Debates of Nov. 14th, 2016

Second Reading

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we were elected on real change and real change means thinking outside the box and being innovative. I congratulate the hon. member on being the first female engineer in the House. I am the first pharmacist in the House. Scientifically through innovation, through infrastructure, I know that what we are doing right now is going to be historic and it is going to work for all Canadians.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have always believed that the single most important investment a nation can ever make is in learning. If we want to compete and thrive in the future, we need the smartest workforce on the planet.

Could the member take a few minutes to expand on some of these? In the budget, for example, we increased the grants for college and university students, and for kids going into the trades. We have doubled the summer employment program for jobs. He comes from a community which is strongly steeped in college and university traditions. Could he take a second—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We are running out of time at this point, so if we want him to answer, we will give him that chance right now.

The hon. member for Kitchener Centre, a very brief response, please.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is absolutely right. The next generation of Canadians will need the right tools. As he mentioned, the Canada summer jobs grant was doubled. We have invested $2 billion over the next three years in post-secondary institutions. We have also tried to ensure we have invested in infrastructure, public transit, and in other areas which will help the next generation of Canadians.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

International Trade

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, in my previous question I mentioned the Canadian Nurses Association visiting the trade committee and warning us that the investor-state dispute settlement provisions in the TPP and other agreements like CETA could block Canada from ever implementing pharmacare. The evidence is clear about these dangerous provisions.

There is growing resistance around the globe to the investor-state provisions that are part of trade agreements. These provisions allow foreign corporations to sue the federal government for legislation or regulation that protects things like public health. What the Canadian Nurses Association mentioned is a real threat. The ISDS or ICS, which we see in CETA, could make Canada a target for trying to legislate a pharmacare program.

Why do we need a secret tribunal where we can be sued when we have a progressive court system in Canada?

This is the same provision that we have in Chapter 11 of NAFTA, under which we have the distinction of being the most sued country. We have intimate experience with these cases and it has been negative. Why would we sign another agreement with these provisions?

CETA and TPP also include provisions to extend patents for name brand pharmaceuticals, which would delay the entry of generic alternatives, thereby driving up the cost of prescription drugs. The cost of medication is something that affects the health outcomes of everyone: seniors, youth, families, and communities. When people cannot afford their medication, they face tough choices like taking a full dose of medication or paying their hydro bill. If I were to ask the people of Essex if they wanted the government to take measures to make medication more affordable in Canada, they would all answer yes.

If we all agree that we need a form of pharmacare in Canada, then why would we sign a trade deal with a provision that would allow us to be sued for doing so? Does the minister feel this is in the best interests of Canadians?

Will the minister finally stand up for the interests of Canadians and reject this provision in all trade deals?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind hon. members that our government understands how important trade is to economic growth, as well as to a strong and prosperous middle class.

Canada's economic well-being is built on global trade. In fact, trade opens markets to Canadian goods and services, helps Canada's businesses expand, promotes innovation, strengthens our economy, and provides Canadians with trade opportunities around the world.

The government knows that it is essential to consult Canadians on the trans-Pacific partnership, the TPP. We promised Canadians that we would consult them in an open and transparent manner on the results of this agreement. That is what we are doing and what we will continue to do.

The government is taking note of the opinions and positions expressed during the consultations. It is clear that the TPP is looked upon favourably by Canadian businesses and industrial associations that are geared to export. Most of them consider the TPP to be an important opportunity to diversify Canadian trade and give Canadian exports more access to foreign markets.

However, other groups raised concerns, including a whole range of stakeholders in health care, who said they were concerned about the potential financial impact of certain requirements regarding pharmaceuticals. Furthermore, in addition to some 250 consultations with over 500 stakeholders across the country, town halls were organized in order to engage over 1,000 members of the general public.

Last week I was in the Northwest Territories specifically for the TPP consultations with a wide range of groups, including indigenous groups. Many other Canadians interested in this matter engaged directly to share their point of view, particularly through the TPP consultation website created by the government.

