House of Commons Hansard #368 of the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was liberals.

Topics

Industry and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Madam Speaker, I did not touch on that but I should have. My former colleague, Judy Wasylycia-Leis, did a lot of work on this on payday loans, and this is a good example. Even if people have a government cheque that is guaranteed, they can get be gouged for cashing it, yet there really is no risk whatsoever. Many banks moved away from cashing cheques without exponential fees, or they opened the system to have payday loans come in. That is a loss for the most vulnerable, often the most poor, and also for people who need money at a very delicate time in their lives for one reason or another.

That is taking money out of small and medium-sized businesses and taking money out of rent. It is making food, health care costs and all those different things rise. That is a really important notion of all of this. Also, if people have $3,000 in their bank account, they do not pay any fees. However, if they do not have that $3,000, they pay more fees. That is wrong.

Industry and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, out of respect for the member, I do not want to marginalize the issue, because it really is an important issue, but the Conservatives are really much more concerned about my previous question. I would ask for the member to provide his thoughts on this.

Today, the Conservatives say that they want this report to go to the industry and technology committee. They have a number of speakers whom they want to hear on this, and then the committee has to report back by December 17. The other day, they moved that another standing committee, public accounts, deal with another issue, call someone like Mark Carney before the committee and report back within 21 days. These are two that just popped up in this last week.

My concern is that the Conservative Party is using the House to set the agendas of standing committees, when standing committees have the ability to deal with the issues, including the issue that we are talking about today. The standing committee could in fact meet, discuss the issue, have the presenters come forward and set a deadline for itself.

Does the member have any concerns that the Conservatives might be manipulating for other political objectives?

Industry and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

12:40 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Madam Speaker, all I can deal with is what is in front of me. I appreciate the work that has been taking place in industry committee. It has generally been pretty good for the most part. We need to talk more about economics and issues related to fees. In my opinion, what is happening to Canadians is fraud. That is very important.

I cannot speak to any motivation, but I appreciate the motion coming forward. I appreciated talking about these issues in industry committee and studying the credit card information I put forward, and I received support from all political parties on it. I just want to see us get something done.

If something comes out of this today to bring light to the issue so we can get reduction of fees and services so that they are more fair for consumers and help the Canadian economy, so be it. I am glad to participate in that. If the only thing I can control is to contribute to that movement, then I am happy to be part of this.

Industry and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

November 7th, 2024 / 12:40 p.m.

Pierrefonds—Dollard Québec

Liberal

Sameer Zuberi LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity

Mr. Speaker, this is a really important conversation and debate. Our government is committed to addressing the cost of living, helping out small and medium-sized businesses and also protecting consumers. This is something about which the Liberals, residents of my riding, Pierrefonds—Dollard, and, I am sure, all parliamentarians care deeply.

I would like tell the story of a small business owner I visited just two weeks ago in my riding of Pierrefonds—Dollard. Her name is Paola and she works really hard each and every week, six days a week. She owns a small business called Tazza di Mattina, which has coffee, coffee machines and repairs coffee machines.

I had an important conversation with her about a government program that is related to leaning on the credit card industry to ensure the costs that owners of small and medium business have to bear in consumer transactions are reduced. I let her know that Visa and Mastercard fees for small businesses would be reduced as of October 19. We know that a reduction of credit card fees will mean better prices for consumers and that fee increases are not passed on to them. The government's policy to protect and defend small businesses is really impactful.

I grew up in a household that lived, survived and had everything we needed because of a small-business owner, my dad. My dad and mom brought a family of six into this world. Our family lived off a small business, so I personally know the realities of what it means for a family to have everything its needs when things might be tight. That is the reality of many Canadians. I appreciate and empathize with Canadians. In general, they feel squeezed. That is why our government is meeting the moment at each and every step. With respect to the credit cards and small and medium-sized businesses, that is one key thing we are doing.

