Finance Committee on Feb. 20th, 2007

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I would like to answer...

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

No, I will be the one to answer.

The reason we ruled it out was that it's not within the scope of the bill. Ms. Ablonczy stated that it was criminal...and I ruled this way because it's not within the scope. The key words here, identity theft, are not anywhere in the bill itself.

Monsieur St-Cyr.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

This amendment does not concern at all the criminal aspect, it deals with something else. The criminal act of identity theft must be dealt with elsewhere. Here, we only deal with responsibility. When there is identity theft, is the consumer responsible for the loss or is it the bank? For example, if someone fraudulently takes out a mortgage on your house, the provision proposed in this amendment says that the bank must take responsibility because it is its mistake. Therefore, it will have to go and recover the money, while at the present time, as we have seen in previous court decisions, it is the victim of the fraud who must pay the mortgage and seek reimbursement from the thief.

As for the fact that this is not within the scope of the bill, I would say that the concept here, the key word that must be considered, is not the identity theft but rather the responsibility for the mortgage. It seems to me this is clearly part of the Banking Act. Since we are amending the Banking Act and the minister said he was open to suggestions, I believe we should at least consider this matter and we will see at the report stage what will happen. We still should find out whether the members of this Committee agree to hold banks responsible in this regard.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

I just want to remind you that we have before us a motion of Mr. Thibault which says:

That the Committee require the minister of Justice to take measures necessary to incorporate what is currently called “identity theft“ under the Criminal Code and report on his actions to the House.

We have not yet debated this motion and I believe it still can be amended. I just want members to keep this in mind.

Mr. Dupont, do you want to speak to this?

Then I'm going to end with Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

[Serge Dupont]

I would simply mention, Mr. Chairman, that I fully understand the issue behind the amendment, which is a very serious matter. However, when we incorporate in a piece of legislation, here in the Banking Act, words such as: “... claim any amount from or enforce a security interest against the victim of an identity theft...“, the notion of identity theft must be defined, and the crime established and proven, etc. We cannot simply incorporate these words into law and create confusion with regard to the Banking Act without having established certainties within other bodies of law.

Therefore, I fully agree there is an issue but it is difficult to improvise, to put into words...

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

We would need to amend the Criminal Code before amending the Banking Act.

[Serge Dupont]

Exactly. We should at least have a definition and only then decide on the sharing of responsibilities in the light of that definition.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Before I go to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis....

The amendment has been tabled by Mr. St-Cyr, has it not?

Okay, thank you.

Yes, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I need some clarification. If this is being ruled as being beyond the scope of the bill because there is a word in here that doesn't appear anywhere in the Bank Act, I find that quite shocking and ludicrous.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Precisely.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

If you're ruling it out of order as beyond the scope of the bill because it amends another part of the act, I can accept it; but a heck of a lot of developments occur in the banking field and there are new words and new terminology. Next you're going to tell me that when we get to ATMs, the word “ATM” doesn't appear anywhere in Bank Act and therefore is out of order, even though ATMs have been around forever.

Surely, Mr. Chairperson, you've got another explanation for ruling it beyond the scope of the bill.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

The member who tabled the motion is in agreement, so let's move on, because we have other ones we're going to tackle.

(Clause 29 as amended agreed to)

Let's not be so enthusiastic.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

I bring to everyone's attention to reference 2712074, which is NDP-2.

Would you like to speak to this, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, Mr. Chairperson.

Before you rule it out of order and beyond the scope of the bill, let me make the case that in fact this is a critical issue for Canadians now. The whole question of ATM fees is causing considerable hardship for many in our communities. Certainly low-income families are finding it really hard to deal with these charges.

Yesterday we had a discussion on this, and some of my colleagues around this table were shocked to learn about some of the charges and the fact that if you were withdrawing money from your own ATM—your own bank—you could still be charged up to $1 in total. If you are taking money out of an ATM of another financial institution, your charges could be as high as $4.65.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Six dollars.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

I'm not done yet.

If you're taking money out of a private operator's ATM, the charges could go as high as $6.15.

I ask members to consider the fact that in many parts of this country, the banks have left. They keep an ATM for a while, then they sell that off to a private operator, and suddenly low-income communities like mine—average communities and older neighbourhoods—are without a bank and have to go to a private, white-label ATM and pay that kind of money to access their own money. Keep in mind, these are seniors and average Canadians, or people who are scraping by. They take out $30, $40, or $50 because they don't have a lot and they don't want to carry a lot of cash, and they're forced to pay those fees.

We've seen the banks acting responsibly and deciding not to charge fees in other jurisdictions, like in Britain. We've got examples in the United States where in fact a TD Bank has a project in one part of that country where they are not charging fees, yet here in Canada the TD Bank does.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairperson, after we heard the testimony yesterday from the president of the Credit Union Central, that the credit unions have managed to find a way to have a network of surcharge-free services or ATMs. Why can't the banks? And if the banks won't—and we know they're balking at this—why don't we as a committee act and do something about it?

Mr. Chairperson, if you're going to suggest to me that we can't touch this issue because the word “ATM”, or automated banking machine, doesn't fall anywhere in the Bank Act or in the regulations, I've tried to fix that problem with our NDP-3, which actually throws the words “use of automated banking fee” into the broad arena for providing information.

I think, Mr. Chairperson, we have to get away from this whole issue of the scope of the bill and do our job as legislators and allow it to be taken forward and get some action on this critical issue.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Okay, thank you.

Not to repeat myself--but I obviously have to--this amendment is not inadmissible because of its scope, but because it “amends a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent act unless it is specifically being amended by a clause of the bill”. That's what the problem is here.

I think the members have already shown an interest in or have acquiesced to the fact that we are probably going to hold some studies on the whole issue of electronic payment and automated machines. So it's not within—

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

It will take forever.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

We have a lot of amendments to go through on this bill, and we're having a lot of debate and political speeches on amendments that you're ruling inadmissible. I would suggest that if it's inadmissible and the presenter isn't requesting to challenge the chair, then I think we should go on.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Yes. I think this is only the second or third.... It's not a point of order, but I will explain to you my logic. We are only starting this process. If the members choose to speak to their amendments, I'm going to allow them to speak to their amendments. If they feel they must speak for ten minutes, it's of their choosing. But at a certain point, my patience will also wear thin.

Monsieur Paquette, I recognize you.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Maybe I should direct my question to Mr. Dupont.

It has been ruled that the amendment is inadmissible because of how it is written, but there also might be a jurisdictional problem. Indeed, we can regulate banks but not private ATMs which are regulated by provincial consumer protection legislation.

[Serge Dupont]

The words

“by another person”

indeed raise questions of jurisdiction.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Even if I agree with the principle I think more work needs to be done.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Thank you.

So we move on.

(Clause 30 agreed to)