Bill S-5 (Historical)

Financial System Review Act

An Act to amend the law governing financial institutions and to provide for related and consequential matters

This enactment amends a number of Acts governing financial institutions. It also amends legislation related to the regulation of financial institutions. Notable among the amendments are the following:
(a) amendments to the Bank Act, the Cooperative Credit Associations Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Trust and Loan Companies Act aimed at reinforcing stability and fine-tuning the consumer-protection framework; and
(b) technical amendments to the Bank Act, the Cooperative Credit Associations Act, the Insurance Companies Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank of Canada Act, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, the Canadian Payments Act, the Winding-up and Restructuring Act, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act.

Bill S-5—Time Allocation Motion

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, here we are again. This is the 16th time allocation motion since the 41st Parliament convened. There have been four in the last two weeks.

I want to mention the preposterous statement that was made last week when the government House leader moved another one of these time allocation motions. He was trying to justify his anti-democratic, abusive conduct in this House. As is so typical of people who abuse their power, he blamed the opposition parties, specifically the official opposition.

I practised family law for a good deal of my professional career as a lawyer. I did a lot of work on domestic abuse cases, both between spouses and partners and with regard to children. The same story was heard. The abuser would always say to the recipient of the abuse, “I am doing this because of what you did”. The abuser would not accept any responsibility.

There is a real victim here. I ask the government House leader if he recognizes the abuse he is perpetrating on the victims, who are the Canadian people, with this attack by the Conservative government on the democratic process.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the past few weeks have given us an opportunity to see exactly what the strategy of the official opposition is. It is one of seeking to simply run up the score by compelling the government to resort to time allocation in order to advance any proposition.

We had to resort to time allocation with respect to the pooled registered pension plan bill. That bill is broadly supported by every province and generally is seen as non-controversial. However, it was impossible to get any agreement from the official opposition on the length of time for debate.

We saw it with the copyright bill. The identical bill in the previous Parliament went to committee after seven hours of debate. After 75 speeches here in the House, the official opposition simply had not shown any willingness to come to any agreement on the number of speakers it would require before sending the bill to committee where the detailed study could actually occur and it could advance. That is an important bill for the economy, the high tech sector and for job creation. Again, it was impossible to get that bill to advance without resorting to time allocation.

We see the same thing with Bill S-5. A highly technical bill comes along every five years. The last two times it has come along all the parties have agreed to send it to committee after one day of debate. We could not get any agreement out of the NDP. Those members would not ever provide us with a single list of the number of speakers they had, the number of days they wanted for debate. The Liberals, in fairness, did. They were in agreement with approaches to move this matter forward. The only way to move this legislation forward is to resort to time allocation again because the NDP simply will not co-operate.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

There we go again, Madam Speaker. In how many other Parliaments in Canadian history has this happened? Have official opposition parties ever taken the proper role of the official opposition in saying it has the right and the responsibility to debate in the House, to bring an alternate voice to this chamber and to the Canadian people as to what they are hearing from the government? That is a fundamental principle of our democracy.

As I said in my opening comment, the use of time allocation is not a response to the normal process that the official opposition has used since this Parliament started. This process is being used by the government to curtail debate, to eliminate that alternative voice which the official opposition is responsible for bringing.

Again I ask the government House leader, does he realize how much he is undermining the democracy of this country by the repeated use of this process?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, this really demonstrates the extent to which the New Democratic Party is not interested in advancing or discussing issues. That party is interested in merely debating them.

We have already had debate on this legislation, but members were not talking about the bill. Most of the debate took place on the question of the Canada pension plan, things like old age security. People talked about pooled registered pension plans, which was a separate bill before the House. There was a debate on the national rate of unemployment. There was a lot of talk about the health accords apparently. Somebody even talked about French socialist party leaders. We had a great debate on who should take credit for the soundness of the banking system, whether it should be the current government or the previous Liberal government. There was actually no debate on the bill itself.

After a day of that, we still could not get any agreement from the NDP on how many further days to allocate for debate on a routine bill that comes up every five years. The bill has to be passed by April 20 or it will sunset and then our banking system will have to function without any law in place. It cannot do that. We have the soundest banking system in the world and we have to keep it that way. That is why we have to proceed forward with this legislation.

The NDP would not co-operate, even after we made several offers even in public here in the House. There was nothing forthcoming from the official opposition.

It is clear that the NDP strategy laid bare is to run up the score, compel the use of time allocation on every occasion. It makes all of those words from the opposition House leader ring entirely hollow.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to try to stay focused on this particular bill. We have seen time allocation almost 50 times since this new government. I think it is something that everyone here is uncomfortable with. We already know that the government does not like the democratic process and is using its majority.

