OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 040 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Monday, February 3, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES February 3, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 040 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 040 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 040 (Version officielle) 147 040 03 02 2014 2014/02/03 11:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 11 a.m. Prayers (1105) [ English ] House of Commons The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : I invite the House to take note of today's use of the wooden mace. The wooden mace is traditionally used when the House sits on February 3, to mark the anniversary of the fire that destroyed the original Parliament Buildings on this day in 1916.

Private Members' Business Private Members' Business [ English ] Financial Administration Act The House resumed from November 29, 2013, consideration of the motion that Bill C-473,

An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act (balanced representation) , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-473. Second reading Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak on Bill C-473 , legislation that would amend the Financial Administration Act to achieve balanced representation of the number of women and men serving as directors on boards of parent crown corporations, by establishing the minimum proportion of each.

I want to commend my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for an initiative which builds on the work of the senator for Bedford, Quebec. Before I discuss the merits of the legislation, I would like to note that women's rights are human rights and there are no human rights that do not include the rights of women. Therefore, it is incumbent upon each of us to give expression to this fundamental message through concrete action and to understand that the tools to promote the objectives of equality are in our own hands. That is, we must commit ourselves to this cause without delay.

Canada ranks 20th among 133 countries regarding the gender gap, behind Nicaragua, Latvia, Cuba, and Lesotho. Status of Women Canada has a $29.6 million budget and only four offices. The government has yet to launch an inquiry into the 600 missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls. Violence drives 100,000 women and children from their homes into shelters each year. Canadian women earn 81¢ for every $1 that a man earns, and the government fails to value the enormous contribution that women make to the two-thirds of the 25 billion hours of unpaid work that Canadians perform every year.

While women make up 50.9% of the Canadian population, women hold barely one-quarter of the seats in the House. Canada ranks 42nd in terms of the gender gap in politics. This is a result of policy choices we have made and that we should change. While I will not go into the details here, we have examples from around the world, such as Norway and Sweden, that if we remove obstacles, including financial barriers, more women would run, more women would be elected, and we would improve gender parity in the House of Commons.

Beyond policy options to improve gender parity in Parliament, there are policy options with respect to equality more broadly, and that is what this bill is about. Bill C-473 is at second reading, and the question before Parliament is whether it should be sent to committee for further study. I believe the bill should indeed be referred to committee, so that witnesses can help inform the discussion and debate. I support the spirit and principle of the bill, as I believe gender parity is a goal we must pursue, and more importantly attain.

According to the research organization Catalyst, women make up 47% of the Canadian labour force, but only 14% of board seats among the 500 largest Canadian companies surveyed by the Financial Post . Women's representation on boards of publicly traded companies still stands at only 10.3%. There was new data out last night that suggests another study shows it may be 20%. Many industrialized countries have discovered that legislation is needed to achieve balanced representation in the corporate world.

Since 2008, at least nine countries, including Norway, Spain, France, and Italy, have adopted some form of quota requirements for diversity on corporate boards. Other countries do not have fixed quotas, but they have set targets for women that companies are either required to comply with or must explain publicly why they are not. According to Deb Gillis, chief operating officer at Catalyst, “There really is a global conversation going on right now about the issue of women on boards”. Yet, in Canada, progress has been glacial.

The Globe and Mail 's annual “Board Games” report on corporate governance found that 41% of companies in the benchmark S&P/TSX index still have no women on their boards. There are some questions to be addressed in committee regarding the scope and implementation of this bill. One question is whether the legislation goes far enough, in that the number of women on boards may not be an accurate indicator in and of itself of women's progress more broadly. Let me provide an example.

Just because we have gender parity on a board heading a science agency does not mean we are doing enough to encourage women to enter and remain in the sciences, or that women are equitably represented in decisions regarding science policy. We all hope that if more women are on boards, these boards and agencies will adopt policies and perspectives that are inclusive and sensitive to the need for minority representation. However, we might wonder whether there are other metrics to be considered in this regard, such as compensation.

Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, the bill seems to be silent on the matter of sanctions. That is, it does not outline penalties or remedial action for failure to adhere to the objectives outlined in the bill. It specifically states:

An act of the board of directors of a parent Crown corporation to which

section 105.1 applies is not invalid on the sole ground that the composition of the board is not in compliance with that section. In other words, any decision made by a board without the designated gender representation is not invalid if the board does not meet the appropriate gender representation requirements. This clause would seem to lessen the strength of the bill. I think we have to investigate whether we might have some sort of mechanism whereby we do not merely say, as this bill does, that failure to meet the required parity is just business as usual and we are sorry.

Ultimately, without any consequence for failure to meet the quotas, this entire initiative may become an exercise in symbolism, which I am sure the hon. member who introduced the bill did not intend to be the principal impact. There are multiple approaches to this question. Those studying the bill at committee should perhaps question what the goal should be, and if and when sanctions should be put in place. For example, should the goal be 50% parity in the statute and that sanctions be mandated with a figure of less than 40%, or should perhaps some other number be achieved?

We need to hear expert witness testimony before the committee. While Canada has seen little improvement in women's representation on boards, other countries have seen marked improvement. For example, in France, where mandatory quotas will take effect in 2017, women comprised 16.6% of directors in 2011, up from 9.1% just 2 years earlier. I hope we can send this bill to committee so that witnesses will provide the evidence that we as parliamentarians can then use to inform our perspectives and the subsequent debate.

Before concluding my remarks, I would be remiss if I did not note that all issues of gender parity are not solved by this bill, though it is certainly a step in the right direction. There are indeed many other concerns, both domestic and international, that time does not permit me to address, including pay equity, ending violence against women, an inquiry into the 600 missing and murdered aboriginal women, matrimonial real property, gender budgeting, women in armed conflict, etcetera, on which I would encourage the government to adopt a more progressive and inclusive approach.

Until that time, I hope more private members' bills such as this will seek to advance the equality cause that arguably the government has abandoned.

(1110) Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak on Bill C-473,

An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act (balanced representation) , which concerns balanced representation on the boards of crown corporations. We are at second reading, which is the point at which this House determines if a bill has the merit to be sent to a committee for further study. I want to thank my colleague who submitted this bill, the member of Parliament for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles , and also her predecessor, Irene Mathyssen , who did a lot of work on this issue as well. I thank them— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order.

I remind the hon. member that she must not refer to other members of this place by their given names, but rather by their constituency.

(1115) Ms. Peggy Nash : Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I meant to refer to the member for London—Fanshawe . Thank you for that reminder. Mr. Speaker, the bill is an important measure about gender equity, and specifically it proposes that the representation on the boards of crown corporations achieve gender parity within six years, and I will be more specific in terms of what it is proposing. The bill would seek to increase the representation of women to 30% after two years of coming into force and 40% after four years; six years after the bill comes into force, 50% of the board members be women.

The bill does not suggest that— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order. I am not sure what the cause of the disruption was, but the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park has the floor. The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park. Ms. Peggy Nash : Mr. Speaker, I notice there is a group who might be very enthusiastic about this New Democrat private member's bill. I hope that is the case for their comments. The bill seeks to improve the representation of women on the boards of crown corporations.

It does not, at this point, seek to change any representation of companies, corporate entities, financial institutions, or publicly trade companies, but we do believe that this is one important step toward gender parity in our public institutions. Why is that important? It is important because more than half of our population is women, and these are public institutions that are paid for with our tax dollars and deserve to have the input and the representation in a balanced fashion.

My colleagues opposite may say they do not want anything that interferes with the merit principle, but I would argue that the current lack of representation of women on our boards of crown corporations, which is less than 30% today, is ignoring the merit of more than half of the population, which is women and ought to be represented in these public institutions. That is what the bill is seeking to do. Diversity on boards of directors is vital to the good governance of organizations. It allows a more holistic view of the environment and better representation of those who are clients, shareholders, and so on.