A second key thing is a code of conduct related to the credit card industry to protect one million businesses. That will also help to meet the moment. We are also leaning on the banking industry so that we ensure individuals have tailored mortgage relief available to them.

I am sharing my time, Madam Speaker, with the member for Winnipeg North.

Another key aspect of meeting the moment is expanding low-cost accounts and also no-cost options when Canadians are opening bank accounts. The government is also lowering NSF fees, which is critical. Once in a while, some of us have had a bounced cheque. It used to happen to me as a student. Those fees of $25, or however much they cost today, hit hard, especially if someone has a lean income. Those things matter.

Today, being in the Commons with the governing party, I oftentimes think about my life as a student, a young person, and in my career. I think about what those fees meant and how the measures we are implementing today matter for Canadians and small businesses. We are doing a lot within our government to meet the moment and address the cost of living. Yes, costs did rise during the pandemic. We all went to the grocery stores. We saw the increase in price of fruits and vegetables, and that hit us, without question.

Thankfully, since then, inflation has come under control and the Bank of Canada has reduced interest rates. Things are easier for people who are renewing mortgages and for those who are entering the housing market.

Our government has also had some key accomplishments, such as child care, which is a key win of our government. It allows mothers who choose to work to enter the workforce and to know that their children will receive quality care. I will just share about my own family background again. I was raised by my mother at home, as were my five younger siblings. There was a choice to do that as a household. I know that not all Canadian households can make that choice. Some families need child care in order to survive. That is why our initiative, to make child care affordable and to expand that across the country, is so important.

Dental care is a recent initiative of our government. That is also really important. In our entourage, our families and our friendship circles, we all know seniors, persons with disabilities or young people who have benefited. Soon, all Canadians will be benefiting from this.

If we just think about these programs for a moment, they are meeting the moment. They are helping to address the cost of living and the needs of Canadians.

To that, I will add pharmacare. I had a conversation with a gentleman about three months ago, while driving between Montreal and Ottawa. He told me how important diabetes medication at no cost is to him, how much he relies on that medication, how it had put a big hole his wallet, and how he is really grateful for us, as a government and as a country, for doing that.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities, I see the disability benefit as novel and super impactful. It will help alleviate the situation in which persons with disabilities of working age with modest income find themselves today. It will not solve everything, but it is a clear and firm step in the right direction. This benefit is being introduced and will be in effect this summer. It is being done in addition to existing provincial benefits that people receive. It is a proud moment for our country. As a member of the governing party, I am really happy that we are doing this.

I go back to the idea of meeting Paola in her small business, and the initiatives that our government has done and continues to do.

At some point in the future, Canadians will be making a choice about who they want to see governing our country. It is really important for Canadians to reflect upon the policies and programs that we as a Liberal government have implemented from child care, dental care, pharmacare and the disability benefit, which will be implemented this summer, with money in people's pockets, to the measures I mentioned with respect to small businesses, where 27% of credit card fees will be reduced for small and medium-sized businesses. Those things are critical.

What I would say is that those programs and initiatives, and that sort of perspective of meeting the moment, will be taken away if it is not our Liberal government here in this House.

That is something I would like to leave with viewers who are watching. I would like Canadians to just hold that idea, and ask whether we want these programs to continue into the future. I am sure we do. Do we want everyone to be uplifted? I am sure that we all agree to that. Let us continue.

Industry and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the 10-minute speech by the parliamentary secretary about the issue we are debating here, which is Interac fees and, in particular, the anti-competitive nature of what is going on with e-transfer fees, and I did not hear a single line about it. There was one line at the beginning of his speech that claimed a tangential element, merchant fees, and that the Minister of Finance claimed they were going to reduce the fees that credit card companies charge merchants.

However, one of the big companies that has a 20% market share and charges these merchant fees is a company called Stripe, which has refused to do this. Mark Carney sits on the board of that company. He is on the board of the company that is refusing the voluntary request of the finance minister.

Could the parliamentary secretary share with the House why the adviser to the Prime Minister on the economy is refusing the request of the finance minister?

