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.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
It's not that; they would know that, but for example they might be asked for the address of the account holder while the account holder might have moved several times.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
February 20th, 2007 / 11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS
Perhaps I could ask the officials or Diane or whoever can help. There is now a certain onus on the banks to find out if that person still exists or is available or where that money should go. This doesn't reduce that onus in any way.
11:25 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
There is currently a requirement for the bank to seek to notify the customers after two and five years of inactivity. This bill proposes to add a further requirement that after nine years they also do that, before such time as the account is moved over to the Bank of Canada. So it increases the obligation.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
Okay, that's fine.
Ms. Ablonczy, can you tell me what other clauses it affects? I didn't get that.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
If we wish to group them, Mr. Chairman, these are the same amendments to clause 29, clause 87, clause 163, and clause 361.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
It's better if we amend them as we get there so that we don't lose track. When we approve the clause, we have to approve it as amended.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I'm easy. Yes, that's okay.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
We'll just go back for one second. There is an amendment that I don't think everybody has. It's a Bloc amendment. It's reference number 2710003. We can make this painless and I can rule it inadmissible because of the....
It's not part of the package; it's on a loose paper.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
I didn't have it either. It's being circulated. It's loose.
Can I read it? It says that Bill C-37, in clause 27, be amended by adding after line 43 on page 11 the following:
(1.1) The bank shall not claim any amount from or enforce a security interest against the victim of an identity theft resulting from a contract between the bank and a person who has appropriated the identity of the victim. On the request of the victim, the bank shall cancel any security interest registered by the bank on the basis of such a contract.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, I have to rule this as being inadmissible because it references identity theft.
Since there is no reference to this anywhere in the bill, the amendment is admissibile.
11:25 a.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I agree that this is outside the original scope of the bill. However, when the minister appeared before us, he said he was open to suggestions and to other changes to the Banking Act in general. I think the committee should deal with the issue anyway and, if at the report stage, the minister believes it is inadmissible, he will still be able to have it excluded. I believe the amendment is a good one and I know everyone is concerned by the problem of identity theft. There is the criminal aspect, which the amendment does not deal with, but the responsibility of financial institutions should be included in the Banking Act. So I believe we should deal with this issue anyway, knowing that the minister will be able to object at the report stage if he does not want this in his bill. However, I would think he would find this interesting.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I accept your ruling, but I would point out to the committee that this matter of identity theft is serious. It's actually a Criminal Code matter, and the justice minister is already in consultations to deal with this issue. We should possibly follow what's happening there, and that may be of assistance to us in any further work we might want to do on this issue.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS
Thank you.
I agree with the member. However, notwithstanding any studies and without even looking at the amendment, if it is not in order, we cannot deal with it. However, we will get a chance to vote on a motion of which I gave notice and which invites the minister of Justice to take steps to include this in the Criminal Code.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
I guess I'm curious, Mr. Chairperson.... I accept your ruling, but it seems to me that this issue is very much an integral part of everything we've been talking about and doing with respect to this bill and the Bank Act review and so on.
I'm not sure I really comprehend the notion that it's a criminal matter and therefore we can't deal with it, when in fact through the Bank Act we're able to require disclosure, set limits, and restrict banks from charging certain fees and doing certain things. Surely in this case, at a time when there's an explosion of issues around identity theft and the possibility of skimming, as was raised yesterday by Dean Del Mastro....
There is a burning issue here that can't really wait for a long, protracted hearing on the part of our committee. I think we have an obligation to try to close this loophole and fix the problem; one would be to ensure that the bank can't go after the victim for any charges or costs.
Also, to Mr. St-Cyr, does this in fact ensure that moneys lost by the victim are in fact compensated by the bank?
