Hoang Mai

[Champlain Bridge, March 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in January, the NDP organized a public forum on the new Champlain Bridge in my riding of Brossard—La Prairie. Over 200 people took advantage of the opportunity to share their concerns and dialogue with experts. People were very happy to be able to speak to their elected representatives.

As TVRS, the local south shore television station, reported, the forum was a huge success. People sent the government a clear message that families from the south shore and Montreal should not have to pay for the construction of a new bridge.

The NDP is against the excessive use of PPPs. The Minister of Transport, however, is refusing to listen. His message is, “No toll, no bridge”.

The Conservatives are not listening to people, and they have clearly deserted Quebec.

People still have many questions. What will happen between now and the time the bridge is built? What will it really cost? And most importantly, when will the work be done?

People want more transparency.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about the fact that there was some issue with what happened in the U.S. with the banking sector. Some argue that some Canadian banks were bailed out in Canada. Obviously, it was not done directly. It was not a failure. However, the federal government, through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, offered to trade the banks up to $125 billion in mortgage debt for safety in T-bills during the height of the financial crisis.

What is my colleague's position regarding that?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, who does excellent work as the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance. He is one of the rare Conservatives to do good work.

The official opposition is not in the Senate. That is why we are criticizing the fact that the bill is coming from the Senate instead of from the House of Commons. The Conservatives say there were debates and discussions in the Senate. Were we there? No. Were there public discussions on this issue? No. Submissions were sent, but there was no general consultation. The Senate's mandate was very limited. There were consultations on the technical aspects, but there has been no debate in the House on the big ideas. This is where we should discuss the direction we want to take with a bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question. My colleague, who is also a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, knows full well that these issues are very important. The government is losing billions of dollars in revenue. Speculation is allowed in certain transactions and that is a problem. We have to study the situation more at length. It has a profound impact on our economy, and on the money that taxpayers are losing. What is more, it destabilizes our system. There are certain ways to do things and to work. We must study the bill, but unfortunately the government is closing the door yet again.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question. With respect to the first part of his question, I admit that the government's latest gag order leaves me speechless. Closure has become systematic and that proves that the government is making things up as it goes along. The government says that the bill has to be adopted quickly, so why did they not introduce it sooner? Why did they wait so long? Why use closure to move the bill forward rather than take the time to discuss it? This is about financial institutions and a system that is very important, not only for consumers, but also for the country's economic system. During the global crisis in the United States, we saw that the financial system can affect the whole world. Canada weathered the crisis fairly well because we have a good system, but we still have to study it.

With respect to my colleague's second question, the threshold was raised from $5 billion to $8 billion after the events of 2007. The matter should be studied. There is a problem. The holdings have increased, and a certain level of participation is being granted—

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

Madam Speaker, I was saying that this was an opportunity for us to study the financial system and address our current problems, including problems facing consumers. In terms of the financial institutions, we see that the banks are making billions of dollars in profit, while consumer and household debt is at a record high. What is more, banks have a hold on consumers and impose as many fees on consumers as they want. We would have had the opportunity to explore ways to truly protect consumers. In that sense, this government has dropped the ball.

There is also speculation. We saw what happened in the United States. Why not study this issue more at length? Why muzzle the House? Now is the time to study this bill. Obviously it is going to be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, but now is the time for us to talk about it and debate it for consumers and the people we represent, those whose voices were not heard in the Senate. The government is scared and does not want to talk. It does not even want its own members of Parliament to talk about something so very important. Our economy depends heavily on the banks and financial institutions. Why not talk about cooperatives? That movement exists. Why is it not addressed in this bill?

We are saying that the government lacks confidence and courage, and now, it is demonstrating a lack of democracy. This government is preventing its members and the opposition from talking about really important issues. Instead of allowing debate, the government is relying on 30 submissions that were received and examined in three weeks. They may have been debated in the Senate, but not here in the House. Why will the government not give us the opportunity to discuss such an important bill?