Industry and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Madam Speaker, it is really important when we take the names of eminent Canadians, lift their reputations in the House and recognize the contributions that people make to this country and the international community, that we do so with respect.

As a parliamentarian, I wish that the way all parliamentarians connect individually would be reflected in our comments and how we deal with each other during question period and debate. So often I reflect on that and that is why I mention it now.

Industry and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

12:55 p.m.

NDP

Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Madam Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to wish the Lebanese Canadian community a happy Lebanese Heritage Month. I wanted to make sure I took the opportunity.

We have seen massive fees put on remittances that are sent around the world by Canadians who have family in other countries. I am wondering if the member has any comments on that and how those fees need to be regulated and controlled, as we look at these important issues.

Industry and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Madam Speaker, just as the member opposite did, I definitely want to recognize the importance of Lebanese Heritage Month. I went to the flag-raising ceremony here on Parliament Hill today. There were many Canadians of Lebanese background who came to the raising of the flag, along with parliamentarians of all stripes, which is so important.

With respect to the question from the member opposite, it is really important for these questions to be put to the committee itself. It is a commentary on this whole debate that the appropriate place for this debate is at committee. That is where it belongs. This debate should be focused at the expert committee.

Industry and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, we have not been able to get a lot of work done in this House in the last month or so because Conservatives are continuing to filibuster their own motion.

I am wondering if the member can comment on how important it is that we get down to the business that Canadians want us to be debating now, instead of games and tactics to prevent work in the House from occurring.

Industry and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Madam Speaker, I will differ a little with my friend from my own party. We do get work done in this House. It is just that in the chamber right now, there is a stonewall because of the Conservative Party refusing to allow us to move ahead.

Where I differ is that we do get work done in this Commons in committees, and each and every parliamentarian is working hard. I can say that I am working hard. We are being stonewalled because the Conservative Party is not allowing us to get the work done that we need to get done. I plead with the Conservative Party to please let us do our work.

Industry and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

12:55 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

I appreciate that members want to see how much time they have, but they need to make sure that their alarms do not go off and they need to make sure that their phones are not on vibration because it also creates problems for the interpreters. I just want to remind members to please be mindful about the location of their phone and what mode it is on. We need to make sure that the health and safety of our interpreters is first and foremost.

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

Industry and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

12:55 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, it has been an interesting process over the last number of weeks. For those who are trying to follow what is taking place, allow me to attempt to summarize it. What they are really witnessing is what I would suggest is a multi-million dollar political game that is being led by the leader of the Conservative Party because he has determined that it is in his self-interest and the interests of the Conservative Party of Canada to continue playing this silly, expensive game at a substantial cost. As opposed to participating in this filibuster, what we are actually witnessing is an opposition party that, I would ultimately argue, is in contempt, or nearing contempt, of the House of Commons today.

It should not surprise people because the leader of the Conservative Party was the parliamentary secretary to former prime minister Stephen Harper, who was held in contempt of Parliament, the first prime minister in the history of the Commonwealth and the only one to this very day to have been held in contempt. It speaks volumes, in terms of the character and the personality of the leader of the Conservative Party today.

Let us look at what the Conservatives are doing, and I do not say it lightly. In fact, I have recommended that every member of the Conservative caucus read the Hill Times story that was published on October 31. It was written by Steven Chaplin. Steven Chaplin is the former senior legal counsel in the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. Let me just quote two very important things that should be highlighted because that is why we have the debate that we are having today, and I am going to get into that very shortly. Here is what Steven Chaplin has to say about the multi-million dollar game that the leader of the Conservative Party is playing:

It’s time for the House [of Commons] to admit it was wrong, and to move on....

There has now been three weeks of debate on a questionable matter of privilege based on the misuse of the House’ power to order producing documents....

