Evidence of meeting #49 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was julian.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you very much.
Is that all you had, then, Ms. McLeod?
Thank you.
We'll go to Mr. Mai, Mr. Brison, and then Monsieur Giguère.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
I support the recommendation. In response to Mr. Jean's comments, these recommendations are important, and rightly so, because we see how the current ministers are acting. We note that the current government's strong tendency is to centralize everything in the hands of certain ministers who can make decisions. We are seeing just how close certain ministers are to lobbies or groups that have a direct influence on the minister's decision. That's why, in seeing the current ministers, we think that more specific interests need to be added. We are talking about the stability and the best interests of the Canadian economy, but I don't see how we are reducing the decision-making authority of the minister; we are just supporting the ministers backed by the lobbies. Let's keep the language fairly general, in the best interests of Canadians.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Thank you.
Broadly, the amendments speak to granting of an approval as in “the minister shall”—the replacement of “may” with “shall”. I don't necessarily agree with that and will be voting against those amendments. Part of it is that I think ministers need a certain level of ministerial discretion or decision-making, and I'm concerned about politicization of the process in any case.
I support the amendments that propose adding to consideration or the criteria “the stability of the Canadian economy”, “the best interests of the Canadian economy”, and “any written report of the Superintendent”. I think this formula affords the minister greater latitude to consider these decisions, and in fact I would think any minister would or ought to consider those in any case. I don't see why the government would be opposed to enshrining them.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Of course I will support the amendment. When I reread the wording, I see that it is consistent, even considering what was added. We are using the word "including", which isn't restrictive, with respect to the interpretation of legal rules. So we can even add many more. We are simply indicating that we are defending the financial system, but how can public servants limit themselves to defending just the financial sector?
All we are adding is to protect the best interests of the Canadian economy. This is also consistent with the overall economy of the legal system, with respect to the financial regulations of the Canadian government. What we added is in full and complete compliance with the overall economy with respect to the general drafting of legal texts for financial institutions. You said a little earlier that your text was consistent. I acknowledge that, but our amendment in no way changes that, if I'm not mistaken.
4 p.m.
General Director, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
The text is consistent with the other parts of the act. Within a financial institutions act, it is reasonable to be limited to the considerations that affect the financial sector and not all the broader considerations. We don't need to list all of them. The Minister of Finance has a lot of responsibilities. If we itemize all the criteria here, there will be no end to it. We explicitly put the criteria that deal with the financial sector, but we clearly established that the minister is not required to limit himself to that. If he wants to consider something else that he feels is relevant, he is entirely free to do so. That's the thinking behind the wording.
4 p.m.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
You're talking about legal consistency. Generally, the first element in all Canadian legislation is Canada's best interests. How does writing in a legal document that we need to be concerned about the Canadian economy run counter to the system's overall economy?
4 p.m.
General Director, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
The concept you're talking about isn't currently in the Bank Act.
4 p.m.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
No, it isn't in the Bank Act, but it is in plenty of other legal documents dealing with our overall economy. The minister doesn't want it. The information he needs to have is what's listed. We're talking about the financial sector. If something is relevant, relevant to Canada's financial sector, it's good to point to a report from the superintendent of financial institutions. Why can we not write down…
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
The officials are here for clarification and explanation. They can respond to this, but if we want to get into arguments that are more political in nature, I think we should leave them to members of Parliament, unless the officials wish to respond.
We could have a very long debate on this matter. I'm not shutting it down, but my sense is....
On the first one, Mr. Julian has himself on the list to speak next.
Can I go to Mr. Julian and then call the question on this? Or do you have more points that you want to make, Monsieur Giguère?
4 p.m.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
She basically said that this was the rule. It's a public servant who provides the information, and it's important to see whether that person is really giving good information. I am surprised by the legal information provided. I was surprised by the answer because, when it comes to drafting, the overall economy is never to exclude what might be good for Canada. It's even the essential element. She said that we must not include anything involving financial institutions, but the superintendent of financial institutions is a stakeholder of the financial institutions.
4 p.m.
General Director, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
He submits a written recommendation to the minister. That is already occurring. That's what I have been trying to explain. The minister already gets the recommendation of the superintendent of financial institutions.
4 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, our position is this: How is the minister supposed to take this report into consideration?
Right now, as the bill is drafted, it contains no obligation to that effect. Nor is there any obligation to take the stability of the Canadian economy or the best interests of the Canadian economy into consideration. We are putting in place a structure that is more robust and stronger. That's why we are proposing the amendments.
I want to respond to Mr. Jean's concerns that we were not looking ahead to the NDP government that will be elected in 2015. I want to make it clear to Mr. Jean that he doesn't need to worry. We are looking at the next revisions of the Bank Act taking place under an NDP administration, and they will be different amendments.
But I don't want to be concerned about that.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
We're very definite. We're counting the days until October 19, 2015. I have a calendar, and we put another cross up every day.
That's why we put forward these amendments.
Mr. Chair, we're in your hands, but I think, to facilitate the voting—these are exactly similar amendments to four different parts of the bill—we could regroup them as one vote, if you like.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I leave that to you. I won't be making a fulsome intervention in the other cases.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay. Thank you very much.
We will therefore deal with NDP-1.
Do you want to have a recorded vote Mr. Julian, or a show of hands?
(Amendment negatived)
We will now move to amendment NDP-2.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 53 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 54 to 117 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 118)
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We will now go to clause 118.
We have amendment NDP-3. Mr. Julian has indicated that he has made the arguments with respect to this issue; therefore we'll move to a vote.
(Amendment negatived)
We will move to amendment NDP-4 on clause 118.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 118 agreed to on division)
I do not have another amendment until clause 140. Can I group clauses 119 to 139?
(Clauses 119 to 139 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 140)
On clause 140, we'll move to amendment NDP-5.
The same argument applies to this amendment as well, does it, Mr. Julian?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We are on amendment NDP-6, which is also on clause 140.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 140 agreed to on division)
We do not have another amendment until NDP-7 at clause 179. Can I group clauses 141 to 178 together?
(Clauses 141 to 178 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 179)
We will now go to clause 179 and amendment NDP-7.
(Amendment negatived)
Again on clause 179 we have amendment NDP-8.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 179 agreed to on division)
The last amendment I have is on clause 203. Can I group clauses 180 to 202?
(Clauses 180 to 202 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 203)
We shall move to clause 203.
I think this is a separate issue.
Mr. Julian, would you like to move your amendment on clause 203, NDP-9?
