House of Commons Hansard #160 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was housing.

Topics

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:50 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to speak about a matter that impacts thousands of Canadians every year. Alcohol impaired driving is an issue with devastating effects, and despite the overall decline in impaired driving rates over the past 30 years, drunk driving remains among the leading criminal causes of death in our country.

We can all agree on the need to decrease the number of drunk drivers on our roads and the devastation they cause, so I commend my colleague from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis for the good intentions, I believe, that underlie his bill. However, legislation addressing impaired driving must strike a balance between public safety on the one hand and our precious charter rights on the other. In my opinion, Bill C-226 tips the scale in the wrong direction.

Because Bill C-226 was submitted as a private member's bill, it did not have the kind of scrutiny that is provided by Department of Justice counsels. It did not have the constitutional review that normally occurs. As a result, it contains certain aspects that I do not believe would pass constitutional muster. I understand that view is shared by the committee that studied this bill earlier.

I will be speaking about its provisions for random breath testing, a practice with immense potential for abuse. I will also discuss the bill's excessively punitive mandatory minimum sentencing provisions.

Bill C-226 is an excessively reactive bill. It focuses on penalties as opposed to prevention. As such, it has a very limited scope for addressing impaired driving, and should not pass through the House.

Currently, under provincial laws, police are able to stop any vehicle on the road to check licencing and insurance. They cannot, however, request a breath sample unless they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the driver has alcohol in his or her body. Bill C-226 would introduce random breath testing to these stops, allowing police to ask any driver, at any time, to provide a breath sample at the side of the road. Simply put, this policy of random testing raises several significant constitutional issues.

Ms. Abby Deshman of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association testified at committee that random breath testing is an unjustifiable violation of section 8, arbitrary search and seizure, and section 9, arbitrary detention, of the charter.

We must also consider the strong precedent for policies of random selection to disproportionately affect visible minorities, including indigenous Canadians. My friend, Ms. Micheal Vonn of the BC Civil Liberties Association stated that there is considerable evidence in Canada of discriminatory policing, particularly based on race.

The disproportionate arrest and charging of visible minorities for cannabis offences demonstrates this point, and this fact alone should be grounds to reassess random breath testing as a just means of addressing the scourge of impaired driving.

The second point I wish to raise concerns the use of mandatory minimum penalties. Bill C-226 follows in the footsteps of the last government's failed tradition of mandatory minimums, which have high economic costs for the accused, the courts, and by extension, Canadian taxpayers. Mandatory minimums place undue burdens on the correctional system, clogging it with time-consuming cases that, due to minimum sentencing laws, result in excessive sentences. Bill C-226 would significantly increase both maximum and minimum penalties, as well as intensify sentences for repeat offenders.

However, one of the most troubling aspects concerns cases that involve multiple losses of life, where a judge could apply consecutive sentences, which would have a compounding effect. This means, for example, that with a mandatory minimum of five years for impaired driving causing death, one accident that tragically results in the deaths of more than one person would result in 10, 15, 20, or more years of mandatory jail time.

A sentence like this leaves little opportunity for rehabilitation or second chances. We need to recognize that these harsh policies do not increase public safety, they only put accused persons at increased risk of injustice. It has been proven time and time again that mandatory minimums simply do not lower the incentive for criminal activity, nor do they reduce crime rates. Harsher penalties are a reactive approach that do little to deter future criminal activities. They devalue the principles of judicial discretion, and force our judges to hand down costly and ineffective sentences that remove the opportunity for their independent thought that we expect of our judiciary.

Mandatory minimums fail to provide deterrents for crime, and instead sacrifice fairness and proportionality in favour of a one size fits all approach for our criminal justice system. This approach simply is ineffective. Abby Deshman went so far as to call it a failed public policy experiment. Under the Harper government, which championed mandatory minimums, there was actually an increase in impaired driving rates. Instead of focusing on longer sentences and measuring progress by how many years people serve in jail, we should concentrate on smarter deterrents and judge success through prevention instead of simply punishment.

