- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Mirabel
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $114,073.56
- Government Page
- Mar/19/24 11:36:42 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague did not ask that question when the price of gas went down at Thanksgiving last year. He was too preoccupied with the price of turkey.
Since he asked earlier, I will give my colleague the list of the committees at which the Conservatives moved motions about the carbon tax yesterday, bringing the meetings to a standstill: the Standing Committee on National Defence, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Standing Committee on Science and Research, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, the Standing Committee on Finance, the Standing Committee on Health, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, the Standing Committee on Official Languages and the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. They brought all that to a standstill yesterday.
It was a demonstration and a quantification of how little respect they have for our institutions.
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/23/23 4:52:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first, I am not attacking anyone. I am making some factual observations. The fact is that our right and my right as a parliamentarian to express myself on this matter is being curtailed.
The member across the way talks about the Conservative filibuster. It is not right that we are pushing this bill to the Standing Committee on Finance next week when this is legislation that amends the Excise Tax Act and fundamentally changes the Competition Act. It is not right that such an important bill is getting only two meetings, next Monday and Wednesday until midnight. If the Liberals thought their bill was so important and they, like me, thought that the content of this bill was so important, they would allow the Standing Committee on Finance to do its job properly, but this is absolutely not the case right now.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 5:34:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when we look at the debt and the deficit, we have to look at it in proportion to the ability to pay. Any banker who is asked for a $2,000 or $3,000 loan does not treat someone with an annual income of $10,000 the same as someone with an income of $50,000 or $100,000. The same applies to people with assets and people with no assets.
The first thing to look at is the debt-to-GDP ratio. The Conservatives go from dollars, which they call nominal, when it suits them, to the ratio when that suits them. A little consistency would be nice. Beyond that, public finances have to be looked at as a whole. It is important to be concerned about both the deficit and the federal debt, but if the provinces are going broke in the meantime and they have to borrow money, or choose between borrowing money and caring for their residents, that has to be taken into account.
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you today, as always, and it is very interesting to debate Bill C-245 and the Canada Infrastructure Bank.
The bank is a newly designed institution. It has only been around for a few years and, even though it is still in its infancy, there is already talk about a lack of transparency and changes to the management approach and the board of directors. This institution has hardly been around for any time at all and we are already talking about the many problems with it.
The Bloc Québécois's position has always been clear. This bank never should never have existed, for the very simple reason that we did not need it. To date, the bank has basically been a failure, not because it did not fund any projects, but because it failed to do its job properly and to ensure that projects were carried out. To understand why the bank makes no sense, we need to look back at the past.
Let us go back to 2015. The current Prime Minister was on the campaign trail. He said that there was an economic slowdown and that we had to invest, in particular in infrastructure, since it was urgent that we help Quebec, the provinces and municipalities.
When things are urgent, the thing to do is to sit down with partners and finance projects. However, the government’s Liberal reflexes took over. It decided that, instead of taking action, it would waste time: It would create a new institution with various layers of public servants and invest in a big machine in Ottawa instead of delivering for Canadians.
That was what it announced in the 2015 electoral campaign and again in 2016. In 2017, the bank was legislated into being. However, it was still not in operation, and it was finally up and running when the economy was no longer in a slowdown.
So far, they have not learned from their mistakes. Since then, we have had a pandemic and another slowdown. The bank has not changed since then, and has not met its objectives. The government is once again behind in its projects. This is an example of poor service delivery and an inappropriate investment vehicle.
With his banker’s mentality, the finance minister at the time, Mr. Morneau, said that taxpayers would benefit. He said that the bank would drive job creation and economic development and that, for every dollar invested by taxpayers, it would draw four, five or six dollars in investments from the private sector. It was supposed to be a windfall.
Finally, nothing much happened, except for a few small projects that could very well have been financed more quickly using other methods, such as bilateral agreements.
If we look at the three-year growth plan of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, we can see that, by 2028, $2.5 billion will be invested in clean energy. We have a list of emergencies. At the same time, the Liberals tabled a budget in which they plan to invest—surprise, surprise—$2.5 billion a year, and not by 2028, in dirty energy. They are investing $2.5 billion in clean energy through the Canada Infrastructure Bank with their right hand and doing five times worse with their left.
