Debates of Nov. 7th, 2024

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 23(5) of the Auditor General Act, the fall 2024 reports of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), these reports are deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

Government Response to Petitions

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to three petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Hon. Murray Sinclair

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Minister of Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, November 4, Murray Sinclair passed away. Most Canadians will remember Murray as the chairperson for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which launched in 2009, and so they should. The work of the commission was monumental and profound. The commission, through Murray Sinclair's leadership, shone a light on the racist, colonial residential school system and all of its devastating effects, which indigenous people are still suffering through today. However, more than that, the final report of the commission offered solutions, calls to action, and those calls to action will guide Canada's reconciliation efforts for generations.

I remember Murray Sinclair from my time as a youth worker at the Ma Mawi Wi Chi Itata Centre in Winnipeg. Murray was the husband of Katherine, who played a leadership role in the management of the centre, and he would sometimes come around, mostly for social functions such as Christmas parties and other celebrations. He stood out. He was a first nations lawyer, and he was a damned good one.

I had a chance to connect with him on those occasions, and connect with people is what Murray Sinclair did, all people, especially young people. He connected with me on the importance of getting involved, of not being afraid to advocate for what one believes in and, most of all, of being proud of who one is and where one comes from. For a young, uneducated, poor Métis man in the mid-eighties, the example he set and the message he sent were extremely powerful.

Murray Sinclair would go on to serve as co-commissioner of the provincial aboriginal justice inquiry in the late eighties. The purpose of the inquiry was to examine the issues plaguing the relationship between the indigenous people of Manitoba and the justice system of Manitoba, including police services. It was there that Murray Sinclair really rose to the occasion. He played an incisive role, a crucial role, in shining a light on the racist policies of the Winnipeg Police Service and the Manitoba justice system. The inquiry shone an intense and powerful light on indigenous-police relations in the city of Winnipeg, and those issues are still around today.

Of course, Murray Sinclair played other very important roles in his legal career, which are too numerous to mention. He was also appointed a senator here in 2016 and served until 2021. It was during this period that we were able to connect again semi-regularly on the plane from Winnipeg to Ottawa or from Ottawa to Winnipeg, when I had the opportunity to sit beside him for a couple of hours. We had some intense, enlightening discussions on reconciliation, on Manitoba issues and on Canadian issues. It was a real privilege to walk to his office in East Block and consult with Senator Sinclair on a wide array of reconciliation issues. There was absolutely nobody more knowledgeable, kinder and wiser to chat with at that time. I will always cherish and always remember those times.

Finally, Murray Sinclair was my Facebook friend and my daughter's Facebook friend. It always warmed my heart when I read posts on my daughter's site encouraging her and telling her to be positive, whether it was on education issues, university issues or her days as an activist. Murray had the ability to connect with all people, not only on social media, of course, but in real life, and especially young people. He was positive. He encouraged people to get involved and try to make their communities a better place.

My absolute personal favourite is when Murray Sinclair would comment on my daughter's Facebook page about how precious and beautiful my granddaughter, Tennessee Bone, is. It warmed my heart because obviously it is true. He had an ability to connect.

Murray Sinclair, Mazina Giizhik, was an extraordinary leader. He was a teacher and a fighter for social justice, among many other things, which are too numerous to mention. He will be sorely missed.

Rest in peace, Murray.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of His Majesty's loyal opposition and the Conservative Party of Canada, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words in celebration of the remarkable life and achievements of a true champion of justice and reconciliation, the Hon. Murray Sinclair. As a distinguished lawyer, senator and the first indigenous person to serve as chief justice of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Murray Sinclair's journey is a testament to the power of resilience, advocacy and vision.

Born in 1951 in a small community of St. Peter's, Manitoba, Murray Sinclair faced the challenges of growing up as a member of the Selkirk First Nation. His early experiences instilled in him a profound understanding of the injustices faced by indigenous peoples in Canada. Rather than being deterred, he channelled his experiences into a lifelong commitment to advocacy and change.

Murray Sinclair's educational path was nothing short of inspiring. He obtained his law degree from the University of Manitoba in 1979, becoming one of the first indigenous lawyers in Canada. His legal career quickly flourished, marked by significant roles that would shape his legacy. As a founding member of the aboriginal justice inquiry of Manitoba, he laid the groundwork for crucial discussions about justice reform and the need for a system that respects indigenous rights.

However, it was his role as the chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that truly brought him to the forefront of the national consciousness. Appointed in 2009, he led the commission with grace and determination, guiding the nation through the painful history of residential schools. The TRC's report, released in 2015, provided not only a comprehensive account of the injustices faced by indigenous children, but also a road map for reconciliation, one that calls for understanding, respect and the restoration of relationships.

