Finance Committee on Nov. 20th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. McLeod.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

These amendments would prevent a registrar and the CEO of the college from holding any other job or working for any other organization. Given the small size of this profession and the size of the college, a full-time registrar or CEO may not be needed.

Also, further to that, preventing the registrar or CEO from holding any other employment may reduce the number of applicants who are interested in a position or raise the costs to the college by requiring it to pay two full-time salaries for what may be part-time positions. Both these positions, the registrar and the CEO, are administrative, and the roles and responsibilities of these positions should not require the holders of the positions to exercise authority that could place them in conflict of interest.

I can't support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 247 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clauses 248 to 286 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 287)

Who's up for LIB-4?

Mr. Sorbara.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the officials for being here with us.

The amendment here is with regard to proposed subsection 38.1(4.1) with reference to the Copyright Act. The amendment's rationale is in reference to certain collective societies that may seek statutory damages pursuant to proposed subsection 38.1(4.1) of the Copyright Act.

Department officials, can you comment on proposed subsection 38.1(4.1) of the Copyright Act, please?

[Mark Schaan]

Yes.

Section 38.1 of the Copyright Act relates to the statutory damages that are available to certain collective societies. The intent of the government was to ensure that statutory damage provisions, as they currently exist, were held in place.

Given the sensitive nature of statutory damages, there is a referral to both the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to look at the statutory damage provisions.

In discussions with stakeholders, there was a view that the changes that needed to be made to harmonize the provisions actually did make a change to the statutory damages as they're understood by parties in the marketplace. This just simply ensures that the statutory damage system, as it currently is applied and understood by stakeholders, maintains itself.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

My understanding is that the proposed amendment is a technical correction to this provision, one that is needed to fulfill the government's policy in these reforms.

[Mark Schaan]

That's exactly right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Are there any other thoughts on LIB-4? No.

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 287 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clauses 288 to 302 inclusive agreed to on division)

Thank you, gentlemen.

We're on to division 8, parental benefits and related leave. Are there officials here in case there are some questions?

Thank you, folks, for coming, and thank you for appearing before when we went through it in more detail.

There are no amendments on clauses 303 to 313, which cover division 8. Are there any questions to the officials?

(Clauses 303 to 313 inclusive agreed to on division)

Thank you, folks. It isn't always that easy.

Division 9, the Canadian gender budgeting act, relates to one clause.

Unless there is a question here for the officials, shall clause 314 carry?

(Clause 314 agreed to on division)

(On clause 315)

We'll turn now to division 10, the financial consumer protection framework. It starts with clause 315. There's an amendment there.

We'll hear Mr. Julian on NDP-8.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've heard testimony in front of this committee that raises concerns about having an external complaints body that is optional. Banks can basically choose their own external complaints body. The Canadian Association for Retired Persons and a number of other organizations all testified to the fact that this ambiguity is not helpful toward actually getting consumer complaints properly heard.

NDP-8 and NDP-9 are both endeavouring to designate, under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, only one external complaints body. It would be up to the minister which organization might be so designated. It doesn't prescribe one organization to the minister, but it does respond to the concerns we've heard from witnesses about making sure that the banks are effectively forced to go through an external complaints body that has some teeth. I think the complaints we're hearing from the public, because of the various organizations, some for-profit, that have been put into place, are about something that allows....

The opportunity of Bill C-86 is to work to designate, but to properly designate, a not-for-profit external complaints body. That would be, of course, for any person who has not had their complaint addressed through their member institution.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Are there any other comments on this point?

Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos]

Thank you, Chair.

The existing legislation does indeed provide the minister the flexibility to designate a single not-for-profit external complaints body that all banks must use. Legislative changes to the complaints-handling process in banking should be examined in consultation with all stakeholders following an examination of the bank's internal complaints-handling process and the efficiency of external complaints-handling bodies. Finally, Bill C-86 would improve complaints handling in banking through new requirements for banks in the the way they record and report on complaints, and higher standards for external complaints-handling bodies.

I think these points speak to the amendment and why it's not a good way forward. Beyond that, these same comments also apply to NDP-9.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I'm not convinced that these amendments fix the situation. There's so little to go on in this omnibus budget bill that it's probably not unusual. There's so little to amend here.

I have a constituent who went through her bank's regular complaint process. Then the bank gets to pick their external complaints body. Could I hear from officials on NDP-8? That particular amendment changes the definition of who is “designated” only and not “approved”. What would be the impact of that particular change on how a complainant's complaint makes it from the bank to the external complaints body? Who controls that process? Does that change anything? Does it clarify it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Saeedi.

[Khusro Saeedi, Economist, Consumer Affairs, Financial Institutions Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance]

This particular amendment would define “external complaints body” as a body corporate designated under a particular subsection. Therefore, with the related amendments that follow, that amendment would indicate that the minister shall designate a body corporate incorporated under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act to be the only external complaints body to deal with complaints that have not been resolved by their member institutions.