The bill aims to achieve balanced representation among women and men in the management of public finances over a reasonable time horizon and to position Canada as a world leader in gender representation on boards and boards of directors of crown corporations. Women are still underrepresented within our country's decision-making authorities, and the NDP is the only party suggesting concrete action to promote the equality of women and men, which includes equal representation in managing our public affairs.

That may well be because we are the first party to achieve 40% representation among our members of caucus here in the House. Diversity within corporate boards enables organizations to seek out women with exceptional expertise or specific skills. Boards of directors can gain access to vital, complementary competencies, allowing women to contribute to their full potential. As the member of Parliament for Parkdale—High Park, I live in a riding in Toronto where we have an incredible diversity of talent, women and men. I note that there are many artists, professionals, and leaders of community organizations.

Of the two city councillors, one MP, one MPP, and one school trustee in our community, all but one are women; so we have an incredibly talented base of people in our riding.

The fact that they are not equally represented in our public institutions, in the House, nor in our crown corporations, is an incredible waste of talent. (1120) [ Translation ] At the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing in 1995, the participants concluded that only equal participation of women and men at all levels of the decision-making process could allow us to achieve the balance needed for democracy to work and grow stronger.

The most recent data indicate that there are 2,000 Canadians who hold positions in more than 200 crown corporations, agencies, boards of directors and commissions across the country, but women are under-represented on boards of directors, where they currently hold only 27% of positions. According to the list of heads of crown corporations drawn up by the Library of Parliament, in Canada's 84 crown corporations, 6 of the 84 presidents are women, which translates to only 19%. Quebec is the only province to have passed legislation aimed at achieving gender parity. In 2006, Quebec passed Bill 53,

An Act respecting the governance of state-owned enterprises and amending various legislative provisions, with a view to achieving gender parity on boards of directors of crown corporations by 2011. That legislation required that the boards of directors of all such corporations include an equal number of women and men as of December 14, 2011. In December 2011, which marked the end of the five-year period by which crown corporations were to have achieved gender equality, 141 women and 128 men held positions on the boards of directors of 20 Quebec crown corporations. Women therefore made up the majority, or 52.4%.

What a success. [ English ] I know my time is rapidly winding up, but I just want to affirm that countries that have legislative quotas have made tremendous progress. Even those that only require mandatory reporting and transparency have shown tremendous progress; they are well in front of Canada. It shows the talent is there. If we want to use it, we need to allow women to fully participate in our crown corporations. I want to close with a rather, I think, indicative statement from the former head of the Conference Board of Canada, Anne Golden.

At a 2010 Senate committee she said that, at the current rate of women's representation on boards and agencies, it would take 151 years before women are represented on boards to the same degree as men. This is unacceptable. That is why I am urging all my colleagues to support the bill today. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise and speak in strong support of Bill C-473,

an act to amend the Financial Administration Act (balanced representation) . I commend my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles , for her hard work on this important initiative. I first want to discuss what this bill is designed to accomplish. Then I want to address some of the arguments that may be aligned against it. At the outset I want to say that I am deeply indebted to my constituent Ms. Nancy Singh, who has been a tireless researcher and passionate advocate for this very issue. Her analysis has been helpful to the presentation I will make today.

Bill C-473 aims to achieve gender parity in representation on the boards of directors of crown corporations over a period of six years. It is a gradual, phased-in initiative. It would also have the effect of indirectly forcing crown corporations to widen their search for qualified high-calibre applicants and target non-traditional recruitment pools. What the bill would not do is in any way legislate measures for companies, private sector corporate entities, financial institutions, or the like.

As an NDP opposition, we believe that taking steps to gender equity on government corporations would set an example desperately needed in the private sector to achieve balanced representation in the management of our important industries, and it would mirror the demographic makeup of our very country. Canada is one of the few western countries with no policy or legislation on women's representation on corporate boards. Therefore, we are depriving ourselves of the talent women would provide to decision making.