The bill is non-controversial. It was tabled in the Senate mid or late November. It went through the Senate the second week of December. It was put before the House the last week of January. The government House leader knows it has to get out by April 20. The government knows that the day after the last bill is reviewed we have five years before we have to review this bill. It is non-controversial, but we have to hold hearings and we have to have a debate. I do not understand where the planning is.

The government House leader knew all along that he was just going to ram this through Parliament. I do not understand the attitude that we cannot get bills through without time allocation, whether they are controversial or non-controversial.

My question is, at what point will the government House leader go to the Prime Minister and say he cannot handle the job because he cannot have the bills funnelled through Parliament like they should be? At what point will he say he cannot do this any more?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's party, the Liberal Party, has been quite practical about its approach to the bill. Liberals were at the Senate where it was dealt with in an appropriate fashion, similar to that in the past. It took 23 days from introduction to final passage. The proposals that we put forward in this chamber took about three times that for consideration of the entire bill, even though the Senate is the chamber that is traditionally most engaged in banking. In fact the Senate has a banking committee. It was able to consider the bill in 23 days. Here in this House, his party has shown a willingness to engage in discussions and to agree to a reasonable approach in dealing with the bill. Liberals know this is the appropriate way to do it. It has been done in the past: one day of debate at second reading, each of the last two times it came up. Let us have the focus happen at committee. Let us get it to committee where they can discuss it.

The review has been going on since September 20, 2010. That is when the Department of Finance launched the review. It began seeking submissions from Canadians, requesting their interest. That was the input that produced the bill. The bills come forward in the exact same sequence, with roughly the same timeframes as in the past. In fact, with the amount of time consumed for debate, on the previous occasions when it came up, there was more than ample opportunity for review.

We are happy to have the constructive support of the Liberal Party, both in substance and in process, as it has expressed in the House. In fact, the NDP critic has even expressed support for the substance of the bill. He has said the NDP will support the bill at second reading and probably even at third reading. So that leaves the question: Why are we forced to resort to this? It is because the NDP House leader has an agenda. It does not matter what his critic says. It does not matter what the caucus says. It does not matter what public policy interests are. He wants to run up the score so he has a stat to quote in the next election. Well, so be it. We will continue to run this House in an orderly, productive, hard-working fashion, in the best interests of Canadians.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am just amazed that the House leader of the Conservative party thinks I have that kind of control or sway over my caucus. The reality is I have a number of members of our caucus who want to speak on this bill. Madam Speaker, you have the list in front of you today. They want to address this bill. Part of the reality is, we have a large new caucus here. Maybe the Conservatives could have asked us why we have that large new caucus, rather than spending $16,000 on it. Caucus members want to communicate to their ridings what their positions are on any number of bills, including S-5.

I want to go back to the point that my colleague from the Liberals raised. This really is about the incompetence of the government House leader. The government knew the April 20 deadline was there since Parliament came back. It is there. It is the reality. By moving the bill at a much earlier stage, the government House leader could have accomplished what he needed to accomplish in order to meet that deadline. Therefore, why do we see this bill at the last minute, forcing us to be confronted with a time allocation motion? That is not the way to be the general manager in the House. The fact that we are faced with this is his responsibility, not that of the opposition. Not at all.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, the bill was introduced in this Parliament on November 23, 2011. That is not at the last minute. I appreciate that the hon. member does not believe in the Senate. However, the Senate is still a constitutionally important part of our parliamentary system. The fact that we introduced it in the Senate first instead of in the House does not mean that we have cut short the time. In fact, it means that we have had ample time. It would still have to go through the Senate to become law.

It is important that we have the bill in place. We are very fortunate in Canada to have what has been voted the world's soundest banking system the past four years by the World Economic Forum. That is a testament to the oversight provided by this government and the institutions that are established by it. The laws and rules we have in place are very strong. This review has revealed that indeed they are strong. We do not need dramatic change, although there are a lot of technical changes that need to occur.

I hope we will not have a debate like we have in the past, where people thought it was about old age security, or what French socialist political leaders say, or the Canada pension plan, or natural rates of unemployment. I hope that all those people who the member said want to speak this time will actually speak about the bill instead of what we heard the last time.