It would work in concert with another amendment that has been proposed.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I prefer a process where the complainant—who's gone through the regular internal complaints process of the chartered bank—then picks an external one, as opposed to the process that exists today where the chartered bank has already pre-selected someone that they do business with, so it goes there. It seems awkward to me that when you've gotten to the level of a customer being really unhappy with the service they've received from their service provider—in this case the chartered bank—you're then told the chartered bank has already pre-selected someone who will hear the complaint. If I could make the comparison, it's like when you're bargaining with your employer and the employer has already pre-selected the mediator ahead of time. Maybe there are lots of rules in place on how the mediator is supposed to do their work, but.... It's not bad faith; it just seems like a wrong process.

I have this constituent. I spoke to her on the phone last week because I knew this section was going to come up on the BIA. You haven't given me much to go on that this would actually improve the process. There's so little to amend here inside these sections of the BIA to improve that situation.

It's something that the government should really think about. The complainant should control where it goes, not the banks. That would be much fairer to the individual who feels aggrieved and is dissatisfied with the service they've received from their chartered bank, so they can find some type of redress. At that point, maybe it's impossible. Maybe you just have people who go through the process and nothing will satisfy them anymore, but they should be the ones in control of their complaint. I don't think there's an opportunity here to really fix it because again there's so little in this BIA. You could have added a couple more pages to the BIA, and maybe given us an opportunity to fix it a little more here.

Make it bigger. Mr. Chair, that's a great idea. Maybe I can recommend to the minister, if and when he ever appears here again, that this would be a particular section where complainants could have their justice by not having the banks pick their external reviewer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would disagree with Mr. Kmiec on expanding the BIA, but I think I would agree with him in terms of separating this legislation out. That's really what we needed. I think that's the direction he's heading in. All of these stand-alone pieces of legislation that have been dumped into this monster bill could have been improved if we'd actually had a legitimate legislative process rather than this legislative bulldozer that is giving us a deeply flawed bill that will be subject to court challenge at the end of the day.

In a sense, each one of us is also racing against time, because in a few hours' time the clock stops by this bulldozing arrangement that the Liberal government's brought in. When that clock stops, everything's adopted automatically—everything. No amendment is permitted.

We're kind of racing against time, for folks who might be tuning in. They see us approving clauses because we have to get at least to the amendments and we try to identify the most important amendments and the most egregious flaws in the legislation.

Here is a case where the legislation is not expansive enough. The amendment is endeavouring to fix something that should have been offered as a separate standing piece of legislation.

I'm not suggesting that this particular part of legislation is any more flawed than other parts of legislation. I think it can be improved by saying very clearly that there's only one external complaints body. That certainly responds to what we heard, as you remember, Mr. Chair, during the pre-budget hearings, as well. There were a number of witnesses who came forward and told all of us that we needed to stop the process that Mr. Kmiec has just referred to, where the bank chooses who is going to decide on the consumer complaint. That's not consumer protection. That's forcing the consumers to accept whatever it is the bank's going to give them. That's unfair to Canadians.

I get a lot of complaints in my riding about bank practices. To allow the banks to get off the hook and have their own complaint process where they choose in advance the body that is going to adjudicate on their behalf is simply unfair to consumers.

Allowing these two amendments—because really we need to speak to them together—that provide for a minister to designate one single, external complaints body makes a whole lot of sense. First, that will allow the public to see that the legislation reflects their interests, at least this part of it. Secondly, we could then have the minister actually move to designate and set up a complaints process that's really in the consumers' interest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there no further discussion on this one?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 315 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 316 to 328 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 329)

On clause 329, NDP-9 was partially talked about already, but go ahead, Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I have partially talked about it. I think I fully expressed the concerns that the public has raised before this committee and in the pre-budget hearings. I don't think I have anything further to add. Every member of Parliament around this table heard the complaints and concerns about the process.

This is an issue that we should be fixing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Any further discussion?

Ms. Rudd.

[Kim Rudd]

I'll just reiterate that my colleague's comments still stand and also that the current legislation does provide the minister flexibility to create or to designate a single not-for-profit organization. The ability for the minister to do that is already in the bill. I will leave the rest of the comments to stand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Amendment NDP-10 on clause 329 is next.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'll speak for a few moments and then I'll be withdrawing NDP-10 and NDP-11.

I'm going to withdraw them because we have other amendments we need to get to, and we rise for question period in 11 minutes. Subsequent to that, we have votes in the House of Commons. There may be some procedural votes as well.

I do want to say, because it bears repeating, that this is a deplorable process in terms of trying to ram through legislation. Aside from some minor changes, we haven't fixed any of the flaws in the legislation. We've subjected it to the certainty of court challenges, and I think this is just deplorable, when we are paid by the taxpayers of Canada to come and make sure we're getting the best possible legislation.

It might mean that we disagree from time to time on the overall intent or thrust of legislation, but we should at least get it right when the intent is there. It's a sad spectacle to witness our deeply flawed pay equity legislation being rammed through, despite repeated comments from witnesses that we need legislation in place that makes sense. It's profoundly sad to me.

We also have a lot of other amendments to consider. We've made our way through less than half of the bill in 10 minutes, even though we started at 8:45 this morning. We will be adjourning for what could be a couple of hours. On that basis, I will withdraw NDP-10 and NDP-11, but I do it with a heavy heart. I'm just profoundly saddened by this spectacle.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

NDP-10 and NDP-11 are withdrawn.

(Clause 329 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 330 to 336 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 337)

We'll go to clause 337 and BQ-1.

Mr. Sainte-Marie, the floor is yours.