Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Banking, Trade and Commerce
Issue 14 - Evidence - November 25, 2010
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 25, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce met this day at 10:30 a.m. to study Bill S-201, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act (credit and debit cards).
Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Today we will resume our study of Bill S-201, An Act to amend the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act (credit and debit cards).
[English]
It was last examined by us on June 16, when the Honourable Senator Ringuette, a long-standing member of this committee and sponsor of the bill, made a presentation to us.
[Translation]
Our witnesses today are from the Canadian Bankers Association, Ms. Nancy Fung, Vice-President, Banking Operations and Mr. Darren Hannah, Director in that same sector.
From MasterCard, we have Ms. Betty De Vita and Mr. Don Lebeuf, Vice-President of Strategic Programs.
Lastly, from Visa Canada, we are pleased to welcome Mr. Tim Wilson, Head of Visa Canada and Mr. Mike Bradley, Head of Products.
[English]
I was told that Mr. Wilson will start.
[Translation]
Tim Wilson, Head, Visa Canada: Honourable senators, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee today to speak about our business and more specifically to address the contents of Bill S-201.
[English]
For those of you who may be new to the committee, please let me start by providing some background on Visa and our role within the Canadian financial system. Visa is fundamentally a technology network. Our role is to facilitate financial transactions between cardholders and businesses that have chosen to accept Visa. Visa is not a bank or a financial institution. Visa does not issue cards; we do not set rates; we do not make loans or set any fees associated with cardholder and merchant usage or acceptance. Through our network, Visa enables global commerce by connecting 1.8 billion cards with tens of millions of merchants in over 200 countries and territories.
Visa's goal is to facilitate commerce and encourage the growth of electronic payments, or digital currency, around the globe. The spread of digital currency is transforming the world by making our lives easier and allowing us to leave behind the inconvenience and risk of cash and cheques.
Visa has been operating in Canada for more than 40 years. Our goal at Visa is to help ensure that Canada remains a leader in the financial services industry and resides at the forefront of global payment innovations, while providing consumers and merchants both choice and security. We facilitate commerce through the transfer of payments across our network securely and reliably every second of every day. However, Visa is still only a small component of total payments in Canada and only one player in the Canadian financial system.
We have formidable and substantial competition. We compete with an array of existing and emerging competitors, such as cash, cheques, pre-authorized debit, Interac, retail issued cards, telcos, PayPal and other higher-cost competitors, like American Express. It is within this competitive market that we must earn the loyalty of retailers and consumers as they make their payment choices.
For retailers, acceptance of Visa can bolster their bottom lines through increased sales, lower operating expenses and expanded revenue opportunities. However, there are other benefits to merchants that are frequently overlooked, including guaranteed payment, innovative technologies like contactless cards that speed up checkout and improved access to international customers. Small businesses, in particular, benefit from the Visa system, which empowers them to compete on a more level playing field with large merchants.
Consumers benefit from having a variety of payment choices, such as credit, debit and prepaid cards, plus the convenience of fast checkout, global acceptance, 24-hour customer service and enhanced security protections, such as zero liability and purchase protection.
Even before the implementation of the voluntary Code of Conduct for the Credit and Debit Card Industry that was introduced by the Minister of Finance in November of 2009, Visa has consistently demonstrated transparency, one of the code's key tenets, and has been an industry leader in this area. In fact, since November of 2008, Visa has been the only network to disclose fully its Canadian interchange rates on its website. Visa believes that rate disclosure by competitors allows clients, merchants and consumers to make meaningful and informed comparisons. Visa has also publicly disclosed its operating regulations since 2008.
We are the first network to launch a new product since the inception of the code of conduct. Last month, Visa introduced Visa Debit. We believe that Visa Debit represents a significant new opportunity for Canadian merchants and consumers. It enables broader acceptance and more options to use debit cards for online, over-the-phone and international purchases. The introduction of Visa Debit helps inject greater competition into the Canadian financial services marketplace as retailers and consumers have another choice of how to pay and how to be paid.
This brings me to Bill S-201. After careful review and consideration, I believe that while the intent of Bill S-201 is worth discussing, the bill itself is redundant.
Specifically, the Minister of Finance recently implemented several initiatives that cover the main elements of Bill S- 201. In particular, as previously mentioned, the minister established the voluntary code of conduct. Furthermore, under the Payment Card Networks Act, passed by Parliament in July, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, FCAC, has been given responsibility for monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the code of conduct. Visa respects and continues to act in both the letter and the spirit of the code, and we will continue to work collaboratively with the FCAC on its implementation.
In June 2010, the Minister of Finance announced the launch of the Task Force for the Payments System Review, which will study and make recommendations relating to the broader use of electronic payments in Canada. The task force is due to tender its recommendations by the end of 2011. I am proud to say that Visa Canada is an active participant in this process.
With the code and the task force in progress, we believe that the concerns behind Bill S-201 have already been addressed. The government has established an appropriate level of oversight, and we believe it is important to allow industry and the FCAC to continue to work together and make the current framework a foundation for collaboration, openness and transparency.
Nancy Fung, Vice-President, Banking Operations, Canadian Bankers Association: I am vice-president of operations for the Canadian Bankers Association, which works on behalf of 51 member banks and their 260,000 employees. I am joined by my colleague, Darren Hannah. I would like to thank the chair and the committee for the opportunity to appear here today.
The payment card industry in Canada is evolving. The past year has seen new competitors enter the debit card market and new forms of debit enter the marketplace, such as contactless products. Our membership includes many of the major payment card issuers in Canada. Therefore, the perspective we are providing today is that of a payment card issuer.
Evolution is healthy. Innovation involves change. New entrants and new products enter the market, and consumers decide what products best serve their needs. The result is more choice, better products and new ways of transacting.
While evolution is both good and necessary, it has created challenges. Merchants have expressed concerns about the implications of debit market evolution in merchant acceptance costs and about market structure.
We feel that the government has responded to these challenges of market evolution by implementing measures to manage change in the marketplace. The government worked with stakeholders, including merchants and small business groups, to develop a Code of Conduct for the Credit and Debit Card Industry in Canada to set out ground rules about how competing networks and applications are to coexist.
To backstop that effort, the government enacted the Payment Card Networks Act, which is part of the budget bill, to empower the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to monitor compliance with the code and, if necessary, to allow the government to enact regulations respecting card networks.
