Evidence of meeting #199 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Blake Richards  Banff—Airdrie, CPC
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. David Gagnon
Gillian Pranke  Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Assessment, Benefit, and Service Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
Bob Hamilton  Commissioner of Revenue and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Revenue Agency
Peter Fragiskatos  London North Centre, Lib.
Geoff Trueman  Assistant Commissioner, Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
Ted Gallivan  Assistant Commissioner, International, Large Business and Investigations Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
Daryl Boychuk  Expert Advisor, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Trevor McGowan  Director General, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance

12:40 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

Obviously, my concern here is that we've had some fairly significant debate in previous meetings about this motion. Mr. Kmiec, my colleague on the committee, has indicated some significant thoughts and concerns on this particular motion, and I'm not even sure exactly where we are in terms of the amendments, subamendments and things like that, but I do believe that when we left off on this....

Maybe we could start with that. Could you maybe give me some indication as to where we are in terms of amendments and subamendments? Where is that all sitting right now? I will want to finish with my point of order, but...

February 28th, 2019 / 12:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Here's the amended motion. This is where we were, Mr. Richards:

That the Standing Committee on Finance undertake a study on open banking and report back to the House on: a) whether open banking could provide benefits to Canadians; b) how potential risks related to consumer protection, privacy, cyber security and financial stability could be managed; c) what steps, if any, the Government should take to implement an open banking system; that the Committee dedicate up to four meetings to the hearing of witnesses in Ottawa; that the Committee examine opportunities to travel to jurisdictions that have implemented a framework for open banking, including the United Kingdom; and that the Committee report its findings to the House no later than Friday, June 7, 2019.

There was an amendment moved by Mr. Kmiec:

That the motion be amended by adding after the words "open banking system” the following: “d) current data security risk and threats posed by domestic and foreign actors to the private data information of Canadians; e) how best the government can ameliorate such risks and threats posed to the private data of Canadians; f) the appropriateness of government bodies collecting the personal banking information of Canadians; g) 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; h) 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; i) 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; j) how open banking could impact the process of applying for a loan or mortgage, and why such processes ought to be improved in Canada; k) 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; l) what the appropriate level of government regulation over Canadian financial service providers ought to be, considering the history of the Canadian context as well as that of other jurisdictions around the world; m) 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.

That's the motion with the amendments, and we're supposed to do all that in four days.

12:45 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

I do still have a point of order.

I was just needing to get some clarity as to where things were before I could move forward with my point.

My understanding of that is that you gave us an indication of the original motion, there was an amendment that Mr. Fergus had made and then the lengthy subamendment that Mr. Kmiec put forward. Is that where we are?

We would be at debate on the subamendment if we were to continue. Is that correct?

12:45 p.m.

The Clerk

We would be debating the amendment of Mr. Kmiec, the last one that was just read.

12:45 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

It was a subamendment was it not?

12:45 p.m.

The Clerk

No, it was an amendment.

12:45 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

Okay.

There were two different amendments made and we were on the first amendment. Then if that one was to pass or fail, depending on what happened, would we then move to the other amendment that was proposed?

12:45 p.m.

The Clerk

It's actually the main motion. Depending on what's going, there could be subamendments.

12:45 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

Okay, but the bottom line is that what we're currently contemplating is Mr. Kmiec's lengthy amendment which the chair just read.

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Yes.

The motion is to pull it off the table.

12:45 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

Understood.

Before we do that, Mr. Chair, on the point of order, obviously this is a topic my colleague Mr. Kmiec has had a fair bit of concern and debate around. Obviously, he's made this significant amendment as a result of that. Given that the conversation has been ongoing for some period of time and Mr. Kmiec, unfortunately....

I'm not sure if in committee I'm allowed to refer to the presence or absence of someone.

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

You're not.

You shouldn't.

12:45 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

Okay.

Regardless of that, Mr. Kmiec would not have the opportunity to participate in the debate should we move forward with this.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

I think you're kind of off a point of order. This is to pull it off the table and debate it, correct?

12:50 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

To resume debate.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

It's to resume debate to where it was.

12:50 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

Maybe if you could just let me finish with the point, and then you can determine whether it is or isn't a point of order in your estimation.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Go ahead.

12:50 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

Given that he wouldn't be able to participate in the debate should it occur now—obviously it's his amendment and it's quite a significant amendment—what I would ask is that in the interest of fairness to the member this be something we discuss when he is able to be a part of that conversation. It's something that obviously has to be of great concern to [Inaudible—Editor].

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

I think we're now stretching the point of order and going really to debate and why.

12:50 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

Possibly, but I guess it's an appeal either way.

It's a point of appeal. How about that, Mr. Chair?

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

I hear you.

All right, a point of appeal. It's new terminology for parliamentary procedure. We could invent something new together, Mr. Richards.

12:50 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

We could call it the Easter-Richards rule.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

The motion is on the floor.

All those in favour of—

12:50 p.m.

Banff—Airdrie, CPC

Blake Richards

I'm looking for any indication on that [Inaudible—Editor]