Future legislation should consider options such as introducing a mandatory alcohol ignition interlock device in vehicles which would be a proactive solution to prevent drunk drivers from getting on the road in the first place. Legislation to reduce rates of impaired driving is greatly needed, but Bill C-226 takes the wrong approach.

We are now mere days away from the introduction of legislation to legalize cannabis. While alcohol impaired driving rates have been steadily decreasing over the past few decades, drug impaired driving is a growing issue across our country, and one that must be addressed as we take steps toward legalizing cannabis. The onus is now on the government to introduce comprehensive legislation addressing drug and alcohol impaired driving in a just manner. We need to look forward, through this legislation, to the most effective means of preventing impaired driving instead of a backward, and at best, punishing manner to deal with this problem.

As we parliamentarians have the responsibility to hold each bill that passes through the House up to the same rigorous standards, it is my judgment that Bill C-226 falls well short of the mark. I hope we can all agree to take an alternative approach to address impaired driving, and not proceed further with this bill.

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, I was not planning on speaking tonight, but after hearing the words of the parliamentary secretary, I felt it was necessary to respond to some of the things that were said.

I am very pleased to be supporting this initiative by my colleague. I spoke in favour of it at second reading. The arguments that are being used against this bill so badly miss the mark and yet more subtly reveal a very troubling attitude of the government and, unfortunately in this case even the NDP, toward private members' business and toward the way in which we should work together in this House.

It has been pointed out that this bill would make substantial changes to our legal framework. Well, I would like to see more private members' bills that make substantive changes. We have a lot of private members' bills that simply recognize things without changing laws, and that is okay, but let us celebrate the fact that a colleague actually took the time to have detailed legislation. That is what private members' business is for. It is the one avenue where individual members of Parliament can put their ideas before the House that reflect things that they are hearing.

It is not sufficient for a parliamentary secretary to say that this is complex so we need a government-led initiative. We are here representing our constituents. Individual members should use this channel for important, substantial proposals, and it is just not good enough to dismiss it that way. If the Liberals do not like it, they should argue against the substance of it, not simply say that they are going to come up with a government-led initiative later on. This is just disgusting, divisive partisanship. Members should argue against the bill if they do not like it, but they should not dismiss it on that basis.

The parliamentary secretary went through and identified all of the different positive aspects of this legislation without seeming to appreciate the fact that he could have proposed substantive amendments to the legislation, rather than just proposing that it be dismissed in its entirety.

Members of the government and of the NDP have argued against higher mandatory minimums. I only have 10 minutes, so I am not going to go into the mandatory minimums debate. I know it is a complex one. It speaks to deeper philosophical ideas about criminal justice, and yes, that is something addressed in this bill, but there is a critical part of this bill which is mandatory screening that is so important, that we know will save lives. If the government members have an issue with the mandatory minimums section, they could have proposed an amendment in committee, or they could propose a report stage amendment to strike the relevant clauses, but let us have the discussion. Let us move forward on mandatory screening.

Let us remember that this is something that was supported in a previous Parliament by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It recommended mandatory screening because that committee was able to, through its study, identify that this is an initiative that saves lives. We know that mandatory screening would save lives. We have seen the evidence from a wide variety of jurisdictions. This has been studied by various committees. Now let us move forward with this because we know the impact that it would have.

Going through the arguments that we have heard, it is unbelievable to me. The government said that the process for a government bill involves a more robust parliamentary record and this requires the involvement of government lawyers. There is the opportunity for all kinds of different people to provide that same kind of evidence through the parliamentary process envisioned and created by a private member's bill.

Let us remember also that the member proposing this is a former public safety minister. He is not somebody who is new to this House, although if he were, I still would say the member has a right to bring forward substantive legislation. He is a member who has experience in this area, who has worked with bureaucrats and public servants on these issues. He has more experience in cabinet and more experience directly being responsible for these files than the parliamentary secretary has, who denounced this bill with his mealy-mouthed bureaucratic words that do not actually deal with the substance of the legislation. Let us actually dig into this discussion. Let us actually talk about the bill and let us move it forward.

