Evidence of meeting #147 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 interac.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Yes. The clerk is distributing it right now.
It's 7:07, and this motion is going to take some time to deal with. If there are no objections, I will dismiss the witnesses.
Is there any objection to letting the witnesses go before we deal with this motion? We still have 20 minutes.
Do you want to ask questions?
Okay, we'll wait. I'm hopeful. Maybe it'll be quick with this motion, so bear with us for just a few more minutes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
The meeting is resumed.
We're still on Mr. Savard‑Tremblay's amendment, which everyone has heard.
Is there any discussion on the amendment?
Mr. Perkins, I think you wanted to speak.
Did you want to say a word on the amendment?
November 25th, 2024 / 7:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am supportive of this amendment, just from the understanding that generally, as parliamentarians, we can be trusted with parliamentary information that is shared with us. In this case, we're dealing with a privately owned company, which is different from the general government information that we would get.
I would accept this as a reasonable restriction.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
I'm looking around the table, and virtually as well, to see if there is unanimous consent for the amendment. I see that there is.
(Amendment agreed to)
Liberal
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I agree with what my colleague Mr. Perkins said. For the purpose of precedent, I will just remind colleagues that committees do have the ability to compel whatever documents they wish. That is a right afforded to us as parliamentarians, for good cause.
I would just suggest, Chair—I'm looking to my colleague from the Bloc and I'm fairly certain he'll agree to this—that perhaps we could take an hour and have an in camera committee discussion as well, resulting from a review of the documents.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Are you proposing an amendment to the motion, to add this?
Is it just an understanding with the committee that we will take that time?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Yes, I think that's a fair request. I don't see any objection around the table.
Is there any further discussion on the motion as amended? It doesn't look like it.
I don't think I need to put it to a vote, because I think there is unanimous consent.
I see that Mr. Masse, who's online, is okay with it. That's great.
(Motion agreed to)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
The motion is carried on time and on budget.
We still have 15 minutes left in the meeting.
Mr. Perkins, did you have any questions for the witnesses, or can we move on to the others?
Conservative
Liberal
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Okay, great.
I'll go back to you folks. Thanks for being here.
I understand that the conversation has kind of gone around. You had talked about your funding model, the amount of funding you get and the percentage of it that comes from banks or financial institutions.
I wanted to clarify, because I think it's important that we all understand that this doesn't mean that those banks are voluntarily funding your work. The Government of Canada has them bound within law to contribute to the consumer protection work that you do as a prudential supervisor.
Is that not correct?
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
It is similar to OSFI, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.
Liberal
Commissionner, Financial Consumer Agency of Canada
Yes, a very common model for the way to fund regulators is to have them regulated by the industry that they regulate.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
That's exactly what I was pointing to. This is a very common model, and I think that is important for us to understand here. There's not a conflict of interest per se, because they're bound.... If you said something they don't like, they couldn't withdraw funding from you. I think that's really important for us to be clear about.
Number two, I tend to agree with Mr. Perkins on the Interac fees—which is very unusual, by the way.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
With Interac having such a dominant position in the market, your disclosure requirements of their fees are not really giving any consumer choice. Certainly, people can be aware of what the fees are, which I think is fine. In essence, that could educate them enough to be able to make better choices, but there's no other option, or there aren't many other options. I realize that this isn't necessarily within your mandate. It's really within the Competition Bureau's mandate to look at that concentration and lack of competition, but would you agree at least that Interac has a very dominant position in the market?