Murray Sinclair's work has had a profound impact on countless lives. His tireless advocacy for education, justice, and health equality for indigenous peoples has inspired a new generation of leaders. As he stated, “Education is the key to reconciliation” and “Education got us into this mess and education will get us out of it.” He has challenged Canadians to confront their history, embrace the truth and work together toward a more inclusive future.

As a senator appointed in 2016, Justice Sinclair continued to champion indigenous rights and issues, ensuring that the voices of indigenous people were heard in the highest halls of power. His legislative efforts have sought to address systemic inequalities and promote the policies that foster genuine reconciliation.

Beyond his formal roles, Murray Sinclair has been a mentor, role model and beacon of hope to many. His words have resonated with many. He has encouraged all Canadians to engage in learning about indigenous cultures, history and rights, reminding us that understanding is the first step toward healing.

Today, as we reflect on Murray Sinclair's incredible contributions, let us not only honour his legacy, but also commit ourselves to the principles that he has championed over his lifetime. Let us strive for a Canada where respect, understanding and reconciliation are at the heart of the national identity.

Of course, the accolades have been flowing in. Here are just a few of the reflections on the life and contributions of Murray Sinclair as others saw him.

Governor General Mary Simon said, “We are deeply saddened by the loss of a friend and prominent leader in Canada who championed human rights, justice and truth”.

The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs said that Murray Sinclair “broke barriers and inspired countless individuals to pursue reform and justice with courage and determination.”

Winnipeg's mayor, Scott Gillingham, called Sinclair a true “leader in justice, reconciliation, and education.” He also said, “His passing feels especially sad because the journey he started is still ongoing, with much work ahead.”

The Southern Chiefs' Organization of Manitoba said this of the hon. senator:

Murray was a beloved father and grandfather, husband, friend and colleague. On behalf of SCO, we extend our deepest heartfelt condolences to the loved ones of the Honourable Murray Sinclair, and the many who will mourn his loss.

We wish him a safe journey to the Spirit World.

Manitoba's Lieutenant-Governor, Anita R. Neville, stated:

A true visionary leader and a man for all people, the impact of his work will continue to create positive change that will resonate throughout Canada and the world for generations to come.

He was pure of heart, an inspiration, a trusted friend.

In closing, I would like to express our deep gratitude to the hon. Murray Sinclair for his unwavering dedication, his wisdom and his profound humanity.

I also wish to extend condolences to his family and friends.

May he rest in peace.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we mourn the passing of the Hon. Murray Sinclair on Monday, November 4. This former lawyer, judge and senator was best known for his role as the chair of Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

After graduating from law school in 1979, the Hon. Murray Sinclair was called to the Manitoba Bar in 1980 and went on to become Manitoba's first indigenous judge, appointed in 1988. He was then called to sit on the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, the province's highest trial court, in 2001.

While law was at the heart of his professional career, it was his work defending the interests and values of the Anishinabe people, his people, that earned him a place in history. In 1988, he co-chaired the Public Inquiry into the Administration of Justice and Aboriginal People in Manitoba. More importantly, in 2009, after initially refusing, he agreed to chair Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. He was eventually called to serve in the Senate of Canada on April 2, 2016, until his retirement on January 31, 2021.

On December 29, 2021, he was made a Companion of the Order of Canada in recognition of his expertise in indigenous rights and his efforts to foster reconciliation between Canada's indigenous and non-indigenous peoples.

Murray Sinclair, whose Anishinaabe name was Mazina Giizhik, held a place of honour in the indigenous community. Tributes are pouring in from across the country, mourning his loss and praising his life. He is being called a mentor, a guide, a champion and a kind-hearted giant, but he also a person who would confront people and light our path through the darkness. He was clearly a man of significance. I did not have the privilege of knowing him, but had I had that chance, I would have found it an honour and a pleasure. The indigenous community and politicians of all stripes are paying tribute to him today, and a well-earned tribute at that.

Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, the chief of the Assembly of First Nations, says that she has lost a guide and a mentor, adding that he was born at a time when first nations members did not have the right to vote. He rose to become one of the most decorated and influential figures in the field of justice and defence of the rights of indigenous peoples.

Inuit Senator Michèle Audette said, “he was always present. Even when he was ill and not doing well, he made himself available to coach me. He was a mentor until his last breath, and that was so valuable to me.” Betsy Kennedy, acting grand chief of Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, said, “today, we mourn the loss of a hero whose vision and leadership continue to guide us forward. The Honourable Murray Sinclair’s tireless commitment to justice and truth has left a permanent mark on our nations and communities, and we carry his light as we strive for the betterment of our Nations.”