Most experts who have studied corporate governance have concluded that this is a positive contribution that should be made. There are obviously enough women qualified to serve in these capacities. For many years I taught at a law school. Year after year women were in the majority of applicants. Also, that composition has been or is being achieved in many of our provincial superior courts. However, as I will discuss in a moment, that has not been the case on corporate boards or in the crown corporations of Canada.

In March the Toronto Star reported on a report entitled “Get on Board Corporate Canada”, written by Ms. Beata Caranci, the deputy chief economist of the TD Bank. She stated that nearly half the companies listed on the TSX composite index have only one female board member and just over a quarter have no women on their boards. This is why an example must be set.

She said that based on a widely accepted international measure, termed the GMI index, just 13.1% of corporate board seats in Canada were held by women in 2011, a figure that actually dropped from sixth to ninth place among industrialized nations over a three-year period. In other words, it is getting worse, not better. There is no strategy at all, no cohesive government policy to address this issue. Many have talked about a policy whereby, if a corporation cannot comply, it must explain why not. That has been the latest option in some of the private sector.

As has been pointed out by no less than the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, this voluntary measure is having little or no impact. That is why it recently asked the Ontario Securities Commission to require all public companies to have at least three women on their boards. It is not tokenism. Rather, it is a requirement that it recognizes to achieve better decisions on boards reflecting the diversity of this country, so we have a more holistic view of the environment in which these corporations act. It is no different in crown corporations.

Since 2008, we have had at least nine countries around the world—Norway, Spain, France, and Italy—that have some sort of quota representation requiring diversity on corporate boards. Other countries have set targets. What has Canada done? Canada has done nothing. In 2012, the EU justice commissioner announced that European countries would be forced to hire a female candidate over an equally qualified male or face sanctions, unless women occupy at least 40% of board seats in Europe by 2020. Other countries are getting serious about this problem. What is Canada doing? Canada is doing nothing.

(1125) So what about crown corporations? Most recent data show that among the 2,000 Canadians who hold positions in more than 200 crown corporations, agencies, and commissions across this country, women are currently under-represented. They hold only 27% of senior management positions. The Library of Parliament tells us that according to the list of directors of crown corporations, out of 84 crown corporations in Canada, only 16 of those 84 presidents are women, or 19%. Women are over 50% of our population. Quebec has done something.

Quebec is the only province that has passed legislation to attain gender parity on the boards of their crown corporations. The goal was to do so by 2011. What has happened in that period? The results have been impressive. In December 2011, the deadline to have achieved parity, 141 women and 128 men held positions on the boards of 22 state-owned enterprises in Quebec. Therefore, women have become a majority of board members. The task now is to balance representation in each board of state-owned enterprises covered by the legislation. It can be done.

It has been done in other European countries; it has been done in Quebec; it can be done at the federal level. That said, what is the problem? Why would people be opposed to this, if indeed there are any people opposed? Let me suggest that there are probably three arguments. The first might be that appointments to a board must be based solely on merit. We agree. However, there are so many women with the very credentials and skills needed who are not being brought forward that we have a problem. There are qualified people, and that has of course been proven elsewhere.

The second argument is that there somehow is a quota system, even a temporary one, and it imposes a rigid straitjacket on the appointment process. I too find the word “quota” an ugly word, and in Canada it has an ugly connotation and an ugly history. However, we must work to ensure that there are opportunities for women and girls coming forward. The government has to show leadership. I believe that introducing a quota is a last resort, but the status quo is simply not working. This must be a function of what is termed “effects discrimination”.

We cannot look at the statistics I have quoted without coming to a different conclusion. For example, a woman named Guylaine Saucier has been a very prominent director on Canadian corporate boards. She was on the board of the French food giant, Danone. When France announced it was creating a quota requiring corporate boards to have at least 40% women directors, she was initially an opponent. However, Ms. Saucier has come around to an entirely different view. The Globe and Mail reported: “I’m beginning to evolve,” she confesses. “Yes, they appointed some token women, no doubt about that.

