Industry Committee on Sept. 19th, 2024

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank my colleague for that proposal. I think that's a great idea.

As Mr. Masse said, this Parliament could go for one day or it could go for one year. I think every one of us has received the heartbreaking emails and phone calls from people who have been evicted from their apartments, have defaulted on their mortgages or have defaulted on their credit cards. We've all had those emails. We've heard those heartbreaking stories.

I think urgency is required, so I thank Mr. Perkins for this suggestion. I think this committee should jump to it as soon as it is able to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

On the amendment, I have MP Arya.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My concern with that 14 days is this. In case the current issue we are supposed to discuss today, Bill C-27, doesn't get done within 14 days, it will get further postponed.

Is there any way we can say this can be taken up 14 days after the conclusion of the current things the committee is dealing with?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, MP Arya.

On the amendment, I have Mr. Garon.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I completely agree with the wording of the motion. The proposed topic of study is something Quebeckers care about. In fact, the Office de la protection du consommateur du Québec is responsible for some of the regulations. The Government of Quebec has already looked into the matter. I do think it's time for us to take on an initiative of this kind, so I commend my colleague Mr. Masse's initiative. It's very important.

However, I'm inclined to vote against the proposed amendment, for the following reason. As we've said before, time is getting tight. We may have to change our schedule if we want to do things properly. I'm wondering how we should do it. I'm not convinced that it's the right way to go introducing motions with a few days' notice, providing dates and saying that we must devote two meetings to it this week, next week or in two weeks. If we start operating this way, the deadlines will eventually pile up and it will be hard to control.

I'm opposed to the amendment for the following reason. I think that we will ultimately have to hold a subcommittee meeting to discuss the schedule, be honest with each other and agree on rules for carrying out our work. I'm open to that. I even think it's possible, depending on how our discussions go on Bill C‑27, that we will need a break to find solutions to certain issues. If so, this study could very well slip in as a solution, and even help us manage our time properly if we need to discuss Bill C‑27.

I really think we should have a subcommittee meeting in the near future to discuss the schedule. I don't want my colleague to think that I'm in no hurry to do the study he proposes in his motion. This is an important issue, but it's not appropriate to do it this way, squeeze it in on very short notice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I've just been listening to the debate here, and I tend to agree with Mr. Garon on this particular amendment. I think there's merit to Mr. Masse's motion. I think there's merit to this study. Predatory lending is something our government has put in budget 2024. Instalment loans, for example, are the second-highest form of debt Canadians have, and it's growing. We limited the maximum rate for charges. We also included financial literacy organizational funding in the last budget.

I'm really sorry the Conservatives didn't support that budget. I was on the finance committee when we had quite a lot of push-back from the Conservative Party, who didn't support those things, but it's good to hear they're changing their tune here today and are willing to support a study into this matter.

I think it would be great to work out the timeline and schedule at a subcommittee meeting. For that reason, it would be great not to adopt the amendment, so I will be voting against it. The study has merit, and I think we could work it into the schedule.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

Mr. Masse, the floor is yours.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate those sentiments, but I'm going to support the amendment because I want to get something going. I am listening to both my colleagues. I believe they both want to get this work done. I think the motion leaves the chair with discretion about the amount of time, how we will coordinate Bill C-27 and what happens next. I have total confidence in the chair's ability to judge that. I support the motion because it doesn't tell the chair specifically how many meetings, how much time and so forth, but basically he's going to get the airplane off the runway. That's the way I view it.

I really do respect what we've heard from my two previous colleagues about this. Sending it to committee is not to defer it. It is the usual practice for this. I would just rather deal with this right now than schedule another meeting with interpreters and all the different stuff that goes on, and then leave it in the chair's hands in terms of getting something going within the next couple of weeks.

You won't hear me complaining. I'm not expecting that meeting to circumvent everything else that's taking place here when we do get to Bill C-27 and try to deal with the tribunal issue, which I think is really important. If we can resolve that somehow at this table, then I think, quite frankly, we should split Bill C-27 and send the privacy component off to the Senate, and then decide on the other AI stuff as we go forward, so that we can get them working on this bill. That's just my personal preference right now.

I'm going to support the amendment, but it's because I think the amendment is crafted in a way that gives the chair the ability to do the necessary scheduling. That way, we won't deviate entirely from our duty here, and then at the same time we will at least show Canadians.... It will be interesting to see the reaction from the credit card industry once they know we're zeroing in on this issue. I'm sure there's going to be some activity right away. Ironically, I have a meeting coming up after this with the bankers. I see some nods here. They're lobbying on the Hill.

At any rate, I think that in itself is really important: that they know the Bloc Québécois, the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP are serious about consumer debt and what's taking place.

