Finance Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2026

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I would. Thank you, Madam Chair.

This amendment would require banks to compile, without identifying the victim, each consumer-targeted fraud transaction detected or brought to their attention in the previous quarter, and to compile quarterly data into an annual statistical report published in their annual report to shareholders.

This again emanates from a written submission from Democracy Watch, which noted:

Currently, proposed new sections 627.134 and 627.135 will keep each bank's account fraud record secret. That denies customers key information they need to know, and have a right to know, when choosing which bank they want to use for their accounts.

I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Shall NDP-7 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Davies, would you like to introduce NDP-8?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I would. Thank you, Madam Chair.

This amendment would require the commissioner of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to make their annual fraud report available to the public at the same time that it is provided to the minister. As the bill is currently drafted, the commissioner is required to provide the report only to the minister.

This is, I think, a sensible recommendation from Democracy Watch and would help ensure public awareness of consumer and bank fraud.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Shall NDP-8 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Davies, we're on NDP-9.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Chair, I will move it.

This amendment would require the FCAC commissioner to include in their annual fraud report detailed statistics regarding each institution's record of consumer-targeted fraud; the measures taken by the commissioner to hold accountable any institution that has failed to detect or prevent consumer-targeted fraud; and finally, the measures taken by the commissioner to require each institution to strengthen its policies and procedures to detect and prevent consumer-targeted fraud.

Again, this is from a submission from Democracy Watch, and I would just point out at this point that consumer-targeted fraud is growing. It's increasingly digitalized and it targets very vulnerable populations, including seniors and people who don't speak English as a first language.

If this Parliament can strengthen those measures to do what we can to help reduce or prevent consumer-related fraud, I think we should do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Shall NDP-9 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

We'll now move on to amendment BQ‑13.

Mr. Garon, you have the floor.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This amendment seeks to modernize how federal legislation handles the rights of people who fall victim to fraud. Madam Chair, you'll be pleased to know that the Prime Minister, who was the governor of the Bank of England, who loves the monarchy and who loves the United Kingdom, must certainly welcome this proposal. It's modelled after a successful practice in the United Kingdom.

Basically, we know that we're facing an epidemic of bank fraud. We can see it in the number of cases. As Mr. Davies said, these bank frauds affect people who are increasingly vulnerable. Yet some people will tell us that there are always grey areas. Sometimes, a person can be a bit negligent. Sometimes, it's the bank's fault. Sometimes, the blame is shared. Sometimes, there are other players. That may be true. However, the current version of the Bank Act hardly recognizes any grey areas. Under the current legislation, the consumer is always alleged to have been responsible.

I'll tell you about the case of Lysanne Bourgon, which took place in my own constituency. It isn't a confidential case. It has received extensive media coverage. The woman, a hard‑working small business owner, had her account overdrawn, even though I believe that this wasn't authorized by the rules. The bank dragged her through the mud, face down, for as long as it could, because this person was left without any rights.

So the consumer is currently still responsible for everything under the Bank Act.

The purpose of this amendment is to follow the example of the United Kingdom. Quite simply, the bank is responsible except in cases of gross negligence. It clearly states that the bank is responsible. If a person is defrauded and the bank hasn't done its job, it must pay the consumer. That's the default. We're partially redefining what can and can't be considered gross negligence, to prevent banks from taking advantage of the concept.

Something similar was done in Singapore and the United Kingdom. The banks ended up investing heavily in fraud prevention. The United Kingdom has eliminated around 80% of fraud by ensuring that the players with the means to protect the institutions—the banks themselves—protect them. That's exactly what happened. So I think that this is positive for everyone.

Obviously, I know that bankers are sensitive to this. I know that the Canadian Bankers Association, the RCMP and a number of other institutional players are currently conducting an awareness campaign. The Minister of Finance is also sensitive to this issue. They're running a fraud awareness campaign and working with cellphone and Internet service providers, for example. Many players have a role in this. However, when people trust the banking system, leave their money in their bank and it ends up getting robbed in their bank, you'll never see the bank ultimately claiming any responsibility whatsoever. To hear bankers talk, it's always someone else's fault, always.