A broad cross-section of Canadians have been involved in these consultations. This includes provincial representatives, female entrepreneurs, innovation firms, farmers, the forestry and wood products sector, the fish and seafood sector, indigenous groups, environmental groups, small and medium-sized enterprises, labour unions, auto workers, auto parts manufacturers, port authorities, civil society organizations, academics, students, business leaders, and citizens.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade is currently conducting its own study on the impact of the TPP. The government will continue to support those efforts. We encourage Canadians to continue to share their opinions as we continue to assess Canada's potential participation in the TPP.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the previous Parliament, multiple Conservative MPs, including the then minister of trade, assured parliamentarians that CETA does not hinder Canada's ability to regulate and legislate in areas such as the environment, culture, safety, health, and conservation. If that is the case, why did the trade minister renegotiate CETA's ISDS measures? She makes the same claims today about ICS that the Conservatives made about ISDS. It all rings a little hollow, so which is it?

The Liberals like to have it both ways, but at the end of the day, there is nothing progressive about their trade agenda. It is just like the Conservatives'. Now that the Liberals have moved from opposition to government, gone are their concerns about the impact of trade deals on prescription drugs and on governments' abilities to regulate.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her questions and comments.

Canada is a trading nation and its economic growth is directly linked to international trade. Our government strongly supports free trade as a way to open new markets to Canadian goods and services, grow Canadian businesses, and create well-paying jobs for the middle class.

The different opinions that we have heard on the TPP show how important it is for the government to hold an open and transparent dialogue with Canadians on its possible participation in the TPP. No TPP countries have ratified the agreement yet. The Government of Canada has committed to consulting all Canadians, and it will continue to keep that promise.

Privacy

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to talk about cybersecurity. It is a question that I asked in the House of Commons with regard to a number of incidents that have taken place. Most specifically in that time frame, the University of Calgary paid a lump sum of $20,000 for a potential breach and BlackBerry came public and showed that it shared personal private emails with law enforcement agencies outside of Canada. I asked the public safety minister at that time what the Liberals were doing to protect Canadian privacy. The response was astounding. It was that they would leave it essentially to the courts.

The good thing is that there has been precedent-taking pressure on the government, and it actually did have a Security and Prosperity in the Digital Age consultation that took place on cybersecurity. The reality is that it is a sleeper issue that is significant in the Canadian economy relating to privacy, data sharing, and also a number of different economic issues that are at play.

It is not just personal privacy that is at play here. It is also, most important, very much a fluctuating element of the economy that is going to be discussed in the future. It is quite significant for even investment considerations. There were 178 million personal records exposed by data breaches in 2015, so we have almost 200 million data breaches there, and the cost from the breaches is rising from basically $400 billion in 2015 to $2.1 trillion by 2019 according to an estimate by Lloyds and Juniper Research on the global issues of cybersecurity. We are talking about a trillion-dollar issue for the global economy right now, and 43% of those data breaches were caused internally so we know there are also practices in the workplace that are very serious that need to be looked at.

There are a number of examples that I can point to that are very important to the data breaches, and then there is no reciprocity back to the consumer, back to the private citizen, back to the employer, and to the agency that is serious enough right now. Today, there is an exposure that the web-dating site FriendFinder actually had 400 million user accounts or 20 years of customer data leaked most recently. There was also an issue at the University of Ottawa where a ransom was paid for the potential exposure of data there. WikiLeaks notably is another issue most recently being claimed as part of the American electoral system. Ashley Madison, another dating site, was breached causing lots of concern over some individuals. Then we have LinkedIn as well, which had 167 million accounts that were attacked.

What we have asked for is specific updating of Canadian laws as we move more to the digital age. It is important. When we look at personal commerce, our personal email exchanges, and we look at the use of services, there is going to be some expectation of trust and privacy and protection by the user.

Consider the seriousness with which the Liberals should be taking this issue. We pay for the devices we use use, we pay for the services we are using, and we pay for the external type of activity that goes through our service provider. We should be provided with at least the opportunity of protection of services. BlackBerry, for example, exposing people's personal information and at the same time not respecting their rights as a consumer is one thing; then there are privacy acts altogether.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question regarding Canada’s privacy laws and the challenges faced by law enforcement in an era where communications technologies are changing rapidly. As the hon. member knows, these are important issues.

On the one hand, our law enforcement and national security agencies need to be able to collect information and evidence to investigate crimes and protect our national security. At the same time, we must ensure that the authorities that we give these agencies are consistent with our values and our rights and freedoms as set out in the charter.

As well, it is vitally important that the government work with the private sector to ensure that organizations take appropriate steps to protect the information that they receive from Canadians.