The best thing the government can come up with are these small, around-the-edges arguments, such as the coming-into-force date is too soon. Well, change the coming-into-force date if that is such a big problem. We are talking about legislation that all the evidence shows will save hundreds of lives. If the government's problem is the coming-into-force date and that is its basis for wanting to tear up an opposition private member's bill, I do not think that is the real reason. What we heard from the parliamentary secretary is that the Liberals are going to have a government-led initiative later on. If this is about taking the political credit for it, then this makes sense from the Liberals' way of thinking. They want to throw out an opposition bill so that they can bring forward government legislation. I do not care who gets the credit for this bill; let us just get it done.

The government has not proposed any legislation yet. If it was in such a hurry on this, if it thought mandatory screening was a good idea, it should have proposed legislation by now. If not, let us move forward with this bill. Let us expedite this bill. We will give the Liberals full credit for supporting this bill if they do the right thing. It is not about who gets the credit. This is too important. It does not matter if it is a government-led initiative or an initiative led by a private member. This is something that needs to get done, because it is going to save lives.

We heard an argument from the NDP that I want to address. My friend from Victoria expressed the concern that added police powers may have a negative impact on minority communities. These are concerns that need to be considered and taken seriously, but there is absolutely nothing about mandatory screening that in any way fundamentally affects those concerns one way or the other. There is the concern now of the possibility of profiling. There will also be a concern afterward about the possibility of profiling, but I would argue that we are better off, even on that score, under this legislation.

Right now, a person can only be legally asked for a Breathalyzer if an officer has a certain degree of suspicion. Is there a worry that certain perceptions, certain negative stereotypes, might inform whether officers think they have probable cause? There is that possibility, but if there is mandatory screening, and everyone who goes through a checkstop is screened, that actually creates a much greater level of equality. That creates an equal playing field. Notwithstanding the importance of those concerns and the need to discuss them in an ongoing way, this bill is actually a positive step with respect to those things. In any event, it certainly does not make things worse. Yes, we need to talk about concerns about profiling, but there is no way in which Bill C-226 changes those dynamics whatsoever.

These are just fundamentally bad arguments we are hearing from the other side, not just arguments I disagree with but poorly formed arguments that talk about issues that are completely unrelated to the substance of the issue. That the parliamentary secretary says the things he says is dismissive of the role of private members, of the legitimate channel of private members' business, and of the real experience of this private member, who is a former public safety minister. He understands these issues. The parliamentary secretary clearly is either not understanding the issues or is glued to talking points he has been given by the minister.

We have to move forward. Again, I do not care who takes the credit here. This is about lives. If there is a government-led initiative, it should have proposed it by now, and if there is not, let us move forward with a piece of legislation that is already on the table. Let us have a vote. I call on members of the government. Clearly, the cabinet members are not going to change their minds, but members of the government, members who have exercised their legitimate rights and independence before, have this opportunity to stand up for the legitimacy of using private members' business to make substantive legislative changes but also to stand up for a simple initiative that is constitutional. Peter Hogg says it is constitutional. It is effective, it is efficient, and we know it will save lives. When this measure comes to a vote, it is up to those members to decide whether we take the action we need to take or not, because lives will depend on how those members vote.

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:10 p.m.

Liberal

Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC

Madam Speaker, since I am the one who moved the motion before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security recommending that the House not continue the study of Bill C-226, I would like to submit my arguments to the House out of respect for my colleague, the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, and to inform the House of the debate that took place in committee.

Driving while under the influence of either drugs or alcohol is a serious problem. Road crash victims and public safety officers need our support. The provisions on impaired driving are the most frequently challenged provisions of the Criminal Code. We therefore need a robust and comprehensive plan to strike a balance between public safety and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The intent of Bill C-226 is very commendable. However, the bill's legal problems heavily outweigh its potential benefits. I want to talk about three problems with this bill.

First, there was the minimum sentences. The only group of witnesses who supports this measure in the bill is the group that helped the hon. member draft it. The other group that contributed to drafting the bill, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, testified against minimum sentences during review in committee. I would like to quote what some of the witnesses had to say about minimum sentences.

