Evidence of meeting #197 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
February 19th, 2019 / 11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I call the meeting to order.
We are debating a motion by Mr. Sorbara and are currently on an amendment. The motion was moved and now there is an amendment on the floor. We'll start where we left off at the last meeting. Mr. Kmiec had the floor.
The floor is still yours, Mr. Kmiec.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I went through the motion one more time and then read some of the transcript from the back and forth that we had on this motion. I know that we're now on the amendment proposed by Mr. Fergus, which is taking in some of the ideas that we on the opposition side had talked about and some of our concerns about how many meetings this would take and how long this committee study would be.
Members have heard me talk about the need to make sure that our time at committee is judiciously used, because we now have only some 60-odd sitting days of the House, I think, which include Fridays and Mondays, when a lot of members are travelling. We have only two committee meetings a week, so there are not that many committee meetings that we could use, and then there are still a lot of other things we could undertake a study on as well. I want to make sure that whatever motion is approved by this committee—hopefully unanimously—would be amended. For that purpose, I have a subamendment to move—
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
—and I also have it here in French, with the required copies, so that the clerk doesn't tell me that I didn't do it properly.
I'll read it into the record in a second.
Do you want me to wait until it's distributed or can I read it now?
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Sure. You'll notice that I have the original motion at the top of the sheet. I have this in French and English. Obviously I have Mr. Fergus' amendment there, and this is my subamendment: That the motion be amended by adding, after the words “report back to the House on:”, the following:
a) current data security risks and threats posed by domestic and foreign actors to the private data information of Canadians;
b) how best the government can ameliorate such risks and threats posed to the private data of Canadians;
c) the appropriateness of government bodies collecting the personal banking information of Canadians;
d) the current landscape of the financial services sector in Canada, the major actors, levels of competition, and the sufficiency/stringency of regulations governing financial institutions;
e) how the market share of Canada's banking and financial services industry compares to other jurisdictions around the world and how an expansion or concentration of such market share might impact Canadian consumers;
f) how the development of new Canadian fintech innovation has been advanced or curtailed by broader government policies, including but not limited to; the levels of taxation imposed on small and medium sized enterprises, corporate welfare, payroll taxes, openness to foreign direct investment and the retention of skilled labour;
g) how open banking could impact the process of applying for a loan or mortgage, and why such processes ought to be improved in Canada;
h) how open banking should be prioritized for the current government, considering the Minister of Finance's mandate letter that was given to him by the Prime Minister in 2015 and the various priorities that were outlined for the Minister in this letter;
i) what the appropriate level of government regulation over Canadian financial services providers ought to be, considering the history of the Canadian context as well as that of other jurisdictions around the world;
j) how the principle of financial transparency latent in the idea of open banking ought to be applied more broadly to the public accounts of the Canadian government;
And finally,
That the Committee dedicate up to three meetings to the hearing of witnesses in Ottawa; that the Committee not travel outside of Ottawa for the purposes of this study, but welcome experts and stakeholders from outside of Ottawa to appear before the Committee through teleconference; and that the Committee report its findings to the House no later than Monday, April 1, 2019.
I know that it's a long amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'm wondering, Tom, about the last part, “that the Committee not travel outside Ottawa”. That changes the intent of the first amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Yes, I guess it doesn't. It would have to be restructured, because you couldn't allow it if it changed the intent. The other problem with the amendment would be that it should fit in after (c) on the original motion.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
It won't be great English or the translation into French, I agree, but it gets to the genesis of what this is about.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I know what you're trying to do, but there's the original motion before the amendment, and then all these other points should come in right down to (j), so it would be (a), (b), (c), and then all your (a), (b), (c), (d)s restructured, and all those points....
Blake Richards Banff—Airdrie, CPC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, as it stands currently, we don't all have a copy of these. I feel that we're in a little bit of a spot where it's difficult to proceed. It might be best if we just waited until we all have a copy.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We're in a little bit of a complication. Here's where we are, and you can argue with me, I guess.
We're dealing with the amendment now. It's on the floor.
If we look at the bottom part of your motion, Tom, it says “That the Committee dedicate up to three meetings to the hearing of witnesses in Ottawa” as a subamendment to the amendment. We will deal with your subamendment, if you agree to this, that the committee dedicate up to three meetings. We'll debate that and vote on it. Then we will have to deal with the amendment as amended, perhaps, which is in black on the original order, and then after that, after we make that decision, we will have to deal with another subamendment—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
—another amendment, so it would be (a), (b), (c), and then your (a) and so on would become (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), and (m).