Last, for cardholders, the government expanded credit card regulations to enhance disclosure and standardize practices in areas such as grace periods and payment allocations.
Our principal concern with Bill S-201 is that it largely duplicates what has already been done through these mechanisms. The Payment Card Networks Act already provides the Minister of Finance with the authority to regulate the market conduct of the credit and debit card networks, if required. In addition, it has provided the FCAC with the authority to administer any regulations that could be introduced and to monitor the compliance of card networks and issuers with the code of conduct.
We are also concerned that Bill S-201 would take the attention of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada, OSFI, away from its principal role as a prudential regulator at a time when prudential regulation is undergoing a substantial transformation. The result would be a blurring of the distinction between the prudential regulator, OSFI, and the market conduct regulator, FCAC, which would result in duplication and overlap to the detriment of both.
One of the reasons Canada's banking system came through the recent global financial crisis better than that of most countries was because of the clear roles of each of our regulators. This is not something that needs to be or should be changed.
We appreciate the opportunity to appear here today and to share with the committee our views on Bill S-201. In closing, I would like to reiterate that we believe that the government has already taken action to address the public policy issues that Bill S-201 is intended to address, and has done so without blurring the lines between prudential and market conduct regulation.
Thank you, and we look forward to your questions.
Betty De Vita, President for Canada, MasterCard: My name is Betty De Vita and I have been president of MasterCard Canada for just over two months. While this is my first time appearing before a parliamentary committee, I am not new to the financial sector, having previously served as chairman and CEO of Citibank Canada. I am joined today by my colleague, Don Lebeuf, our vice-president of customer delivery.
MasterCard Canada provides a critical link among financial institutions, businesses, cardholders and merchants worldwide. As a franchiser, processer and adviser, MasterCard processes approximately 22 billion transactions each year.
In Canada, we have a track record as an innovator. We brought a number of new entrants into Canada's credit card market, including Canadian Tire and President's Choice Financial. The rollout of our contactless application, PayPass, has been a remarkable success in Canada and allows consumers to pay for things like coffee, gas and groceries simply by tapping their card.
We believe Canadian consumers will benefit from these and other innovations as long as Canada remains a highly competitive environment that includes a host of payment alternatives for both merchants and consumers.
With this in mind, MasterCard does not support Bill S-201, for two primary reasons. The bill seeks to address issues that are already covered by other legislation, regulation and industry codes; and more importantly, we do not believe that any government agency is a substitute for the marketplace to determine rates and terms for access to the electronic payments system.
Let me explain further. Bill S-201 is redundant. Since this committee first looked at issues around credit and debit cards in the spring of 2009, four significant measures have been put in place to address identified concerns.
First, the Minister of Finance introduced a number of new issuer practice regulations for credit cards, all of which are now in effect. Second, the minister introduced the Code of Conduct for the Credit and Debit Card Industry in Canada. Most elements of the code took effect on August 17, with the balance to follow by February 17, 2011. MasterCard agreed to and implemented the code, which represents the most sweeping changes to the relationship between payment networks, issuers, acquirers and merchants that Canada has ever seen.
Third, in addition to announcing the code of conduct, Budget 2010 gives the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada the mandate to monitor the debit and credit card industry for compliance with the code of conduct. The budget also gives the minister the legislative authority to regulate payment networks if they are not complying with the code. We believe this is an extremely powerful tool.
Finally, the Minister of Finance appointed the Task Force for the Payments System Review to further study issues affecting payments in Canada and to make recommendations back to the minister. MasterCard is actively participating in the process and looks forward to its conclusions.
More significant than this redundancy concern, MasterCard cannot support Bill S-201 because no government agency is a substitute for the marketplace in determining rates and terms for commercial agreements between multiple private sector entities. MasterCard believes that the government's recent measures, based on enhanced disclosures and competition for merchants, are superior to the government's stepping in to a functioning market to regulate prices.
Where governments have taken over market functions, like in Australia, it has been a lesson in unintended consequences, with consumers suffering most of all. As a case in point, the recent annual report of the Reserve Bank of Australia found that merchants have gained $6 billion in extra profits since it artificially lowered interchange fees in that country, but there is no evidence that they have passed these savings on to the consumer. Australian consumers, however, now pay more for payment cards and receive fewer benefits as a result of the government's action — clear evidence of an unintended consequence.
For these reasons, we urge the committee to reject this bill.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. Since all the committee is here, maybe I should introduce my colleagues. I will start at the end with the Conservative members:
[Translation]
We have Senators Kochhar, Dickson, Ataullahjan, Mockler, Plett and Greene.
On the other side of the table, we have Senators Ringuette, Harb, Moore and Eggleton.
[English]
Perhaps we could get information after. There is the evidence in Australia. Could you provide the committee with where you took the evidence? You say it costs more, but is there a study you could provide to our committee? We would like to know the source of your information — I would say an independent source.
The Canadian Bankers Association's study since 2007, when things were harmonious in the financial sector, showed the growth rate of default or bankruptcy with people dealing with their credit cards. You must have an aggregate of this or maybe bank by bank, but I do not know whether you have this information. We have to study the bill, and these data would be useful to us.
As a brief comment from me, I have made other studies. Of the countries in the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development, OECD, Canadians are indebted 140 per cent of their income. We are the champions of being in debt. I wonder whether you take that into account when you put your service charges in place.
I will give the floor to Senator Harb.
Senator Harb: Thank you very much for your presentation, and congratulations, Ms. De Vita, on your new position.
I have a couple of questions. Mr. Wilson, I have to commend you for your quick action. A letter was mailed to you on November 12, 2010, by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, CFIB, and you responded to it quite quickly, on November 12. It dealt with the situation they raised.
In its letter, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business raised some concerns about the code of conduct. In particular, it mentioned the issue with Visa and the problem that CFIB was faced with. Your organization was efficient enough to deal with it head-on.
I wanted to ask you about this voluntary code of conduct, though perhaps you can all respond to the question. At least among the witnesses that appeared before us yesterday, there seems to be unanimity: Each and every one of them wanted to see some sort of regulation. They do not believe that just leaving it up to the industry will work.
