Industry Committee on Nov. 4th, 2024

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you.

Look, I think it is curious that the federal government, for nine years, has not moved on things like interchange fees, that they didn't formally regulate that, that they haven't moved on open banking. I think there is a lot of curiosity about why the government hasn't moved more aggressively when our peer nations and peer jurisdictions already have. It's odd to me.

Then, on top of that, it's odd that the government would give $50 million to a massively profitable company, when they probably don't need to.

I think the timing is curious. I think the lack of regs, based on all of the testimony that we've heard to date on this study, is curious. I think this information may help us determine whether or not that curiosity is founded or not. A $50-million contribution to a large company like this is odd, especially when they were likely going to do this anyway.

After all of the testimony we've seen on this credit card study, there are a lot of questions that have been raised about why the federal Liberal government has not moved on certain issues. My colleague from the NDP, Mr. Masse, raised this study, which I think has brought up a lot of questions that it's incumbent upon this committee to answer. I feel as though getting a bit more background on the government's rationale and conversations on this contribution might shed light on the broader issue.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

I have no other...unless, Mr. Badawey...I don't think you wanted to speak. Okay, so we are done with speakers on the amendment. I suggest we put it to a vote. I think we've heard it all.

Madam Clerk, let's put the amendment that Mr. Masse has proposed, that you received, to a vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

That brings us to the motion as amended.

Mr. Arya, you have the floor.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

As I mentioned previously, if there is any prima facie evidence or suggestion that things were not done properly, that things were not done according to the standards set when awarding grants like this, we should not proceed.

Secondly, as Mr. Van Bynen said, we have to make extraordinary efforts to have leading-edge technologies be developed in Canada. The advantages we have as a country because of our natural resources are getting eroded in the knowledge-based economy.

We have to convince various companies in technology sectors to use Canada as the base for their innovation, for their research and development, so that Canada continues to remain at the forefront of this knowledge-based economy.

If we start indulging in the thing that this motion proposes, that will put Canada in an unfavourable position when it comes to major international companies considering investing in technological developments within Canada.

Mastercard, I believe, has invested this in Vancouver. For them, it's very easy to cross the border and reinvest the same thing in Seattle.

These are the kinds of opportunities I think we should.... In fact, we have to encourage more companies. We need more companies like Mastercard to invest in technological development within Canada.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Arya.

Ms. Rempel Garner, please go ahead.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Chair, I said my piece on the amendment. My comments stand.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Mr. Garon, you have the floor on the motion as amended.

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

I'm going to tell you out loud what I was going to say to Mr. Perkins privately, because it's public knowledge now anyway. I would have said it no matter what.

I don't think it's just a motion calling for the production of documents and other things. It's not just the fact that we are requesting documents because we want documents and have the right to request them.

I understand that this is Mastercard, and I agree that it is hardly in dire straits. However, when we start acting this way, without reasonable grounds to assume that something untoward happened, what message are we sending to businesses that invest in our regions and negotiate with the government? Some companies negotiate with the provincial governments, with Quebec, with the federal government, and so on. What message are we sending businesses that we'd like to attract here? I think it's important to think about that. I am not defending anyone, but that's why I am skeptical.

Now, I understand that the Conservatives' reasoning is once again to say that obviously, after nine years in power, the Liberals never regulated the matter, they brought in this centre and they ended up going with an agreement rather than a law. We've heard so much from the Conservatives about “after nine years” that it's almost become a children's song with the refrain “After nine years, la la la”. However, where will it end?

I'll give you an example. Today, the federal government announced a cap on industrial emissions that involves a mechanism. I haven't read the policy on that yet. Now that the government has announced its intention to cap industrial emissions by 2030, is it necessary for the next five or six years to monitor all the subsidies granted to all emitting industries in Canada? Does that mean that, if industries receive a subsidy, we're going to put them on trial to find out whether they received the subsidy in exchange for some policy? Do you see what I mean?

When you cast such a wide net, at some point, it borders on conspiracy, and that's what I have a problem with. I think that if we want to force a company or the government to produce these kinds of document, I don't see where it will stop. If our bar for requesting documents is this low, why not request data on all businesses in Canada using some kind of omnibus measure? It would be simpler.

Perhaps I've misunderstood the Conservatives' intention, but at this point, I am not convinced that what is proposed in this motion is in the public interest. I am not convinced that it will stop there and that this is the only time this will happen. For the time being, my opinion remains unchanged.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

Mr. Bachrach, over to you.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, members of the committee, for allowing me to join you on this interesting topic, one I'm somewhat new to.

I'm inclined to support the motion as amended. I don't think it has to do with any assertion that there's been impropriety on the part of the government in making this contribution. It's an interesting way to get to the bottom of this question of how the government decides certain contributions are necessary to attract investment, and what level of contribution is deemed necessary to keep those investments in Canada.