Andrew Murie, Chief Executive Officer at the National Office of Mothers Against Drunk Driving said:

We also base our whole organization on evidence and policy. We can't find any deterrent effect for minimum mandatory penalties. That's one. The other issue is that in our legal analysis we don't believe it would withstand a charter challenge.

Michael Spratt, from the Criminal Lawyers' Association, said, “there are sections of the bill that are unquestionably unconstitutional”.

Abby Deshman, from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said the following:

First, simply put, mandatory minimum sentences do not work. They are ineffective and unjust. Decades of research has clearly shown that stiffer penalties do not deter crime.

Lastly, Micheal Vonn, from the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, who was quoted by members across the way, said the following:

While failing to provide a benefit in deterrence, mandatory minimums create significant risk of harm. These include excessively punitive and unfair sentences....

The second problem is random breath testing, the centrepiece of this bill. There are two problems with this measure. We have no clear sense of what good it would do, and it, too, presents a constitutional risk. In most places where random breath testing has been introduced, there were few or no legislative measures to combat drunk driving beforehand. That was the case in Australia and Ireland, two countries that are mentioned frequently in random breath testing studies.

Here in Canada, we already have a system in place to combat drunk driving. We have all been stopped at roadblocks, and there is a legal framework in place for the use of Breathalyzers. That is why studies of the benefits of random breath testing are not really valid in the Canadian context. We do not know if this bill will have the intended effect because there are no studies that look into implementing random testing in places that already have measures to combat drunk driving.

In addition, what we need to remember about the studies in Australia and Ireland and the success of random breath testing is that it must be paired with a major education and awareness campaign. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the bill to address education and awareness.

One of the constitutional problems related to random breath testing is that it is not truly random. It is being referred to as “random” only because the word appears in one of the bill's headings. That same mistake was made in the Australian legislation, and we need to avoid repeating it here in Canada.

In fact, under the proposed system, police officers would have the power to stop anyone on the road and subject them to testing. I have a great deal of respect for our law enforcement bodies, but near-absolute power such as this only invites abuse. We need to find a real solution, testing that really would be random. For instance, one out of every ten vehicles could be selected, or a binary light system could be used that would translate into a truly random, and also potentially more dissuasive, measure.

Lastly, I want to comment on support for victims. The third reason we recommend not sending this bill to committee is that it contains nothing for victims.

ôWe heard one truly heartbreaking testimony during the course of our study. I want to thank Sheri Arsenault and Markita Kaulius from Families for Justice and Patricia Hynes-Coates from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who testified in committee. All three lost people near and dear to them to traffic accidents.

Ms. Arsenault, director of the Alberta chapter of Families for Justice, said:

Someone over there said that victims are given so little consideration, and that is very true. Offenders have every right in the world. They have a right to an expert defence. They have a right to appeal. The victim has one right. My one right is to prepare a victim impact statement and present it.

My colleague from Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel has very personal experience with this. I would like to take this moment to commend his daughters who, on behalf of the Government of Quebec, chair public consultations on road safety. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the bill to help the victims. I think it would have been useful to include measures against the phenomena of victimization during court testimony, for example.

In closing, since it was introduced as a private member's bill, it was not subject to the Department of Justice's examination under the Department of Justice Act in order to determine if it is consistent with the charter. The members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security would have liked to have had the chance to read the opinion on the constitutionality of Bill C-73, the version of the bill introduced when the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis was still the minister, but we were not able to access it.

Furthermore, with the exception of random breath testing, representatives of MADD told the committee that even if all these measures were found to be valid under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they would not have much of an impact on impaired driving and the resulting collisions, deaths, and injuries.

For all these reasons, I encourage the members to support the committee's report and not proceed further with the study of this bill.

Nevertheless, I would like to draw members' attention to one part of the report that we tabled. Even though we are proposing not to proceed with the study of Bill C-226, we recommend that the government introduce solid legislative measures in order to reduce the prevalence of impaired driving as quickly as possible.

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Is the House ready for the question?

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

All those opposed will please say nay.

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Public Safety and National SecurityCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

8:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to an order made on Monday, April 3, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 3, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

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

Natural ResourcesAdjournment Proceedings

8:20 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again on the issue of pipeline capacity in Canada. I asked this question way back in November, after the government had gone with its Goldilocks approach to approving one pipeline and denying another in the northern gateway pipeline.

