Evidence of meeting #144 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was savings.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
We're debating the amendment. I had a list for the motion before the amendment. I had MP Arya, MP Rempel Garner and Mr. Masse, who had to leave, but now we're on the amendment, so it's a new list, so to speak.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I thought Mr. Garon actually made some points that I agreed with, but I feel like this is a bit of a random selection of a company that's doing something that got a contribution that the Conservatives don't like, so they're bringing a motion to go on a fishing expedition to get as many documents as possible so they can bootstrap some narrative, like they usually do. That's fine; that's the intention of it. It's baked already right into the motion.
I understand that my colleague who's now not here, Brian Masse, tried to cleanse it of the very partisan language. I appreciate that to some degree, but I just think, is this what our committee becomes? We just randomly select a company that we don't like, and we do an investigation and order documents on everything about that company? Should we be looking into...? Do we all get to do that? Do we all just pick a random company? Is that the sort of thing that we do every week in this committee now—start investigations on any company that has a contribution of any kind we don't particularly like?
I think it just turns this committee into.... I know that Mr. Garon called it the kangaroo court in French, which I don't know how to say in French—I apologize—but I think it struck me that that's what this committee starts to become with that. I don't agree with this. I just don't think it's a good use of the committee's time. I think if there was a really good, strong rationale for why we're looking into this...but I haven't heard that from any of the members opposite.
I think it's just that the Conservatives want to do this. They're saying, this industry is profitable; therefore....
Who is it who benefits, by the way, from the work and the innovation done in terms of cybersecurity? Who is most vulnerable and at risk? It's seniors, right?
Our seniors, in my riding, are the ones who have said that they've been taken advantage of. They're the ones who are vulnerable and subject to fraud and online cybersecurity threats. I think this work really stands to benefit individuals who are using these payment processors and online tools. They're not necessarily always that savvy in terms of digital literacy, and we can't blame them for that. They're using the tools that our modern-day age offers them and that are the most convenient.
For me, this doesn't seem right. It doesn't seem like the thing that this committee should be spending its time on. We have multiple other studies we're undertaking that I think are a good use of this committee's time. I think we've come to agreements on those, where we've built some consensus around the agenda and the schedule at this committee, and I find that's very productive.
Then we get these one-off motions. Some of them are quite reasonable. We've said, okay, let's incorporate this into our schedule. This one, though, seems like a very partisan fishing expedition that just feels like it's a waste of a lot of time and resources. I'm not sure whether that's really the intention here. I don't want to presuppose, but I just don't feel like there's a really good, strong rationale for this.
I feel like we could do this on a whole host of companies. Just think about how many companies and initiatives are getting contributions from the federal government of some kind or another. Is it that we would investigate every single one of them, or is this one special for some reason? What's the rationale here? No one's provided a good rationale.
Thanks.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
As I have mentioned, MP Rempel Garner, we're on the amendment, so we're creating a new list for the amendment.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
I had you on the main motion, but if you want, I can add you to the list.
Okay. I have Mr. Patzer, Mr. Arya, Monsieur Garon and Madam Rempel Garner.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think Mr. Turnbull actually said it quite well right at the very end. Look at the number of people who are getting grants and contributions from this government. You wonder why it's scandal after scandal with these guys. You wonder why we're on the fourth week of the House of Commons being jammed up by the green slush fund issue here. It's on and on with these guys.
Of course, when we see this happening over and over again, I get people back home talking to me on a regular basis. I remember when this money first went out to Mastercard. At the time, I had a lot of people talk to me about why on earth they would be giving $50 million to a company that is as profitable and has as much money available to spend on things as Mastercard. There was the $12 million for refrigerators to Loblaws, which is a very profitable company as well and was going to make those changes itself anyway. It certainly did not need taxpayers' money in order to make those changes.
I think that gets to the heart of this. It is the fact that you have all this money going out to corporations and businesses that don't necessarily need it. It is the fact that they did not ask to have a repayment plan as part of the contribution. It is the fact that it was just a straight-up grant and not a loan. Those things speak to the issues here.
It leads you to wonder who on earth asked for this. Who initiated this? Did the government just blindly give them $50 million? When we had Mastercard witnesses here, they sure seemed to not want to say who initiated this or why they wanted the $50 million. They just kept talking about their investment in cybersecurity.
It leads one to wonder what the terms of the agreement were. What happened? That's what this motion gets to. I think it's a reasonable ask. It's not a fishing expedition. It's called accountability, given the large amount of money this government seems to be shovelling out so blindly.
It wouldn't surprise me if, next week, there's a whole other issue that comes up here that we're going to have to take a look at, because it happens over and over again with these guys. It never seems to end. They never seem to learn their lesson. I don't know.
That's the end of my comments.
November 4th, 2024 / 4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
I listened carefully to Mr. Perkins and Mr. Patzer. I did not hear any valid reason we should go ahead with it.
