfer of insurance blocks between a company with a federal charter and a company with a provincial charter raises a problem of civil law and common law by virtue of what is called ``novation'', an extraordinary word.

This means that someone cannot transfer his debts to another person without the agreement of his creditor. In other words if I borrowed, for instance, $6,000 from a bank, I cannot tell the bank that my brother will pay my debt. Under the principle of novation, a bank will never accept that, and the peculiar thing is that this principle is being used in bill C-82 to encroach on one of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

(1720)

Double standards again, if that principle applies-and, as I just explained it largely does-a debt is not transferrable. The government has used this principle in a bill to encroach upon Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and has failed to specify that the same principle would apply to the transfer of Canada's debt.

You will remember, I am sure, that the Bélanger-Campeau Commission received three studies. One was conducted in France, the other in England and the other, if I am not mistaken, under the aegis of the C.D. Howe Institute. They all came to an extraordinary conclusion saying that Quebec is not legally required to take on part of Canada's debt if it becomes a country. These studies were conducted by people outside the government.

We all remember what Ross Perot said. During the presidential campaign in the United States, he said: ``Poor Quebecers, you do not have to carry that debt''. Those are the words of Ross Perot, who was then in the running for the presidency of the United States. He did not get in, but he did say that.

These studies tabled before the Belanger-Campeau Commission explained the principle of ``novation'', and they were taken up by English columnists across Canada. I will briefly read from one of those texts to show that whenever you refer to principles in a bill, you have to recognize that these principles apply everywhere and at all times. The principle is the following; I am quoting in English

from a December 13, 1994 article by David Crane. As you know, David Crane is the financial editor of the Toronto Star. He said:

[English]

``Canada's foreign creditors would not want to transfer part of Canada's debt to Quebec. This is money they loaned to Canada, not Quebec. There is no way in the world you can go to an international banker and for every $100 Canadian bond get a $75 Canadian bond and a $25 Quebec bond. In a way that helps Quebec because it means that Canada would have to reach an accommodation with Quebec. Since Canada cannot force Quebec to take its share of the debt technically Quebec could walk away from its share of the debt''.

[Translation]

That is all. I yield the floor to my friends. However, William Johnson has a similar text.

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Madam Speaker, once again we are witnessing in this House an attempt on the part of the Liberal federal government to meddle in an area of provincial jurisdiction, as my colleague from Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies so ably proved. He gave several examples. What is the federal government trying to do?

We have every right to believe that we will have an election in the spring. During the last referendum, the Liberal government promised it would recognize distinct society. It is so distinct that as soon as we turn around, it tries to step into yet another area of provincial jurisdiction through its spending power.

One may well wonder if the Prime Minister gets it. He knows full well though that when it comes to provincial powers, Quebecers are adamant. We would like to repatriate the powers Ottawa took away from us, and now he wants to interfere in areas that come under our jurisdiction. It is very rude on their part. If we are on the eve of an election, why are they doing this? They know full well that Quebecers are going to say: ``This time you will not get away with it''.

It is supper time, young people at home are watching us; I would like my colleague from Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies to quickly go over what he explained earlier so that people really understand what is at stake here, the dark side of Bill C-82, and why it is so important for Quebecers to pay attention and remember how the Liberal government is intruding. People must understand this and let the government know what they think come election time.

(1725)

I would ask my colleague to repeat the examples that clearly show how the Liberal government, the Prime Minister, the member for Shawinigan, are once again trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Mr. Pomerleau: Madam Speaker, I do not know if I should repeat everything I just said.

Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Give other examples.

Mr. Pomerleau: There is indeed no lack of examples showing that, every time Canada's and Quebec's interests come into conflict, our friends opposite, originally from Quebec, francophones from Quebec, are the first to come down on Quebec and vote in a way that serves Canada's interests at the expense of Quebec.

I think that my hon. colleague can fully understand that, any time nationwide issues are discussed, Liberal members from Quebec, who are a minority in their own caucus, will eventually toe the line of the Canadian majority, and put Canada's interests before those of Quebec.

Take for example the tobacco issue. Every single member on the other side, including those from Quebec, voted with the government, knowing full well that this legislation directly affects all festivals held in Montreal. They all voted with the government.

We will recall that, when we were dealing with the raw milk cheese issue, in a fanciful departure from reality, the Minister of Health decided it was harmful to people's health, even though people have been eating raw milk cheese for ages and no one has ever died from it. All of a sudden, the minister decided that raw milk cheese, which just happens to be sold, made and widely sold in Quebec, was bad for our health and that its production should be discontinued. The Bloc Quebecois then had to organize a sampling of this ``poisoned'' cheese in this House to show the public and those voting on the other side that there was nothing wrong with it. Not one member from Quebec on the other side took a stand with us on this issue.

These two recent examples show that members from Quebec elected under the Liberal banner inevitably stand on the side of Canada, for the interests of Canada, as opposed to those of Quebec.

Before I conclude, I will remind you of the famous words of the Minister of Interdepartmental Affairs who, just a few months before the referendum, and that is why he was made a minister, said in Toronto-I heard him myself and could not believe my ears-that the best way to resolve the Quebec issue was to make Quebecers suffer.

A member from Quebec, paid by Quebecers and sent here to look after their interests, comes here with only one idea in mind: to make Quebecers suffer. That is what Quebec members on the Liberal side are like.

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-82 and to discuss its provisions and some of its impacts on consumers.

Having just listened to the previous speech in the House I will try to address the bill as opposed to having a diatribe about something that was not relevant to the bill.

The bill is about making important progress to ensure that our banking regime, our financial institution regime, is more responsive to the needs of consumers wherever they live in Canada, be it in Quebec or elsewhere.