That was the question I asked. The Prime Minister, in his comments at the press conference where he killed northern gateway, said that he would not accept any political arguments against the Trans Mountain pipeline, which was approved, but then based entirely on political arguments, he killed the northern gateway pipeline and the thousands of jobs that would have gone along with it. Why was the regulatory process that was so good for the Trans Mountain pipeline that allowed the government to approve it, so bad for northern gateway? Why did the government kill that pipeline and the thousands of the jobs that would have gone along with it?

Since that time, we have seen a degradation of the investment climate in the country, certainly in the energy sector. An article in the Calgary Herald on March 31 stated:

ConocoPhillips’ $17.7 billion selloff of most of its Canadian business to Cenovus Energy Inc. accelerates the Canadianization of the oilsands. This isn’t an international retreat any more, it is a vote of non-confidence in Canadian energy versus other opportunities.

It went on to say:

It was not the intention of Canadian policy makers to scare off so much foreign capital, yet they wear a big part of the blame because they made it harder to get anything done in the oilsands, by stretching out pipeline reviews, imposing carbon taxes, capping oilsands development.

That is exactly what has happened. We have seen a flight of foreign capital, foreign investment, from the oil sands just in the last number of weeks. Major companies like Statoil, Shell, and ConocoPhillips have abandoned the Canadian oil sands to the tune of tens of billions of dollars.

What does that mean? That means the recovery in the oil sands is more difficult. That means the hundreds of thousands of out-of-work energy workers are going to find it harder to get jobs in the energy sector in Alberta. We have seen again in the budget, which has been tabled since the question was asked, that the government went out of its way to kick the energy sector when it was down. It went out of its way to eliminate important incentives for oil and gas exploration. It went out of its way to kill exploration tax credits which helped drilling companies expand and hire Canadian workers. That is what this is all about, getting Canadian workers back on the job.

This decision to kill the northern gateway pipeline was not based on evidence, was not based on science, and was not based on anything other than the government's political ideology.

I hope we will not hear the same prepared talking points about all that the Liberals have done in one year compared to the previous government. They have done nothing but issue a press release. They have not built a single metre of pipeline on the Trans Mountain or Line 3 pipelines. I hope the prepared talking points from the parliamentary secretary will not simply repeat those talking points, but will say why the government killed the northern gateway pipeline and all the jobs that went along with it.

Natural ResourcesAdjournment Proceedings

8:25 p.m.

Northumberland—Peterborough South Ontario

Liberal

Kim Rudd LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House once again to debate these important issues with my colleagues, particularly the member for Chilliwack—Hope, natural resources critic for the official opposition.

However, I am surprised by the position of the member opposite. After all, we are acting, doing more in one year than the previous government did in a decade: protecting our oceans, pricing carbon pollution, and putting middle-class Canadians back to work by approving the pipelines we need to reach those new markets.

In November of last year, we announced our government's balanced approach to new pipelines. We approved the Trans Mountain expansion and Line 3 replacement pipelines, creating thousands of jobs, with almost 200 binding conditions to protect the environment.

We rejected the northern gateway project, and we announced a moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic along the northwest coast of B.C., and took action to protect our oceans. Our decisions were based on science, extensive consultations with Indigenous communities, and the best interests of Canadians. Decisions that balanced strong environmental protection will create thousands of good paying jobs and will help get our resources to market.

However, since our announcement, the official opposition has been erratic with its response. For example, compare what the member opposite has said to what his leader said after we announced our pipeline decisions. The response of the leader of the official opposition? She said that she did not feel optimistic. Why?

The first reason she gave was the 157 binding conditions attached to the approval of the Trans Mountain expansion, conditions designed to, among other things, ensure we protected our environment. She did not explain her cause for pessimism. Perhaps she does not support protecting the environment and our coastlines, or perhaps the party opposite thinks 157 conditions to protect the environment is too onerous for a pipeline operator.

