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.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Thibault mentioned earlier, if you decide it is inadmissible...
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
It is not any more. There was a problem with the drafting: there was a letter a) missing.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
In the future, if you decide that something is out of order and there is a debate, your ruling should be put to a vote.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
Right now the discussion is on an amendment to amendment G-2. It is proposed to add the words “including all charges arising from the use of an automated banking machine“ after the words “registered product“.
Mr. Wallace.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To the amendment NDP-3, as we call it, I understand the opposite member's frustration on the issue of automatic banking machine fees and that she wants to get that in the act, or at least on the table. But as was indicated by the staff, this is not the appropriate place. This is not about registered products. So I would suggest that the committee turn this amendment down.
Thank you.
(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
11:55 a.m.
NDP
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
Thank you.
On NDP-4, we're going to go with the same logic, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, that we're going to try to amend government amendment 2—
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
In proposed paragraph 448.3(1)(a) you want to add after “to the registered product” the words “that gives equal prominence to each charge”.
Do you want to speak to it?
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
This is a separate issue entirely, so I think the same arguments can't be applied to this amendment as were just given to us.
This is based on a strong recommendation from the Consumers' Association of Canada. It has to do with the practices of some financial institutions to advertise a product at a very appealing rate without disclosing that it's a limited product or has a limited timeframe, and that there are other rates at a much higher level for the needs of the consumer.
So it really is an attempt to require the financial institutions to give equal prominence to that sale item, what the other items are, and what the consumer most likely needs. Someone could advertise this great deal at 8%, when in fact it only applies to a very narrow issue or a narrow timeframe. The consumer gets locked into this process and thinks they're getting 8%, when in fact it's 19%.
It's to do in banking what supermarkets do when they advertise Coke on sale for this period of time, and the regular price is such and such. The banks don't have to do anything like that. So it's simply requiring some basic information for consumers.
I hope we can at least support this one.
11:55 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
The government amendment that the committee reviewed earlier provides that the requirements for disclosure be set out in the regulations. It's typically a concern in the development of those regulations that all of the relevant information be provided with equal prominence.
So through the regulatory process there will be an opportunity--which of course will involve consultation with consumer groups and others--for these considerations to be taken into account when the government comes forward with the regulations.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I understand that amendment NDP-3 tried to back-door ABMs on a product for which ABMs are never used, so it is an irrelevant movement—
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
On NDP-4 the issue is the prominence of each charge to register products. Is that correct? I frankly don't see the issue here, but if prominence means anything--and I doubt it does--I don't see what the issue is when you mix the NDP amendment and the government's amendment.
Presumably there'll be a listing of the charges that are relevant to the registered product. If you want to give equal prominence to each one of them, I don't see the issue there.
Noon
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
I think Mr. Dupont just answered that question, but if you want to repeat it for Mr. McKay's sake.... I think the answer is that they're going to be in the regulations.
Noon
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
I will accept this ruling and come at it another way, but I would like to ask for an apology from my colleague—