Finance Committee on March 19th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Thank you.

I have Mr. McCallum, Ms. Nash, and Mr. Caron.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Perhaps this is implicit in the motion, but one of the issues in such a study should consider the transaction fees, because in certain instances in Canada those are said to be high. In terms of consumer protection, I think that should be a part of the study.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Ms. Nash, please.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I'm recalling how limited our time is on the finance committee. We had quite a large discussion in the subcommittee, trying to squeeze in more time for the motion from Mr. Brison on inequality, and we know we have—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I will just remind you that this is a public meeting, so subcommittee discussions should be—

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Yes, this is public.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Sorry. I thought it was in camera.

We are limited in terms of our time, and there are so many competing recommendations for studies. While I respect the intention of Mr. Hoback, I have not had a chance to read the industry report. In fact, I didn't know the industry committee had done a report on exactly the same subject recently. Has everyone read the industry report? Do we know for sure that the questions being raised have not being studied? I have not had the chance to do that.

With the limited time we have at the finance committee and how strictly the chair has been interpreting the domain of the finance committee with regard to what we can and cannot study, and what is and what isn't in order for study in the finance committee, it would be a shame to replicate work that has already been done by another committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, thank you.

We'll have Mr. Caron, then Mr. Rankin and Mr. Hoback.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I agree with Ms. Nash. The committee's report does not focus exclusively on technical matters, although they are addressed at length. Transaction fees, for example, were thoroughly examined. The committee did address the privacy aspect in its study and its report.

This motion seeks “an overview of new digital payment technologies, including the challenges and opportunities they present....” That subject was covered in the report. The motion also calls for “an overview of the evolving role of government oversight of these systems, (iii) how best to ensure small businesses and consumers benefit from these new systems....” That, too, was addressed by the committee. The motion refers to elements that were considered by the industry committee and that appear in its report, which came out just six months ago.

I am genuinely interested in protecting consumers, but that isn't the case here. Knowing the work has already been done, we have to decide whether that is how we want to use the valuable time we have in the finance committee, at least until the end of June. That is all the more relevant given that the budget is coming and we'll soon be studying budget implementation bills. To my mind, that wouldn't be the best use of the committee's time at this point.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Rankin, please.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thanks, Chair.

I'm feeling a little conflicted. I listened to Mr. Hoback's motion, and I thing what he is proposing is really important and interesting. I have not had an opportunity to read the report. I listened to Mr. Caron and Ms. Nash and I'm finding myself in agreement with their points.

My question is a procedural one. Would it be acceptable to ask our analyst to look at the report that is already done and advise us on whether or not it addresses these things that are in your motion? Therefore, I would ask Mr. Hoback if he would be willing to defer. I'd have an opportunity to read the report before having to vote on something on which I am really conflicted.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

As the motion has been introduced, the motion is now the property of the committee as a whole, so the committee as a whole would have to choose to defer or choose to vote or not vote today on this motion.

Thank you.

Mr. Hoback, please.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Chair, I find it really interesting. I've had groups come to me saying there is a lot of confusion in this area and there is a lot of work that needs to be done on it. If the industry report was such an effective report, why are they still coming to my office and requesting information and clarification about what's going forward?

With regard to committee time, Chair, as I've said before in a previous meeting, we have been bringing witnesses over and over again, in the last two or three meetings, who are repeating the same answers, one after the other after the other. If the NDP really wants to respect the time of the committee, quit doing that. When it's common motions, when it's something that's consistent, that we all agree on, let's push it through, move it through, and get onto some business that's actually very relevant.

This is very relevant. This is structural change in how we do commerce. We as a committee should understand how this is all going to work. We should have an understanding about who is going to be impacted, an understanding of what type of regulation should be required to make sure consumers are protected properly. We should hear out both sides, both the banking sector and the Consumers' Association, and get their concerns on the record with the finance committee, and then go forward with what we think are recommendations. That's why I brought this forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I have no further speakers; therefore, I'm going to....

Mr. McCallum?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I don't know if this is in order, Mr. Chair, but I'd like to propose a very small and hopefully friendly amendment. Is that allowed?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Amendments are amendments. I don't know why we keep calling them friendly or unfriendly.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Well, one way to find out if it's friendly—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You're a friendly person—

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

—is to say what it is and see what people say.

My suggestion is that where it says “including the challenges and opportunities they present”, we just say “including transaction fees and the challenges and opportunities they present”. It just adds the words “transaction fees”, which reflects my earlier point.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

This would be in point (i): “an overview of new digital payment technologies, including the transaction fees and challenges”—

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Or it could say “including transaction fees and the challenges...”.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. That amendment is in order, so we'll now have discussion on the amendment.

I have Monsieur Caron.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Rankin made an excellent point. I don't think many people have actually read the industry committee's report. In the event that Mr. Hoback's motion seeks information that is similar to the content of the report, it would be advisable to, at least, read the committee's report.

If it does not specifically address certain elements that Mr. Hoback wishes to examine, he could refine his motion to focus solely on elements that the industry committee did not consider during the six or eight meetings it spent on the study. It's a matter of not having the finance committee duplicate the same work, and possibly even hear from the same witnesses.

The issue is whether we want to use the committee's time as effectively as possible. If so, I would encourage Mr. Hoback and the committee to hold off on dealing with this motion. We should make sure that the finance committee focuses solely on elements that the industry committee did not already address as part of its lengthy study.

This suggestion is intended to move the debate forward and ensure we make the best possible use of the little time we have.