I completely agree with Mr. Garon. He put it so eloquently, as you said—it's a standard I could never achieve in my life—and every point he made is quite valid.
If there is any improper administration in giving this grant or support to Mastercard, or, for that matter, any other organization, I would certainly support looking into it in depth and finding out the truth about it, but it is just a matter of time and a waste of our time—the committee's time and the government's work.
The objective of this motion is probably to gum up the government's work and the bureaucrats' work, so that the government can't function. Maybe that is the objective, like what we see happening in the House of Commons. It's probably the same objective here.
Liberal
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Thank you, Mr Chair.
I'd like to welcome Mr. Bachrach, who has now joined us.
I was going to say that I am grateful to Mr. Masse for introducing the amendment. Mr. Masse is often a voice of reason on the committee. I certainly think his amendment seeks to improve the original motion. It is therefore hard to oppose it.
That said, the argument behind the motion is that the $50 million in subsidies given to Mastercard must be hiding something. What Mr. Perkins is implying is that he's trying to hone his arguments to explain why $50 million was given to Visa and Mastercard. He probably thinks that since the credit card companies had to incur costs to enter into the agreement, the government gave them a subsidy in exchange. I don't know whether this is true or not, since I wasn't there when the decision was made. According to him, it follows that we have to look into it because the government is corrupt.
It's no secret that I'm not a big fan of the Liberal government. However, the announcement of this investment of approximately $500 million, including a $49‑million subsidy, was made during the previous Parliament, in January 2020, when I was not yet an MP. Investing half a billion dollars is not the kind of thing that can be decided in a few seconds between Christmas and New Year's. That means that it was in the works in 2019, 2018, 2017 or earlier. Furthermore, after the investment was made and the subsidy was granted, it was announced that an agreement with Visa and Mastercard had been reached in 2023.
If someone can convince me that the $50‑million subsidy was used to reimburse Mastercard for the agreement, I am open to being swayed. However, according to the calendar, it's impossible. The agreement was reached by the current government in 2023, years after the project was set up in 2018, 2019 or 2020. It was not reached prepandemic.
I will therefore vote in favour of the amendment. I think it's appropriate, since it takes this idea of a people's court out of the motion. However, when it comes to the story I'm being told to encourage me to vote in favour of the motion, you'll have to do better than saying that the earth is flat and gravity no longer exists. If someone convinces me that the story is possible and plausible and does not defy the laws of physics, I may consider it. However, for the time being, I cannot believe, in my heart of hearts, that the story is remotely true.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Colleagues, we have the fiduciary responsibility as committee members to examine the government's expenditures. That's not a partisan thing. It's actually a privilege we have as members. In previous testimony, we did question Mastercard on why they needed $50 million from the federal government, when they are literally one of the most profitable companies in the world. Their profits come off, frankly, charging nearly usury rates to the average consumer.
Here we have federal tax dollars going to Mastercard, so there had better have been a good reason for that. As my colleagues have said, under testimony that reason wasn't particularly compelling. That lack of compellingness was something that transcended political boundaries.
Now, pardon me for being a skeptic when my colleague from the Liberal Party says, oh, no, no, it totally created jobs, and everything was on the up and up. There has been so much scandal in this government already. He said it himself in his comments that, wow, we couldn't possibly scrutinize every transaction. That's because there have been so many scandals.
Given that Mastercard.... It's Mastercard. The parliamentary secretary is defending Mastercard, giving $50 million to Mastercard. That's problem number one. If there's nothing to hide, then the amended motion should present no problems for the government.
I just want to underscore something for my colleagues in the Bloc and NDP as well. The government predicated its argument that it needed to give $50 million to Mastercard, one of the biggest and most profitable corporations in the world, on the fact that it was the only way they were going to open up a cybersecurity centre in Canada, but guess what? In May, in Belgium, what did Mastercard do? They opened up the exact same thing...without government handouts. Now, why is that? Why is that? Hmm. I would love to know.
Going back to the beginning of my speech here, colleagues, we have the right and responsibility to ask for documents—these are all government documents—on the rationale as to why the federal government, the federal bureaucracy, thought it was a great idea to give $50 million of tax dollars to one of the most profitable companies in the world. I think that is a great use of time. I really do. I would love to know the thinking behind this.
To the Liberal government, $50 million might not be a lot, but it's a lot to the people in my community. I would like to know why the government gave it to Mastercard.
Thank you.
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Something that we tend to overlook too easily is the fact that we're operating in a global marketplace. The fact that Mastercard also opened up a centre in Belgium tells me that they—
Liberal
Tony Van Bynen Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
I let you speak and I don't interrupt you, Michelle, so please don't interrupt me.
When we take a look at other centres being established, if that type of an incentive makes Canada an attractive place for the investment, then I think that's a good investment. In fact, it creates jobs for Canadians. It creates all sorts of benefits in terms of developing technology.