Lastly, former federal justice minister Jody Wilson‑Raybould mourned the passing of her “mentor, friend and colleague”, adding, “I will always cherish his wisdom and celebrate his distinct contributions to Indigenous peoples and to Canada.”

Speaking for myself and the Bloc Québécois, today I salute this great man and offer our sincerest condolences to his family, to his friends and to all the peoples that comprise the great First Nations.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to speak on behalf of the NDP to honour a great human being, Murray Sinclair, a mentor and a hero who had a profoundly kind and wise ability to cut through colonial noise to shine the truth on Canada's colonial history. This was a daunting task at a time where there was growing denialism about the horrors and genocide that occurred at the residential schools. He listened to the stories and internalized and carried the pain of thousands of survivors, defending and honouring their truths, which he shared with the rest of the world.

He knew that reconciliation and the decolonization of Canada would be met with obstacles, yet he never quit moving forward to help everyone across Canada to develop a collective understanding of truth, calling out those in power to act and to reflect to ensure that truth would shine through the darkness. As he stated in an interview with Brett Forester in January 2021:

The people who believe that they have the privilege of holding power and should continue to have that privilege, they’re going to push back.... They’re going to fight against reconciliation. They’re the deniers of this story. They’re going to say this never happened. That the schools were all about education and the Indians should be thankful that they got an education.

He went on to say, “Schools were never about education, schools were always about forced assimilation and indoctrination, and we need to call it for what it is.”

He persisted in his calls for us to do better, to reflect on how our need to protect our own privilege and power impeded our ability to reconcile in this country. He did it in such a way as to help build a collective understanding of the colonization of Canada. I am truly grateful to him for his strength to share truth, especially for survivors who continue to suffer in silence as a result of the abuses they experienced in the schools.

He gifted Canada with a path through 94 calls to action to lead towards reconciliation. We have that path forward, which he provided to us based on the gifts of stories provided by survivors. It is now up to us to honour his legacy by taking actions that will lead to reconciliation.

In addition to his role as the chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, he served in many prominent roles, including sitting on the Canadian Senate and as the co-commissioner of the aboriginal justice inquiry, a public inquiry commissioned by the Manitoba government to explore the failure of the justice system regarding the murder of Helen Betty Osborne and the death of J. J. Harper. In his role as co-commissioner, he revealed, unapologetically, the systemic racism within the Manitoba justice system and provided a path forward to improve its relationship with indigenous peoples, something that has never been actualized and something he never stopped fighting for.

In 2021, after the killing of Eishia Hudson, a 17-year-old indigenous girl, at the hands of the Winnipeg city police, he called out the independent investigation unit on its lack of transparency regarding police misconduct, stating:

I don't have a lot of faith in the Independent Investigation Unit that's in place right now to look into police officer conduct.

I can't think of an instance where they've truly done a transparent thorough investigation that has convinced me…that their decision is the right one in the circumstances.

He was a model of courage and truth-telling and he was a role model to me, reminding me to always be truthful even in the face of adversity, to lead with humility and kindness and to not attach myself to power and privilege, instead to support a collective effort to fight for a better world for all people.

He was a human rights defender whom I personally had the honour to know, both him and his family. He was always a truly humble and kind man who always took time to make sure anyone he spoke to felt special, including me. Sometimes when I was around him and he would ask me how I was doing and I would fill him in, I really felt he was proud of me. That meant a lot to me. That is a rare gift, and one that he had.

He had a way of making everyone he met feel special and loved. He was a tremendous listener and protector. It felt a little safer in the world knowing that this wonderfully kind and brilliant human had my back.

We have lost our Martin Luther King. He changed the world one truth at a time and brought everyone along with him. I know that many of us in our community are hurting with tremendous grief, and we must take the lessons that he taught us and honour him through action.

I am thankful to his family for sharing him with us. As a public servant, I know that service comes at great cost to families and children. I want them to know that I am here for them during this time of need.

I love my brother Niigaan. I will be here for him like he has always been here for me, because like his father, Niigaan is truly a gift to the world.

On behalf of the NDP, I send my deepest condolences to the family of the hon. Murray Sinclair. May he fly high with our ancestors until we meet again.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank all members for their touching testimonials to such a great and important Canadian.