This is part of an ongoing process undertaken by the Liberal government. We are trying to combine the best of our financial institutions. There are some positives we want to maintain as a society and as a government.

Our banks are successful corporations. They are strong. They are world leaders in finance. They provide financial stability to the country, far more so than the banking industry in many other countries.

(1730 )

Today the banks in Canada employ 500,000 people. They represent 3.5 per cent of the whole Canadian workforce. The financial services industry in Canada represents about 7.5 per cent of GDP. These are all important aspects of financial institutions in Canada and something we as a government and we as Canadians want to ensure continues.

However, we need to balance that as well. We need to balance that with the need to ensure that these financial institutions are serving consumers. We need to balance that with the need to protect consumers who use our financial institutions from potential abuses. Regardless of their socio-economic status, we also need to ensure that consumers of all stripes have access to our financial institutions.

What this bill is about is combining those two things, maintaining what is best in our financial institutions but also ensuring that we have the appropriate protection for consumers built into legislation.

This is not something that is just happening today. It is something we have done all along. I had an opportunity, when we dealt with the issue of access to capital as part of the industry committee's examination of the banking industry, where we worked as a government to institute changes with the banks so that there would be better protection for consumers. Coming out of that process was some progress. We were able to put in place a number of tools to help our small business community to have better access to capital. One of the tools was ensuring that the banks would have to establish a code of conduct that governs how they deal with their small business customers.

I would say to all of those small business men and women who may be watching today, when they are talking to their account manager at their local branch they should ask for that code of conduct. It sets out the rules on how the banks are going to deal with their accounts.

A second tool that was put into place was an alternative dispute resolution system. If someone is not pleased with the process that is taking place with their account manager there is a mediation process available at their banks and they should ask to use it.

As a third tool, all the financial institutions, the banking institutions anyway, have an ombudsman in their operation to whom the consumer can appeal his or her problem if they are not pleased with the decision of the account manager. The banks have come together now and have an industry-wide ombudsmen consumers can appeal to if they are not satisfied with what is happening in the institution.

The fifth tool that we have been able to put in place is the requirement that the banks provide to the government and to the people of Canada quarterly statistics on their small business lending. In fact, I believe it is close to 19,000 different stats that are provided each quarter on small business lending.

Some of these tools that we were able to develop through the industry committee and working with the financial institutions are finding their way into the legislation that we are debating in front of the House today. The code of conduct is one where the rules have to be set out up front and in writing so that the consumer understands exactly what the rules are and that the institutions understand exactly what the rules are that they are going to play by.

We see those types of tools coming out in the privacy code that is being suggested in this piece of legislation. We are seeing, in the whole issue of tied selling, that there will be a code of conduct that outlines what is and what is not permissible, that it is public and that the consumer knows in advance.

We also see the use of the ombudsmen in this piece of legislation where if the consumer is not satisfied on the issue surrounding tied selling, that the institution is following its code of conduct, then the consumer should appeal it to the ombudsman.

The third tool that we see coming out in this piece of legislation as well is the whole issue of reporting. The financial institutions will have to report the number and nature of the complaints they are receiving on the issue of privacy and on tied selling so that there can be public accountability of what they are doing.

It has been mentioned by a number of speakers in the House that this bill is fairly technical in nature in the changes that it is proposing. However, there really is some important application to what everyone will actually see in dealing with their financial institutions.

(1735)

First is the whole issue of privacy and privacy protection. Most consumers who deal with financial institutions are concerned when they see the array of computers and the massive amount of information that banks have on individuals. They are rightly concerned that the information is going to be maintained in a confidential nature. None of us would like that type of information to be exchanged with phone marketers or whoever else it might be given to.

This bill calls on the financial institutions to develop a public code of conduct as to how they will deal with privacy issues. It calls on them to publish that code. It calls on the financial institutions to establish a method by which consumers can complain and put forward their concerns that the privacy code is not being maintained and to make those types of complaints and concerns public. That is positive. Consumers want to see their privacy protected.

Another issue that is being addressed in the review of the banking and financial services industry is disclosing the cost of credit. Over the years Parliament has moved and financial institutions have moved on the need to disclose the cost of credit. That is very important to someone who is obtaining a loan or a lease, although I believe more work has to be done in terms of disclosure. The consumer needs to know what will be the actual cost.

Although we have had disclosure laws for some time, this will make those disclosure laws more uniform so that a consumer can make an informed comparison between the disclosure of one company and the disclosure of another company, or between one industry and another. That is something which is being taken on with this review and it is positive.

Then there is the whole issue of tied selling. That is of real concern to consumers. All of us would agree that it would be inappropriate if somebody from a financial institution said to someone ``I will approve this loan only if you buy something else from me''. That is the type of tied selling which we do not want to see. It is different from cross selling and up selling, which is quite appropriate and a normal business function. However, we do not want to have tied selling.

That is why I am pleased to see that this legislation contains an amendment to the Bank Act which would prohibit tied selling if the self-regulation that I talked about a little earlier was not enough, that being the development of a published policy, a public complaints procedure, an appeal mechanism to an ombudsman and a reporting by the ombudsman on what he or she believes are infractions. If we find that is not going to be enough, if we find that is not going to ensure that this practice does not become widespread, then there is some legislative fallback position that we are able to provide ourselves.

This legislation will lead to an entry policy review, which the minister has committed to completing in this calendar year. We will take a look at streamlining the procedures by which foreign banks can operate in Canada. Most of us would see that as being positive. If we can increase the amount of competition in the financial services industry in this country, most people believe that will lead to improved service, improved access to capital and a whole range of good things that will come through increased competition. Most people in Canada would see that as being positive. I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions is proceeding with that review and will complete it in fairly short order.