We asked them about the possibility for partnership between you and them; for you to sit down around the table and talk about regulations and what sorts of regulations you need to deal with. It is evident that regulation will be brought forward. There is unanimity; without exception, every one of them brought up the point that there is a need for regulation.
Is your industry proactively looking to engage other industries, to meet with the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, the Coalition québécoise des marchands, the Retail Council of Canada and the Canadian Independent Petroleum Marketers Association? These are credible national organizations that represent thousands of merchants. They came and told us point blank that they want regulation. It will not happen if you keep it voluntary. Even if Visa and MasterCard follow the rules and the letter of the law, someone else will use a loophole and do something else.
I would like to hear your reaction. Have you thought about that, and if so, what can we do as a committee to facilitate that kind of a dialogue?
Mr. Wilson: Thank you for the question, senator. The code of conduct is a unique, made-in-Canada solution to the concerns brought forward by the merchant community. It is one we are proud to say all stakeholders were engaged with through the development of the code and supported when it was finally issued. Therefore, I think it is a great example of how, to your point, all of the stakeholders and the industry can work in partnership to create a solution that works.
The example you brought forward of our discussion and exchange of letters with the CFIB is a great example of how that code is working today and how we are still working collaboratively to address any concerns brought forward.
In addition to the formal code, we are proactively engaged with all of the merchant associations and other stakeholders, some of whom you mentioned. That predated even the code. We are in active dialogue with all of them.
The last point I will make is that, in markets where we have seen regulation, as was cited by some of our colleagues, we have seen really negative consequences for consumers. Therefore, we are much more proponents of the Canadian solution that, again, we have developed collaboratively with other stakeholders.
Ms. De Vita: MasterCard is quite committed to and serious about the code of conduct. We have embedded it into our rules. From the perspective of our issuers and acquirers, if it is in our rules, it is tantamount to being an extremely serious requirement.
I would also say that the incremental powers given to the Minister of Finance are a significant tool for the payments system. I can only speak for MasterCard directly, but if the Minister of Finance calls our office, we immediately take the call and take it quite seriously.
Engaging with the different associations and parties across the payments network is absolutely part of the objectives to ensure that all sides are considered. We actively participate in the payments task force.
I would offer to the senators that, after the second session that I and some of the colleagues at the table have participated in, there is a significant amount of collaboration across the parties, financial institutions, telcos, networks and new entrants like PayPal to try to come to a solution that might actually be possible here in Canada, but not in other markets, due to the level of collaboration in the marketplace.
Senator Harb: Would you oppose the code of conduct's becoming compulsory? Now it is voluntary. If the government were to turn around and say it is mandatory and everyone has to follow it, how would you react? You do your job and Visa does its job, but you want to ensure the others also do their job, because they could undermine you.
Ms. De Vita: Yes. We believe that the code is acting with the current mandates it has and with the FCAC, as well as with the incremental powers that the minister has in its fullest capacity.
Senator Kochhar: Thank you, witnesses. You are all doing a good job. You all mention Bill S-201 and ask why we ought to fix something if it is not broken. That is the message I get from all three speakers. To some extent, I agree with it. The voluntary code of conduct just came into force, and we should give it an opportunity to work and see if this volunteerism works.
I personally think we are too hung up on misuse of the credit card facilities. I own all three major credit cards, and I have never, ever paid a single cent in fees or interest because I make my payments within 30 days.
As a retailer, I may have some questions because I may not agree with the high fees of some credit cards more than others — their payment terms to the merchant. Maybe some corrective action is required there, but I have three options. I can kick any one of you out of my store and still do business, as I have for 38 years. I have never lost a cent by kicking one of you out from my premises. That is a free enterprise system.
I personally feel that Bill S-201 is redundant and an unnecessary intervention in the free market economy. That is just a personal opinion from having been in business for many years. I am not asking any one of you to respond; I am just making my personal comments.
The Deputy Chair: You have the right to speak and give your opinion. I think every member of this committee understands that.
Recently, for one of my cards, I received a notice that my interest rate would go from 28.9 to 29.9 per cent. I did not have time to write to ask them why they were increasing the percentage, but I was thinking that some people are not like Senator Kochhar. Sometimes at the end of month they do not have the money to pay.
It is not necessarily that people who have a good income failed to pay. It is usually the people who have difficulty meeting their monthly obligations because of the recession and unemployment and so on.
Of course, we know who is paying. However, I was saying to myself that 29.9 per cent is close to 30 per cent. If the person gives just the minimum and you compound that month after month, at the end of the year, it is a huge amount of money to pay.
This is happening, code of conduct or no code of conduct. This is probably what is hurting the industry the most. I know you would never do that, go to that level, but these companies are your competition. Of course, they probably serve another purpose, but we have to look at all the players.
When my colleague is talking about the code of conduct, my perception of the bill is that it is more or less between voluntary and non-voluntary measures. We were supporting the voluntary code of conduct, but the voluntary, as my colleague Senator Harb said, might not cover all the players in the marketplace. That is why we have Bill S-201.
There may be redundancy in certain areas, but when it comes to the people who do not play by the rules and do not respect the code of conduct, there is limited power. I agree that when the Minister of Finance phones you, you should take his call. However, there are other players — foreign players, because there are foreign companies also in the credit card market — who may not have the same culture as people in Canada.
Senator Kochhar: Ms. De Vita, can you give us more information on the Australian model, which you mentioned in your remarks had been detrimental to consumers, with the fees going up? Can you elaborate?
Ms. De Vita: The annual survey from the Reserve Bank of Australia looked at some incremental revenue that was earned by the merchants based on the lowering of interchange rates. There was no evidence to determine that any of this incremental revenue or savings was then passed down to the consumer. Across the payments chain, we were trying to see some evidence and some consequence of what happens if this is regulated, whether the distribution or the benefits could be seen across the different players in the payments scheme. We would be happy to share that annual survey with the committee.
Senator Ringuette: As the sponsor of the bill, I will make a statement to all of you. Bill S-201 does not deal with the code of conduct or the code of conduct issue. This bill deals with the fees and charges related to credit cards and debit cards in Canada.
My first line of questioning will be for Mr. Wilson from Visa Canada. There is a lot of conflict in regard to your issuing a Visa debit card. Your press release indicates that the debit card is to be used for international purchases or online purchases alone. However, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, CIBC, which is your partner in the issuance of that credit card, definitely — and I have proof here with me in my file — promotes its use in the Canadian marketplace.