That is why the government has launched two sets of consultations. The first set of consultations on cybersecurity was launched on August 16. As hon. members know, the cybersecurity landscape is constantly evolving, and our government is committed to ensuring that Canada is an innovative leader in cybersecurity while also keeping Canadians safe online.

We heard from thousands of Canadians on the cyber security threat and how we can capitalize on the advantages of new technologies and the digital economy. That consultation wrapped up recently, and Public Safety is analyzing the many submissions.

The second set of consultations on national security was launched by both the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness on September 8. These consultations are an invaluable opportunity to engage Canadians on Canada's national security framework. They are an important step toward fulfilling this government's commitment to review Bill C-51, the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015.

As part of the consultations on national security, we have invited Canadians to provide feedback on a number of different issues, including how best to ensure that our law enforcement and national security agencies have the tools they need to protect Canadians while simultaneously ensuring that Canadians' rights, including privacy rights, are protected.

We are also inviting Canadians to provide their thoughts on how we can ensure that our national security agencies are accountable to Canadians, and a range of other issues.

We have already begun to make important changes in this regard with the introduction of Bill C-22, the national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians act. If passed, Bill C-22 would, for the first time, enable parliamentarians to meaningfully review the activities of our national security agencies.

The Government of Canada has two fundamental duties: to protect the safety and security of Canadians, and to uphold the Constitution to ensure that our laws respect the rights and personal freedoms we enjoy in this country.

I look forward to a diverse and vigorous debate on these issues. I hope that hon. members of this House will join Canadians in participating in these important consultations.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand here as a New Democrat. New Democrats have often brought truth to the powers that be, whether on climate change, on rights, or on a number of different things that have taken place in this chamber, and moved a number of causes. Cybersecurity, privacy rights, personal rights, and of course user rights are very important for our future.

I am not pleased to hear the response, in the sense that we know Bill C-51 has exposed so many Canadians to personal privacy data breach. Most recently, journalists have been spied on in our country, so we need this issue very sincerely looked at immediately. It needs to protect personal privacy and it needs to make sure there will be accountability to the government resources and those that expose or use the data.

Most important, it is part of our individual collective freedom in a civil society that we actually have the rights and our information protected at all times.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government has two fundamental duties—to protect the safety and security of Canadians and to uphold the Constitution while ensuring that our laws respect the rights and personal freedoms we enjoy in this country. Our government is committed to working with Canadians and the members of this House to ensure that we achieve this dual objective.

That is why we have launched the consultations on cybersecurity and national security. We hope that members of this House will join Canadians in participating in this unprecedented and long-overdue national discussion.

Consumer Protection

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have lost track of how many times I have risen in the House since I was first elected to debate this issue of great importance to our business men and women. I am talking about credit card merchant fees. I am delighted that the government seems to have appointed me the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance for the evening. His riding is next to mine. We can well imagine how proud the Mauricie region would be of its representatives if an answer that actually solves the problem for once were given in response to a simple, clear, and easy-to-understand question. No pressure, but I am expecting my colleague's best effort.

I will repeat the question that was asked in June. I was somewhat disappointed in the answer even though the question was very clear.

When will the government finally take action and cap credit card fees for our SMEs?

I will put the significance of this situation in context. In the last Parliament, the NDP moved a motion on exactly the same subject. Our motion had two very clear objectives. The first was to limit transaction fees and the second was to allow merchants to disclose to the consumer the transaction costs relating to the different credit cards in order to allow the consumer to make informed choices.

At the time, the Liberals indicated that they were entirely in favour of the motion. Allow me to quote the former member for York West who is now the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek, who said:

A voluntary code, authored by the Conservatives, was an inadequate attempt to ease concerns sparked by the entry of Visa and MasterCard into the debit and credit market. The Liberal caucus rightly feared that without enforcement tools, any code of conduct for debit and credit card companies would miss the mark.

I will mention just three little rules that are found in almost every contract between these two major credit card companies and every retailer, which clearly show how our retailers are shortchanged. There is the obligation to honour all kinds of credit cards. If you accept Visa, you must accept all Visa cards, regardless of the charges associated with each of these cards. Retailers are not allowed to charge additional fees for loyalty cards or to influence the consumer or inform them of the fees that the retailer has to swallow.

