There isn't a link, you're right.
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.
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.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Not to drag it out, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps I can give my colleague opposite a level of comfort here.
This whole matter is being studied right now by the ethics committee of the House of Commons. If such a disclosure is required, it would apply to all sectors. It would be a huge change, so I think we should let that committee finish its work. Perhaps my colleague would want to follow that issue there before she follows up here, in our committee.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
It's studying the degree to which business disclosure will be required.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
I need to clarify. I was speaking to the wrong amendment, and I thank Mr. Thibault for pointing that out. I accept that clarification. It is about privacy and it is about the issues we've been dealing with lately. I accept these suggestions from the parliamentary secretary.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
—accepting doesn't mean that I still don't want to see this happen, so I'm still voting in favour of it.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
You're still voting in favour. Okay, so you want me to call the question.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Yes, I do.
(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clauses 34 and 35 agreed to)
(On clause 36)
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
This is a very straightforward amendment dealing with the role of the commissioner in the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada. It changes the word “may” to “shall”, so that in fact there is a way for consumers, clients, and community persons to actually have the information at a meeting and to know all the facts.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
This is an amendment to actually give some clout to the role of the commissioner under the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, when dealing with the possibility of bank closures. As members will know, it's been very hard for communities to get all the information for clients of banks to know exactly what's happening. Part of the reason for that is that the banks are not compelled to give information about the reasons for the closure in terms of profitability, to give actual bank statements or statements of how well the bank is doing financially. It just makes some basic requirements calling for a cost-benefit analysis, for descriptions of alternative services that might be available, and for a full outline of what the bank does in terms of its corporate responsibilities, so that communities will know what happens, what will happen when that bank closes its doors. Then they can make a full case and try to persuade the bank to either stay or to think about what alternatives they have to put in place.
It's very important in areas where whole communities have been abandoned by the banks. I'm not just talking about Winnipeg North. There are rural communities that have been left high and dry and the credit union movement has moved in. There are cases where many people, as I've said earlier, have to turn to payday lenders or to ATMs, and they pay a price for that kind of service and the fact that the banks have abandoned their communities. We're not talking about communities where they can just run off to these big box banks in the suburbs. We're talking about communities where there are individuals who haven't the luxury to be able to do that. They might not have computers in their homes to be able to access automated services. They might not be able to actually obtain the services without some sort of service in their community.
Basically the point here is that, as others said yesterday, including Duff Conacher, the issue of access to banking services is a right. There needs to be a recognition, somewhere in this bill, that community banking services are there and entrenched in our sytem.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I supported my colleague in her last amendment, that a meeting with the bank and the community was necessary. I think the community should have a chance to have a discussion with the bank. This amendment goes quite a bit further than that. It's like making a whole business decision in the court of public opinion. This is a private business, and these requirements in this amendment are hugely onerous. I think they would probably even contravene the Privacy Act that's already being studied by the ethics committee of the House. I think maybe we should have the officials comment on this as well, but this strikes me as going way outside what would be reasonable to expect a business to do.
12:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Again, Mr. Chair, I wasn't able to see this before the meeting.
Obviously in addition to having the meeting with the community to discuss alternatives, as this bill is now asking the bank to do, it is introducing notions of a statistical report, a cost-benefit analysis and so forth. If the bank is engaged in that kind of discussion with the community, one would think the bank has come to the business determination that the branch is either no longer viable or it does not fit the business plan. It can report at length on it, but I would imagine it may not change the fundamental decision and that what is really necessary is for the bank and the branch to engage with the community on alternatives. I think that's what the bill is trying to do.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do have concerns with this, but I understand the point Ms. Wasylycia-Leis is making about the rural areas. In some instances, there might be enough business within those areas to warrant another smaller institution. I don't know that I want to put it in legislation, but it would be nice if there was some voluntary agreement with the banking sector and the department--without disclosing the secrets of the institution--so that pertinent information, which is necessary for another financial institution in making a decision about going in, becomes available.
I think you could make an argument that there is a duty by the federally chartered banks to give that type of information. They do get privileges by having a federal charter, for which you could expect some participation by them in the continuation of those communities.
12:20 p.m.
Bloc
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
We are going to support this amendment, mainly because banks are an essential service. Indeed, they are a service one cannot do without. This is why we have regulations requiring banks to open accounts for individuals under certain conditions.
I would add that during the debate on bank mergers, banks themselves made all sorts of commitments of that sort in order to provide reassurance to people who were concerned about potential branch closures. Therefore, I believe the bill should impose more specific requirements in terms of meetings between the people in the community and the branch that is closing.