Robert Chisholm

[Financial System Review Act, March 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I share concerns over the government's opposition to this important measure.

However, I will raise another concern that has been brought up, and that is how government members have said that the bill is good because it removes regulation and red tape. Within days or weeks we are going to hear about the value of reducing regulation and red tape as it relates to environmental assessments and how good that is going to be for the country. When the government says removing that kind of regulatory control is good for the country, I think of that. When the government says something is good for us, it is generally just the opposite.

[Financial System Review Act, March 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am concerned about the added authority given to the minister in any regard. With respect to timelines, we have the timeline provided under the Bank Act that we need to conduct this review by April 20. The government took until this fall to bring the legislation through the back door, through the unelected Senate. It only came to this chamber a month ago for debate at second reading. Just in case the opposition identified concerns with the bill, the government would be able to stand and say that the opposition was playing games, that it needed to pass the legislation because it had a deadline.

Deadlines are important. We need to acknowledge that, especially in a matter as important as this. However, we still need to allow for proper time so there is appropriate consultation with Canadians and due process in the House.

[Financial System Review Act, March 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I want to be clear. This is report stage of the bill and not third reading as has been suggested by some members on the government side. We are now dealing with an amendment to the bill. It is a very wise and reasonable amendment introduced by my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, and I thank him for that.

The amendment to Bill S-5 would delete clause 212 with respect to paragraph 39.1. This clause would give statutory immunity to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions in respect to any civil proceedings. This is an important amendment to which we need to pay attention. The immunity resulting from the deletion of this clause would negatively impact the office of transparency and accountability to the Canadian public. We should all be concerned about that. Time lost as a result of frivolous claims, as the government has suggested, does not justify such a radical measure.

In the process of trying to remain transparent, open, reasonable and independent, we need to allow that there will be the odd complaint and submission that may not end up to see the light of day or may not have basis. However, every Canadian who deals with the banking system or any government supervised and regulated system or bureaucracy should have the opportunity to bring their concerns forward. It is not up to us to decide what complaint is illegitimate until we have the opportunity to give those concerns a thoughtful review through reasonable process. My concern is the government is applying immunity to this office and to the officer simply because there are not enough complaints to warrant the attention.

Finally, this immunity, as suggested, would at best amount to an abdication of the superintendent's responsibility and, at worse, to covering up serious errors that could have been avoided.

The point of the amendment is to deal with the question of transparency and accountability. I urge all members opposite to consider the value of ensuring we do not dismiss out of hand any concerns that may be brought forward by Canadians in relation to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

My colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster and finance critic for the opposition, sponsored this amendment. He also indicated early on, as we did at second reading debate, that the opposition would support Bill S-5. We have given it some serious consideration, we have examined it and there is nothing particularly untoward, although we think the amendment is needed to address a flaw that needs to be corrected.

We also introduced amendments at committee that we thought would add to the bill. My colleagues and I have spoken at second reading and at committee about the missed opportunity.

The law provided that we needed to have this review conducted by April 20 to comply with the Bank Act. We suggested on numerous occasions that this provided an opportunity for the government, if it were serious about important issues like consumer protection, to speak with Canadians about their concerns as they related to the Bank Act and to make changes that were necessary.

We brought up a number of things. Whether it is outrageously high interest rates charged on credit cards, or banking charges that continue to go up, or the various ways that within the system consumers are being nickel and dimed out of tens of thousands of dollars every year, there are ways for us in the House, through this review, to properly protect those consumers and ensure the financial institutions covered by the act are acting properly. Unfortunately, we missed that opportunity. I indicated to constituents who brought it to my attention that I was sorry the government missed this opportunity.

Also, I am disappointed that once again the government has not engaged in as fulsome a process of consultation as it could have. Frankly, the consultation was truncated. It was not transparent. The government did not hold public hearings. It was by invitation only. We heard the government had 30 representations. Some of those were not even made public, not even shared with us on the website. Some organizations voluntarily agreed that their submissions should be public and made them so, but the government held consultations that were kept private. That is unfortunate.

I do not think that is necessary. We can be much more forthcoming and trusting of Canadians. We can recognize that Canadians have a great deal to offer to discussions like this. We think to ourselves that the whole issue of financial institutions and the regulation of the banking system is technical and above the average Canadian's head.