I wish to inform the House that, because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 24 minutes.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 28th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, entitled “A New Era of Partnerships: Canada's Engagement with Africa”. I would like to thank all members of the committee for their hard work and contributions to the report.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting two reports today. First, I have the honour of presenting, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “Certificate of Nomination of Caroline Maynard to the Position of Information Commissioner”.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “Certificate of Nomination of Nancy Bélanger to the Position of Commissioner of Lobbying”.

On behalf of the committee, I want to thank both Madame Bélanger and Madame Maynard for the incredible work they have been doing over the past seven years, sometimes frustrating, but I have the utmost confidence, as does the committee, that they will continue to do great work on behalf of Parliament and on behalf of Canadians.

Public Safety and National Security

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to the motion adopted on Tuesday, November 5 regarding a question of privilege concerning the refusal to respond to questions by Ms. Lauren Chen.

Industry and Technology

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, presented on Friday, November 1, be concurred in.

The reason why I am proposing this motion today is in response to an interim report on a committee study that the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology is undertaking right now. The motion that precipitated this within the committee read, “Following testimony from banking executives” the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology encourages “the Competition Bureau...to investigate potential anti-competitive behaviour in Canada’s e-Transfer ecosystem, and if deemed necessary, the broader electronic payments industry in general.”

For members of the House, this report is encouraging the Competition Bureau to look into what we believe, and this was a unanimous report at committee, to be a flagrant abuse of Canada's anti-competition laws and, frankly, a flagrant abuse of any sort of spirit of wanting to see productivity in the Canadian economy, because this issue impacts the payments industry in such a broad way. This may be a technical topic for some, but I will try to summarize it briefly.

Over 88% of Canadians use something called e-transfers. I guarantee that everybody in here has done this at some point in time. When we want to send money to, let us say, a pet sitter or if we are paying rent to our landlord, we would execute an e-transfer and that is where our money would go.

The key player in this space, the key facilitator of e-transfers in Canada, a dominant player as we heard from banking executives at the committee, is Interac. Interac is an association that is, for all intents and purposes, owned by the big banks in Canada.

This is how it works. Interac charges a fee to financial institutions, banks, for facilitating these e-transfers. What colleagues and I heard anecdotally was that there was a significant difference in the fees that were charged to big banks by Interac as opposed to smaller financial institutions. Smaller institutions were paying around the neighbourhood of 46¢ per transaction while big banks were paying 6¢.

What does that mean? It means that the big banks have a competitive advantage over smaller financial institutions. First, it is more difficult for smaller financial institutions to be competitive in this space. Second, it also allows bigger banks to make more profit off Canadian consumers.

Some Canadian consumers will say that they do not pay anything for e-transfers, but the reality is that anybody who is interacting with a bank in Canada is likely paying a significant annual fee or a hidden fee to have the privilege of banking in Canada, and there are situations where customers might go over even what is included in those plans. For e-transfers, the fees can range from $1 to $1.50, and there are billions of e-transers a year. If we start doing the math on how much big banks are making compared to smaller banks on the price differential in that volume-based pricing system, if we then start thinking about how much more those big banks are making off their customer fees than smaller institutions are and if we start thinking about how much fees customers are paying just in general, does it not look a little sketchy?

That is what we were concerned about in the committee. Our concerns were validated, and for me as a parliamentarian, by shocking testimony from a banking executive, who also sits on Interac's board. This person was clearly not prepared for these questions, but he did admit to the fact that this volume-based pricing system, which we had heard about anecdotally, did exist. That is highly problematic. The committee did pass a motion, an interim report, to encourage the Competition Bureau, which is an independent body, to look into this based on the testimony we heard.

I will be splitting, Mr. Speaker, my my time with a member for Simcoe North.

Why is this important? This is not just important from the perspective of smaller financial institutions being unable to be competitive with larger banks, which I believe is the case. It is also a matter of new and potentially emerging technologies that could lower fees for customers and for financial institutions entering the market. That is because Interac is essentially owned by the big banks.

If we look at Interact's website, we will see that the big banks nominate people to sit on their boards. They have essentially a controlling interest in Interac. Of course, they are going to ensure that new players, where they can within the competition law or the government refusing to act, they are going to try to squeeze profit out of this arrangement. They essentially have created a stranglehold on the e-transfer market.

I want to note something for colleagues, because this is kind of a niche topic. When we think about the ripple effect it has across the economy, it is pretty big. It is not just e-transfers; it is also the payments industry writ large. We know that, for example, the government did not regulate this, although it could have regulated it like other jurisdictions by putting a cap on what we call interchange fees for credit cards. Instead of doing that, it came up with a voluntary agreement with Visa and Mastercard. The fees are still much higher than other jurisdictions, like in the European Union. The government also did not ensure that those savings would be passed to small business. It actually did nothing. Now we have payment processors like Stripe, and Mark Carney, the Liberal's senior economic adviser, is on the board of directors, being accused of hoarding those savings. They basically admitted in testimony at our committee. There is a whole competitive issue in the payments industry.