We're saying that banking institutions must also carry their share of the burden. We want to modernize the Bank Act. Once again, I have every hope that a government of the people, such as the current Prime Minister's government, which enjoys popular support, will vote in favour of our excellent amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

I would like to inform the committee that amendments BQ‑13 and NDP‑10 propose similar concepts. If amendment BQ‑13 is adopted, the adoption of amendment NDP‑10 could result in an inconsistency.

It's 1:45 p.m. I propose that we suspend the meeting so that everyone can attend the oral question period in the House. We'll come back to the discussion of the amendment when we return.

Mr. Garon, you have the floor.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

If there isn't any debate, I propose that we vote on the amendment before heading to question period. However, this requires the unanimous consent of the committee, of course.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Okay. We'll now vote on amendment BQ‑13. It will be a recorded division, Mr. Garon.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

I'll suspend the meeting. We'll come back here after the votes in the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Colleagues, welcome back.

We are going to continue with NDP-10.

Mr. Davies, would you like to introduce your amendment?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would.

This amendment would add a new section to the Bank Act, to require banks to reimburse customers who fall victim to consumer-targeted fraud unless they themselves have been grossly negligent in relation to the fraud.

This provision was recommended in a written submission from Option consommateurs. It is modelled on a similar measure already place in other jurisdictions, such as the U.K. and Quebec.

In its written submission, Option consommateurs noted:

We believe that an approach that holds banks more accountable will not only allow thousands of Canadians who are victims of fraud to be able to recover their money, but it will also decrease the occurrence of such fraud. By placing greater responsibility on banks, the legislative framework will incentivize these businesses to deploy the appropriate measures to prevent their losses.

The example of the United Kingdom is a clear illustration of this. According to the Payment Systems Regulator, following the entry into force of the new consumer protection framework, the number of claims for APP-type fraud decreased by approximately 15% between October 2024 and June 2025, compared to the same period between October 2023 and June 2024.

I think we can help victims of fraud and also incentivize better practices in the banking sector by adopting this amendment. I would ask my colleagues to do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Shall NDP-10 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I have a quick reminder, folks, before we go on. If you're online, please be on mute, and if you're in the room, make sure your phones are on silent. Thank you.

Moving on, shall clause 334 carry?

(Clause 334 agreed to on division)

Colleagues, we are now on new clause 334.1, NDP -11.

Mr. Davies, would you like to present your amendment?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This amendment makes determinations made by the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments binding. This is a recommendation in the written submission from Democracy Watch. OBSI is the body corporate designed, under section 627.48 of the Bank Act, as an external complaints body with respect to disputes between banking services and investment firms and their customers.

In the 2021 Liberal campaign platform, the Liberals committed to establishing “a single, independent ombudsperson for handling consumer complaints involving banks, with the power to impose binding arbitration.” I think this is consistent with policy the government has campaigned on. It will also strengthen protection for consumers of the banking system in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Bill C-15 amends the Bank Act to introduce new measures in respect of consumer-targeted fraud. The amendment seeks to create a new clause whereby determinations made by external complaints bodies are binding on member institutions.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, states in section 16.74, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

It is my opinion that this new clause creates a new requirement for the external complaints body, which is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

(On clause 335)

We are moving on to clause 335.

Mr. Davies, would you like to introduce NDP-12?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Chair, I think given that we did not pass NDP-6, this one is probably moot and I would withdraw it.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

You can't withdraw it. We're not allowed to.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

That's right, as Ms. May has pointed out.

I would ask for unanimous consent to withdraw it. I don't think it makes sense.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Does Mr. Davies have UC to withdraw this amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

(Amendment withdrawn)

Shall clause 335 carry?

(Clause 335 agreed to on division)

There are no amendments submitted between clauses 336 and 380. Is it the unanimous consent of the committee to do them in one single vote?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.