If it had not been for Canadians understanding the consequences of the deregulation and of allowing foreign takeovers of the banking industry that was being proposed by the Martin government, if it were not for the outcry of Canadians, whom we in the NDP caucus and others try to represent in debate, we would have gone down a perilous track that would have seen us follow far too closely the problems we saw in 2008, and beyond, in the U.S., Iceland and in far too many European countries. There the banking systems have been deregulated. We have seen the kind of turmoil that has been created as a result of the lack of adequate oversight.

It is because I have that kind of confidence and faith in my constituents and Canadians to understand the value and technical nature of issues like this that I get perturbed by the government members or members of the third party who were once in government. They want to take credit for the nature of the banking system that has developed over the years. However, it was because of experience and the wishes of Canadians and their representatives in the House that it be strongly regulated and protected from the vagaries of global competition and foreign ownership and that it was in much more stable shape in 2008 and able to considerably weather the storm. Although let us not forget that the Government of Canada did spend $75 billion to buy mortgages that were threatened by Canada Mortgage and Housing.

We need to give Canadians more credit for their knowledge on issues as important as the Bank Act.

[Financial System Review Act, March 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, does the member share my concerns about what is happening with the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments, the organization that was set up to properly monitor the practices of the banks? It is an independent group as opposed to the banks themselves setting up dispute resolution mechanisms. This is an arm's-length body that would resolve disputes between consumers, be they individuals, companies or otherwise. Two of the major banks have pulled out, making this service ineffective, and it is now looking at closing its doors.

I wonder if he shares my concerns that now there will not be any independent dispute resolution body and that it will be left up to the banks to do as they wish.

[Financial System Review Act, March 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that my colleague, who is an active member and participant in the finance committee, brings a lot of passion to his role and our role in trying to ensure that the financial legislation and efforts we make here with respect to proper and accountable banking rules and regulations are put forward in a good common sense fashion.

Could he comment on what appears to be nonchalance on behalf of the government as it relates to legislation like this, which it likes to class as technical in nature and therefore not that important? The government could have done what he already has suggested, which is move forward with some real and proper protections for consumers. Could he comment on that?

[Financial System Review Act, March 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, we raised an issue earlier in debate and at committee where we had some representation on it. We saw a story again today in the media on the concerns with the state of the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments and the fact that it is the only independent body set up to protect the interests of consumers as it relates to the practices of banks. However, two major banks have now pulled out of that arrangement.

When we have asked questions, the minister has said in the past that he will set up some other kind of accountability mechanism. However, he has not yet done so and we are concerned, the banks are concerned and consumers are concerned. The fact is that the government has not moved on it. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could give us an indication on the direction of the government.

[Business of Supply, March 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few facts in which the member opposite may be interested. We had the emergency debate on Monday and we talked about this issue. One of my constituents, a veterinary physician at an emergency animal hospital in my riding, sent me a note to say that it not only affects humans, but it also affects animals. Veterinarians are having problems. They have to come up with new protocols. They are trying to figure out how to treat the animals in their care because they are the last ones to get the medications after humans. It is putting a great deal of stress and pressure on their practices and their ability to serve their clients.

Does the member share my concern that there are more Canadians who are being affected by this problem than the government is prepared to admit?

[Air Service Operations Legislation, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, does the member opposite not think there is a bit of inconsistency with his government getting involved in the private sector with a company and a union that have not even concluded negotiations yet? Conservatives are introducing legislation to legislate them back to work. Does he not think there is a bit of irony there, let alone a ham-handed effect on the negotiation process?

[Income Tax Act, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a couple of great speeches from my colleagues. I too am going to lend a few words to debate on this bill.

I have seen a lot of nonsense from the government, but I cannot believe why we are dealing with Bill C-377. It targets one group in our society and singles it out for unfair, onerous, burdensome treatment with no apparent reason other to make mischief, attack unions and drive them out of our communities. I do not understand.

I do not know where the sponsor of this bill comes from or if he remembers the history of his community, but I want to ask him and other members opposite to think about the freedoms that we cherish in our community and our country and to consider for a moment their history. I want to ask him as well to consider the role that working people have played in the establishment of those freedoms and of those important programs, and the work they have done to build our roads and public buildings and to ensure that we have goods and services in order to have a high standard of living. Health care, health and safety laws, workers compensation, unemployment insurance, pensions and all of the other things that have made our communities as strong as they are today have resulted from the struggles of working people and their organizations, trade unions. They do not deserve this kind of attack.