We know that consumer bank fees are ever increasing, and people are now in need of our support. This bill could be used to offer such support. I am certain that the Conservatives' constituents are also experiencing the same problem with bank fees. Why not have a real debate on this issue here in the House and find real solutions? Instead, the Conservatives are limiting the debate, pushing the bill through and refusing to talk about it.

This behaviour demonstrates a lack of respect for this institution. I am a new member but I find what the Conservatives are doing to be completely unacceptable. They are attacking democracy. They are saying that an agreement was reached with regard to the bill, but we did not agree on the way the bill was examined or on the public consultation, and we did not agree on the mandate to study what to do about financial institutions.

This was the time to do it. The government lacked courage, and I am ashamed of its behaviour.

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

Yes, it is disgusting. That is an excellent word.

To be more specific, we want to debate this bill because it concerns financial institutions. I would remind the government that we are supposed to examine this issue every five years. The mandate that has been given is very limited. We are examining some technical aspects, which are certainly important, but why not take this opportunity to review the entire financial system?

I would remind the government that in 2008, a crisis originated in the United States, and it came from the financial system, the banks. This bill does not address that issue. Why not address it? We are not even having any public hearings on this. Ostensibly as a study, 30 submissions will be tabled and 27 of them are not even public. There really is a problem with transparency—

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am appalled to see that we are debating a bill here today that has to do with important institutions, yet this government is muzzling us once again. This is a very important bill and the government knows this. First of all, it introduced this bill in the Senate, where senators are unelected and where the NDP has no voice. What the government is doing is completely unacceptable. It is appalling. It is repulsive. I am at a loss for words.

[Financial System Review Act, February 3rd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-5, the Financial System Review Act. However, before I begin, I would like to express my displeasure at the fact that this bill was examined by the other place before being studied here. I think it shows a complete lack of respect for this House, especially since the other place studied it for only three weeks. I will come back to all the procedures involved in that.

On the other hand, we do support this bill, the Financial System Review Act. We know that the financial services industry employs many Canadians. This sector is very important to the NDP. However, it is not necessarily straightforward. It is rather complex; it is not an ordinary sector for the economy. Banks and financial institutions have several ways of influencing politicians—this is more obvious if one looks at the other side of the House—and the economy. This very important sector forms part of the foundation of our country and our economy.

We know that the legislation must be reviewed every five years. The last review was in 2007. We find it deplorable that, when the opportunity arises to review such legislation, the review is done so quickly, without giving members the opportunity to closely examine the bill and without consulting the public.

With regard to procedures, we know that the bill was examined by the unelected members of the Senate for three weeks. Moreover, after hearing Senator Boisvenu's comments, we are of the opinion that the Senate's judgment may sometimes leave something to be desired. Why not examine a bill as important as this one here in the House of Commons? Why not discuss it and find real solutions?

On this side of the House, we would like to abolish the Senate. Thus, we do not necessarily agree that this bill should have been examined there. This is an important bill since financial institutions really have an impact. We also find it deplorable that there were only 30 Internet submissions, 27 of which were anonymous. That was the basis for the study. Only three people dared to say where they were from and what their suggestions were. We do not feel as though the study was very thorough. We would definitely like to examine this bill more closely when it is sent to the Standing Committee on Finance. We must take the time to examine it.

No public consultations were held. We do not know what the procedures were and who was able to discuss them. The government did not really look at what consumers and the public had to say. That is why we think that the members opposite are lacking courage when it comes to this bill. They should have looked at how to protect the public and consumers. The banks are making record profits. And what is the government doing? It is giving them tax breaks. The public has to pay increasingly high bank fees. Banks are increasing customer fees. People have to pay more to withdraw their own money. It is completely unacceptable. We think that the members opposite lack courage because they did not consider all the options and did not look at how to protect consumers. It was—

[Financial System Review Act, February 3rd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech and on his work as a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. He was a tax lawyer before becoming an MP, and I know that he has extensive knowledge and experience. This bill does nothing to prevent speculation. It does not deal with that problem. What does my colleague think should be done about that?