However, I want to highlight for colleagues why we should be encouraging the Competition Bureau to look into this.

Across the world, there are more modern payment systems. I am looking at Swish in Sweden,; FPS in the U.K.; UPI in India; and Pix in Brazil. These are all processors that facilitate e-transfers, but they do it in a way that is much more efficient and probably at a lower cost than Interact. For example, with Interac, it takes minutes to hours for that transaction to complete. All of us have been in a situation where we have asked someone if a transfer went through.

For the competitors with new and modern technology, the transfers almost happen instantly or within seconds. Customer fees are also way lower. They are almost negligible with some of the competitors. Interac has relatively low limits on what can go through in an e-transfer, whereas competitors can facilitate much larger transfers. These competitors, which we are not allowing into our market, might have more modern security, and we know that they have more modern security protocols.

There are competitors around the world that can make our economy more competitive by producing a competitive landscape in which e-transfer fees could be lower. They could be lower for our financial institutions. We could perhaps have more competition in our financial institutions. However, because of the way Interac is structured and governed and because of this volume-based pricing scale that it has for e-transfers, it creates a non-competitive environment for innovation for our competitors to enter, and that is wrong.

This is why this motion is here today. I hope the House, across all political stripes, will encourage and ensure that the Competition Bureau looks into this, given the massive economic impact. There is probably a lot more information that the industry committee needs to look into. This is a huge issue. The federal government committed to lowering bank fees for Canadians. It has not done that. When we are talking about productivity, this is a huge problem for the Canadian economy. It is also a problem for the fintech sector with regard to entering into rent-seeking, inflexible places that have pushed out innovation for many years. I also think the industry committee should be looking more into this, but I encourage colleagues to support this motion.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what we should be talking about in the House of Commons, which is ways to help save our constituents money. This is a great idea.

I am really proud of the fact that recently our government cut Visa and Mastercard transaction fees by 26% for small businesses. That is money small businesses can reinvest back into their communities or businesses. They can sponsor a soccer team. They can even hire a staff member, in many cases.

When I send an e-transfer, I know there is no cost to me, but there are hidden charges. Our government committed in budget 2024 to eliminate all junk fees at banks, and I wonder if that would apply. I would note that the member did not mentioned Venmo, and perhaps there is a reason for that. Venmo is very popular in the United States, but we cannot use it in Canada. I wonder if there was a reason for omitting it today.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I need to clarify that in the deal the government came up with for Visa and Mastercard, there was no requirement for payment processors like Stripe to pass the savings along to small businesses. Advocacy groups have pointed out that these payment processors are actually hoarding these fees. Therefore, the government probably should have some sort of formal regulation to ensure that this situation is not happening.

Second, I need to point out and re-emphasize that Canadians do pay for e-transfer fees. They pay for it one way or the other, such as very high banking fees.

Third, even though the government has had nine years, it has not moved on these junk fees or done anything materially to allow for more competition in the banking industry. We are behind other jurisdictions in allowing for innovation in financial services writ large.

However, my colleague mentioned a company, and this is why the wording of the motion was broad. We are encouraging the competition commissioner to look at the payment system writ large. The spirit of the motion today is to say that there needs to be cross-partisan agreement that our banking system is outdated, that it is controlled by a few big players and that Canadians, be it individual consumers, companies or whatnot, are suffering because of it.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, despite all the partisanship in the House, I enjoy being able to find common ground, which is why I particularly enjoyed the comments of my comrade, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, who talked about rent-seeking. The member would know that rent-seeking is the practice of manipulating public policy or economic conditions to produce profit, and we know that comes at the cost of consumers.

I would invite my comrade from Calgary Nose Hill, with great socialist rhetoric, to please further expand on why rent-seeking in a crony capitalist economy only impacts and further harms consumers.

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

Mr. Speaker, much to the chagrin of my colleague, I have to point out that the way government pays for social programs is through taxes, and taxes are only created by the private sector and by Canadians who work and create revenue for the government. Money does not grow on trees. The socialist rhetoric that ignores that fact is magical fantasyland.

The government has put regulations in place that are perhaps out of date or just do not reflect modern reality. When those regulations, or lack thereof, stifle competition in a free market system, we end up with oligopolies or monopolies. That ends up subjugating people, or preventing innovation or making people pay more. That is why we need to ensure we have competition in these sectors, and there are a lot of sectors in Canada that do not have competition right now, be it the telecom sector or banks. I could go on.

