Mr. Chair, the witness isn't answering my question, and he's wasting my speaking time, which I can't accept.
I'll ask my question again. I'm attacking no one; I'm trying to understand. I thought my Liberal colleague's question was fascinating. You can't say I'm being partisan.
As I understand it, the question concerned a case in which, for one reason or another, two customers used different credit cards, each of which was associated with a different rewards program. If the fees charged to the merchants are different, someone has to pay. It's asymmetrical because the fees will be charged to both customers, and the same price will appear on their bank statements whether they buy cotton candy or tires.
That brings me to the regressivity issue, and the Retail Council of Canada also discussed this. Ultimately, credit card users with lower incomes, who, in many instances, spend fewer nights at hotels, buy gasoline less frequently and collect fewer points, Bonusdollars and I don't know what else, implicitly pay for rich cardholders who enjoy more generous reward programs.
Are you opposed to having the amount of the fees billed to customers published?
Transparency is important when it comes to capitalism because it enables people to make decisions. When credit cards carry fees, merchants are able to pass those credit card user fees on to customers. The best reward programs come with higher rates.
If merchants told customers how much credit cards cost them and posted those amounts on the bills they submit to customers, wouldn't that make capitalism more efficient?