I think it's a mistake to give a specific definition to financial literacy. You know, I was talking over the weekend with my kids. We have nine-year-old twins. They are learning about financial literacy in school right now. We were talking about what they are learning about. They were learning about the fundamentals of finance and banking, how to save your money and investments, and that sort of thing, at a very preliminary and rudimentary level. Nevertheless, they understand it in a way that is fluid and changing over time.
Their definition of financial literacy is not the same as mine from my generation. We need to keep the definition of financial literacy fluid. The only constant is change in our world. By putting strict parameters on the phrase “financial literacy”, we're going to run into some problems. We can't run the risk of defining the phrase too narrowly. It would limit the ability of the financial leader at some point in the future in working with new concepts, a new phraseology, new terms, and new concepts that would arise in finance. It would also hamper the ability of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to respond to these changing needs.
On this side, we would be against the amendment as proposed.