This is an important bill that would ensure that our banking system continues, stays sound and continues to function in the best interests of Canada. The strength of our banking system has been a bulwark of our economic success during a very challenging time globally. Other countries look at our system with envy. We should look at it with pride. This is our opportunity to endorse that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have been a house leader. I have gone through majority and minority governments. I have dealt with government House leaders, both Conservative and New Democrat. I can honestly say that I have never yet experienced a government trying to incorporate time allocation as a standard procedure. That is actually what the government is doing.

It does not matter how long a bill has been debated for, it is standard procedure. That is what I see this government House leader moving toward, if he is not already there. Canadians need to be aware that it is not democratic. The government needs to sit down and start working with opposition House leaders in order to negotiate matters.

In the past, numerous government House leaders provided all the bills that they wanted to talk about. They worked with the opposition as to when they would like to see which bills go through. Some are dated, like Bill S-5, which is relatively non-controversial and should be able to pass through relatively quickly. For other bills, such as the Canadian Wheat Board or the pooled pension plan, time allocation should be put off until well after the opposition has been afforded the opportunity to legitimately debate the issue.

I ask the government House leader with all sincerity if he does not see the merit of working with opposition House leaders to have better, more functional House proceedings that would allow for adequate debate on those bills that are important to Canadians.

As I say, we do not have a problem with Bill S-5 going through. Where we have a problem is that this particular government House leader is so focused on making time allocation standard procedure. This is not healthy for the House of Commons.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am a bit challenged on how to answer the question. It is not my practice to discuss what happens in our private House leaders' meetings. However, the member is asking me to do exactly what I did at previous House leaders' meetings, including one at which he was present. Therefore, I am very perplexed.

We do lay out for the other parties the bills that we have and ask them how long they would like to debate them. We seek that kind of agreement. That has been reflected in the motions that we brought forward in the House over the past couple of days seeking unanimous consent. The member's own party has actually been somewhat co-operative in that process, including on this bill. Therefore, I find his question very puzzling. He is asking me to do what we have been doing so that his party could do what he said it would do, which it did in fact do.

Our problem is there is another party whose sole objective is to run up the score and compel time allocation in every case. It is good that its members take that position, that this is a routine bill and a technical bill that should be dealt with quickly. I am glad that the Liberals take that position because in fact it is. However, it is also a critical bill because it is time limited.

The existing act that regulates our banking sector sunsets in April. It is designed to sunset every five years. Some people might think that is extraordinary, but it has actually been praised by world financial authorities as a system that ensures that we are not stuck with old rules, that when we see problems we are compelled to correct them. It has helped to make Canada's banking system the strongest banking system in the world.

However, it means there is an obligation on each and every one of us here in this Parliament to ensure that we do our work, that we do a review, that we send it to committee, and that we do pass legislation before that deadline.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, on the point of the government praising the banking system, the reality is that before the 2008 great recession started, it was about to undertake some major deregulation processes and was stopped only because of what happened at that time.

I want to go back to the point that the government House leader is raising. He is beginning to breach the confidentiality that we are supposed to be abiding by with regard to House leaders' meetings. His characterization of those meetings is not at all accurate. I want to say that and will not say anything further because I do not want to breach confidentiality.

I want to go back to the point about the regular process. This is the 16th time the government has put closure and time allocation on bills. This is an all-time record. No other government in the entire history of this country has used it that often in such a short period of time. Is he saying the NDP is the only official opposition party that has ever demanded its right to speak in the House?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, my focus today is on this bill. This bill is very important for the protection of consumers. It ensures that they have a banking system that treats them fairly. It is important for our economy, for jobs and growth, so we can continue to have the soundest financial system in the world. Thus, it is important that this bill pass, as everybody knows, by April 20, 2012. Failing that, the existing law will sunset. Some may not like the fact that there is a review built into the legislation that compels a requirement to come back to the House every five years. Some think that is a good thing. However, there is an obligation on us to review it.

There are some important changes happening. We are increasing the threshold for schedule I banks to reflect the fact that times have changed, and to ensure that the system is modern and responsive. It is an important change, one that is supported broadly and will continue to keep our financial sector strong and competitive.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is a bill about banking and banking is obviously extremely important. I suspect the Conservatives want to avoid prolonged debate on this matter because, should we have that debate, it would make clear that the Conservatives were part of the problem in terms of having a solid banking system rather than a part of the solution. Back in the 1990s, they were in favour of bank mergers and deregulation.

My question to the government House leader is this: He knew for many months and weeks that this was a time-sensitive bill—

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Years, years. Five years.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Years. Is he putting it forward at the last minute in order to avoid debate on banking, which would put the Conservative Party in a very bad light? Is that his motivation?