It seems that the breach by your technology provider for the use of Visa Debit is also a case in point. You are breaching the current code; and yet you say in your presentation that you are the star promoter of the code of conduct and so forth. How will you remove yourself from this breach in the code?
Mr. Wilson: I am happy to answer that question. I will start by saying we are compliant with the code of conduct. The CIBC card has been designed and is compliant with the code of conduct, as well. It might make sense if I take a moment to explain how the card is designed.
The card is designed to be compliant with the code of conduct such that it has the existing bank card applications, the Interac network, on it for all face-to-face purchases in Canada at point-of-sale locations. If someone walks into Canadian Tire and makes a purchase with their debit card, that is an Interac transaction, not Visa.
Visa is layered on it to provide incremental value to Canadian merchants and consumers. Your existing card cannot be used robustly online or internationally, so the Visa application has been put on that bank card to allow consumers to use it in more places and in more ways. They can now use that online anywhere Visa cards are accepted or internationally anywhere cards are accepted. It is functionality that complements what cardholders have on their existing cards today, and it is fully compliant with the code of conduct.
Senator Ringuette: Why is there a discrepancy between what you have just said and what CIBC is saying?
Mr. Wilson: I do not believe there is. CIBC is right that the card can be used domestically. When it is, it is an Interac transaction for face-to-face purchases. If it is used domestically online for card-not-present purchases — telephone order or mail order are examples — then it would be Visa.
Senator Ringuette: I would guess either you or CIBC would have a contract agreement for the use of the Interac network. Do you have a contract agreement with Interac?
Mr. Wilson: CIBC would have an agreement with Interac.
Senator Ringuette: Do you know if it has that?
Mr. Wilson: CIBC would have to speak that, but the logo is on the front of the card, so I would have to assume so.
Senator Ringuette: CIBC does not have an agreement with Interac to use its network.
On the first page of your statement, you say that Visa does not issue cards — granted; make loans — granted; or set rates and fees associated with card usage or acceptance.
Could you tell me how you generate your revenues and how you distribute the set fees between yourself and the issuing banks, between yourself and the technology provider and between the technology provider and the banks?
We know all that, Mr. Wilson, because we studied that in 2009. We know that you share the fees with the issuing banks and that there is sharing of fees and charges with the technology provider. It is a very complex business plan that enables you to tell us that you are not guilty of anything and you do not do anything wrong.
Just in the last quarter, you increased your benefits by 51 per cent. How do you generate all those billions of dollars in revenue if you do not set anything?
Mr. Wilson: We, as Visa, have contracts with all of our financial institution clients, for example banks that issue cards and acquirers that have relationships with merchants, and we negotiate fees with each of those institutions and charge them for the services that we provide.
Senator Ringuette: Exactly — you do set fees and charges.
Mr. Wilson: We charge our financial institution clients for the services we provide, and that is how we generate revenue. We do not charge fees directly to cardholders or to merchants.
Senator Ringuette: Exactly; I said we understood all that. However, you do set fees that are transferred to either the consumer or the merchants by the issuer, but you wash your hands of all these fees, as you said in your opening statement.
Ms. De Vita, you said that no government agency should intervene in the marketplace. Could you tell us why the U.S. Federal Reserve had to intervene to set fees? Can you tell us also the issue of your negotiation with the U.S. government? It was because of unfair competition in the marketplace in the U.S. that you had to negotiate with the U.S. government in order to comply.
Regarding your issue about Australia, the Australian government, through its reserve bank, decided on rates seven years ago after numerous studies, reviewed those rates three years ago, and decided that even the rates that they had set seven years ago were unreasonable in regard to the reasonable cost of providing these services.
These rates are not associated with consumers. They are directly associated with the merchants. Of course, if you squeeze merchants too hard, where do they have to go?
Senator Harb: Home.
Senator Ringuette: Exactly. I would also like to say that we are still two years without any answer from our Canadian Competition Bureau about the dominance of both Visa and MasterCard in the credit card market in Canada. It is a duopoly, and sometimes one wonders if it is not more. I will not go there.
You can come here and collude in your statements that Bill S-201 is not a good thing for Canadian consumers and the Canadian business community and you can say that all these issues have been dealt with through the code of conduct. However, the code of conduct does not deal with the unreasonableness of the fees and charges in regard to credit card use in Canada, and both Visa and MasterCard dominate the market.
The Deputy Chair: May I have a question that maybe Ms. De Vita can address? You gave a summary of the situation and your own vision, but could we have a precise question?
Senator Ringuette: Do you want a precise question?
The Deputy Chair: Yes, please.
Senator Ringuette: Why did the Federal Reserve of the United States and the Reserve Bank of Australia and both countries have to introduce legislation to put in place reasonable fees?
Ms. De Vita: I had about six parts to the question. I will try to address them as clearly as I can.
With regard to the U.S., I believe you are talking about the recent Durbin amendment. The Durbin amendment addresses the debit market and not the credit market, and the U.S. walked away from that. I would suggest that if I were in front of the U.S., I would have the same justification or recommendation with regard to whether or not a government can actually determine the reasonableness of fees in a multi-party system.
Over many years, where government has tried to come in, which is exactly to your example of Australia, we have seen, in our view, with some research that supports it, unintended consequences toward the consumer.
Therefore, I would say that the U.S. has looked at both debit and credit, has walked away from the credit side but has opined on the debit side. I would make the same type of recommendation if I were sitting there.
As we clarified the question, I do not know whether that answer gets to the main question.
Senator Ringuette: You did not answer the question about the issue with the U.S., which was the about penalties you had to pay for your share in the marketplace and your abuse of the share.
Ms. De Vita: I believe you are talking about the agreement made with the Department of Justice. It was an agreement based on the allowance for discounting; in the MasterCard rules, we allow for discounting. It is absolutely within the rules today for an establishment or a merchant to be able to discount for other forms of payment, for example, discounts for cash, as I heard yesterday.