There needs to be cross-political alignment on the fact that if we are to talk about increasing productivity and economic growth so that the government can have sustainable social programs, we need more competition. This motion today deals with one sector of it, but I hope that there is cross-partisan agreement in this place that if a monopoly is used to profiting off of rent-seeking policies that make life unaffordable for Canadians and prevent innovation, its time is up.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today again to speak on behalf of the residents of Simcoe North and to represent their views, as well as to discuss a very important issue with respect to what we believe is potentially anti-competitive behaviour in Canada's e-transfer ecosystem.

These revelations became known to us at the industry committee a couple of weeks ago. It is clear that Interac uses what it calls and has confirmed is volume-based pricing. We just heard my very capable colleague from Calgary Nose Hill outline how the system works, but here are the facts as I understand them.

The largest financial institutions in the country pay Interac six cents to send an e-transfer. The smallest financial institutions pay it 43 cents. That is a difference of seven times. In theory, volume-based discounts are not a bad thing. A lot of people, Canadians, shop at Costco. Because they get a volume discount, people walk out of there with five boxes of Cheerios when they really only need one.

There is nothing inherently wrong with volume discounts, but then one learns that Interac is owned by the banks. The financial institutions set the prices that Interac charges other financial institutions and, surprise, they favour themselves. There are governance issues at Interac. By the way, the ownership structure is completely secret, hidden from all in plain sight. We have no idea who owns what or what the compensation structure is for Interac executives or board members.

It gets worse. At the time that Interac developed its fee schedule, two financial institutions were co-chairs of the board. These two financial institutions were the largest in Canada at the time and the only two to meet the required volume threshold to get the lowest price. Is that a conflict of interest? It likely is.

Members of the government have a challenge understanding what a conflict of interest is, so I will explain it briefly. A conflict of interest can exist whether there is an actual or perceived conflict of interest. It does not have to be a bona fide conflict of interest. It can exist when a reasonable person perceives there to be a conflict. It would appear to me very clearly that a reasonable person walking down the street would say that it does not sound right that the big banks get to set the pricing that smaller banks pay to compete with the big banks to send an e-transfer.

It is true that many Canadians do not pay for e-transfers, but Canadians can pay up to $1.50 per transaction. If they bank at a big bank, it pays Interac only six cents. That is a heck of a gross profit margin. How much fraud is in the system when people pay six cents as the variable cost to send an e-transfer and make $1.50 in revenue? By the way, the receiving bank sometimes charges the person receiving the transfer for that transaction in their bank account; that can be up to $1.50. When the small institutions are trying to compete with the big ones, they offer free e-transfers, but they have to pay 43¢. Therefore, they have to make up that 43¢ of revenue somewhere else to offer the free banking service to their clients. In fact, I have a low- or no-cost banking account at one of these upstarts solely because it offers free cheques and free e-transfers. A lot of Canadians do not have the time, effort or means to shop around.

The solution here is a lot more transparency, of course. However, perhaps we could even consider other possibilities. Let us be very clear: I am not talking about Interac itself, but its owners, the dark Sith overlord owners called the banks. They are the ones pulling the strings, such as those of the puppets at Interac. It is not Interac itself that is the problem but the undue influence of the owners. Maybe we should think about freeing Interac from the shackles of the big banks. It would then have to deal with the big banks on an arm's-length basis.

We could also think about supporting a competitor to Interac, which would give people choice. That is a very radical position, but I think it would bring integrity back to the system. I am not saying we should absolutely do it, but the time has come to really consider all the options. We should be unburdened by the past.

We have to turn the page. We cannot go back to where these large oligopoly companies have undue influence and control. I swear, the banks must think some of us just fell out of a coconut tree with the practices they use. The answer to this problem is more competition. It is to give more choice to consumers, as well as choice to financial institutions on how to move money throughout the system.

Canadians, businesses and individuals spend about $3 billion to $5 billion a year in transaction fees to move money across the country. This is a significant profit pool for financial institutions, people and companies in the payment space. Competition will reduce the size of that profit pool so that consumers can benefit; this will leave more money in their pockets.

I recognize that many people in this place have differing views on how we might achieve lower prices for Canadians. My own personal opinion is that lower prices will not be achieved by increasing the size of revenues for government. There is no correlation between increasing taxes on companies and lowering prices for Canadians. The idea is that we must attack these profit pools with competition. In fact, a Deloitte study suggested that up to 0.5% to 0.8% of GDP could be unlocked, of value for Canadians, if we moved forward with payments modernization.

