Cathy McLeod

[The Budget, April 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be the last person to stand on this particular budget 2012, which is our plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

Before I start into some technical parts of the budget, I have to make an observation about what has happened over the last few days. I have to note that the NDP official opposition only had one member who could even speak to this budget for three days. I have to appreciate his stamina, but reading tweets and emails for hour after hour leads me to believe that the NDP really did not have all that much to say against the budget.

We often hear concerns about time allocation because the opposition has so many people who need to speak to the issues. But again, I did find it very strange to watch that approach to this budget.

I have to look at the response by the Liberals. They had many opportunities to suggest an amendment that would be important to Canadians. What did they do? They chose to focus on the Prime Minister's retiring allowance. Soon after they actually made that amendment, they had to apologize when they realized their own party was responsible for the implementation of the policy.

In actual fact I think it is very telling that the debate over the last few days has really just been about tweets and minor amendments. It must mean we have this budget right.

What we need to do is understand how we plan to return to a balanced budget without raising taxes. It is important to start, first all, with reflecting on some of the extraordinary challenges we have faced in the last few years.

Between 2006 and 2008, we paid down $38 billion in national debt and reduced the tax burden to the lowest level in 50 years.

I did have to look at budget 2009, because I think it is an absolute critical piece to understanding where we are. This was when we were entering an extraordinary recession, called the great recession. Across the world, people were very concerned.

Our Minister of Finance, in budget 2009, said the following: “We are in the midst of an extraordinary global economic slowdown.... We will spend what is necessary to stimulate our economy to protect our future prosperity through Canada's economic action plan.... We will be spending for the purpose of stimulating the economy and to make many long-term investments that we would have had to make at any rate”.

He said we would not fall into permanent deficit, but lay out a plan to move out of deficit and back to surplus within five years.

Again, this was as we were heading into the recession. He had extraordinary insight in terms of what we needed to do to deal with it and move forward. He said that our stimulus spending was temporary and confined

I am so proud of the government. If we look at our current plan and look at the stimulus and how it really was confined to those two years, we did what we needed to do and we moved forward. The next thing he said was that we anticipated the budget balance would improve sharply, starting in 2011-12.

What have we seen? Dramatic improvements.

He said, “Once the economy recovers, we will ensure deficits incurred over the next five years are repaid and the debt burden is firmly on the downward track.... To accomplish this, we will set rigid spending targets, keeping program spending on average below the rate of nominal GDP growth.... We will do what is right and necessary for the good of our country, without placing the burden on our children and grandchildren”.

That was 2009. Again, I think we can see there was a plan, and that plan is working.

People look at this document we have in front of us, and some people wonder how it came about. It is important to recognize that this is not something that is crafted in offices. This is crafted through consultation across the country.

As members of the finance committee, we travelled from coast to coast to coast. We listened to Canadians. We put forward suggestions. Most members of Parliament met with their constituents. They had round tables, crafted and put in proposals. There are a couple in here that I would reflect upon that come from riding in Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

When I was first elected, Manny Jules, who was from the first nations land management, met with me and talked about economic prosperity. He talked about the ability for first nations property rights.

We announced that the government intends to move forward with legislation that would allow interested first nations to consider private property ownership within the current reserve boundaries.

It was interesting. The finance committee met with Mr. Jules and it met with four chiefs in Kamloops. We talked about how we could help them create economic prosperity.

Mr. Jules said very clearly that this is not something that is for everyone. It needs to be voluntary. However, again this was something that came from constituents. It came from chiefs in my riding. We believe we can create a future for our communities with something like this, so we saw that into the budget. It could be part of some transformation for the Indian bands, the first nations communities that choose this as an option.

Another simple story I like to look at involves the red tape reduction commission. In Kamloops, again, we heard from a business owner who said, “It was Christmas. I hired a temporary worker for a couple of weeks. I missed doing a report to Revenue Canada. The penalty that I was hit with was extraordinary. It was inappropriate”. They were really concerned about what they deemed a very unfair penalty assessed by CRA.

I note that in this budget we have a new policy to ensure these penalties are charged in a manner that is both fair and reasonable. When a business is unable to comply in a timely manner with a reporting obligation related to certain information returns, such as T4s, reduced penalties will be applied when the number of late returns is small.

So, that is one example of something significantly altering for a lot of people and a small example of an irritant, but these are examples of Canadians' input being reflected in the budget.

In summary, I am very proud to be part of a government that actually set out a path to see us through the global recession in 2009. We came out of the recession in better shape than most countries. We now have a path forward, in terms of doing exactly what we said we would do; that is to get back to a balanced budget and to create growth, jobs and long-term prosperity.