But at the same time, I do see coming on board women that really were not known and are really good… And I’m sure I can bet you that they would never have been invited to boards without this legislation… I am more pleasantly surprised than I thought I would be”.

The third argument, I presume, is that the law is not necessary. It is necessary. The Quebec example obviously demonstrates that the opposite is true. A selection process can remain very simple, and a corrective measure like imposing quotas balances the representation on boards within a realistic timeframe. Women are willing to participate in the administration of large corporations, and certainly are more than ready to participate in large Canadian crown corporations. It is proven that the simple passage of time does not translate into a significant increase of women on boards.

We have tried, but nothing meaningful has occurred. It is time for action. It is time for Canada to join with its European counterparts, to join with the Province of Quebec, and to get into the 21st century, to show the kind of diversity that we desperately need in our boards. I strongly support this initiative and hope my fellow members of Parliament will do so as well. (1130) [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-473 , which was introduced by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles .

Because I am fortunate enough to share a desk with her, we have had a number of discussions about this bill. This bill would introduce progressive measures to address the under-representation of women on crown corporation boards of administration. This bill is about professional equality between men and women. Equality in every dimension results from a long process of democratization that leads to recognition that both sexes have the same rights. Nevertheless, women with the same skill sets as men still do not have equal access to senior positions.

This problem affects both boards of directors and senior management teams. This bill expresses the political will to fight this type of inequality. Politicians can commit to taking meaningful action to foster gender equality in the realms where it is possible for them to do so. I want to emphasize that it takes political will to walk the talk and pass this bill, a bill that can change things. Women entering the workforce was a major change for our democracy. Our country is relatively young, but in its early days, there were hardly any women in the labour force. Things changed very fast.

Now women are in the workforce. The labour market has also become more democratic over time. We have to keep up the fight and take meaningful action to conquer this kind of inequality. Economically, implementing social policies that encourage women to join the labour force is a win-win situation. It is a technical win because when there are more women in the labour force, there is more taxable income, which means higher tax revenues for the state. It is also a win because when men and women play an equal role in governing public corporations, their decisions take a much wider range of perspectives into account.

Influenced by different viewpoints, their decisions are more thoughtful and effective. It is no secret that men and women often see the same problem from different angles. When we have the views of both men and women on how to address specific problems, the outcome is more effective. Companies are usually at an advantage when they choose to include more women on their boards of directors or management teams. In fact, research conducted by Catalyst has shown a positive correlation between a company's sound financial results and a high number of women in its executive ranks.

For instance, the crown corporation Canada Post says it has financial difficulties, but its vision is probably more masculine. If more women had been on its board of directors, the visions would have been more varied and the corporation would have taken more acceptable and effective actions.

(1135) The vision of Canada Post would have been much broader. As we can see in the case of private companies, such a vision leads to better financial results. I think the government would benefit from adopting this type of policy, since it has a positive effect on financial results. This legislation remains an effective tool for achieving the goal of gender parity. By examining international experience in the area, we can see that, unfortunately, voluntary incentives in no way lead to the expected results.

When you rely on people's goodwill and you encourage them without putting legal measures in place, you will not achieve the desired results. In our example, what really matters is the outcome. Once we realize that a voluntary approach does not work, I think it is very important to take a stand and pass the appropriate legislation. In addition, when legislation is not passed, inaction often seems to reinforce inequalities. The longer we wait to pass a piece of legislation, the more the situation worsens or at least does not improve. I think this clearly demonstrates the need to pass this legislation.

