Peter Van Loan

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

moved:

That in relation to Bill S-5, An Act to amend the law governing financial institutions and to provide for related and consequential matters, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill; and

At fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day designated for the consideration of the said stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[Public Service Commission, February 14th, 2012]

moved:

That, in accordance with subsection 4(5) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, and pursuant to Standing Order 111.1, this House approve the appointment of Anne-Marie Robinson as President of the Public Service Commission, for a term of seven years.

[Financial System Review Act, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-5, the financial system review act, is a very important and generally uncontroversial bill.

The NDP member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour has even said that his party would be supporting it at second reading, probably even at third reading. The hon. member for Wascana has described it as routine.

It is very important that the bill pass by April 20, so that Canada's financial system can continue to operate and be the world's soundest banking system.

To accommodate sufficient time for committee study, which members in debate so far have said is their most important priority, I have attempted to seek an agreement with the other parties, including two offers made right here in the House. Unfortunately, it appears that the New Democratic Party is simply looking to run up the score and force as many time allocation motions as possible, even on routine bills it says it will support.

For that reason, I am compelled to advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill S-5, An Act to amend the law governing financial institutions and to provide for related and consequential matters.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

[Criminal Code, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the House has before it Bill S-5 that deals with the banking system. It has in it a sunset clause which is coming up later this spring, so we need to get the bill through in a timely basis. I noticed that all parties seem to be in support of it.

The member for Wascana says, “the legislation is rather routine”.

The member for Brossard—La Prairie says, “We would definitely like to examine this bill more closely when it is sent to the Standing Committee on Finance”.

Everybody seems to want to support it and get it to committee for as much study as possible and as quickly as possibly so we can respect our obligations. I have been trying to get an answer from the official opposition on what we could do.

In that spirit, again I offer the following motion about which we have had discussion. I hope this time we will have unanimous consent for this motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill S-5, An Act to amend the law governing financial institutions and to provide for related and consequential matters, shall be disposed of as follows: not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the second reading stage of the bill and at the end of government orders on the day allotted, the bill shall be deemed read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, and if the bill has not been reported back to the House by Wednesday, March 28, 2012, during routine proceedings, it shall be deemed reported back without amendment; when the order for consideration of the report stage of the bill is called, the bill shall be deemed concurred in at report stage without amendment, and a motion for third reading may be made immediately, and not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill provided that the motion for third reading shall not be subject to amendment, and at the end of government orders on that day or when no further member rises to speak, the bill shall be deemed read a third time and passed.

I hope this time we will see favour for that motion.