We find it all too easy to overlook that, just because of a ripe opportunity to smear success and to smear an organization that makes money. Are we going to smear General Motors? We did smear Chrysler, didn't we? Someone did, because of their success when they started to build a battery factory.
Are we going to focus on creating such a toxic environment for investment in Canada that people don't want to invest here? Are we going to create an environment where people would rather go elsewhere? To me, that's a shame.
The intent of the incentive was to create jobs in Canada and to create technology in Canada. We're not doing Canadians a service by dragging every investment through the mud for political purposes. It's just not productive and it's not the kind of thing that creates an environment in which people will be investing.
Money is liquid. It can go around the world in a flash. That's just one example.
We need to make sure that we create an environment that continues to be an attractive area to invest in.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
I understand that a lot has happened in Belgium. Our colleagues have told us about it. There was an investment. There is an analysis centre in Belgium. The intentions and strategy of Visa, Mastercard and others about where to locate a centre that serves all of North America fall partly under the heading of trade secrets and strategic decisions. Belgium, where Visa has set up its centre, clearly isn't next door to the United States.
That's the difficulty I have. It's always the same thing: There must be something dubious about it since it exists. The Conservatives' argument is that their job is to scrutinize spending. Since there was an expenditure and it was the Liberal government that made it, it must be shady, and it's shady because there was an expenditure. There's nothing like chasing your tail. That means that every time there is an expenditure, it will be shady because the Liberal government made it. At the end of the day, based on that argument, every expenditure will be dubious. They're going to chase their tail every time there's an expenditure.
Am I a big fan of the subsidy? I'll be honest with you: It remains to be analyzed. Do I think the committee should spend time on this issue, given the argument I've been handed to justify going after emails and so on? Has it convinced me so far? The more we talk, the more I think this is another fishing expedition.
I would point out to committee members that today, because of this, we had to ask people from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business—which has tens of thousands of members and was prepared to answer parliamentarians' questions—to leave the meeting. Other witnesses had to leave for the same reason. These people are right to be insulted, given the timing of the investment announcement and the subsequent agreements with Visa and Mastercard. If that's the reason they were dismissed, they're right.
I repeat that the amendment is fine. However, as long as I haven't been shown that there is sufficient reason to believe that the government could have technically bought its agreement with that $50 million, as long as it hasn't been proven that 2023 came before 2020—really, good luck—I am not going to vote in favour of the motion. Thank you.
Liberal
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I'm not defending Mastercard at all. I'm defending the project and the funding for the project. If this committee is going to scrutinize every R and D investment that the government has made.... I note that when Ms. Rempel Garner was the minister, she gave $300 million to SDTC, which is interesting.
For me, I don't hear the Conservatives wailing and upset when the federal government funds R and D for the oil and gas industry to do carbon capture, utilization and storage. They never make a peep—not a single sound—so the “why this, why now” I can only speculate has to do with their partisan games. Certainly, they're trying to weaponize this in some way, and I'm not exactly sure how it benefits them, but that seems to be the intent. It's baked right into the motion's partisan language, which has been cleansed a little bit, but I still think it's just a waste of resources.
I agree with my colleagues that this gums up the work of government and of making investments to attract Mastercard, in this case, to do their research and development and to innovate here in Canada. On cybersecurity, I note that in 2022, Canadians lost just over $530 million to fraud and cyber-schemes, which, according to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, is an increase from $338 million in 2021. That's a really significant jump in the amount of cybersecurity fraud that leads to direct losses from Canadians.
According to Jeff Horncastle, acting client and communications outreach officer for the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, this represents only the people who reported their losses. There are lots of people who would be embarrassed by having been subjected to one of these scams, such that there's severe under-reporting. He estimates the figures cover only up to 10% of the actual losses.
Here's the kicker for me. I know Mr. Garon cares about seniors. They also estimate that 20% of those people who reported losses were seniors. Just think about that: $530 million in fraud and cyber-schemes. That's more than.... We invested $50 million as a government to attract $510 million of Mastercard investment to protect Canadians against $530 million in fraud. To me, it suggests that perhaps there is a need for more cybersecurity and a focus on cybersecurity to protect our seniors.
I happen to think this investment is a good one. I don't see how it's a good use of our committee resources and time to go on a fishing expedition here. I totally get that the committee's and the opposition's jobs are to hold the government accountable. I get that, and we all have that power and ability, but this is just a random selection. I'm sure the Conservatives will come up with another one. If this one doesn't pass, they'll just have another one tomorrow or later this week; I'm sure they'll have another one. We see this repeatedly. I just think it's a waste of time and resources.
Thanks.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.
I have MP Rempel Garner next and then, finally, Mr. Badawey.
As a reminder to colleagues, we're still on the amendment.
Mr. Perkins, did you want to be added to the list?