The article goes on, and here is where people really need to understand this point because we get Conservative after Conservative talking, whether about this motion or the matter of privilege that the Conservatives introduced over four weeks ago. The Conservative Party says, “just produce the papers and then the issue will end.” We cannot produce the papers. The Conservatives know that. Here is what Steven Chaplin has to say on the issue, in terms of the game that the Conservatives are playing:

It is time for the House to admit its overreach before the matter inevitably finds it[s] way to the courts which do have the ability to determine and limit the House’s powers, often beyond what the House may like.

This is not me. This is a professional; someone who understands what is taking place in the House of Commons. It is the leader of the Conservative Party today who is using his opposition powers to prevent important things from taking place in the House because it is his self-interest and the interests of the Conservative Party and not the interests of Canadians that are being served by this tactic; not to mention the millions of dollars being thrown away.

The deputy House leader, earlier today, talked about legislation. Take a look at what is on the Order Paper and has been on the Order Paper for days now: the Canadian Citizenship Act. Citizenship is important to Canadians. By not passing this legislation, some individuals are being denied their citizenship.

There is Bill C-66, the military court reforms, which would take sexual abuse issues out of military courts and put them into the civil courts. Also, we have Bill C-33, on the rail and marine safety issue, which is talking about economic supply lines. If we want to talk about improving the economy, this is one of the things that we should be discussing. My colleague emphasized Bill C-63, the online harms act. We can think of pictures being posted on the Internet without consent from individuals over 18, as well as the harm that is being caused to children. These are the types of substantial issues that we should be talking about and voting on to see them go to committee, but instead, we are playing this game.

Fast-forward to today, when we have a motion about banking and banking fees. I can assure members that banking fees are a very serious issue. My constituents are concerned about banking fees, whether they are for using an ATM machine or the monthly charges. There is also the interest that is applied in many different ways. There is a litany of issues with banking fees. I would love the opportunity to talk for 20-plus minutes on that issue.

The problem is that this feeds into what the Conservatives are wanting us to do. The Conservatives, and this is coming from the leader of the Conservative's office, are not only saying that they want to take control of what is taking place on the floor of the House of Commons, but also wanting to start dipping more and more into instructing standing committees on what they should be doing. They have the Bloc completely fooled on this. It will be interesting to see who votes in favour of it.

Members can think about this: The Conservatives, not once but twice, as Mark Carney was brought up late last week, have brought in an amendment to a concurrence motion to send the report back to committee for it to be further studied while calling for certain witnesses, and they have each had a deadline to get back to the House. However, these standing committees can determine their own agendas and who they want to call before them. They do not have to be instructed by the leader of the Conservative Party on what they should be doing. This is a very disturbing pattern, which we have now seen with two concurrence motions that were brought forward by the Conservative Party.

I would argue that, ultimately, the leader of the Conservative Party is not only trying to dictate what we can and cannot talk about on the floor of the House of Commons, but also starting to reach into the different standing committees. He could have just advised, and said, “Well, look, send this back to the committee”. We could also do what we usually do, which is to vote concurrence on a report, so it would go on its way, and just allow the standing committee to do what it wants. However, there is an agenda there. It is a very selfish agenda that is being driven by the leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservative House leadership team, at a substantial cost. As I said, it is a multi-million dollar game that is being played.

The Conservative leader needs to start putting the interests of Canadians ahead of his own self-serving interests and the interests of the Conservative Party. There is a lot more work that we can be doing on the floor of the House of Commons.

We need to respect that standing committees do have the ability to do what is being proposed here. We need the leader of the Conservative Party to stop abusing his authority as the leader of the opposition and reflect on when he was a parliamentary secretary and his prime minister was held in contempt of Parliament.

Industry and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS

Madam Speaker, it really is quite humorous to hear the parliamentary secretary talk about fiscal responsibility. He is a member of a government that has not hit a single budget target and has added more debt for the government and Canadian taxpayers than all other prime ministers since Confederation.

