Evidence of meeting #84 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was businesses.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'm pretty sure we agreed on them. I asked if there was agreement, so we'll write those letters accordingly.
Pierre, you had a motion you wanted to put. Does this motion have to come on the table today?
5:35 p.m.
NDP
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay, let's deal with it and then we have to go in camera and get our act together for the liaison committee.
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for the time you are giving me.
This is a notice of motion that I submitted on March 22, 2017. It deals with the testimony obtained by CBC/Radio-Canada from employees of the major Canadian banks. They gave testimony about questionable, sometimes even completely illegal, commercial activities.
Following that evidence, the public reacted to the behaviour of Canada's major banks. That's why I'm encouraging the members of the committee to call as witnesses representatives from those banks, namely TD Bank, Royal Bank, Bank of Montreal, CIBC and Scotiabank. It would also be appropriate to invite the Canadian Bankers Association, as well as anyone whom the committee deems appropriate.
A subcommittee could discuss it and decide which witnesses would be appropriate to invite. The committee must ensure that there is compliance with the Bank Act, that consumers are protected and that those sorts of activities will never happen again. We must determine how those activities can be prevented by enforcing the legislation.
So I invite all my colleagues to support the motion. I'm not constrained by tight deadlines. I'm open to any proposals. I don't intend to insist that we delve into it at the next meeting, but I would at least like the committee to show a sign that it's interested in the issue and that, in due course probably after the study of Bill C-44, it might be able to undertake the study. This will mean inviting representatives from the banks in question and recommending amendments to the Bank Act. I hope to obtain the support of all my colleagues to do so.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay, it is on the floor. I know from our list of motions to be lifted off the table, there's another one quite similar to this. I believe it's from Mr. Fergus. It's always a question of which motion you go with. This one's on the table, it's been lifted, and it's been moved by Mr. Dusseault. It's open for discussion.
Mr. Liepert.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
Mr. Chair, I have some issues with the rather inflammatory way it's written, which gives me difficulty in supporting the motion as it is presented. Is the mover of the motion open to wording change?
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
I would propose the wording change to be the following: “That the committee”, then we strike out everything starting with “in” to the next comma, “banks”, and insert “study the, as alleged in the media,” and remove “aggressive and sometimes deceptive and illegal”.
The motion would read, “That the committee study the, as alleged in the media, business practices of Canada's banks”, and then carry on. I can't accept the inflammatory wording, because it is not proven that this actually occurred. It is alleged in the media, and that's where I have difficulty with it.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Then it's a friendly amendment.
You're asking for at least six regular meetings?
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Personally, Mr. Chair, I certainly don't support this motion. As Mr. Liepert said, some of its content is quite inflammatory.
I have proposed another motion that would allow us to discuss the underlying problem. It has the advantage of inviting the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada and other institutions that have the right to ask questions on the practices of banks, in order to protect consumers.
In addition, it is not beneficial to hold a minimum of six meetings on the issue. In my view, no more than three meetings are needed. I think it's a topic that we can address and it's important to do so.
My motion has a second advantage. By inviting the agency to testify—it is studying the issue right now—we would be able to find out which questions it is asking and check whether a good job is being done. We could also propose other questions. In my view, once the MPs agree, the Standing Committee on Finance can have an impact.
I think there are benefits to the second motion, but I leave it up to the committee to determine whether or not it is in favour of Mr. Dusseault's motion.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I think we have about 13 or 12 minutes left.
Just so we're clear, what are you doing? Are you opposing this motion in favour of another, or are you amending it?
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We agreed on the amendment. I think it's a friendly amendment. It takes the inflammatory language out, so I think we're accepting it as a motion amended.
All those in favour of this motion?
(Motion as amended negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I'd like to raise the motion that I made. It reads:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108, the Committee undertake a study of no more than three meetings to understand the practices of Schedule I banks on the sale of financial products and services to clients with special regard to: i. sales practices and incentives for employees; ii. opportunities for redress; iii. codes of conduct; iv. penalties for breaches of codes of conduct; and that the Committee also call upon the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to discuss their overview of the financial services industry with regard to the study above.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
It has been moved. It is in order.
Is there any discussion on the motion?
Ziad.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB
This motion is lacking some of the major banks. It would be beneficial to include the six banks instead of keeping it vague like this.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Schedule I banks would cover that. Schedule I banks covers the major six.
Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Dusseault.
5:45 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
To be clear, is it your intention to invite some of the schedule I banks?
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Yes, the intention is to invite schedule l banks—some of them or all of them.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I will call the question on the motion.
(Motion agreed to)
We will have to suspend for a minute and move in camera.
[Proceedings continue in camera]