Evidence of meeting #68 for Finance in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
Basically, the rule is if you see on your paper that we're putting in new clauses, more than likely they'll be inadmissible.
On clause 31, we have potentially three amendments. So we'll start with the government amendment.
Do you want to speak to that, Ms. Ablonczy?
Conservative
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
Just so that everybody knows, this one does not have a reference number, but it's circled number 5 in your package, and on the right-hand side it says Bill C-37, clause 31, pages 15 and 16.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Chairman, this would also, by the way, affect three other clauses. But we'll probably get to those.
What happens is that the current disclosure provision for accounts currently set out in financial institutions' statutes is not well tailored for registered plans and products like RRSPs and RIFs and RESPs. The white paper in June committed to developing new disclosure requirements for registered plans. These are now included in the bill. However, when we had discussions about the wording of the bill, it was pointed out that the wording, which closely parallels the one used for transaction accounts, could have some undesirable practical implications.
Registered plans are often the result of complex financing arrangements that exist between banks and their trust subsidiaries, which are needed to offer these plans. The current wording may not adequately address the issue of which organization is responsible for providing the information: the bank as the agent, or the trust company as the plan trustee. And this could result in unnecessary duplication of disclosure documentation and bring about confusion for the consumer. Also, the current wording would limit the ability of consumers to open a plan by telephone to only when they already have such a plan with the institution. This again is an unintended consequence. It would take away unintentionally a convenience for consumers, particularly during RRSP season.
So the amendment would maintain the legislative requirement for financial institutions to disclose information to the consumers, while providing the authority to set the specifics in regulations. And this would allow us some flexibility to address these issues by setting more detailed, specific, and appropriate amendments, our requirements through regulation, Mr. Chairman.
(Amendment agreed to)
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
We have amendments NDP-3 and NDP-4. We'll try to rule on these at the same time. So we're looking at reference number 2712026 and reference number 2707473. Both of them are inadmissible.
Go ahead.
Procedural Clerk
Essentially, Mr. Chairman, it's just that NDP-3 and NDP-4 are amending lines of clause 31 that have already been amended by the committee when the committee adopted government amendment 2. Therefore, NDP-3 and NDP-4 cannot be put.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
So are you saying that because we went first to the government amendment and passed that, our amendments are out of order because they have to do with the same clause? On what basis then did that get precedence over ours? Why didn't we start with the two minor amendments and then proceed to the larger amendment? That does not make sense. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairperson.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
Why didn't yours have precedence? I don't know. I just picked the one that was in order.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Because they're separate issues from the one we've just dealt with.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
This is a mischievous move on somebody's part to prevent two amendments from being considered that normally would be in order. We're not talking about big amendments here; we're talking about adding three words so that information is provided on ATMs.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
Actually, here it is. In order of preference because it was received first--that's why we addressed it. How's that for another reason? And “G” is before “N”, the government is before “N”. If the committee would like, we can go back and not adopt G-2 and adopt NDP-3 and NDP-4. Would you like me to ask the committee that, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis?
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
I'm not asking to pre-empt the government amendment. I've accepted it. But the government amendment has nothing to do with these two subamendments in that section. All we're asking for is to say that there should be information provided. It's defining “registered product” to say “charges arising from the use of an automated banking machine”. That's all we're saying. So it has nothing to do with the one we've just passed. It's a subamendment. So could I move it as a subamendment to the government's amendment?
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
The problem we're having here is that you're rewriting the whole clause, and that's why it's not admissible. I'm looking at the legislation here.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
I'm adding words on paragraph 448.3 (1)(a). All I'm doing is adding the words after “registered product”: “including all charges arising from the use of an automated banking machine”. It's very simple. It's not talking about charges and fees.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
You cannot be rewriting paragraph (a), that's the problem. That's not what the amendment says.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Chairman, the changes in amendment G-2 ended at line 9. This amendment here starts at line 13. So it is not a part which we have already considered: it is a new amendment dealing with a clause that has not been amended.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
Amendment G-2 says: “replacing line 1 on page 15 to line 13 on page 16...“
Bloc