Whatever the concern, it just does not square with the fact that the previous government imposed 202 conditions on the northern gateway project. The only members in this House who are not opposed to the northern gateway project are those seated immediately around the member for Chilliwack—Hope. Those members had their chance to build pipelines to tidewater but simply could not get it done.

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled against the northern gateway project because it found the previous government, his government, failed in its responsibility, in its duty, to consult Indigenous communities on the project.

As we have said time and time again, the Great Bear Rainforest is no place for a pipeline, and the Douglas Channel is no place for crude oil tankers. Those environmental concerns were central to our decisions, as were the findings of the ministerial panel report, the views of Indigenous communities and those of other Canadians.

Our government concluded the project was likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects that could not be justified. It was a good decision, a well-reasoned decision, and the right decision.

Natural ResourcesAdjournment Proceedings

8:25 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC

Madam Speaker, obviously the prepared remarks were too good to pass up. The 157 conditions the member spoke about and was so proud about were actually imposed by the National Energy Board when we were in government, and they embraced them wholeheartedly. Therefore, of course we supported that.

We also supported 31 aboriginal equity partners. They supported the northern gateway project because for the first time in Canadian history, they had secured an equity position in the pipeline, a 30% equity position that would bring $2 billion to their communities. What did the Liberals do? They threw it all away.

In an Order Paper question, I asked, “Did you consult with those 31 aboriginal equity partners?”. The Liberals said no, that they did not have to. They only talk to people when they want them to know. Therefore, when there are $2 billion for aboriginal communities on the table, the Liberals tear it out of their hands without a word of consultation. They should be ashamed of that decision.

Natural ResourcesAdjournment Proceedings

8:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kim Rudd Liberal Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON

Madam Speaker, our government is taking action to create the prosperity we seek while helping to protect the environment we cherish.

After the Conservatives' mandate of idle talk and empty promises, our government is making real progress. The Trans Mountain expansion and the Line 3 replacement pipelines will create 22,000 new jobs during their construction, and 440 ongoing jobs to operate them, good, well-paying jobs for Canadians.

We are protecting the Great Bear Rainforest, which is the world's largest intact temperate rainforest.

This is the sound decision-making Canadians want, a balanced approach that ensures Canada's energy industry remains a source of good, middle-class jobs, while continuing to tackle climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Canadians can be proud of the leadership role our government is taking. In fact, it is just what they elected us to do.

Consumer ProtectionAdjournment Proceedings

April 5th, 2017 / 8:30 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today about the dynamic, entrepreneurial culture we enjoy here in Canada. Small business is the real economic driver in our country. More than three-quarters of all new jobs across this land are created by small business. In fact, more than one-third of the GDP in our country comes from small business. One would think that with that kind of economic impact on our country, the government would listen to small business.

Small business owners have been asking the government to reduce and regulate credit card merchant fees. Why? It is because credit card merchant fees in Canada are among the highest in the world. Only the United States pays more. Other countries, such as Australia and the U.K., have regulated credit card merchant fees because they recognize that small business needs government support.

In 2013 the Competition Tribunal of Canada ruled that the fees charged by credit card companies were excessive, and the tribunal called on the government to regulate the industry. What is the government doing? The Liberal member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles introduced a private member's bill that would empower the Minister of Finance to limit credit card merchant fees, but the government keeps delaying debate on the bill. In fact, it is now eight times that debate on Bill C-236 has moved.

When I raised this issue in question period, the Minister of Finance said: “The previous government put in place an agreement with the credit card companies that we have reviewed. It appears to be working.” It is clear from his response that the minister and his Liberal government have no intention of bringing fairness and transparency to the payments industry in Canada.

Each month, small business owners review their credit card statements from the bank to see how much money they paid the bank for credit card transactions. Meanwhile, banks are enjoying record profits. This March the Bank of Montreal said it had made about $1.5 billion in the first quarter. Royal Bank profit is up 24%, at $3 billion, and CIBC profits were up 13%. Banks also compound the impact of merchant fees by relentlessly pushing consumers to use credit cards for their everyday purchases, enticing consumers with offers of double and triple reward points. Perhaps the Minister of Finance was referring to the banks when he said credit card merchant fees are working.

