Finance Committee on June 4th, 2024

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I said earlier, I lament the fact that the committee has adopted division 16 of the bill, which would create a consumer-driven framework for banking services. It would provide the basic structure for the open banking system, but it would be built on very poor footings. All the Conservative amendments to this division rest on a poorly constructed foundation that will collapse and create a lot of problems. For that reason, I will vote against the entire division and consequently won't support the amendments, which I think are based on an unacceptable foundation.

I would like to inform you that I will symbolically move amendment BQ‑3 to clause 227.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On that, members, we will suspend at this time. We'll be back in this room at 3:30.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Members, welcome back.

We left off after we had already done CPC-24.

(Clause 198 agreed to on division)

(On clause 203)

Next we have clause 203 and CPC-25.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

We'll go ahead and move this amendment, CPC-25. These are additional safeguards that we've put in with respect to open banking, and we're hopeful that other members will support the amendment. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Shall CPC-25 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we'll go to CPC-26 on clause 203.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

We'll move this as well, Mr. Chair.

CPC-26 is regarding publishing information provided for in the regulations. We just want to make sure that there's additional transparency. Of course, we have witnessed over the last nine years that there's been a significant decline in government transparency, and we have not witnessed sunny ways. We would call upon the other members to vote for this to encourage greater transparency.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Lawrence.

I have a hand up.

Go ahead, MP Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm sorry. I want to make sure that I understand this amendment. I'm not quite clear on that preamble from Mr. Lawrence. The current language says:

The Senior Deputy Commissioner must publish, in the prescribed time and manner, the prescribed information respecting consumer-driven banking.

If I understand his amendment, it's to change the “must” to “may” publish. If anything, it's making it less transparent, because right now the legislation as drafted would require the commissioner to publish the information, so I'm a little puzzled by that. How does making that discretionary increase transparency?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Lawrence, do you...? No, you're good. Okay.

Thank you, MP Davies.

Shall CPC-26 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 203 agreed to on division)

(On clause 204)

We have CPC-27 on clause 204.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I'll move it and just leave it as it is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Shall CPC-27 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 204 agreed to on division)

(On clause 207)

We have CPC-28 on clause 207.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I move that and motivate this. This requires balanced membership and transparency for any committee that advises or assists the senior deputy commissioner, recommended by numerous stakeholders.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Members, shall CPC-28 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We have CPC-29 on clause 207.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Let me at least move it first, Ryan. Come on, brother. Do we want to go back to filibustering?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

CPC-29 requires committee member remuneration to also follow governance best practices. We've all seen what happened in the OAG reports. We've seen numerous reports of Liberal insiders getting wealthy, and this is meant to be one of those safeguards to prevent that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Members, shall CPC-29 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 207 agreed to on division)

(On clause 209)

Members, we're at CPC-30, an amendment to clause 209.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Yes, we'll move it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

It's been moved.

Shall CPC-30 carry?

Go ahead, MP Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Can I just get a clarification on this?

If I understand this, it says, the commissioner, the senior deputy commissioner or a deputy commissioner “must not hold, directly or indirectly, any interest or right in any shares of”—and here are the additional words—“any participating entity, including”.

That would modify “any financial institution”, so could I ask my Conservative colleague to explain what the rationale for this is? It sounds like it would expand the conflict of interest criteria, which may be a good thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay. Thank you, MP Davies.

Would you like to speak to it, MP Lawrence?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

What we're seeking to do through this amendment is to clearly spell out that fintechs are included with respect to the conflict of interest provisions as well—if that helps my colleague.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

I'll just add to that. What this actually does.... Any senior deputy commissioner needs to be clear. They shouldn't have direct or indirect interest or rights to shares of any participating entity, so it's more of a conflict of interest thing.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Is that “participating entity” defined anywhere?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

It's in the act. “Entity” is defined in the act.