There are a couple of things the minister was able to announce which came out of the review he has been undertaking and the discussion paper which he put forward some months ago. One of them has to do with the access to basic financial services.

(1740 )

I think there are a lot of consumers who have been frustrated in dealing with their local financial institution when they try to cash a cheque and do not happen to be at their own institution or they try to deposit a cheque and then find out that the funds will be held and they cannot get access to the funds for a week or two. Perhaps they are trying to open an account and for some reason there are arbitrary rules in the institution and they will not be allowed to open an account.

Often it is low income Canadians or those who are not in the workforce who have great difficulty accessing these financial institutions. It is not appropriate. There should be equal access to financial institutions.

I was pleased to see as part of the discussion paper and in discussions with the financial services community that a number of standards have been put forward and the institutions have agreed to work toward and implement within their branches things like lessening the identification requirements, explaining clearly whether a hold funds will be placed on the individual's account, eliminating employment as a condition of opening an account, ensuring that there is no minimum deposit requirement in order to open an account, training of staff to be more sensitive when dealing with consumers who might be opening a small account. I think these a positive things that needed to be worked out and I am pleased to see that has been done.

As part of the discussion paper some important work has been done which has been discussed in the House, the need for the banks and other financial institutions to proactively advertise their low cost services. We heard that in the discussion on credit cards where

many institutions have low cost credit cards. When it is pointed out some would say they did not even know that existed.

I was pleased to see that in response to the discussion paper the financial institutions have made a commitment to proactively advertise their low cost services. I look forward to seeing that implemented and the changes taking place.

In conclusion let me say that with the legislation the government is moving along the road to find a balance between keeping those things about our financial services industry that are strong and helpful to the country and to the citizens of our country. We want to make sure that financial stability is maintained and that employment opportunities that are presented by financial institutions are maintained.

We also want to make sure it is done in a way which will protect individual consumers and will give consumers the right to access those services.

This has been an ongoing process by the government over the last three and a half years and progress is being made. I am sure the task force which was struck to look at future changes and at our financial services sector going into the 21st century will continue. I look forward to its findings.

Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague, John Chant, for having been named the director of research for the task force on financial services which was appointed in response to Bill C-82 and some of the difficulties that were raised in that context.

Professor Chan is a trained economist who was for a long time the chairman of the department of economics at Simon Fraser University. I have spent many hours with him in seminars, tenure committees and various other official functions. I am very pleased that the government has appointed him to this position.

As a result of my acquaintance with him, I am sure that the report which will come out will be superb. All the research papers will be of the highest quality. What the government does with it is another question.

(1745)

The white paper on financial services was tabled in June 1996. The first draft of Bill C-82 was discussed in the finance committee. We heard from many witnesses. My special interest was on the restraints to be put on foreign banks because I had written and done research in that field. It was of great interest to me to see what innovation would take place.

There is a lot of scepticism about what committee hearings do, whether or not they are a waste of time, and in the end the government does what it wants to do anyway.

After this experience I must say I am very encouraged. At the same time I am also somewhat concerned about how it was possible the white paper of June 1996 could do what it did. What did this paper do? What did we find out was wrong in Bill C-82 with respect to foreign banks?

It turns out that foreign banks in Canada are now required to operate at all times as subsidiaries of their foreign parents. That imposes a huge cost on the operation of foreign banks in Canada. It has prevented the establishment of a lot of banks. In recent years it has driven out a large number of them. The owner is required to have capital of at least $10 million, to have a board of directors, and to issue every six months very large and onerous reports.

We were told in the finance committee hearings that this was a serious detriment to the expansion of further foreign competition in the country, which almost everybody agrees would be to the benefit of consumers.

That is not all. I was even more disturbed when I heard witnesses telling us that they had been providing services of extreme importance to Canadians. For example, a company told us that it was about to introduce a new credit card system under which it would be possible to charge an interest rate of about half the current normal charge under bank cards issued at the moment.

The company has developed a computer program which allows it to investigate the credit worthiness of large blocks of people. As a result of that and the experience of operating in the United States, it is able to break even and make a normal profit on a much lower interest rate. It would be a great innovation if such a system were introduced in Canada. It would put downward pressures on all interest charges on credit cards. At any rate if Canadians do not want it they do not have to go to that company.

Bill C-82 suggested in its first draft that the company wanting to introduce the new credit card would have to incorporate itself, spend $10 million on a capital base, have a board of directors and have all kinds of onerous reporting requirements.

(1750)

Similarly there has been a company in Canada for many years specifically aimed at making loans to people who have been turned down by conventional banks, people who cannot get credit anywhere. This is often the last recourse for certain borrowers.

The company happens to be owned by an American company. The first draft of Bill C-82 suggested that this organization would have to incorporate with a minimum of $10 million. We were told that if the company had been forced into doing that it would simply have left Canada, to the detriment of the Canadian public.

I find very disturbing how these ideas got into the first draft of Bill C-82. I asked very pointed questions of the witnesses, especially people, namely the representatives of the big banks who argued that those rules were in the interest of Canada.

The answers received from the representatives of the big banks were not very good. They did not look very good when they tried to answer my questions in a rhetorical fashion without going into details on why it was taking place.

While there is this disturbing aspect about how this could have been put into the bill in the first place, it raises questions about the power of banks and their influence.

The people of Canada should feel confident that the second reading of the bill has eliminated this onerous requirement for foreign bank subsidiaries. Now they can operate as branches. Those companies that provide a limited range of financial services even if they are owned by a foreign banks will not have to incorporate.

This is a great victory for the parliamentary system and the functioning of the finance committee. To anybody wishing to read the blues or the reports of the finance committee on what went on I will take a little credit for complaining about how bad this part of the bill was. It was removed in 18 months.