In the most recent bill, Bill C-29, which we are currently debating, once again there is nothing about capping credit card fees.

The Liberals have been in power for more than a year and even though they criticized the voluntary code and the measures implemented by the Conservatives, we are still at square one.

Therefore, I will ask the question again with the hope that I will get a better answer: when will the government finally take action to cap credit card fees for our small business owners?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I want to salute my colleague from Trois-Rivières. It is quite rare that two colleagues can have an almost private dialogue in the House of Commons. The Mauricie region is very well represented here this evening, of course; so, I salute the member, and he will be pleased to hear that I have a simple response to his simple question: we have already taken action.

The member raised an issue that is very important to small and medium-sized businesses and to everyone involved in bank transactions, and we have already taken action.

I will give my speech in both official languages, because this issue affects not only Mauricie and Quebec, but the entire country. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, I have had the opportunity and the privilege to meet many stakeholders from the business community, specifically to fully understand the situation. I am confident that the member for Trois-Rivières will be able to rest easy tonight knowing that we have given him a clear answer, because we have already taken action.

As I said, the government is making smart, necessary investments that will strengthen and support the middle class and those working hard to join it. As part of that support, we are guaranteeing a fair and open competitive marketplace for merchants and consumers across the country.

Trust in the soundness and smooth operation of the financial industry is crucial to ensuring that the economy runs smoothly for middle-class Canadians. On this side of the House, our primary objective is to always work for consumers, for Canada's middle class. Canadians expect their government to review and monitor the financial sector so that it remains stable, efficient, and attuned to their changing needs.

To that end, one of the steps the government has taken is on credit card fees. We heard from Canadians, and we acted. In November 2014, Visa and MasterCard made separate and voluntary commitments to reduce their fees, which are known in the industry as interchange fees. Interchange fees influence the cost of credit card acceptance for merchants.

Earlier this year, the government received independent audit findings that both Visa and MasterCard have met their respective commitments. This includes the reduction of interchange fees for small and medium-sized enterprises and charities. That is what small businesses expect of us, and that is what we have done.

To ensure that there is, in fact, adequate competition and transparency for Canadian businesses and consumers when it comes to the fees incurred when using credit cards, the government announced in September that it will conduct a further assessment of the fees set by credit card networks and will review the effects of the fee reductions.

Nearly two years ago, Visa and MasterCard separately committed to voluntarily reduce their credit card interchange fees. Their respective undertakings were to reduce their interchange fees to an average annual effective rate of 1.5% in each of the next five years. Those voluntary commitments took effect in April 2015.

In answer to my colleague from Trois-Rivières, I would say that we have already taken action. We announced that we are going to conduct a more in-depth study in order to better understand the ecosystem and then act accordingly. Canadian consumers will be our priority in whatever action we take. That is our goal. Every time we examine a measure, we assess whether it is in the best interests of Canadians. We will continue to do that.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, “study” and “ecosystem” are two words that we have been hearing out of the mouth of every government representative for almost a year now. It seems there is no end to the consultations, but action is not forthcoming.

I am sad to announce to my colleagues that I will be once again leaving the House feeling somewhat disappointed by my colleague's answer.

Last June, I asked a question because Walmart, which is not an SME, was threatening to stop accepting Visa cards in its stores. As we speak, in Alberta for instance, that policy has already begun to be implemented. Representatives of small businesses, SMEs, and convenience stores are lining up outside my riding office to tell me that the measures that the parliamentary secretary is telling us about are having no positive effects on their day-to-day operations.

When will the government adopt a legislative measure similar to the ones that exist in Australia or the European Union, where rates are capped at about 0.5% rather than 1.5%?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am certain that my colleague will go to bed a little happier this evening because he understands that the first thing that one must do is listen to the representatives. That is exactly what we are doing. We are listening to the retailers and those who are part of that ecosystem. We are listening in order to better respond.

When my colleague from Trois-Rivières goes to bed tonight, he will think about that. He will say to himself that the people who were consulted were very pleased that we took the time to really understand these measures. As my colleague from Trois-Rivières mentioned, some measures have been implemented by other countries, but their impact on consumers was different.

I can guarantee that people from the industry, small business people, and the representatives of national and provincial associations that represent small business people are pleased that we are taking the time to better understand things in order to act in the best interests of Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:59 p.m.)