[The Budget, April 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, after submitting ideas from my riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo in the budgetary process, I was pleased to see a number of them highlighted in budget 2012.

First was the announcement that the government intended to move forward with legislation that would allow private property ownership within current reserve boundaries. This is an important next step in a long-time dream of Manny Jules, chair of the First Nations Tax Commission. This change would assist interested first nations in addressing barriers to economic development on reserve.

Further, when the Red Tape Reduction Commission visited Kamloops, there were concerns regarding high penalties for those businesses that filed their information returns late with Revenue Canada. Budget 2012 responded with reduced penalties to be applied when the number of returns were small.

Over the past four budget submissions, people in my riding have provided great ideas and insights and they have been included time and time again. I would encourage everyone to stay involved in the budget process because results are being delivered.

[Canada Revenue Agency, March 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the changes announced in the budget will provide education to charities to ensure they are operating within the laws and with more transparency to Canadians who donate so generously. We have not changed the laws.

Our government understands that registered charities are an important part of our society and encourages Canadians to donate generously. In order to protect Canadian interests, we have a duty to ensure that these organizations are operating in compliance with federal laws. We taking action so that Canadians can be sure that charities are using their resources appropriately.

[Air Service Operations Legislation, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's comments regarding the strike and there are two things that stuck out in my mind.

First, he indicated that he did not believe this was an essential service. Coming from small rural communities, I beg to differ.

The member also provided some quotes from Captain Paul Strachan, the president of the Air Canada Pilots Association. I will give the him another quote and ask him for comment. Mr. Strachan testified before the Senate transport committee that he believed Air Canada was an essential service for this country and “...a cornerstone of our entire economy”. We happen to agree with Captain Strachan that it is an essential service and important for our economy.

Why does the member disagree with the president of the union and why is he in favour of jeopardizing our fragile economic recovery? Again, he quoted Mr. Strachan on the one hand and then on the other hand said it was not an essential service. That is in direct contradiction with the language Mr. Strachan used before committee.

[Ending The Long-Gun Registry Act, February 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I had to get up in response to the last question. I am a woman and a mother. My children grew up in a rural area. In that rural area, one day the farmer next door used his long gun rifle to protect our children from a cougar that was stalking them. Many years later, farmers, hunters and sports shooters still feel so angry, degraded and criminalized over legislation that has done nothing.

I would ask the member to look at what the legislation has done. This is not an issue about women. This is an issue about criminalizing law-abiding people and farmers, who in my case protected my children from cougars.

[Financial System Review Act, February 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, although the member is new to this House, I think he does recognize that legislation goes through the House into the Senate or from the Senate into the House. It is part of our Constitution, it is part of how we move legislation forward and it is how we make progress in terms of ensuring both Houses are kept focused on important legislation.

At this point, although new, I think the member should recognize how our Constitution works and how we move legislation through Parliament.

[Financial System Review Act, February 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we want to talk about the large bank ownerships and the thresholds. In 2001, we had a largely wide held bank requirement. In 2007, it was raised from $5 billion to $8 billion to reflect the growth in banks. Since then, the sector has continued to grow. Accordingly, the large bank threshold would be increased from $8 billion to $12 billion to reflect the growth in the sector.

Again, this is mandatory and routine legislation that needs to move forward. The member across the way is one of my colleagues on the finance committee, and we will have the opportunity to look into some of the details that he is wondering about.

[Financial System Review Act, February 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would again point out that this legislation is mandatory and routine and it needs to be passed in this House by April 20. It really speaks to the unwillingness of the opposition to co-operate with the government in terms of even the most routine piece of legislation where we should be able to move it into committee in a relatively rapid fashion.

This is important legislation that is mandatory and routine, and the NDP continues to stall even the most routine of legislation from moving through this House in a timely way.

[Financial System Review Act, February 14th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today in support of Bill S-5, the financial system review act.

While Bill S-5 is albeit largely a technical bill, it represents an important piece of legislation as it will help guarantee the ongoing security and strength of Canada's financial system, a vital sector of our economy. Today's bill would accomplish this by making a series of alterations to the various pieces of legislation governing Canada's financial system, including the Canadian Payments Act, which I will speak to in greater detail a little later.

Before doing that, I want to underline that today's legislation is mandatory and routine. This is as result of a long-established practice in Canada of engaging in mandatory five year reviews of our financial sector legislation. I will note that this latest five year review process began formally in September 2010 when our Conservative government launched a public consultation process open to all Canadians. Such mandatory five year reviews have helped to ensure that Canada has a well-regulated financial system. Indeed, it is the safest and most secure in the world.

As most members know, for four straight years Canada has been ranked by the World Economic Forum as having the soundest banks in the world. What is more, our well-regulated financial system is widely admired throughout the world.

