Finance Committee on April 2nd, 2009

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

That is not what I heard earlier in the translation. We said that the beginning of the motion was identical to mine, that is: “That the Finance Committee conduct a study of the various debit and credit card transaction fees imposed by merchants—”

Then there was the amendment by Mr. Menzies who moved: “—that the study be not necessarily limited to—”

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Yes.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

No, “not limited to”.

[A voice]

“Not limited to”.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

“—That the study be not necessarily limited to these subjects—”

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

I recognize Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm happy to support both.

The one thing I had against Monsieur Laforest's motion was “by merchants”. The merchants aren't the ones imposing the fees; it's the credit card companies that are imposing the fees on the merchants. So that's been corrected.

I want to clarify something else. I agree 100% with Mr. Laforest that “not limited to” includes interest charged to card holders, because we should be able to call card holders, as those fees and interest charges apply to them as well—and that's what's meant by “not limited to”. So we can then call them also, because there are two sides to a credit card. The card companies charge the merchants, who then charge their customers, and I think we need to hear from both.

So if Mr. Laforest is satisfied that this does that, and we're able to do it, I'm satisfied with the motion also.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

So are you satisfied with Mr. Menzies' motion?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

That's right, as long as that's what it means.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'm sensing there is a consensus around the table.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Oh, there's one other thing, Mr. Chair.

I am on the industry committee, where we do have almost the exact same motion in front of us. I'd like to see us do this at one committee. I can do it at both, but I'd like to see us do it at one committee or the other, and I think it's more appropriate here, given the credit study we're doing. But that's just my opinion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Just to respond on that, I have talked to the chair of the industry committee, who is very amenable to having us do this study. They have quite a full session this spring, so they're very amenable to our doing it.

I have Mr. Menzies, and then Mr. Pacetti.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

This may be presumptuous, but should this pass, Mr. Chair, I would like to recommend that you write a letter to the chair of the industry committee. I personally think the study should be done here. I go back to my initial comment, that I don't think we need three committees—between these two houses—studying the same issue.

I think your letter should ask for their unanimous support to move it out of the industry committee and over here. That's my suggestion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Pacetti.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We discussed this at the subcommittee, and I don't see the rush. We have enough work to do until the beginning of May. I talked to my colleagues in the industry committee, and we have no consensus on our side as to whether it should go to the finance committee or the industry committee. The finance committee members believe that it should come to our committee here, but we don't have agreement, and I am not comfortable that....

The Senate will be looking at this and they'll also be ready to issue a report by the beginning of May, or the end of May. The industry committee is going to look at it, and if the finance committee also looks at it, I just think it would be an inefficient way of spending Parliament's time and taxpayers' money.

My suggestion would be, if I can say so, just to defer this until we have further discussions with our colleagues. We all have colleagues on the industry committee.

Mr. Wallace, you might be the broker on that, but I haven't been able to get a firm answer.

You were supposed to speak to their chair, Mr. Chair.

So I think we should just defer the vote until the next meeting, and I think that's what was agreed upon in the subcommittee. Then we also agreed in the subcommittee that we needed, maybe, only up to two, three, or even four meetings. Now we're up to six meetings. I'm not sure we need that many meetings. It would mean we're going to do this work until the end of the session, which means precluding any other work we have to do.

I think we can defer debating this motion until we get back from the two-week break.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

There was not a consensus at the subcommittee on how to deal with this issue, and that's why at the subcommittee Monsieur Laforest indicated he would be bringing the motion forward today—which is his right to do as a member of the committee.

I did speak to the chair of the industry committee, who indicated his willingness as the chair to have us study this issue in the finance committee. I thought there was a consensus in that committee to transfer this issue to this committee. That was my understanding from the chair.

I'm prepared to go to a vote.

Monsieur Laforest.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

I agree that we vote on the motion, but I think that Mr. Menzies suggestion of writing a letter would truly settle the matter.

As for the other question—that it will take the committee until the end of the session to complete the work—,I disagree. We stated in the motion that there will be a maximum of six meetings. If we need six meetings, that is fine—and I think we will need them because the subject is vast—, but if we do not need them, we can stop earlier and other matters can be studied. That gives us every latitude to do so. Let us proceed with the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, thank you.

Ms. Hall Findlay.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Can I just ask what that process is? Just bear with my ignorance of the process of writing a letter to the chair of the industry committee. I don't know that there is a consensus, but if we're hearing that they want to do this, and we think it should be in the finance committee—because I don't think there's any disagreement that this committee should be looking at this—what does the process of just writing a letter do?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

My sense is that there's only one member on that committee who has not yet agreed to transfer it over. The Conservative members have agreed, the Bloc members have agreed, and I believe the NDP member has. So one member of that committee has not yet agreed to it. That's my understanding.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

So is sending a letter to the chair just for information that we've done it?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

In sending a letter, I would include the motion and say that I've been asked by this committee to write to the chair of the industry committee to say that we will be studying this issue. Obviously, if they feel it's more appropriate that we study it here, and only here, they would then be empowered not to study it there.

[Some hon. members]

Let's vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Yes, let's have the vote on Mr. Menzies' amendment.

(Motion agreed to)

Colleagues, you have before you the information sheet on the first report of the subcommittee.

Are there any questions on the subcommittee's report?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

It says that we “consider travelling to Washington”, but when do we consider it? Is this a fact or is this a consideration?