Senator Ringuette: One of the main comments I have heard from people who do not agree with me on Bill S-201 is that Canadian merchants have the freedom to choose. Now, if all the Canadian merchants decided that they would not accept MasterCard credit, would you be willing then to sit down with them, at least, and negotiate? For the last five years, you have not been sitting down with the merchants in regard to your fees, which are consistently increasing. If you read yesterday's testimony yesterday or watched CPAC, the Cable Public Affairs Channel, you know their comments from yesterday.
What if all the merchants in Canada, all the sellers of products and services, said, "Okay, we have the freedom of choice, and we decide that we do not want to accept MasterCard anymore''? Perhaps they all decide not to accept Visa anymore. What do you think of that? What do you think about that freedom of choice?
Ms. De Vita: Merchants have a choice today. They have a choice across seven different acquirers, so there are options there. Two of the associations you referenced, the CFIB and the Retail Council of Canada, have negotiated specific rates for their members.
I would say there absolutely are cases where merchants have determined based on this choice that they do not want to offer MasterCard. Yesterday, I think one of the senators from New Brunswick talked about a small restaurant that decided not to accept MasterCard or credit cards, and the establishment was actually flourishing. That is a small example.
A large example is Costco. If you go there on Saturday morning, you will see a huge lineup. Costco does not accept MasterCard. It accepts a competitor, and it accepts cash. Costco made that determination, and it has been in place for quite some time. We would love to be able to have a dialogue with Costco.
Senator Ringuette: Collectively, we could agree to remove one of the players in the market, because you say there are numerous players in the market —
Ms. De Vita: No.
Senator Ringuette: You say there are numerous players, but we could remove one player from the market and it would be better for the merchants and the consumers. It is freedom of choice.
Ms. De Vita: I said merchants have choices and options. There is a difference I think in the two views.
Senator Moore: Thank you for being here, witnesses.
I want to go back to the chair's initial intervention and also follow up on some things Senator Ringuette touched upon. The chair mentioned she got a notice in the mail the other day advising her that her interest rate is going up. The numbers do not matter; it was the process. She received a letter saying that. She had no input and received no reasons; the letter just said that.
We heard evidence yesterday from Mr. David Collins from Wilson Fuels in Nova Scotia. He gave evidence to our committee that, in the first four months of this year, his fees and charges went up 45 per cent. He did not find that out until he received a statement at the end of each month from Visa, MasterCard or the other people who issue cards — the banks.
I am trying to find out where the fairness is. Where is the reasonableness? You keep talking about the merchants having choice. He has no choice. The customer uses a card, and each card attracts a different percentage that he has to pay. Then the piece de resistance for me was that he was told by one of the card companies — and I do not know which one it was — that he must install in each of his 55 outlets a piece of equipment that is supposed to be more preventive. They cost $25,000 each. The total cost to him would be $2.8 million. If he does not, he will be taken off the network.
I am again asking where the fairness exists and where the merchant choice is. I do not see any in these examples.
He was speaking to us yesterday. I take him at his word. Others have said similar things in their operations. I want to hear from Visa and MasterCard: Where is the choice?
You cannot tell me that interest rates or fees going up 45 per cent in four months is within any kind of code of reasonableness or fairness. I do not accept that. The code is not working.
You may be able to design things and work things around the code; I am sure you have looked at that. This task force will not report until this time next year.
Where are the relief and the give and take? His said there is no natural counterbalance, and I think he is correct. I want to hear about the counterbalance because I do not see it or hear it.
Mr. Wilson: I am happy to answer the question and pass it over after.
I will start by saying I cannot comment specifically on that merchant's situation, primarily because we do not charge fees or issue statements directly to merchants, as I said in my opening remarks. Visa sets interchange fees. I can say that they have stayed relatively flat over the course of the past 10 years. We have provided data to this committee in the past. We are happy to provide updated data, but we have not seen the types of increases you are speaking about. Again our fees have remained relatively flat.
The other point I will make is that, again, electronic payments drive value for merchants. We cannot forget that. There are guaranteed payments, speed of checkout, customer satisfaction and increased spending by those customers. Yes, they pay a fee for accepting cards, but that is a cost of doing business, and it is a cost that ultimately drives a lot of value to their bottom line.
If they do not see that value, merchants do have choices. They can say they do not want to accept certain kinds of cards. The small market at the end of my street is one example. We have heard about Costco, Tim Hortons and few other examples. They have made the decision not to accept a particular brand of card.
Further to that, even if merchants do accept, they have the ability to do what we call steering, which is directing consumers to one form of payment over another. The code of conduct formally embeds merchants' ability to discount. If they want to move consumers to another form of payment, they can do that. The restaurant at the end of my street offers a discount if consumers use cash, and they drive many consumers toward that form of payment.
The last point I would make is that the code of conduct requires the industry to be much more transparent than it has been in the past. Merchants should have adequate notice of any fee change. The way the code is written, there is a minimum of six months' notice for any fee change once it is decided upon at the network level. If merchants do not like that fee change, merchants have the ability at that point to walk away from their current contract with their acquirer without a penalty. Therefore, the code of conduct does go quite a way toward promoting transparent and fair business practices and addressing the exact type of concerns you are speaking about, senator.
Senator Moore: I will come back to you, but I would like to hear from Ms. De Vita.
Ms. De Vita: Since interest rates were mentioned a number of times, I will say that MasterCard and our colleagues do not set the interest rates on credit cards. Therefore, perhaps we could have a comment from the Canadian Bankers Association, CBA, about the issuer so that we can clear that question and then move on to the rest.
Senator Moore: Is the issuer the acquirer?
Ms. De Vita: The banks.
Senator Moore: They issue the cards to the customers. Who is the acquirer?
Ms. De Vita: The acquirers are the seven different —
Mr. Wilson: In simple terms, the acquirer is the company that installs the terminal at the merchant that processes the card. They have the direct link.
Senator Moore: Are you an acquirer?
Mr. Wilson: No, we are not. There is an acquirer in between us and all the merchants.
Senator Moore: Who are the seven acquirers?
Ms. De Vita: Global Payments, Moneris, Chase Paymentech, TD Merchant Services, et cetera.
Senator Moore: Thank you. Ms. Fung, did you want to respond?
Ms. Fung: With the particular example the senator gave of the high interest rates, I believe the card Ms. De Vita is talking about is generated not by the bank issuers but the finance company's private label, which is not federally regulated. That is provincially regulated.
Was it a bank?