The task force will report. I hope and trust, knowing John Chant and knowing the quality of the people on the task force, we will get more competition from foreign banks or from other financial intermediaries. That is the only way to make sure there is no concentration of power in the banks or in the financial system.

This ends my discussion of Bill C-82. I welcome the changes. However I would now like to turn to an issue raised by John Geddes in The Financial Post last weekend. The story has the potential of hurting the credibility of the government on an issue on which it invested a great deal of credibility going into the next election.

When the 1997 budget document came out there were tables, summaries of transactions, what money was coming into the government over the next two years, what was going out and where it was being spent.

In 1995-96 in that same document there were tables outlining the size of departmental spending. It was broken down separately. These numbers are almost impossible to obtain except if one goes through the onerous job of looking at the estimates.

(1755 )

In the past departmental spending in 1993, 1994 and 1995 was always there. There was a lot of bragging in the document of two years ago about how the program review undertaken by the head of the Treasury Board would reduce departmental spending from $51 billion to $42 billion or by 19 per cent. I wondered why that was not there this year.

In previous documents the yearly target for each department was clearly outlined. The yearly obligated spending cuts in the departments of defence, transport, native affairs, natural resources, heritage and culture were outlined, but for this year they were not there. I did not think through why the information was not there. I asked someone who said it just was not done this year.

This week the Senate finance committee is holding a hearing in which it will ask the government precisely what happened and why. The government is supposed to be cutting 19 per cent of departmental spending and is not on target. It is way off target at only 9 per cent. Less than half the proposed cuts have been undertaken.

The article goes on to discuss how the people in the Treasury Board are trying to spin this scandal. The scandal is not just that they did not meet the target. In the eyes of the Liberals there was a certain fairness in the way in which they distributed the burden of fiscal restraint. They claimed they would download a certain percentage on the provinces because everybody has to share 24 per cent. They said that was okay because they cut their program spending by 19 per cent. They did not and they will not. Let us see how they will fix it up over the next two years. If they do not fix it in this year's budget, when will they do it?

I remind the people of Canada that the government came in with a deficit of $42 billion. By 1998-99 there will still be a $6 billion deficit, which means that the Liberals have projected to eliminate $36 billion from the deficit. I ask viewers to test themselves as they listen to this debate. What percentage of the $36 billion total came from cuts to government spending? I have what is alleged to be $9 billion from departmental spending. Now we find out that is not true. Instead of $9 billion it will only be $4 billion.

How did government members break the back of the fiscal crisis? It was by increased revenue. They say that it was the gross dividend but nevertheless it is higher taxes. Some $28 billion worth of higher taxes is the main instrument used by the government to eliminate the deficit. It was supposed to have cut $9 billion in departmental spending. Now it turns out the government is way off target by $4 billion.

Let us look at that in the context of what the government asked the provinces to absorb. It has reduced transfers to the provinces by $7.5 billion. The government was supposed to have cut its departmental spending by now and it is not even delivering on this. I believe this is really a major scandal. This raises major questions about the ability, the seriousness and the integrity of the government on its highly touted fiscal plans.

(1800)

It is true that the Minister of Finance has set hurdles about one inch high, jumped over them, cleared them by a large margin and then bragged that he is hitting his targets, that he is doing better than his targets. I must congratulate him on the ability of his spin doctors to so fool the people of Canada into thinking that he is doing the right thing, that all of the attention in the aftermath of the

budget release was focused on hitting the targets, exceeding the targets.

That to a very large extent was due to circumstances over which the minister had no control. One of them was lower interest rates. We know there were lower interest rates, not just in Canada but throughout the world. It was the world interest rates which came down.

I am prepared to admit that there were also some reductions in the gap between the U.S. and Canadian interest rates which should be attributed to the deficit reduction progress made. I do not deny this. Nevertheless, the attention on this low barrier that the minister set for himself, and was exceeded and was very easily exceeded, was due, first, to the lower interest rates created outside of Canada. Second, it was created by economic growth which resulted in bracket creep and higher tax take. That is how the government came to the position of being able to brag as it did.

Because of this excellent, superb spin doctoring by the minister and his department, nobody noticed until the Senate finally got around to it that the government is away off target on the spending for which it is directly responsible, namely what is known as departmental spending. It is supposed to be $9 billion when it is only $4 billion. I say shame.

Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I find myself in the rather awkward position of thinking that we had heard the last from the member for Capilano-Howe Sound last week and standing up to thank him on that occasion for his even-handedness in giving credit where credit is due. Now to my great chagrin I see that he will not stay dead and I am going to have to put a stake through his heart once more.

I did mean what I said last week about him doing politics a little differently but today his colleagues seem to have got to him. I think he has been a little unfair in his comments today.

There are two targets that matter, the targets for reducing the deficit and reducing overall program spending. We are on target for both. In fact, we are doing better than we projected for both. There has been no increase in program spending as today's article that the hon. member referred to claims.

Projected program spending would amount to $106 billion in 1997-98 and $105 billion in 1998-99. With program review the 1997 budget forecast program spending was revised downwards, as the member knows. As with our deficit reduction targets we are ahead of our original projections.

I will use this time to say that. It is in the nature of a comment because I care not to ask him a question.

(1805 )

Mr. Grubel: Madam Speaker, this is spin doctoring at its best. However, as I have great respect for the hon. member, I do not think this is the cause of his problem.

There is a difference between program spending and departmental spending. I am not talking about program spending. Sure, the downloading went ahead as expected. The problem I have is with something that is called departmental spending which is part of program spending.

