Evidence of meeting #27 for Finance in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clauses.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
Carlos Leitão Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Madam Chair, we support the amendment moved by the Bloc Québécois.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Is there anybody else?
Shall amendment BQ‑9 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
It still concerns the same issue.
It's good to have a modern regime for open data and open banking. I would even say that it's about time that Canada had one. We can't always drag our feet or lag behind.
However, when it comes to bank regulation and modern finance, we need to consider a number of details. As I said, when people use an intermediary to do business with their bank or to obtain products regulated by the Bank Act, for example, this intermediary is often subject to provincial consumer protection legislation.
I'll explain the basic purpose of this amendment. I can also tell you right now that this concerns the general intent of amendments BQ‑10 and BQ‑11. I'll speak only once for these two amendments.
With these amendments, we want to remove technology companies that aren't federally regulated, because they aren't banks. The idea is to facilitate the implementation of the open data and open banking framework. I repeat, the Quebec government feels very strongly about these amendments, both in terms of the content and the form. Without these amendments, clearly jurisdictional challenges will go all the way to the Supreme Court. This won't help the development of the open data and open banking framework. These two amendments provide clarification.
This even goes so far as to protect the provincial financial institutions. I'll give you an example. Our friends in Alberta will be happy to hear it. ATB Financial is a financial institution, but it's also a branch of the Alberta government. Under the legislation currently proposed in the bill, the federal government will be regulating a branch of the Alberta government. We need to clarify this. I think that this will pave the way for a smoother rollout of the new framework.
Liberal
Liberal
Carlos Leitão Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Unfortunately, we can't support this amendment. Once again, we think that it could cause confusion. So we don't agree.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Once again, I would like to convey this message to my colleagues in the Conservative Party. If you vote against this amendment, you will be accepting that, in the modern world, the federal government will simply regulate entities that aren't banks and that aren't subject to federal regulations, and that the provincial governments will become Ottawa's branches for implementing federal regulations. Lastly, Ottawa will then regulate a branch of the Alberta government, for example.
We've reached a point in the modern world where we need to clarify provincial and federal jurisdictional issues. You know, there's residual power. The Constitution was written in such a way that, by and large in Canada, everything not conceived a century and a half ago, everything modern, belongs to the federal government by default. In this instance, this isn't the case. I think that the federal legislation should recognize this.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Thank you.
Shall amendment BQ‑10 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 4; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Bloc
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Thank you, Mr. Garon.
Bill C‑15 enacts the consumer‑driven banking act. The amendment would make a number of clauses of the bill inapplicable to an entity, subject to the minister issuing an order exempting the entity or transferring to a province the power to supervise the entity for certain specified purposes.
Section 16.74 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Fourth Edition, states as follows: “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.”
The chair considers that, in addition to making the transitional provision conditional, adding a new condition that must be met before these clauses apply to certain entities is beyond the scope of the bill. As a result, I rule this amendment out of order.
Mr. Garon, the floor is yours.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Madam Chair, I would like us to vote on this. I'm challenging your ruling.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Okay. We'll proceed to the vote.
Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 4; nays 1)
Shall clause 224 carry?
(Clause 224 as amended agreed to: yeas 4; nays 1)
There are no amendments proposed from clauses 225 to 330. Do we have unanimous consent to group these for a single vote?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Shall clauses 225 to 330 carry?
(Clauses 225 to 330 agreed to on division)
(On clause 331)
We're moving on to clause 331, and we have BQ-12.
Mr. Garon, will you be moving your amendment?
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The amendment refers to the section of the Bank Act concerning funds deposited by cheque.
I know that you're quite interested in and passionate about this topic, Madam Chair. As you know, when a person deposits a cheque in Canada, the bank can freeze the cheque. The bank can't freeze cheques below a certain amount. This stems somewhat from the fact that people may deposit a cheque in an emergency and may need the funds.
At the same time, we need to also mitigate the risk of fraud for a bank. We can't force banks to accept a $100,000 cheque and to allow people to withdraw the funds.
The Bank Act currently sets this amount at $100. A person who deposits a cheque for $100 or less can withdraw the money immediately. Obviously, the act doesn't automatically index this amount. The legislator needs to update it.
We're proposing that this amount be raised to $250. I'll tell you the reason. It's simply because a small family pays this amount for groceries. It's all well and good to address the cost of living, to provide benefits and even to send out benefit cheques. You know, the government wants to send out benefit cheques. However, if we want to remain consistent, we must make sure that people can withdraw the funds immediately.
Obviously, we believe that the banking system faces a relatively low risk in this situation. The amount concerned hasn't been indexed for some time, as I said.
I would like to invite all my colleagues, once again, to adopt this measure. It benefits households, families and people who are struggling to make ends meet and who don't have the time to wait for their bank before withdrawing money. Moreover, as we all know, banks freeze money for fairly long periods, sometimes up to 10 working days, or even two weeks. Yet we know very well that the banking system clears these cheques the same night in about 99.9% of cases. Once the cheque is deposited, the bank knows that the funds exist, but the funds are frozen.
This is partly because we have a largely monopolistic banking system. We have five major banks that basically take over the whole market. We need to regulate this sector. It's an uncompetitive and unregulated sector.
I think that this measure makes perfect sense.
Liberal
Carlos Leitão Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Madam Chair, things were going well right up until the very end. Of course, we don't believe that the Canadian banking system is monopolistic. However, we agree with this amendment moved by the Bloc Québécois.
Bloc
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Okay. That's part of the debate.
Shall amendment BQ‑12 carry?
(Amendment agreed to)
We'll move on to division 15, “Bank Act (Funds Deposited by Cheque)”.
Shall clause 331 carry?
(Clause 331 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clauses 332 and 333 agreed to on division)
(On clause 334)
Mr. Davies, would you like to move NDP-6?
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Madam Chair, I would.
Our amendment would add a new section to the Bank Act that would require the commissioner of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to conduct regular unscheduled audits of bank policies and procedures to detect and prevent consumer-targeted fraud. If the commissioner finds that an institution's policies and procedures are ineffective, the commissioner shall impose the prescribed penalty on the institution.
Madam Chair, this comes from a recommendation in a written submission to this committee from Democracy Watch, which noted the following:
It is not enough to just require the banks to have policies and procedures in place. The Bank Act was changed in 2018 to add...two provisions requiring banks to have policies, procedures and training to ensure the financial interests of their customers are protected....
It went on to say:
...but the FCAC was not required in those provisions to audit the banks to ensure they comply with those provisions and, as a result, the FCAC has done nothing to ensure they actually comply....
The new anti-bank account fraud measures will also have little effect unless the FCAC is required to conduct regular, unannounced audits and to prosecute and penalize violations....
I would move this amendment as an effective way to strengthen anti-fraud provisions and hold financial institutions accountable.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Thank you, Mr. Davies.
Are there any comments?
Shall NDP-6 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Davies, would you like to introduce NDP-7?