The Deputy Chair: It was a bank. Maybe it is not one of the six or seven big ones in Canada, but it is a bank that operates in Canada.
Ms. Fung: Most of the interest rates of our banks and credit cards are not that high. There are options; in fact, approximately 60 are low-rate cards. There is choice. I am sorry to keep repeating the subject of choice. I do not know whether I have answered the question.
Senator Moore: You are answering the question of Ms. De Vita.
Ms. De Vita: I wanted to have clarity around what the networks set in terms of the rates. I thought we should address the question because it was asked twice.
Regarding reasonableness and the discussion yesterday, multiple items are part of the fees for merchants in the gas or the oil industry, as in this particular case. I am not especially knowledgeable about that area, and I would be interested in understanding what has transpired with that merchant. My belief is that there is some connection to his growth in sales, and we did not hear that part of the discussion, or that the terminals being replaced are probably in external locations where the pump is. That is a unique terminal, not a regular terminal. That is an option that he has chosen in order to facilitate a better consumer experience.
I believe there is probably more information with regard to that specific merchant that perhaps the Senate committee could have full disclosure on. It is not just the information that was presented.
Senator Moore: Mr. Wilson, it sounds like you are very much hands-off on this whole thing, which I do not accept. You say merchants have choices and it helps the bottom line, but I did not hear Mr. Collins say his bottom line went up 45 per cent. I did not hear him say he will gain an extra $2.8 million, at least to cover the costs of these new pieces of equipment.
Do you charge the banks fees on your contracts?
Mr. Wilson: We charge fees directly to the banks.
Senator Moore: Do you think the banks pass those on to the consumers who get the cards?
Mr. Wilson: I cannot speak directly to the practices of the bank. That is probably a better question for the CBA to answer.
Senator Moore: When a bank gets an increase on a contract with Visa or MasterCard, do they pass that on to the consumer?
Ms. Fung: The pricing model used by the banks is quite complex. Obviously, increases in the cost of operation are one component of it but not necessarily the only component.
Senator Moore: If you get an increase from Visa, you would not pass it on to the consumer? Is that correct?
Ms. Fung: No, I think the banks would have to look at their model. In addition to an increase in operation costs, there could be higher competition.
Senator Moore: Of course they are going to pass it on. You trigger it, the bank passes it on, the consumer pays and the merchant has nothing to say. The merchant does not know what kind of card I am using when I walk into his establishment. He does not know what kind of fee that card triggers, which comes through the two of you, until the end of the month when he gets the statement. I do not think that is transparent, fair or reasonable, and it has to be cleaned up.
The Deputy Chair: I think that was an opinion, not a question
Senator Plett: I will also make two comments before I ask a very basic question.
The first one is that, in my opinion, collusion is illegal. If I were accused of collusion by anyone, I would ask that person to repeat that comment outside of these chambers where he does not have the protection that this affords him. I find it offensive that someone would accuse any of you of collusion. That is my first comment.
My second comment is that, like Senator Kochhar, I own all three major credit cards. I have been a merchant for many years where I used two of the credit cards, Visa and MasterCard. I applied to Visa and MasterCard to do this as a merchant. I applied to Visa, MasterCard and American Express for their credit cards. I am not quite as good as Senator Kochhar, because I did pay interest on occasion over the years. I did not always have the wherewithal, but I decided when you were charging 17 per cent or even 12 per cent that I could not afford to pay those interest rates, so I decided I would stop paying interest. Probably everyone in the country has the right to do the same thing.
Have you ever, in the history of MasterCard or Visa, forced your credit cards on someone, forced a merchant to open up a shop using your credit card, or is this, in fact, voluntary? Would I be able to send my credit card back to you if I think you are charging me too much interest?
Ms. De Vita: We have never forced a merchant, consumer or issuer to take our services, and I appreciate your comment on collusion. I also think it is quite serious, and I am shocked about it as well.
The Deputy Chair: First, I will make a comment about what you said. We have the bank, the merchant, the acquirer or the Moneris types of this world, and the consumer. Have I forgotten some of the players? Do I have all the players included in this system? Are those all the players we are talking about? Are there no other parties? We have an audience, and I want to ensure that people understand that there are many players in the business of debit and credit. There are different people, and some members of the committee would like to address the question of who is doing what, because we agree it is complicated.
There is also the question of how and where the interest rate is decided. There are no non-profit corporations dealing in these areas, including the merchant. At the end of the day, the merchant has guaranteed payment, but when there are people not meeting payments or people who are bankrupt and not meeting their payments, the ones who are making interventions are not MasterCard, Visa or Moneris. The banks go after the defaulting person.
I wanted to clarify the role of each player so that when we deliberate about what we want to achieve, people understand who is doing what.
If my resumé is fine and everybody agrees with it, we have to deal with how it should be dealt with in the future, whether through the code of conduct or regulation or whatever. We have to deal with who should be regulated, whether it is everyone or just certain players in the game.
Senator Mockler: You have said that between MasterCard, Visa and the other card, an intermediary group, the acquirers, installs the equipment. The point I want to make, Madam Chair, is that maybe we should also have the terminals people here, too, to see what they charge in between the customer.
[Translation]
I think it is important. There are people who are not here and who should be here.
The Deputy Chair: I was not at the committee meeting yesterday because of other commitments. However, I know that the committee considered the possibility of inviting other witnesses to appear because there are some aspects of the issue which have been left aside. We are going to study the matter with the clerk and the members of the Subcommittee on Programs and Procedure to see who are the players affected by this act.
Senator Ringuette, you had a point of order?
Senator Ringuette: Before talking about my point of order, I wish to support Senator Mockler's suggestion. There are other stakeholders, like people from Interac, who did not come as well as the officials from the Competition Bureau who have, at this time, a major role to play in that situation.
[English]
Earlier, I asked if there was collusion. That was because of the shocking statement from the three of you that Bill S- 201 was not needed because it is already covered in the code of conduct, which is not the situation. It was very bizarre that all three of you would say the exact same thing.
I used the word "collusion'' and I withdraw that. It was —
The Deputy Chair: A coincidence.
Senator Ringuette: — a coincidence that all three of you had the same statement on the issue.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, and thank you to our witnesses for coming. We will continue our examination of the subject matter.