Since this was not stated in the budget, I can only rely on the graph that has been provided here. For example, government services were supposed to have gone from about $6 billion to $4 billion in the 1997-98 fiscal year. Where is it? It is still at $6 billion. This goes on and on. The only department that hit its target is the Department of National Defence.

I would be happy to learn from the hon. parliamentary secretary if he has in his briefing notes a page dealing with this issue. His comments concerned program spending, which I have no problem with. However, the issue that is being discussed this week in the Senate committee deals with departmental spending. I would love to hear why this article is wrong. I would love to be able to tell my people in the next election that the government is really on track but these numbers suggest it is not. I wonder what went wrong.

Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I always listen with great interest when the member for Capilano-Howe Sound takes the time to make a speech. I especially listen when he goes off any written text because I find then he gives us the benefit of what he is really thinking and it comes out a lot clearer.

I would like to get something straight. I have never read that newspaper article to which he referred. I do not have a clue what he is talking about.

Therefore, as an individual MP sitting here, I am hearing for the first time that the government is behind in its departmental spending cuts. It has not made the size or kind of cuts in departmental spending that it had projected it would when it bragged about how it was going to eliminate the deficit. It did that by downloading 25 per cent or 29 per cent on to the provinces. The member for Capilano-Howe Sound told me that we also had to get our spending under control. We are all going to share this equally.

What the member just said is that the government indicated it would cut departmental spending by 19 per cent, which means $9 billion. It has not done that. Nor does it appear that it is going to be able to achieve that. I just want to get this perfectly straight and clear because I know this member does not say things just to win political brownie points like members on the opposite side do. He does not take cheap, political, partisan shots like members on the other side do.

Mr. Morrison: Like you do.

Mr. Silye: Like I do sometimes. However, he does think things through. I would like to know, as a taxpayer, will the government be able to achieve what the master of myth, the finance minister, set out in budgets? Where is the government on its $9 billion in spending cuts by departments now? Has it cut anything at all? How much has it cut? What is there left to cut? How much time does he have to get there?

Over a four year period has the government pulled the wool over Canadians' eyes? Has the master of myth led the Canadian taxpayer astray again by not coming clean on where we are on departmental spending?

(1810 )

Mr. Grubel: Madam Speaker, if I may read from an article from the Financial Post, dated March 15-17, authored by John Geddes, it states that according to figures published last month by Treasury Board, with the government's main spending estimates: ``The government projects that its departments will spend about $50 billion in fiscal 1997-98 beginning April 1, compared with the target of just under $42 billion set out in Martin's landmark 1995 budget''. This budget said the spending cut would be 19 per cent. In fact, it will be only 9 per cent. This is a true scandal.

The only department which has met its 1995 target is the defence department. Even the department headed by one of the most effective managers in the government, namely the department of transport, has fallen by a steep 38 per cent, but that still does not equal the 51 per cent cut which was targeted in 1995.

I urge anyone who is interested in this to have a look at this table. It raises serious questions about the integrity of the government. It keeps on talking about how far it has exceeded that one-inch target it set for itself. What really counts is smaller government. What really counts is doing what is right but is politically hard, namely to undertake the cuts in departmental spending.

Why has that not taken place? What is going on? How much more is missing from the 1997 budget as we go into an election?

I hope that the other House in its committee work will make sure that if there are other skeletons in this closet they will be dug out and the government will be held accountable for not carrying through with the grandiose plans it had. We will not be diverted by spin doctors from what is going on in government.

Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his answer. I guess what he is really saying is that over the last four years the government has cut $7.5 billion in transfers to the provinces and only $1 billion of departmental spending and that the reduction in the deficit has come from increased taxes. Is that correct?

Mr. Grubel: Madam Speaker, that is correct. If I may repeat those numbers, of the $36 billion improvement, $28 billion came from increased taxes through bracket creep.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it has been interesting listening to the debate on Bill C-82. We have had the government interpretation and we have had the Reform interpretation. We have not heard a lot of interpretation by the Bloc.

I thought that it might be of value to read into the record a totally independent interpretation written by the law firm of Gowling, Strathy & Henderson in Ottawa. It is entitled ``Financial Institutions Legislation and Foreign Branch Banking''. It states:

In mid February the Secretary of State for Finance-tabled legislation to strengthen consumer protection, ease the regulatory burden on financial institutions, and ``fine tune'' certain provisions in the financial institutions statutes. Bill C-82, an act to amend certain laws relating to financial institutions, responds to proposals set out in the June 1996 consultation paper, the 1997 Review of Financial Sector Legislation: Proposals for Changes, and to comments received during the consultative hearings. The legislation establishes March 31, 2002, as the new ``sunset'' provision for all federally regulated financial institutions.

The government has given itself expanded authority to make regulations governing privacy and enhanced cost-of-credit disclosure. The Bill also introduces tied-selling safeguards, and provisions to improve dissemination of information about fees.

To update and fine tune financial institutions regulation, banks that do not take retail deposits will be allowed to opt out of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation coverage, more flexibility will be provided to financial institutions seeking to enter into joint venture arrangements and access to capital for mutual insurance companies will be enhanced.

Changes to the provisions governing the operations of the foreign banks in Canada include: ``near banks'' (entities which do not generally take deposits and are not regulated as banks in their home jurisdiction but do provide one or more banking type services) which have received approval under the Bank Act to enter the Canadian market will no longer need to seek further approvals, provided their unregulated activities do not include taking deposits;

Removing the requirement for regulated foreign banks owning Schedule II banks to own their own financial institution subsidiaries through the Schedule II bank; and

Permitting near banks to own non-bank financial institutions.

Mr. Peters also announced that separate legislation will be made public before the end of the year to allow foreign banks to branch directly into Canada. The easing of foreign bank entry was a priority recommendation contained in separate reports released last fall by the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and the House of Commons Committee on Finance.