It has been said by my colleagues that this bill does not deal with other like organizations that are similar in structure, such as professional associations or law societies. It does not touch the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, for example. It does not deal with other organizations in the same way that it attempts to single out trade unions.

As has been stated by my colleagues, I have often said that trade unions are one of the most democratic organizations we have in society. The revenues and resources that unions have to deal with are as a result of dues and contributions by members, from the pay they receive for doing their work. How that money is spent is determined by those very same workers.

If members have any question about how these unions deal and make those decisions and hold themselves accountable, I would like to take them out to a general membership meeting. I would like them to come to any one of the annual conventions held by the trade unions in this country and see the scrutiny that the financial statements of those unions receive from their members. Members would recognize that there is far more scrutiny and transparency regarding the financial statements of trade unions than there is in corporations in this country.

We have never had any explanation from the government opposite for what has happened to the tens of billions of dollars that profitable corporations have received from Canadian taxpayers. Supposedly it was meant to create jobs, but since January, for example, when these corporations recognized an additional $3 billion, what we have seen in this country is a further deterioration in the number of jobs.

My point is that when it comes to accountability, trade unions are one of the most accountable organizations that we have in our society.

We also hear members opposite talk about the “big union bosses” as though they are a big entity and similar to one of the big banks that make tens of billions of dollars in profit every year.

Let me tell members that the largest union in this country is the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which has over 600,000 members. However, that union is made up of nearly 3,000 small locals. Those locals may consist of two people, five people, ten people. There may be upwards of 10,000 in some of them, but the majority of them are tens or hundreds of members.

Every single month, one of those union locals holds a general membership meeting. Whoever the fortunate or unfortunate person is, depending upon one's perspective, who has taken the secretary-treasurer role has to stand in front of the members and account for how those dues are being spent.

Let me tell members that there is not a treasurer I know of in a trade union who gets off lucky. They have to be able to account for every single penny, because working women and men know what it is like to be frugal, they know what it is like to be accountable, and they want to know how their money is being spent.

In fact, that is what drives me and that is what drives many members on this side: the concerns that working women and men in this country have about how the government is spending its resources.

Why would we not expect the government to be attacking unions through a bill like this? It attacks working people. We see now that we are dealing with back to work legislation for a dispute that has not even started. We have seen it with the postal workers and we have seen it with Air Canada ealier. We have seen that whenever the government has had an opportunity to put the boots to working people, it has taken that opportunity.

Senior citizens, whether they are seniors now or whether they will be seniors in the future, are going to be asked to shoulder a greater burden by having the age of eligibility for OAS extended from 65 to 67 years old. That is going to be a burden for low-income senior citizens. That is an attack by the current government on seniors.

It is the same with veterans. We talked in this House about how the government is attacking veterans and slashing the budget of Veterans Affairs.

Ninety per cent of the budget of Veterans Affairs goes to programs and services; the government is going to cut upwards of 10% out of that budget, and it says that it is not going to affect services to veterans and their families and to RCMP members, people who have sacrificed themselves and continue to sacrifice themselves for this country.

It is the same with voters. The government is attacking voters. We see every day a new revelation of what the Conservative government has done in terms of trying to suppress the rights of Canadians to vote for the people they want to vote for. That is another group that has been under attack.

The military post living differential is another example. The post living differential has been brought up to me by people in my constituency, who have said that the government is intending to cut the living allowance that compensates military families that have to move to different parts of the country or to other countries. It is going to cut it in half. That is another group that the government has its sights on.

Let me tell members that Canadians are getting sick and tired of the government picking out a group of people and deciding that it is next. They are wondering where the government is going to stop.

Our job in this House, whether in debating Bill C-377 or in dealing with the government's attack on Canadians' privacy through Bill C-11, will be to stand every single day and use every breath to fight the government, stand with Canadian families and ensure that the government backs off.

Then, in 2015, that is it. The Conservatives are gone.

[Emergency Debate, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member is bang on. That is absolutely the case. This is not a new problem. This problem has existed for several years. The government's first step in trying to correct it, under great pressure, was a voluntary monitoring system. How is that working? It is not.

The government has to go back to the drawing board. Tonight, my colleagues laid out a whole host of solutions to solve this problem. We are calling on the government to take action now to get this problem solved once and for all.