I think every dollar beyond the value required is a dollar wasted. It's a handout to profitable corporations that don't need public money. I think getting some insight into how the government made this particular decision, handing Mastercard $50 million, would be very useful, as mentioned by my Conservative colleague. If Mastercard is making similar investments in other jurisdictions without these kinds of handouts, this implies that those subsidies aren't required to attract that investment.

I think it's a topic worthy of inquiry. My colleague Mr. Garon raises a good point. The government makes many contributions at this level to corporations, and we can't dig into all of them, necessarily. However, let's dig into this one, because, on the surface at least, it seems like a lot of money is being giving to a credit card company. Perhaps this will provide some insight into how the government makes these kinds of decisions. Is there some sense of threshold or amount that the government is willing to invest in order to attract a few hundred jobs to Canada and $500 million in investment?

I'm inclined to support the motion, with the caveat that I take Mr. Garon's point. There isn't really a prima facie case that something improper has taken place, in terms of legal impropriety, as there are a lot of other contributions at this level. I think it would be worth getting some more insight into how the government made this decision and whether, indeed, it was necessary. Maybe Mastercard was going to set up shop in Vancouver, regardless of whether or not it got 50 million public dollars.

I'll leave it at that. I'm going to support the motion on behalf of my colleague Mr. Masse.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

Mr. Badawey, the floor is now yours.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll start off by saying this: Although I do support or appreciate a lot of the comments that are being made, including from Mr. Perkins, in terms of the amended motion, I want to make very clear that, first, the motion is being allowed because of the study that we're doing today on credit cards. It's being discussed because of that study.

Second, it's a study, Mr. Chairman, that is ongoing, in which I have a great deal of interest, especially as it relates to some of the points I'm about to make—for example, points and questions that we were expecting to have answered by the CFIB today.

Third is a point I want to underline in bold: It's a process in which, while we embark on this study and complete this study in the interests of the outcomes for the witnesses and additional witnesses that we'll receive, other directions can be taken, like the one Mr. Perkins is suggesting today.

To add to that, Mr. Chair, what I was very much interested in today from the CFIB—and I'm somewhat disappointed that we didn't have them for the rest of the meeting—was focusing on issues that impact our small businesses, issues that, quite frankly, I would assume that Mastercard will be embarking on with respect to its interests with small businesses and some of the dollars it receives from the federal government. These are dollars, I might add, that were applied for through a program. Let's face it; when dollars are applied for through a program, the matrix kicks in. If they are successful, it's based on the criteria they applied and how those criteria were applied, regardless of who they might be and what their balance sheet might say.

However, I want to kick back to some of the interest I had today. Unfortunately, I was unable to get those answers from the CFIB that pertain to what we're actually supposed to be discussing right now.

One area would be economic support and relief. With regard to this money, what specific measures would organizations like the CFIB believe would be most effective in helping small businesses and individuals recover from recent economic hardships, including inflation and interest rate hikes?

Another area would be workforce development and skills shortages. What would these dollars be going toward, in term of organizations like the CFIB, in order to address the skills gap within small businesses, and what support is available to help employers attract and retain talent?

A third area would be advocacy and policy priorities. What do some of these dollars go toward, or what would the CFIB or some of the witnesses today consider as a top priority in terms of their policies for the coming year? Are there any legislative changes that might come out of this process, these partnerships and these discussions in terms of advocating for and providing immediate relief for, again, small businesses and individuals?

Some comments were already made with respect to the digital transformation and innovation. How would some of this money attach to, and/or the witnesses give testimony for, support for small businesses in adopting digital tools and technology to stay competitive, especially given the rapid evolution of e-commerce and digital marketing?

There is also environmental and social responsibility in the context, Mr. Chairman, of sustainability. How do companies like Mastercard, or other companies that are part of this process with respect to this sector—the CFIB once again included, and other witnesses—support small businesses and Canadians in transitioning to greener practices? Are there specific resources or grants other than the one that Mastercard has received to help with sustainable transformations?

When it comes to health care and employee well-being, what are these partners' stances on expanding health care, benefits or mental health resources for small business employees, and how might this be achieved, Mr. Chairman?

There is supply chain resilience, which is my favourite. How are partners and, again, witnesses giving testimony in support of small businesses affected by supply chain disruptions, and what strategies do they recommend to improve resilience?

Mr. Chair, when it comes to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Give me one second, Mr. Badawey. There is a point of order.

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

It's just a time check. I think we have only three minutes left.

If the Liberals have finished talking, we can have a vote. If not, we'll have to deal with this again at the next meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I'm afraid it's not just the Liberals. I have Mr. Patzer and MP Rempel Garner on my list, but we are nearing—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I also want to be back on the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Turnbull's on the list.

As you know, the rules are made so that until we've exhausted the list of speakers—and I have a few Conservatives and a few Liberals—we can't put it to a vote.

That being said, it is 5:30. As interesting as your speech was, Mr. Badawey, we'll have to pick it up later on.

Colleagues, the meeting is adjourned.