The government's decision to act in this area prior to receipt of the report of the Task Force on the Future of the Canadian Financial Services Sector was ``noted'' in the Finance Minister's February 18 budget when he stated: ``the increased competition this [foreign branch banking] should produce will increase the financing options-that is, the increased access to capital required by small- and medium-sized Canadian businesses.

(1815)

Before I go on to conclude this analysis by the law firm I might say that any action that the government, indeed any government, can take which will increase access to capital required by small and medium sized Canadian business surely must be a positive activity. What is stopping so many operations in Canada from being able to survive, let along thrive, is a lack of access to capital. If in the judgment of our industry critic this bill turns out to be a tool that will work in that direction, then if for only that reason I would be inclined to support it.

Carrying on with this analysis:

The main characteristics of the new branching regime would be as follows:

Foreign bank branches would not be allowed to take retail deposits.

The ability to operate branches would generally apply to foreign banks with at least $25 billion in assets on a world-wide basis, a limit that would permit most foreign banks operating in Canada as subsidiaries to operate as branches.

The Superintendent would have the power to require the maintenance of assets in Canada with an unrelated approved financial institution to cover liabilities of the branches.

A capital equivalency deposit of at least 5% of branch liabilities would have to be maintained at all times with a recognized financial institution.

The foreign bank would have to be regulated on a consolidated basis in its home jurisdiction in line with internationally recognized regulatory standards acceptable to the Superintendent, with appropriate co-operative regulatory arrangements in place.

Branches would be subject to appropriate Canadian reporting, auditing and taxation requirements. In cases of branch liquidation all assets in Canada of the foreign bank could be seized to satisfy the obligations of the Canadian branches.

The government will also review all other aspects of foreign bank entry policy. Pending completion of this review, foreign companies offering a limited range of financial services which now operate unregulated in Canada as well as new entrants that meet certain criteria, (i.e., non-deposit taking with a $200 million ceiling on the assets of Canadian operations) will be allowed to carry on their activities without being regulated, but will be required to disclose to creditors and customers that it is not regulated as a financial institution in Canada.

A final decision on the status of those unregulated foreign companies now operating in Canada and of those intending to set up operations during the interim period, will be taken once the branching regime and review of the foreign bank entry policies have been completed. It is expected that once the banking regime is in place a number of these companies will convert their Canadian activities to branch operations.

I wanted to put on the record an independent analysis or evaluation of what is a very technical bill. I recognize that not infrequently members end up in some fairly partisan sparring, and various things are said sometimes in jest and sometimes in the heat of the moment. However, with us having the unfortunate title of politician, sometimes we act like politicians.

The bill is probably one in which each of us would do well to rise above the normal partisan discussion which is going back and forth because it is so key to what ends up impacting Canadians in every day of their lives.

As I understand it from a summary that has been given to me by our industry critic, the bill will provide that more detailed information will be available to the consumer regarding cost of credit disclosure.

I recall that very frequently, almost on an annual basis, there is discussion in the public domain about the cost of credit cards of banks as well as credit cards of the financial institutions. I note that in the current Eaton's difficulty that the credit card section of the Eaton's empire is one of the strongest assets it has. It is reported to be a part of the corporation that does not require support and ends up contributing to the bottom line of the Eaton's group.

We also note that most of the banks issue credit cards with 18, 20 and 24 per cent interest rates on an outstanding balance. While Canadian consumers have a personal responsibility for what they do and must not always be looking to the government to be protected, on the other side of the coin there is a clear understanding that the Canadian consumer who has a piece of plastic, a credit card by which he or she can access all sorts of goods and services, has a responsibility in the way that credit card is used.

Clearly, as the credit card balance goes up and particularly where there is a very high interest rate, it is important that there be detailed information available to the consumer so that he or she may understand what the cost of constantly carrying a balance will be. I wonder how many Canadians are really aware if they have a $2,000, $3,000 or $5,000 balance on their credit card, that as long as they leave it on their credit card, just how much more interest they will actually end up paying for the use of that money? It is the equivalent of a very high cost loan.

A second part of Bill C-82 requires a simplified and improved dissemination of information to consumers about basic financial services, low cost options and fees on products and services.

(1825 )

It works to the the advantage of some of us to pay a $25 monthly fee or whatever the fee is where everything is rolled in whether it is inclusive of a safety deposit box, perhaps a credit card with no further fee, perhaps overdraft protection that is available on the side that simply needs to be activated. But all of these financial services end up costing money.

In a lot of instances when people started to use their bank card, they were drawn into the practice of using that card on the

assumption that their transaction was not going to cost them money. Indeed, some banks actually did that.

I applaud what the government is bringing forward where there is a simplified and improved dissemination of information to consumers about what the services are and what the costs are.

Allowing non-deposit taking institutions to opt out of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation and loosen subsidiary requirements makes sense. This becomes a user pay kind of a situation of which the Reform Party is completely in favour. We believe that people who are making use of any service, whatever the service may be, it is their responsibility to make sure that the service is properly and adequately funded.

If non-deposit taking institutions are required to pay into the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation the danger is much the same as the danger that we have realized with both the Conservatives and now the Liberals leaving people with no option. Both have told people that they have to pay into the unemployment insurance fund, for example. Where there is a mandatory requirement, where there is a sucking in of money we can count on the fact that there is a government somewhere in the background.

In this instance the fact that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation will permit non-deposit taking institutions to opt out is only fair, right and proper.

It introduces regulations to allow financial institutions to enter into joint venture arrangements and proposes changes that permit mutual insurance companies to issue participating shares. This gets into a slightly trickery area in my judgment.