For those reasons, I'll support the amendment and leave it in your capable hands to determine how we proceed with the business at this table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Before I turn it over to MP Perkins, even though my opinion is of no importance because I just channel the will of the committee, whatever happens with the amendment, Mr. Masse, I'm very sympathetic to this motion. I think Mr. Garon's suggestion to use that study occasionally to fill in the gaps when we are at a dead end on Bill C-27 is useful. Whatever happens, I think we'll get it going sooner rather than later.

Mr. Perkins, go ahead.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The intent of the amendment to the motion was to give the chair the ability to pick. Obviously, the clerk and the table would need some time to get witnesses aligned with the start of the study. It gives that flexibility.

Given the record credit card debt rates and other debt rates Canadians are facing, this is an appropriate time for us to do it. Again, I will say I think this is real work, and I live in fear, Mr. Chair, that what we're going to have is another five meetings of Liberal filibustering on CPC-9. We're at an impasse on that right now, it seems. Many of us on this committee don't like the tribunal idea. Obviously, the government is sticking with it.

In the absence of the ability to solve that and avoid sitting here for another five meetings listening to a Liberal filibuster, the government can go off, try to figure out what it wants to do and come back with some sort of compromise. Otherwise, this bill is going to be stuck here for a long time, and we're going to be listening to a long filibuster.

There are significant things in this bill that are of importance, and there are significant changes that need to be made besides this particular issue, including concerns around clause 18 and legitimate interest, so we need to make sure that we're making the best use of the committee's time.

To me, right now, given the concerns of Canadians about the cost of living and debt levels, getting to this study right now is important. I think what we'll end up with if we relegate this, as MP Garon says, to the subcommittee is an impasse on the timing issue, and we'll end up debating this again at this committee, because I don't think four people on the subcommittee are going to.... I can pretty much predict how the votes are going to go.

We'd better resolve this issue about when we start this now and in this committee, which is the full committee, because it's going to end up here anyway.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Perkins.

I have no other speakers on the amendment proposed by Mr. Perkins, so I will call a vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

We're back to the main motion. I had on my list Monsieur Garon and then Mr. Turnbull.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've already spoken to the motion, so I won't repeat myself. It's an important issue. It's actually an important set of issues. Regardless of what my colleague Mr. Perkins says, I'm in favour of the motion. I think we should start this study soon. We've discussed it, and I think Mr. Masse understands that very well.

Having said that, I'd like to move a new amendment. The following would be added after item (f):

(g) Interchange fee practices and their impact on the viability of merchants and the prices charged to consumers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

Has your amendment been sent to the clerk?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I did it verbally.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Could you repeat the wording, please?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I'll read it again slowly:

(g) Interchange fee practices and their impact on the viability of merchants and the prices charged to consumers.

May I add something?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Yes, certainly.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I think it's fairly consensual. In between pre-budget consultations, the Retail Council of Canada told us about this issue.

The regulation of interchange fees falls under federal jurisdiction. These are the fees that the credit card companies charge merchants for the transactions they make. Obviously, this has an impact on the viability of small businesses. These fees are often very inconsistent and unfair. In addition, they are passed on to consumers, including those who do not use their credit cards, because these fees are part of the overall cost to businesses.

I know that Mr. Masse is very sensitive to this issue. In addition, Mr. Généreux alluded to it earlier. I think this part will fit very well into the text of the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Is there any discussion on the amendment proposed by Mr. Garon?

Is there unanimous consent to add proposed item (g)?

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

So we're back to the main motion as just amended.

Mr. Turnbull, you have the floor.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I have nothing further to say. Let's go to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Okay.

On the motion as amended, I don't think there is a need for a vote. I see there is unanimous consent among committee members.

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

Mr. Généreux, you have the floor.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Chair, I too would like to move a motion, notice of which was provided by Mr. Perkins on September 13:

That the committee invite the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry to appear before the committee for no less than two hours, within 14 days of the adoption of this motion, in relation to his priorities for the return of Parliament and his mandate.

We know that the minister hasn't come to see us for some time. In addition, all kinds of things happened during the summer. We need only think of all the investments the government has made in the battery industry, Northvolt being a significant part of that. In light of the current difficulties, it might be interesting to have an update from the minister on his overall mandate, as well as on his expectations regarding Bill C‑27.

Earlier, Mr. Masse said that one option to consider might be to split up Bill C‑27 and send part of it to the Senate for consideration as quickly as possible, to move things forward. Everyone agrees that it's important a bill gets passed on both privacy and artificial intelligence. So we'd like to know how the minister can help us move this very important bill forward.