Once the bill comes into force, the objective of ensuring gender parity on the boards of crown corporations must be achieved within six years. Practically speaking, this means that it is important to pass such legislation quite quickly. A gradual approach is used so as not to shake things up too much all at once and to allow people to adapt and slowly achieve their objectives. Quite often this means there will be one or two more women a year. At the end of six years, the target will be met. This is done gradually to give the organizations the time to develop new recruitment strategies.

They will definitely need it. Often, women need to be encouraged to join boards of directors and they have to be sought out. Nonetheless, there are just as many well-qualified women as men. Sometimes women need to be sought out and encouraged to join boards of directors. The skills that these women have acquired and developed throughout their careers would be taken into consideration. This timeframe would allow the crown corporations to explore new labour pools and adjust their recruitment policies in order to bring qualified executives into their boards of administration.

The NDP has clearly demonstrated that it is leading the way in Canadian politics, and one way we have proven that is with our nominations. Fifty percent of NDP candidates are women. This has been good for democracy. I think I am a good example among my peers. By doing something tangible we are leading by example. The NDP currently has the largest female caucus in Parliament. It is important to do something tangible. If women do not make up 50% of the parties' candidates, then it will be hard to have more female members of Parliament. We have to force the hand of the authorities in place.

By having female candidates, we are able to have female MPs. The same goes for boards of directors. By passing legislation and forcing their hand a bit, we will end up with excellent women contributing to our crown corporations. The government can then also contribute to the increased use of professional practices that are based on balanced representation and that, I hope, will go beyond those of the public enterprises in question. In other words, the bill before us can truly provide a concrete strategic advantage to our crown corporations.

What is more, considering that some crown corporations are in financial difficulty, this might even help them face the future much more effectively. I think this bill will truly benefit Canada, and I recommend that all members support it.

(1140) Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as both a woman and a member of the NDP, I am pleased to support Bill C-473 , which was introduced by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles . This bill is designed to ensure that crown corporations have balanced representation. I would like to talk about my own experience in politics. In 2009, I had the opportunity to run in a municipal election as a candidate for Project Montréal, a party in the Island of Montreal that encouraged women to run in municipal politics.

That was my first experience, and then I had the opportunity to run again, this time for the NDP. The NDP encourages women to run for politics, and we can see the results. That led us—the caucus and me, as a female politician—to think about the obstacles that keep some women from going into politics. The ripple effect from the 2011 election and the fact that many women ran for political office is proof of the NDP's desire to encourage women to join various fields of endeavour. All of that relates to Bill C-473 .

Government is often regarded as a mover and innovator when it comes to building a better society, and this bill does just that. It sets out principles that would allow Canadian crown corporations to gradually work towards better gender parity. We need to do this. Women have come a long way in recent decades, but there is still a long way to go. The document titled Women in Canada 2010-2011 , drafted by Statistics Canada and Status of Women Canada, notes that there is greater representation of women in management positions.

In 2009, women represented 37% of those employed in management positions, up from 30% in 1987. However, women have greater representation in lower-level management positions as compared to upper management positions. In 2009, women held 31.6% of upper management positions, but 37.4% of management positions at other levels. There is still progress to be made, and it is not because women are not qualified for the job. The latest statistical profile from Statistics Canada shows that more women are completing post-secondary studies, are very well educated and can rise to the challenge. Mr.

Speaker, my riding of LaSalle—Émard is lucky to be represented by a woman, and furthermore, the mayor of the riding is also a woman. Several municipal councillors are women, and that is also the case in the Sud-Ouest borough, which is next to my riding. More and more women are rising to the challenge and answering the call. That has to continue. We have to eliminate barriers by establishing progressive policies that will lead to a fairer representation of women in crown corporations.

(1145) When the government sets an example with crown corporations, the private sector often follows suit. That is our hope. An

article in today's Globe and Mail notes that women account for 20% of seats in boards of directors, especially those of very large Canadian companies. However, if we consider small, medium-sized and large businesses overall, this statistic drops to 12%. That is really not a lot. If the government sets an example, as the Quebec government did, by establishing progressive measures leading to increased gender parity in crown corporations, I am sure that private businesses would follow suit.