These merchant fees raise the price of goods for consumers and prevent small businesses from growing and creating jobs. Instead of paying these exorbitant fees, small business owners could and would use that money to pay higher wages and invest in innovation and recapitalization. The evidence is clear: credit card merchant fees are too high in Canada.

I urge the government to immediately move to cap credit card merchant fees to a reasonable rate. We must protect our small retailers. I will continue to press the government to live up to that responsibility.

Consumer ProtectionAdjournment Proceedings

8:30 p.m.

Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe New Brunswick

Liberal

Ginette Petitpas Taylor LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Courtenay—Alberni for his excellent question.

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 competitive marketplace for merchants and consumers. Trust in the soundness and smooth operation of the financial industry is crucial to ensuring that the economy runs smoothly for middle-class Canadians. 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 that our government has taken is on credit card fees.

In November 2014, Visa and MasterCard made separate and voluntary commitments to reduce their fees which are known in this industry as interchange fees. Interchange fees influence the cost of credit card acceptance for merchants. The commitments made explicit recognition that the reduction would be focused on small and medium-sized enterprises and charities. Their respective undertakings were to reduce their interchange fees to an average annual effective rate of 1.50% in each of the next five years. Those voluntary commitments took effect in April 2015.

The code of conduct, which was updated in 2015, includes a requirement that any interchange rate reductions be fully passed on to merchants, or merchants may cancel their contract without penalty.

Last year the government received independent audit findings that both Visa and MasterCard have met their respective commitments, which include reductions for small and medium-sized enterprises and charities.

In order to ensure that there is, in fact, adequate competition and transparency for Canadian businesses and consumers when it comes to the fees they incur when using credit cards, the government announced in September 2016 that it will conduct a further assessment of the fees charged by credit card networks and review the effects of the fee reductions.

The review that is currently being conducted will take into consideration the impact of recent developments, the adoption of the code of conduct for the credit and debit card industry in Canada, the financial sector framework objectives of competition and utility, as well as approaches in other jurisdictions.

Of course, the review will also take into account the recently received third-party verifications of the respective voluntary undertakings of Visa and MasterCard.

Department of Finance officials are currently undertaking consultations with various stakeholders as part of the assessment, including with small businesses.

Earlier this year, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and MasterCard announced an agreement that would help reduce the cost of credit card acceptance for CFIB members. This deal will provide relief for small businesses.

The government's continued oversight of the financial services sector aims to ensure that it remains stable and competitive, and that it meets the needs of consumers and businesses in a way that supports our belief that when we have an economy that works for the middle class, we have a country that works for everyone.

Consumer ProtectionAdjournment Proceedings

8:35 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Madam Speaker, voluntary is not good enough. Other countries have looked at it. They have studied the issues and determined that rates of 0.5% in Australia and 0.3% in the European Union are more appropriate.

Small business owners simply do not have the negotiating power of large multinational corporations like Walmart, which recently cut a deal with Visa to reduce its credit card bills. When MasterCard and Visa report to the federal government on the results of self-audits on voluntary reductions, the preferential fees that they are providing to large retailers are incorporated into their results. In other words, smaller businesses are subsidizing preferential deals for large multinationals.

Will the government take immediate action in support of small business or will it continue to allow the banks and the payment industry to gouge our middle-class job creators?

Consumer ProtectionAdjournment Proceedings

8:35 p.m.

Liberal

Ginette Petitpas Taylor Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Madam Speaker, the government is assessing the marketplace, taking into consideration the impact of Visa's and MasterCard's separate and voluntary fee reductions, the adoption of a code of conduct for the credit card and debit card industry in Canada, the financial sector framework objectives of competition and utility, as well as approaches in other jurisdictions.

The government's continued oversight of the financial services sector aims to ensure that it remains stable and competitive, and that it meets the needs of consumers and businesses in a way that supports our belief that when you have an economy that works for the middle class, you have a country that works for everyone.

Consumer ProtectionAdjournment Proceedings

8:40 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The hon. member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonteis not present to raise the matter for which adjournment notice has been given. Accordingly, the notice is deemed withdrawn.

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 8:40 p.m.)