The Bank of Canada has a role to play too. They set up standards that prominent payment systems must comply with. Interac is in non-compliance with two of those standards; specifically, they use volume-based pricing, not risk-based pricing, and they do not make public how one becomes a member of Interac.

Now, the Department of Justice in the United States has gone after its prominent payment system, Visa, for its practices at Interac, which it uses in the United States. That entity controls 60% of the debit market in the U.S. Interac controls about 95% of the debit market and 100% of the e-transfer market in Canada. I would encourage regulators to look at that example. It is clear that the status quo will not work anymore.

A wise man once said, “Do not moon the gorilla.” The gorilla is mooning us and laughing all the way to the bank because it is fleecing Canadians. A great new book came out called Fleeced by Andrew Spence. I would encourage everybody in this chamber to read it.

I have an amendment to move to the motion, so I would like to move that now.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, presented on Friday, November 1, 2024, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Committee for further consideration, provided that, for the purposes of this study,

(a) the following be ordered to appear as witnesses, for at least two hours each, at dates and times to be fixed by the Chair of the Committee, but no later than Tuesday, December 17, 2024:

(i) the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance,

(ii) the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry,

(iii) Shereen Benzvy Miller, Commissioner of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada,

(iv) Matthew Boswell, the Commissioner of Competition,

(v) Jeremy Wilmot, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Interac Corp.,

(vi) a panel consisting of Patrick Collision, Co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of Stripe, and John Collision, Co-founder and President of Stripe; and

(b) it be an instruction that the Committee hold at least two other meetings to receive evidence from stakeholders and experts.”

With that, I conclude my remarks.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, when one talks about the abuse of what takes place inside the chamber, we need to recognize that, again, we are seeing a concurrence report being introduced in favour of not speaking about a matter of privilege. That really tells Canadians the degree to which the Conservative Party is doing nothing more than playing a multi-million dollar game. That is what this is all about. It is an abuse coming from the leader of the Conservative Party, and no one does it better. After all, he was trained under Stephen Harper, who was the only prime minister held in contempt of Parliament in the Commonwealth; the current leader of the party was, in fact, the parliamentary secretary then.

This question is not to take away from the issue at hand but more to talk about why his leader continues to abuse the authorities and the rules of this chamber. Can the member explain why the Conservatives continue to play this game of filibuster, at great expense?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not really know what to do with that, other than to remind the hon. member that the current government is the one in contempt for not providing the documents that it has been duly required and asked to produce by the House.

The other day, I proposed another way. The Liberals could just get the $400 million back for Canadians, and we might be able to get back to the people's work; we need either the documents or the money back. Maybe the parliamentary secretary is just upset because he checked the price of Bitcoin this morning.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I actually appreciate this debate, and I thank the member for the work on this and the motion. New Democrats have been talking about financial issues for a number of years with regard to fairness, and this issue is very important to talk about in this chamber. I thank the member for adding the amendment; at industry committee, we have been studying credit cards and the costs to Canadians.

Regarding this specific issue, in 1984, the banks got together to create the Interac system itself. It was a ruse that really made it seem that this was independent with regard to the financial institutions. Meanwhile, the banks actually gave birth to the system that, right now, is costing so much, has no competition and is really a drag on the economy.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always like to find opportunities to identify common ground with my colleagues. What my colleague has just espoused would be one of those circumstances.

The free market generally works well, but it sometimes fails. This is an exact example in which we have the operators coming together to stand up an organization that, over the last 40 years now, has used its pricing power to prevent competition, which would give lower prices for Canadians.

The member mentioned credit card interest rates. I would also mention this, just for the benefit of the House: The interest rates for credit cards in the 1980s were about 20%. Today, they are about 20%. Can we guess what the interest rates were in the 1980s? They were much higher than they are today.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be a bit biased here. There is a strong entrepreneurial spirit in the riding of Shefford. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB, often reminds me that a great many small and medium-size businesses and merchants in the riding of Shefford are members of the CFIB.

I gave an interview on the subject last weekend. A certain journalist found the press release I published last week interesting. It mentioned that the countries with the lowest interchange fees are those with far more stringent regulations, namely the United Kingdom, New Zealand and the European Union.

My colleague spoke briefly in his speech about what is going on globally. Where exactly does Canada rank internationally in terms of interchange fees? How can we do better?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to consider what is happening in other jurisdictions.