Before we go to our next witnesses, I would like to acknowledge some of the witnesses who came to appear before us; perhaps they were watching on television. This is just to say that we are continuing our work, as we decided.
We had momentarily decided to adjourn, but yesterday there was a vote to proceed with the bill. I am waiting for my last colleague to show because we need everyone to be here, but welcome to this session.
Senator Mockler: Madam Chair, last night we did not have a vote; we had a consensus.
The Deputy Chair: I was told to proceed. Just before I start, I would like to inform my colleagues that we had adjourned and, in fact, there was supposed to be a steering committee meeting. We tried to do it, but as you can witness today, one of the regular members of this committee, Senator Gerstein, was not available, and he is not available today for the committee work. Therefore the meeting did not take place.
Instead, I know there was a consensus yesterday. However, I would like to be on the record to say that the committee is the master of its own destiny, and we will do as we usually do when we have finished examining a bill: We will proceed with clause-by-clause consideration. We remember that Senator Eggleton —
Senator Greene: I would like to make a motion. I move that we not proceed to clause-by-clause consideration and that we proceed in camera to consider two draft reports.
Senator Ringuette: Two draft reports?
The Deputy Chair: Two options, or what?
Senator Greene: I would like to go in camera first.
The Deputy Chair: You say two draft reports. We want to know what you mean by "two draft reports.''
Senator Eggleton: Ultimately, will we come back in public?
Senator Greene: Absolutely.
The Deputy Chair: I would like to ask something.
Senator Moore: I want to be clear. We are not saying we are not doing clause-by-clause consideration today. We are saying we will postpone this meeting to go in camera to consider something else. Is that where we are, Senator Greene?
Senator Greene: We are not suggesting a postponement. We are suggesting we go in camera. We would like to go in camera to consider two draft reports. I will distribute them.
Senator Eggleton: Is it on this matter?
The Deputy Chair: I think it is evidence. The proposal is to go in camera to study the options. We will return in public after.
Senator Plett: Could I make a further motion that we allow staff to be with us in camera?
The Deputy Chair: Is it agreed?
Senator Moore: I am agreeable to that, so long as there is no use of BlackBerrys. Otherwise, I do not agree with that.
The Deputy Chair: I hope staff has understood that no BlackBerrys will be used during the in camera session. Very well.
(The committee continued in camera.)
[Translation]
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Deputy Chair: I call the meeting to order. Now that we have reached the end of our examination, we should go to a clause-by-clause study of Bill S-216, an Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act in order to protect beneficiaries of long-term disability benefits plans. Do you agree to do that clause-by-clause examination.
[English]
Senator Greene: No, Madam Chair, we do not. We would like to dispense with clause by clause and consider a draft report.
The Deputy Chair: Do the members agree with that?
Senator Harb: I recommend you make two motions — first, that you do not want to proceed with clause by clause. We vote on that, and then you move your motion to present the report.
Senator Greene: I agree with that. I would like to move that we do not proceed with clause-by-clause consideration.
The Deputy Chair: Are there any questions?
Senator Ringuette: We want a recorded vote on this.
[Translation]
We are going to have a recorded vote. The clerk of the committee will call the members by their name, starting with the chair and by alphabetical order, senators will have to state verbally if they vote for or against, or if they abstain. We are following the code of procedure of the Senate. I am against the motion.
Lyne Gravel, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Against.
[English]
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Ataullahjan.
Senator Ataullahjan: No.
Senator Plett: Are we voting for the motion or against clause by clause?
Senator Greene: We are voting against clause by clause, which is for the motion.
Senator Harb: So you are supposed to vote yes if you are voting.
Senator Ataullahjan: I think the question was not well worded; my vote is yes.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Dickson.
Senator Dickson: Yes.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Eggleton.
Senator Eggleton: No.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Greene.
Senator Greene: Yes.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Harb.
Senator Harb: No.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Kochhar.
Senator Kochhar: Yes.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Mockler.
Senator Mockler: Yes.
Mr. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Moore.
Senator Moore: No.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: Yes.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Ringuette.
Senator Ringuette: No.
Ms. Gravel: Six yeas and five nays. We do not proceed with clause by clause.
The Deputy Chair: It is my duty as chair to declare the motion carried.
Senator Greene: Madam Chair, I would like to put forward another motion, if I could. I move that we take up the draft report submitted to the session in camera.
Senator Eggleton: What other alternative is there but to look at it?
The Deputy Chair: Do honourable senators want to have this tabled, just read, or do you want to ask questions?
Senator Eggleton: It will be made public, so it has to be put out there.
Senator Greene: Would you like me to read it?
Your committee, to which was referred Bill S-216, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act in order to protect the beneficiaries of long-term disability benefits plans has, in obedience to the Order of Reference of June 17, 2010, examined the said bill and now reports as follows:
Your committee recommends that this bill not be proceeded with further in the Senate for the reasons that follow.
Your committee notes that Bill S-216 attempts to retroactively enhance the priority of claims for unfunded long-term disability liabilities in proceedings commenced pursuant to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act before the coming into force of the amendments contained in the bill, which may generate claims that conflict with court-approved settlement agreements already in force, resulting in litigation that would be detrimental to the interests of long-term disability claimants including the former employees of Nortel;
Your committee believes that Bill S-216 would cause companies to prefer liquidation to restructuring, because it would confer preferred status on claims for unfunded long-term disabilities liabilities in liquidation proceedings, while conferring super-priority status on similar claims in restructuring proceedings, under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act; and
Your committee notes that Bill S-216 would reduce the amount that some creditors would otherwise hope to recover in bankruptcy proceedings, increasing risk for investors and financing costs for bond-issuing companies, which your committee believes would be detrimental to the currently fragile growth of the Canadian economy.
The Deputy Chair: Are there any comments or questions?
Senator Eggleton: This is extremely disappointing. There are over 400 Nortel employees who have been hanging by a thread for some time now. Remember this bill was introduced in the spring and was given second reading on June 17. These people are running out of time. Some of them are here today.
It is the end of the year that they are going to be officially terminated as employees, their incomes dropped substantially — they are already dropped substantially — and their medical benefits cut off.
The arguments that are presented in here are weak at best. It ignores what has been said by expert witnesses here, by people who are expert in financial matters and in legal matters.