In the words of a recent Ottawa Citizen editorial:

Our banking and financial system is the envy of the world. While the great money edifices of countries such as the U.S., Britain and Switzerland cracked at the beginning of the recession, Canadian banks stood firm.

As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, I would like to speak to elements of the financial system review act that address Canada's payment system, something Canadians interact with each and every day. Indeed, every year Canadians make 24 billion payments, worth more than $44 trillion. These payments allow us to run our businesses, sustain our household and allow governments to fund essential programs.

Canadians use various payment instruments to purchase goods and services, to make financial investments and to transfer funds from one person to another. These instruments include cash, cheques and debit and credit cards. Except for cash, payment instruments have traditionally involved the claim on a financial institution, such as a bank, credit union or caisses populaire.

Financial institutions, therefore, needed arrangements to transfer funds among themselves, either on their own or on behalf of that or their customers. A payment system is a set of instruments, procedures and rules used to transfer these funds. In Canada, our national system for the clearing and settlement of payments is run by the Canadian Payments Association, or the CPA, a not for profit organization of federally regulated financial institutions.

Clearly, no economy can properly function without a reliable and secure system of payments. However, the payments landscape is changing. For example, experiences in Canada and abroad since the 1990s demonstrate that clearing and settlement systems do not always include banks as direct participants. That is why Bill S-5 proposes to amend the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act to remove the requirement that there must be at least one bank involved. The new definition would allow more flexibility in establishing systems to clear such complex financial instruments as over-the-counter derivatives, or OTCs. This change would allow the Bank of Canada to oversee such systems that could pose systemic risk to the financial system.

Canada's leadership in reforming the global financial system through mechanisms, such as the G20, is well-known and a source of great pride for Canadians. One important Canadian commitment to our G20 partners is that all OTCs be cleared through central counterparties by 2012. This is an important step to ensure the resilience and stability of our financial system.

To meet our G20 commitments, it is imperative that Canadian prudential and market conduct regulators have the authority, tools and information necessary to monitor and regulate the Canadian OTC derivatives market on an ongoing basis. This means coordinating activities across current federal and provincial jurisdictions, as well as foreign regulators.

Bill S-5 proposes a change to the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act to make it clearer that the Bank of Canada can dispose information to other regulators, the payments clearing and settlement systems. This information sharing would help all parties understand the risks inherent in these link systems. Furthermore, failing to form such links could delay our ability to link to foreign systems and impinge on our ability to meet our G20 commitments.

This is the kind of evolutionary change that demonstrates the importance of regular reviews of our legislative framework to maintain Canada's leadership in financial services.

Bill S-5 would make another important and much needed change to the payments landscape. As hon. members know, Canada's credit unions are an important provider of financial services. More than five million Canadians and business owners are grassroots shareholders of co-operative financial services in Canada. One in three Canadians is a member of a credit union or caisse populaire.

In recent years, our Conservative government has shown its support for credit unions by supporting a federal credit union charter to accommodate growth and expansion of the Canadian credit union system. This would enable those credit unions that so choose to reach beyond provincial boundaries and pursue business strategies that are not constrained by provincial incorporation. It would also give credit unions a means to diversify their source of funding and spread their geographic risk exposure.

In that vein, in order to give federal credit unions a more effective voice in the Canadian Payments Association, today's bill would amend the Canadian Payments Act so that credit unions would fall within the co-operative class in the act rather than the bank class. At the same time, credit unions would still employ the long-standing, well-understood and robust governance, liquidity and clearing and settlement framework in use today. While it may sound like a simple technical change, it is an important one. This change would continue to promote a level playing field within the financial sector which would foster competition among players and ensure a stronger, more stable system overall.

The Credit Union Central of Canada, the national association for credit unions in Canada, said:

...we want to note our support for the proposed amendments....

Placing the federal credit union in the cooperatives class will preserve and strengthen the credit union system representation at the CPA. It will ensure that a federal credit union will be represented by a director, who speaks for the interests of cooperative financial institutions in CPA matters. A strong advocate at the CPA is important for the credit union system's ability to advocate on behalf of credit unions and to continue to operate payments facility efficiently and cost effectively, which has a direct impact on overall credit union system competitiveness.

I think all members would agree that a strengthened credit union is good for all Canadians.

For those reasons, I urge members to support the passage of this largely technical but important act which would ensure the smooth functioning of Canada's payment systems.

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, February 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, when I travel throughout the riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, I am amazed at how angry our hunters and farmers are about the long gun registry after all these years. When I talk to people who think it might be a good idea, they do not understand the whole system around possession and acquisition licences and how that provides protection.

Would my colleague talk a little about how the possession and acquisition licences will give the framework for ongoing protection?