On the surface it appears to be a very sound move. Not infrequently people will end up in a business situation where they require someone, some corporation, some financial body, some venture capital. That venture capital has to come from an organization with very deep pockets. Quite frankly, I cannot think of a better description of banks than an institution with deep pockets.

It would allow the bank entering into joint venture arrangements for that bank to be able to get into the boardroom, into the decision making process should it so choose if the venture is going off track. One of the difficulties in my constituency, and I suspect with a lot of businesses all over Canada, is that when they enter into an arrangement with the bank, almost invariably the bank ends up making sure that it is triple secured for any of the money that it actually extends in the form of a loan.

When it is triple secured it ends up falling back on a feeling of comfort. Perhaps they do not have to look over the shoulder of the entrepreneur to the same extent. Not looking over the shoulder of the entrepreneur in itself ends up creating some difficulty or some problem. More often than not, the financial institution, the venture capitalist, having a vested interest, will be able to foresee difficulties.

Madam Speaker, I note that you are giving me the high sign. I will sit down. I know that the House will just be waiting with bated breath for me to continue my intervention the next time this topic comes up.

* * *

CANADA LABOUR CODE

BILL C-66-TIME ALLOCATION MOTION

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being6.30 p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, March 12, 1997, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion for time allocation at third reading stage of Bill C-66.

Call in the members.

(1900)

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 260)

YEAS

Members

Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Verran
Walker
Whelan
Wood
Zed-105

NAYS

Members

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the motion carried.

[English]

Mr. Gouk: Madam Speaker, could you confirm that this is in fact the 37th time that the Liberals have invoked closure with this motion?

[Translation]

COPYRIGHT ACT

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on report stage of Bill C-32.

[English]

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on Motion No. 1 applies to Motions Nos. 8, 11, 39, 42, 43 and 46.

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House-there will be some exceptions-with Liberal members voting yea.

Mrs. Chamberlain: Madam Speaker, I wish to have clarification. On group 7, I wish to have some amendments but this would not affect those.

[Translation]

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, members of the official opposition will vote yes.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present will vote no unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.

Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, NDP members present vote yes on this motion.

Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, the PC Party will be voting nay.

Mr. Bhaduria: Madam Speaker, I will be voting for the motion.

Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, had I been here for the first vote I would have voted with my party. I would therefore like my vote applied as such.

Mr. Telegdi: Madam Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting with my party on this one, as I did not vote on the previous one.

Mr. Epp: Madam Speaker, in order to have clarity and no big problems about this later, you indicated this was on Motions Nos. 8 and 11. I believe the intent is 8, 9, 10 and 11. I would like that clarified, please.

(1905 )

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question is on Motion No. 1 and the vote on Motion No. 1 applies to Motions Nos. 8 to 11, 39, 42, 43 and 46.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 261)

YEAS

Members

NAYS

Members

PAIRED MEMBERS

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 1 carried. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 39, 42, 43 and 46 carried.

[English]

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to report stage Motion No. 49, report stage Motion No. 6 and report stage Motion No. 17.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?

Mrs. Chamberlain: Madam Speaker, on Motion No. 17, I wish to abstain.

Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the government whip could repeat what he said.

Mr. Kilger: That the vote previously taken on report stage Motion No. 1 be applied to report stage Motions Nos. 49, 6 and 17.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Do we have unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): There is not unanimous consent.

[Translation]

The question is on Motion No. 48.

(1910 )

[English]

An affirmative vote on Motion No. 48 obviates the necessity of putting the question on Motion No. 49. A negative vote on Motion No. 48 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 49.

The question is on Motion No. 48

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.

[Translation]

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, members of the official opposition will vote nay.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present will vote yes.

Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote no.

Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, I will be voting yes.

Mr. Bhaduria: Madam Speaker, I will be voting against the motion.

Mrs. Chamberlain: Madam Speaker, I wish my vote to be recorded with the government on this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 48, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 262)

YEAS

Members

NAYS

Members

Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Copps
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLaughlin
McTeague
McWhinney
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Walker
Whelan
Wood
Zed -142

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 48 lost.

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe you will find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to report stage MotionsNos. 5, 44, 25, 28, 31, 35, 38, 40, 41 and 55.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 262.]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motions Nos. 5, 44, 25, 28, 31, 35, 38, 40, 41 and 55 defeated. Motions Nos. 2, 3, 50, 51 and 52 are therefore defeated.

[Translation]

The next question is on Motion No. 49.

(1915)

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, you will find there is unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, members of the official opposition will vote yea.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Reform Party members present will vote no.

Mr. Blaikie: New Democrats vote yes, Madam Speaker.

Mrs. Wayne: I will be voting no, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Bhaduria: I will vote yes on this motion.

[Translation]

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 261.]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 49 carried.

[English]

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe you will find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the following government report stage Motions Nos. 6 and 17.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Do we have unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 261.]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motions Nos. 6 and 17 agreed to.

[Translation]

The question is on Motion No. 4.

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, you will find there is unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, members of the official opposition will vote yea.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Reform Party members present vote no.

Mr. Blaikie: New Democrats vote yes, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Silye: I would like to vote yea on this motion.

Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, I will be voting no.

Mr. Bhaduria: Madam Speaker, I will be voting no on this motion.

[Translation]

(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 263)

YEAS

Members

NAYS

Members

Dupuy
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Gouk
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lee
Lincoln
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Speaker
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Verran
Walker
Wayne
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Zed-129

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 4 lost.

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent to apply the result of the preceding vote to the following motions: Motions Nos. 7, 54, 57 and 32.

[English]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(1920)

Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to make it clear that on this set of motions I am voting nay as opposed to the previous ones so it will not apply in the same way.