It starts off by talking about the retroactivity of this. Yes, we know that there is some retroactivity here in the sense that there is a procedure already before the courts. It is not a procedure of the distant past where everything was finalized, but there is a procedure presently before the courts; and there clearly needs to be an amendment to this bill, which I am quite prepared to move, that makes it abundantly clear that it needs to apply to proceedings that are currently ongoing.
Are the Conservative members objecting, in principle, to the word "retroactive''? If they are, they must bear in mind that they have brought in three bills so far since they became the government that have such clauses in them. This is not retroactive in the sense of going back before the present proceedings, but it is to make clear that they would be part of the present proceedings.
It says "result in litigation.'' The one lawyer we had here, who is an expert on the subject, said he could not see a basis in law for there to be litigation, that there was not a cause for action. As Mr. Pierlot said, what will they do, sue the Nortel sick and disabled? Hardly. Will they sue the government? The government has every right to do this kind of legislation.
Who would want to take it through a court procedure? Certainly not the people who are in the secured or the super- priority status — the banks and the financial institutions that have got into those ranks; they are already protected. We are just talking about moving these people up to a middle rank from the bottom of the barrel.
It is ironic that the Conservative government brought in a bill in 2007, which the leaders talked to the other day — the Wage Earner Protection Program Act. Do you know what that did? That protected people's wages in a super- priority status. Was there a lot of litigation on that? No. Did people howl and scream? Did they say the markets are affected, that the costs of financing are affected? No, they did not say any of that.
Super-priority status is just a higher status than what I am suggesting in this bill here.
Regarding this concern about litigation resulting, in any country at any time on anything, you could get people to litigate, but you cannot make a case for it. That is what Mr. Pierlot told us. Furthermore, there is the time factor. Time is money. If people are thinking of going to litigation, it depends how much money they are looking for versus what the assets are. Is it worth spending all that time and all of the costs involved in going through a court procedure? I think quite clearly the case has not been made. This is a very flimsy argument.
Then we have people preferring liquidation to restructuring. No. Remember, the people going through the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act procedure get the opportunity to vote on a plan of arrangement. They would be required by the court, though, to get this cleaned up before they would move on to that final vote.
They said it would be conferring super-priority status on similar claims in restructuring proceedings. No, there is no such thing as a super-priority status under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. Again, I would point out that if super-priority status is so objectionable, why did the government bring in the Wage Earner Protection Program Act in 2007, which did exactly that?
The final argument in the final paragraph is increasing risk for investors and financing costs for bond issuing companies. Again, that does not stand up. You have to remember that most of the countries we deal with on a trade basis already have similar provisions in their bankruptcy and insolvency laws. Of the 54 countries the OECD canvassed, 34 countries plus all the OECD countries virtually have this kind of a provision already. Some of them even have super-priority. Some of them in fact have the pensions there. This is not the pensions; this is just the long-term disability.
Financing costs, bond issuing companies, et cetera — those kinds of concern about the market conditions have been disproven as well.
Interesting enough, when we were talking about Bill S-201, there was some questioning about Australia. Australia did a study. A couple of economists, Anderson and Davis, did a study. They used an analytical credit risk model. They found that in fact the employee benefits — and here it was more than just long-term disability — were miniscule, far less than half a per cent; we are talking about miniscule amounts, negligible amounts, in terms of any impact on the economy.
It just does not stand up. These arguments are weak, at best. They are flimsy. They are just an excuse for not proceeding.
It is ironic that if you vote for this, you are letting Nortel off the hook, the same company that managed to give $8 million to seven top executives a year ago, and Nortel has assets far in excess of what is needed in this particular case. It can meet many of its other creditor obligations. However, you are letting Nortel off the hook and dumping it on to the taxpayer, because the social services will have to pick it up.
Senator Greene: I would like to call the question.
The Deputy Chair: We are a few minutes over our time. I do not think any more comments are needed. The evidence is public. Everyone can look at it. Personally, I am very sad about the outcome of this study. I had to chair because the usual chair could not do it, being in a conflict of interest situation in this matter. Personally, I am extremely disappointed that we could not come to a fruitful and hopeful conclusion. I guess we will have the vote on this report.
Senator Moore: I want to speak for one minute.
An Hon. Senator: Question.
Senator Moore: I am sitting here listening, and I want one minute.
The Deputy Chair: I think we should conclude. I do not think there is much to add, especially when people read the report.
Do you want a recorded vote?
Senator Eggleton: Yes.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette: Should the report be adopted?
The Deputy Chair: No.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Ataullahjan?
Senator Ataullahjan: Yes.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Dickson?
Senator Dickson: Yes.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Eggleton?
Senator Eggleton: Against the report.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Greene?
Senator Greene: Yes.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Harb?
Senator Harb: No.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Kochhar?
Senator Kochhar: Yes.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Mockler?
Senator Mockler: Yes.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Moore?
Senator Moore: No.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Ms. Gravel: The Honourable Senator Ringuette?
Senator Ringuette: No.
Ms. Gravel: Five nays; six yeas.
The Deputy Chair: I declare the report adopted.
Senator Eggleton: We will fight it in the Senate.
Senator Greene: I would like to recommend that the committee send a letter to the minister urging him as soon as possible to come up with a plan or a piece of legislation that effectively will satisfy and deal with this issue.
Senator Mockler: If we agree with that, there is a motion.
The Deputy Chair: That is the third motion that we did not have when we started.
Senator Mockler: Is there consensus to accept the motion, Madam Chair? Is there a consensus to accept the motion?
Senator Eggleton: Why would we not? We want something done for these people.
Senator Mockler: Let us have a consensus.
Senator Eggleton: It is better than nothing. I still want to debate my bill in the Senate, but for the moment, better to have that than nothing.
Senator Mockler: Can we send it to the Senate today?
Senator Harb: Can we report it today?
The Deputy Chair: Do you agree that we report today? Have you talked to your leadership?
Senator Greene: I am fine with that.
Senator Harb: Can I ask for a friendly amendment, to put the senators who voted as "yea'' and "nay'' as part of the report? We will not have time to do a minority report.
An Hon. Senator: We are going to do that.
Senator Mockler: Is there is a consensus that we send a letter to the minister?
Senator Eggleton: It is not a replacement, though. That is not a replacement for our position, but in addition. Something is better than nothing.
(The committee adjourned.)