23 February 2018 13:30
Rosaire Bertrand and Alain Paquet
The former members of parliament Alain Paquet and Rosaire Bertrand wrote a joint letter to the 125 members constituting the national Assembly of Quebec. They urge the greatest vigilance with regard to the adoption of the draft law 141.
The two men have both chaired the Committee on public finance under different colors. Mr. Paquet has been a liberal member, and Mr. Bertrand of the Parti québécois. What they see in the project of law 141 of particular concern to the highest point, indicate in their letter, which the Journal of insurance has received a copy.
A law passed unanimously
They recall, moreover, that the act that created theAuthority of financial markets, as well as the current regulatory framework, had been adopted unanimously by the national Assembly. They invite mps to put partisanship aside to address this issue and to call into question the provisions of the bill.
“In its current form, the draft law 141 represents not only a return to the decades to the rear of the frame, but also, at the same time, an effective protection significantly reduced the consumers’, as they say.
“Any reflection worthy of this name”
In their letter, DRS. Package and Bertrand argue that “no reflection worthy of this name” has been put forward to locate an update pulled well by the development of the supervision of the financial sector.
“The bill proposes to allow anyone to be able to offer financial advice, without being certified by the Authority, without being held accountable for his actions, and without having a code of ethics. The individuals who will be able to “advise” consumers will do without the obligation to provide the product that best suits him and without the knowledge of certified financial stakes. “
Of employees not certified
For the two men, employees who are not certified financial groups will highlight their products. “They may or may not be those that best meet the client’s circumstances. A consumer is uncertain or poorly served by its product will account only when there is a claim, often many years after the purchase of the product “, say they.
The two former parliamentarians deplore also the framework for the distribution of insurance via the Internet. They push their thinking by saying that the bill 141 would benefit only large financial organizations, whether in the form of a cooperative, a bank or an insurance company. “Bill 141 creates a lane accelerated to influence the regulation with a dominant voice,” they say.
Why keep the IIROC and not the Rooms ?
MESSRS. Package and Bertrand reiterate see an evil eye to the disappearance of the Chambre de la sécurité financière and the Chambre de l’assurance de damage. For them, this opening of financial advice by persons not certified undermines the value of professional advice, then the fiduciary duty should rather remain essential to protect consumers.
“Curiously enough, while the minister seems to find virtues of non-specified and non-proven in the abolition of these two bodies’autoréglementation, it preserves other bodies’autoréglementation, for example, in the area of securities with thecanadian Agency of regulation of the securities trade (IIROC) and in real estate brokerage with theOrganisme d’autoréglementation du courtage immobilier du Québec (OACIQ). The amendments proposed in bill 141 appear to escape a certain degree of consistency, ” they say.
Postpone the adoption of the points to be more problematic
The two men claim that the bill 141 has major issues. They recognize that some provisions may be adopted easily, including those for the systemic risk posed by the Desjardins group , or with respect to the improvements made to the compensation Fund of the financial services. Mr. Paquet had also launched the idea of splitting the bill last week.
“The provisions relating to the fundamental issues we are raising with and for the majority of stakeholders (from among the approximately 50,000 professionals and the millions of Quebecers who will be affected by the proposed amendments) deserve a time-out to explore these issues, to find the right solutions and appropriately reform the framework,” they say. This time of judgment would in no way be harmful to consumers and the financial sector, while all agree that the current system is cited as an example elsewhere in Canada. Who would benefit thus some of the significant changes put forward in bill 141 ? “