(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 265)

YEAS

Members

NAYS

Members

MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Verran
Walker
Wayne
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Zed-130

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motions Nos. 7, 54, 57 and 32 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 60.

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the House would agree I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that the members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.

[Translation]

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, members of the official opposition will be voting yea.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present will vote yes unless they make motions otherwise.

Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote yes.

Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, I vote yes.

Mr. Bhaduria: Madam Speaker, I will be voting yes.

(The House divided on Motion No. 60, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 264)

YEAS

Members

Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Walker
Wayne
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Zed-165

NAYS

Members

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 60 agreed to.

The next question is on Motion No. 13. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 13 obviates the necessity of putting the question on Motions Nos. 14 and 15. A negative vote on Motion No. 13 necessitates the question being put on Motions Nos. 14 and 15.

[Translation]

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent that members who have just been recorded as having voted on the previous motion be now recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, members of the official opposition will be voting nay.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present will vote no.

Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote yes on this motion.

Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, I will vote yes.

Mr. Bhaduria: Madam Speaker, I will vote yes.

(The House divided on Motion No. 13, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 266)

YEAS

Members

Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Brushett
Caccia
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Cohen
Collenette
Copps
Culbert
Cullen
de Jong
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lee
Lincoln
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McLaughlin
McTeague
McWhinney
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Verran
Walker
Wayne
Whelan
Wood
Zed -112

NAYS

Members

Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-53

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 13 agreed to.

The next question is on Motion No. 24. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 24 obviates the necessity of putting the question on Motion No. 25. A negative vote on Motion No. 24 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 25.

(1925)

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the House would agree I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House.

At this time I would draw your attention to deleting the name of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Otherwise Liberal members will be voting nay.

[Translation]

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the official opposition will be voting nay.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present vote no.

Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote yes on this motion.

Mrs. Chamberlain: I vote yes on this motion, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Telegdi: I vote yes on this motion, Madam Speaker.

Mr. PeriG: Madam Speaker, I want to be recorded as voting yes on this motion.

Mrs. Wayne: I will be voting yes, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Bhaduria: I will be voting no on this motion, Madam Speaker.

(The House divided on Motion No. 24, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 267)

YEAS

Members

NAYS

Members

Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Strahl
Szabo
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Walker
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Zed-156

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 24 lost.

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you would find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the following report stage Motions Nos. 29 and 34.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 267.]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motions Nos. 29 and 34 lost. Motion No. 30 is therefore defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 26.

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the House would agree I would propose you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay with the exception of the member under whose name the motion stands.

(1930)

[Translation]

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the official opposition will be voting nay.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members vote yes.

Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote yes on this motion.

Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, I will be voting yes.

Mr. Bhaduria: Madam Speaker, I will be voting yes for the motion.

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, for clarification, the member for Guelph-Wellington under whose name the motion stands will be voting yea and all the other Liberals will be voting nay.

(The House divided on Motion No. 26, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 268)

YEAS

Members

NAYS

Members

MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marchi
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McTeague
McWhinney
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Valeri
Venne
Verran
Walker
Whelan
Wood
Zed -135

PAIRED MEMBERS

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 26 defeated. The next question is on Motion No. 27.

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe you will find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to report stage MotionNo. 27.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mrs. Chamberlain: Madam Speaker, I wish to vote with the government on Motion No. 27.

(The House divided on Motion No. 27, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 269)

YEAS

Members

McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
Meredith
Morrison
Silye
Speaker
Strahl
Wayne
White (North Vancouver)
Williams -28

NAYS

Members

PAIRED MEMBERS

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 27 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 35.

[English]

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe you would find that with respect to Motion No. 35, the vote was applied as a result of a vote taken earlier on Motion No. 48.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Thank you, that motion was defeated.

[Translation]

The question is on Motion No. 36. The vote on this motion will also apply to Motion No. 58.

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent that all members who voted on the motion previously before the House be deemed to have voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay, except for the member for Guelph-Wellington, who will be voting yea.

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: The official opposition will be voting nay, Madam Speaker.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present will vote no.

Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats will vote no on this motion.

Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, I will be voting yes.

(1935)

Mr. Bhaduria: I will be voting yes on this motion, Madam Speaker.

(The House divided on Motion No. 36, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 270)

YEAS

Members

NAYS

Members

PAIRED MEMBERS

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 36 lost. I therefore declare Motion No. 58 lost as well.

[English]

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe that you will find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to report stage MotionNo. 37.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 270.]

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I therefore declare Motion No. 37 lost. I declare Motion No. 59 lost as well.

[English]

The question is on Motion No. 45.

[Translation]

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent that all members who voted on the motion previously before the House be deemed to have voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.

I wish to indicate the withdrawal of the members for St. Paul's and Essex-Kent.

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the official opposition will be voting yea.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, Reform Party members present will vote yes.

Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote yes on this motion.

Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, I will be voting yes.

Mr. Bhaduria: I will vote no on this motion, Madam Speaker.

(The House divided on Motion No. 45, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 271)

YEAS

Members

NAYS

Members

Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Verran
Walker
Whelan
Wood
Zed-104

PAIRED MEMBERS

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 45 lost.

Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) moved that Bill C-32, an act to amend the Copyright Act, as amended, be concurred in at the report stage with further amendments.

[English]

Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if the House would agree I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.

[Translation]

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, members of the official opposition will be voting yea.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, this bill is supposed to help artists but hurts the whole industry. We are going to vote no.

(1940 )

Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote no on this motion.

Mrs. Wayne: Madam Speaker, I will be voting no.

Mr. Bhaduria: Madam Speaker, I will be voting no on this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 272)

YEAS

Members

NAYS

Members

PAIRED MEMBERS

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to.)

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): When shall the bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

_____________________________________________