Other jurisdictions that have moved much faster on payments modernization, in particular the U.K. and the U.S., have seen transaction fees reduced for users. I do recognize that we have to think about the different types of players throughout the entire ecosystem: small businesses, medium-sized businesses, and large businesses. Large businesses get to use their own power to negotiate for interchange fees. We should make sure that it is a level playing field for all players.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to talk about what is going on in the House. I would like to provide some context as to why I think we are debating this particular motion today.

I will share my time with the member for Milton, who will provide his insight, perhaps a better insight, into the actual substance of the report.

I will start by saying that I appreciated the last comment from the member for Simcoe North about Bitcoin. I really hope he does not need to go anywhere and can stay in the House to get up when I finish my speech to ask me a question about Bitcoin. I would love to know more about his feelings on Bitcoin. The price has gone up, according to him. I did not realize that this morning, but the price of Bitcoin, according to the member for Simcoe North, has gone up, so I would love to hear more about that. I would also love to hear more about the policies the Conservatives have to offer Canadians on Bitcoin and investing in Bitcoin.

Perhaps this means we will soon see the Leader of the Opposition buy another shawarma with Bitcoin. That would be a great video, and what better time then when the price of Bitcoin is going up? I would encourage the member for Simcoe North to stay in his seat, bear with having to listen to me for nine more minutes and then get up so we can talk about Bitcoin. He can ask me a question about Bitcoin and provide me with some of the great insight I need to know about that. I would love to engage in that discussion.

We have to take the opportunity to understand why we are here right now talking about this particular issue. I am not saying it is not an important issue. I think that is an extremely important thing to ask the anti-competitive agencies to engage in looking at certain practices.

However, let us back up to about four weeks ago, when Conservatives started debating a privilege motion. I know the member who moved that motion likes to talk about procedure and how things happen. He makes sure those who are watching are properly informed, so I will do the same. The Conservatives moved a motion based on a ruling from the Speaker, and as a result, we have seen the Conservatives filibustering for the last four and a half weeks. They are filibustering their own motion, I should add. The motion is to send this particular question of privilege to PROC, yet they do not even want to vote on that.

Conservatives moved a motion to send this somewhere, but they absolutely refuse to do that. What have they done in the process? They filibustered by putting up almost all, and I believe at last count it was about 106 Conservatives, to speak for 20 minutes. They then moved an amendment, which allowed some of them to speak twice or even three times. When that started to run out, they then started to move concurrence motions like the one we are debating today. After that, they allowed the debate on the subamendment to the privilege motion to collapse so they could reset their speaking roster and start from scratch to give everybody another 20-minute round.

That is the game being played in the House of Commons right now. That is the game, which was referred to earlier as a multi-million dollar game, the Conservatives are playing. To the people watching, it is their tax dollars that are going toward that. It is their tax dollars being spent, in the millions of dollars right now, to keep the House operating in order to appease the Conservatives' desire for a filibuster. This is a filibuster on an issue that, by the way, the Speaker has ruled on. The Conservatives are the only ones who are speaking to it. At times, they are the only ones who are asking each other questions on the issue.

Conservatives are doing it for only one reason. They are doing it to support the concept and promote the idea that the House is dysfunctional and nothing can get done. This is because they benefit off of and see opportunity come from making things seem totally chaotic. Where have we witnessed that lately? It seems to happen a lot south of the border, so Conservatives have jumped on board and have said that this is how they are going to deal with things too. They are going to make things seem completely out of order. It is the only way to advance any of their personal political objectives, and this is where we have ended up.

The reason it is important for folks at home to know this is that we have an Order Paper and a projected order of business each day for the House of Commons. This is public. We can find it on the website and there is a printed copy provided every day.

Just so folks at home know what we would have been debating and discussing, had the Conservatives not chosen to continue this filibuster and bring forward concurrence motions like the one we have today, I will list some of the things that are on the Order Paper. The next item to be debated is from the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and it is Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act 2024, which would make amendments to our Citizenship Act. After that, there is a ways and means motion to bring in adjustments to the capital gains tax, which we had been talking about for a number of months. That is what we were going to debate after Bill C-71. Following that, there is the Minister of National Defence making changes to the military justice system. That is also listed on the Order Paper as one of the items the House would be debating. The Order Paper also lists an act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and an act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

These are the issues that the Canadian public should know we are trying to debate in the House of Commons while the Conservatives are talking to each other all the time. As the Conservatives are setting up these concurrence motions and their motions of privilege, they are filibustering. We cannot talk in the House of Commons right now about protecting children from online harm because the Conservatives have chosen to bring this place to an absolute halt and not let anything proceed for five weeks now. I will put 90% of the blame on Conservatives, and then I will assign 5% of the blame to both the Bloc and the NDP because the Bloc and the NDP know that there is a way through this.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!