SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 273

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 1, 2024 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 273 - Feb/1/24
Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)
Madam Speaker, I will start by thanking the member for Bay of Quinte for introducing the bill. It is a very interesting bill. As surprising as it may be, this is the first time we have the opportunity to debate open finance in the House. Even the Standing Committee on Finance has never addressed this issue. So far, the discussion has been largely left to the experts and industry representatives. The Department of Finance, the Office of Superintendent of Financial Institutions, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, all those fine people, are currently examining the issue. As I said earlier, the same goes for the Autorité des marchés financiers, or the AMF, and Quebec's department of finance. In fact, back home in Quebec, we have Desjardins and other co-operatives. It is also important to remember that the technology companies that would interface with customers in an open financial system are not banks. Essentially, they do not fall under federal jurisdiction, just as not all financial institutions fall under federal jurisdiction. I have been closely following the work of the Advisory Committee on Open Banking, which is referenced extensively in the preamble of the bill. This work is very enlightening. The committee heard from a wide range of stakeholders, including banks, credit unions, insurance companies, trusts, brokers, technology companies, and the list goes on. My colleague talked about that. However, no consumer advocacy groups, privacy advocates or provincial regulators, such as Quebec's AMF, were consulted. It was therefore time to broaden the conversation. For that reason alone, the bill makes a huge contribution to the debate, and I thank my colleague once again for introducing it. Implementing an open financial system constitutes a huge change with many implications. In the long term, we can envisage a system in which financial institutions would essentially be able to manufacture financial products. Customer relations would be handled by technology companies that would not offer the financial products themselves but would act as intermediaries and data aggregators. That is quite a change. The bill's preamble lists the benefits of such an open financial system. I will not repeat them here, as I think they have been clearly outlined. I would even say that it is inevitable that we will move toward an open system. It is going to happen. Since this is the first time we are discussing this subject, I will use my time today to broaden the debate a bit, because there are also challenges and risks. It is our job as legislators to talk about all that, since we are working toward the common good. Our financial system's greatest asset is its stability and the confidence that comes with that stability. It is stable because it is subject to very strict legal obligations. Ultimately, if something goes wrong, for example if there is fraud, data theft, failure to report a suspicious transaction that would enable the tracking of money laundering, and so on, then the financial institution is the one that is legally and financially responsible. These financial institutions are subject to strict prudential obligations so as to ensure they have the means of dealing with the risks in question. Since the financial institutions are ultimately responsible, they currently guard their members' and customers' personal, financial or banking information very jealously. Again, the financial system's greatest asset is its stability. However, this is also where it becomes a weakness, because it can lead to compartmentalization and a lack of flexibility. The world has changed with all the new financial products online. The development of information technologies has given rise to the data economy, which requires the data to circulate more freely in order to grow. It is unclear whether our financial architecture is currently adapted to this new environment. That is the purpose of the bill. A financial institution cannot be asked to be responsible for the use of data it no longer has custody of. Regulations and prudential standards will have to be adapted. It is far from certain that a technology company, on the other hand, has the wherewithal to take on the financial risks I mentioned earlier. For example, a financial start-up can be born and die in no time at all. That has been the case with several cryptocurrency companies. Caution is needed. That does not mean we should stand idle and fail to move towards a more open banking system. People want the flexibility this kind of system offers. People want aggregators that put all their information in one place, facilitate transactions and give individuals an accurate picture of their financial situation. When money is tight at the end of the month, these applications and services are valuable, and there is demand for them. People do not understand why they are not being allowed to do this with the technology available today. After all, our personal information belongs to us. That is why fintech companies have already started coming on line despite the legal limbo. They are responding to an obvious demand. At this point, because they are not officially part of a financial system that makes sense, they exist in a grey area and find alternative ways to evolve. Users currently provide their personal information themselves. When the app gets into an account, it extracts data from the screen and stores personal and confidential information. Financial institutions' secure networks get regular visits from actors outside the financial sector, and that makes them vulnerable. The more advanced these strategies get, the greater the risk to our banking system. I was saying that the status quo is not sustainable. It would be pointless for legislators to bury their heads in the sand as though it were 1990. In some cases, it must be said, the risks are minimal. An aggregator that scans public data to show us mortgage rates in one click is convenient and low risk. However, an aggregator that collects our personal data to give us a detailed picture of our financial situation is also convenient but riskier. Financial information is very sensitive, so it is vital to protect it. Furthermore, if the app can be used to perform transactions, which implies that it places orders, that opens up a whole new level of risk, the risk of fraud. What about the principle of needing to know the customer? That principle is the foundation of our anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing laws. How can a financial institution apply this principle when it is communicating via an app? Lastly, an important part of risk is the financial capacity to take on risk. Without that, the consumer could lose everything. Fintechs currently operate in a grey area, which is a problem. A clear framework is needed, with clear obligations and responsibilities, as well as oversight mechanisms and institutions to enforce compliance. The advisory committee recognized all of these difficulties, but it felt that it was important to move quickly so that Canada would not be lagging behind and so as not to hamper the sector's development, a bit like what my Conservative colleague mentioned earlier. He also said that the companies continue to operate in a grey area, which is what is happening right now and is not serving anyone well. That is why the advisory committee recommended giving clear direction. However, the committee also recommended minimal regulations so that things can move faster. Then, industry stakeholders can determine for themselves how to operationalize and resolve technical issues. In short, the committee is recommending a sort of self-regulation. It recognized that the financial strength of technology companies is an issue, but it did not propose any institutional mechanism for dealing with it. There will not be any equivalent for deposit insurance, at least not in the beginning, when the new legislation comes into force, as the committee suggests. At best, the committee mentions that people should get their own insurance. The committee also recognized the constitutional issue, but it proposed circumventing it. It proposes integrating the federal financial institutions. As for the others, for example, the large credit unions, they can join if they want to, but as second-class institutions, which is something we do not want to happen. As Quebeckers, whose main financial institution is a co-operative and not a bank, we understand that a two-tier financial system leaves much to be desired. Barring a constitutional amendment, the federal government cannot regulate these other institutions. Also, in order for the financial system to truly be open, the governments will have to coordinate. I like Bill C‑365. It requires the government to introduce legislation in a timely manner. However, I am not so sure about the second clause. Setting a deadline for introducing legislation without ensuring that we are ready and that any potential problems have been resolved seems a bit hasty and rash to me. In implementing such an open system, I would like us to follow the example of Emperor Augustus who said to make haste slowly. Let us get to work right away, because the status quo is no longer tenable, but let us take the time to get it right, because the risks are high. Specifically, let us do it right by properly consulting the Quebec government when it comes to regulating co-operatives.
1562 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border