That aside, on the issue that he raises about process, perhaps since that member is not a member of the industry committee, which this motion refers to, he is not aware of the fact that the parliamentary secretary for industry has been filibustering every motion that we have brought forward on this study. Whether they are on document production from Mastercard, where he is protecting Mastercard from scrutiny, or on document production and hearing witnesses from Stripe, which has the pseudo minister of finance on its board, Mr. Mark Carney, he is protecting his folks and stopping them from going forward. We have to come to the House to get an order because the government will not stop filibustering.

Industry and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, Canadians and all parliamentarians of all political stripes need to be aware of the tactic that the Conservative leader is using. Members can think about it. In a simple motion, he wants to instruct. There is not just one. From the last seven days, here are two that I am aware of. There is no doubt that there will be others saying—

Industry and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1:10 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets is rising on a point of order.

Industry and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is an experienced member and knows that we cannot hold up props. I believe that is what he just did.

Industry and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1:10 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

I am not sure what those documents were, but if they were the write-ups of the motions themselves, and if he was pointing to them, he knows that he is not to use them as props

The hon. parliamentary secretary can finish his thought before we go to the next question.

Industry and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, they were actually the amendments themselves.

Having said that, I can tell members that it is a scary situation when we have a leader of the official opposition abusing his authority to the degree we are witnessing today. It says a lot. Heaven forbid that he will sit in the prime minister's chair, from which he will want to continue his control over standing committees. People need to be aware of that. That is why they put in deadlines. That is why they are dictating who appears before PROC. That is, I would ultimately argue, an issue that we should all be concerned about, and it does not matter which political party one is from. Standing committees should not be mandated and told by the leader of the official opposition what they will do.

Industry and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1:10 p.m.

Bloc

Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC

Madam Speaker, I have trouble understanding why my colleague opposite is so indignant. I have witnessed him expressing his indignation again and again, day after day, for nearly a month now.

The Bloc Québécois offered the government a way out so that we could move forward and end the standoff. We sent it a proposal that would benefit Quebeckers and maybe even Canadians. We asked it to boost retirement benefits for people aged 65 to 74 and to pass our supply management bill, but the government balked. Now it is accusing us of not giving it a free pass, when it is the government that has no desire to work with us.

I am hard pressed to understand the government's indignation and unwillingness to resolve the situation. Perhaps it is because, ultimately, this impasse suits them. I would like my colleague to talk to us about this. When there is a standoff in Parliament, there are no confidence votes and, in any event, there is no legislative agenda. Perhaps the government likes it that way. Is that possible?

Industry and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, to put it as clearly as possible, the Conservatives are challenging the government on a false pretense. They are asking us to believe the Conservative Party and disagree with the RCMP of Canada, the Auditor General of Canada and other law experts who have indicated that what is being asked cannot be delivered. We either have to agree with the Conservatives or listen to the experts. We are going to listen to the experts.

The other option then is that we need to have an opposition party that comes onside to help us get through the behaviour of the Conservative Party. To date, we have not had that type of support, so we continue to be held hostage to that multi-million dollar game that the Conservatives have chosen to play.

Industry and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1:10 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, we are in a filibuster, yet the hon. member, who takes up probably 80% of his caucus's airtime, is engaging in the filibuster. I have heard the member for Waterloo talk about how women in the Liberal caucus cannot be heard. I have a question on principle.

Will the hon. member finally sit down and let other members of the Liberal backbench finally have a chance to engage and speak, so that women in his caucus can be heard?

Industry and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, the member can believe whatever he would like to believe. He can come to Winnipeg North and say that I should stop talking in the House of Commons. I do not think that is the type of advocacy anyone should be promoting, to encourage people to stop talking.

I take this issue very seriously. If the NDP, in particular that member, feels that I am talking too much, that is his problem, not mine.

Industry and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on this motion. I am going to do something unusual. I am actually going to speak to the motion, unlike most of what has happened in this discussion.

Industry and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1:15 p.m.

An hon. member

Oh, oh!

Industry and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

1:15 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member for Waterloo entered this place, while inappropriately dressed, just to heckle me. If they want to come in and participate in the debate—