That is what we call an inconsistent government. The Liberals are investing $1 in clean energy and $5 in dirty energy, and then they will tour the country this summer saying that oil is green. That is our federal government for you. They are investing $2.5 billion in broadband connectivity projects. The digital transition should have accelerated during the pandemic but, because we were wasting time with the Canada Infrastructure Bank, we were unable to speed up the process.
They are also investing $2 billion in building upgrades. These projects are closest to those on the ground, closest to the people, while the federal government is the level of government farthest from the people. The government thinks it is smart to invest like that.
There were a few good projects. I know that the hon. member for Winnipeg North will be talking about zero-emission vehicles. There were also good projects in Ontario, but that is not enough.
Here is what the Liberals did: They made a list of emergencies and created a huge bank. After years of wasting time, the projects were not carried out in time. However, the Liberals told us that they were urgent. Today, when we look at the institution’s performance, we can see that all of this was so urgent that they did not meet their commitments. That is exactly what happened with the bank.
No one can ask us to like the Canada Infrastructure Bank, because we like our people, we like Quebec, we like our infrastructure projects and we like our economy. That is why we do not like the Canada Infrastructure Bank.
Today, we are in a situation where they will try to meet their targets. They have money to spend and they have to meet their targets. They are looking for projects, because there are not enough of them.
I will give the same example as the Liberal member just gave, namely the famed high-frequency rail line between Quebec City and Windsor. This is not a high-speed train. It is a bad project. Everyone wants a high-speed train, but everyone is resigned to never getting anything from the federal government. We will therefore get a tortoise that passes by twice as often and we will be told that it is a great project.
The project, which is supported by the Canada Infrastructure Bank, will prove to be a bad risk for taxpayers and a good risk for the private sector. The project’s sponsor, VIA Rail, has decided that we should privatize the public infrastructure in the profitable corridor. However, the key mission of the government, that is to say, projects that provide a public return, will be paid for by taxpayers. They will privatize the good part and leave the bad part for the taxpayers.
Things are so bad that, in the last budget, the Liberals had to set aside $400 million in public funding for the project. We asked public servants what was going to happen with the $400 million and they said it would be used to find partners for the train project. I do not know of any functioning bank that has so few projects or friends, or that operates so poorly that it has to invest that kind of money to find partners. When you have to spend $400 million to find friends, maybe you need to change the way you do things.
The same is true for the REM light rail project. It did not need the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Normally, this would have been a Quebec government project. Investissement Québec would have bought shares, and the federal government would have helped. It would have been done quickly and properly, in a bilateral manner. We have a loan for the REM here, but this could have been done more efficiently without the new layer of administration in the federal government.
That is quite the bank we have. It is slow and does not meet its objectives. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the Bank of Canada would likely never be able to disburse the $35 billion it has to spend by 2028. There is now a $19-billion discrepancy. This is $19 billion for emergencies, according to the Liberals, that will never be used to meet the needs on the ground for the people who really need infrastructure. The bank does not work.
Now, if we are going to have a bad bank, we might as well improve the way it operates. That is why Bill C-245 is interesting. There is a lack of transparency in the management of these funds and in the reporting to the House. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the Canada Infrastructure Bank did not provide information or respond when his office tried to evaluate its performance, on the grounds that it was keeping trade secrets confidential. The bank is becoming like Export Development Canada, which is one of the major funders of oil projects in Canada and which also hides behind supposed trade secrets.
Another positive aspect of the bill is that it requires that the board of directors include indigenous and Inuit members. The idea behind this is that we are our own best advocates. This proves that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is not listening to people on the ground, and that is the least of it. I would be surprised if the Liberals did not support this bill for that reason.
The Canada Infrastructure Bank was supposed to be a miracle. My grandfather, and I am sure many others, used to say that if something looks too good to be true, it likely is neither good nor true.
The federal government is capable of meddling in Quebec's affairs. It has been no better at delivering infrastructure through its Canada Infrastructure Bank than at managing passports, airport services, unconditional health transfers or the temporary foreign worker program, as Quebec and the provinces have been calling for.
This is a reminder that Quebec must be in charge of its infrastructure projects, that the federal government needs to be smaller and that it needs to provide the money to Quebec and the provinces.
As Quebec's national holiday approaches, I want to take this opportunity to remind members how important it is for Quebec to have all of its revenue and resources and that it be the master of its own destiny. This bank serves as a reminder that Quebec must be free. Vive le Québec libre.
1651 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