What is interesting about Quebec's example is that not only did it implement measures, but it also ensured that they produced results. Quebec measures results against goals, studies the barriers that could keep women from executive positions and finds ways to help them overcome some of those barriers. I want the government and the Minister of Status of Women to show some leadership to ensure that there is balanced representation on boards of crown corporations.

This will create a ripple effect and ensure that women—who represent more than 50% of this country's wealth, as we have already heard—have an opportunity to actively participate in running crown corporations and also private companies. It is time for this government to show some leadership and commit to ensuring that more and more women are able to assume management roles and that they have the means to take on these positions and be involved in politics. By “means”, I do not necessarily mean financial means, although that helps.

We must ensure that there are no barriers hindering women's promotion to these positions. By breaking down these barriers, we would not only be helping Canadian women, but also advancing our society so that it is more just and fair and so that everyone has the opportunity to participate for the greater good. This has been proven in the research that my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles did when drafting this bill. It has been shown that diversity, including gender diversity, on governing councils and boards of directors can have a positive impact on debate and dialogue.

Diversity also encourages boards to consider all aspects when making decisions and to take into account the experience of every individual on these boards.

(1150) A bill to achieve balanced representation on the boards of crown corporations will not only enable women to be promoted to these types of positions, but will also enrich Canadian society as a whole, in many respects. Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to have this opportunity to rise again in the House today to continue the debate on my bill, Bill C-473 , which proposes changes to the Financial Administration Act.

The purpose of the bill is to improve the representation of women on boards of directors of crown corporations and only crown corporations. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that gender equality must be a priority for Canadians. In its Constitution, Canada recognizes that men and women are equal. However, when it comes to economic independence, equality in decision-making, violence against women, pay equity and other issues, there remains a great deal of work to be done in order for men and women to be equal in economic, social and political spheres in Canada.

In previous debates, some of my colleagues raised a number of questions that should be clarified for everyone's benefit. I hope my responses here today will answer their questions. First, I would like to remind everyone that the heads of crown corporations—even though those corporations operate at arm's length of the government—are appointed by the ministers. The government therefore has the power to take the necessary corrective action to put an end to any undue discrimination currently practiced against women in the hiring process.

During my last speech, my main argument was that Canadian women are more qualified than ever, and accordingly, the government needs to bring in measures that maximize the potential of all that talent. Thus, I have to be critical of the parliamentary secretary's tactic of using misinformation when she stated the opposite of what I said. As I explained last time, the problem has nothing to do with qualifications, but rather with accessibility. Women have the skills needed, but they are not recruited as much because their resumés do not make it onto the minister's desk. The solution is simple.

We have to make sure that, during the appointments process, CVs from women and men with equal skill sets are provided to the minister's office. Quebec is a perfect example of how that can work. Contrary to what the parliamentary secretary said, there have been no problems and no negative repercussions on performance. There has been nothing rigid or arbitrary about this process, simply a pool of male and female candidates to choose from. My colleague opposite also presented an argument based on the effectiveness and benefits of the voluntary measures put forward by the government.

Norway tried the voluntary approach, but it did not work. The Conference Board of Canada says that it will take another 150 years to reach parity if we rely solely on the voluntary approach. I also want to mention the brave step that Morocco took in introducing legislation after the Arab Spring. Female representation in that Arab country went from 19% to 50%. Here in Canada, the voluntary approach has resulted in women being under-represented on boards of crown corporations and holding only 27% of senior management positions.

How can the government claim to be doing everything it should be doing when the figures are clear and do not lie? There has been no progress on this issue. That is clear proof that the voluntary approach does not work and does not produce the expected results.

In a speech she delivered last fall, Christine Lagarde, managing director of the IMF, supported the introduction of quotas “because nothing has changed in the past 25 or 30 years!” I would therefore urge all of my colleagues to recognize the obvious and take appropriate measures to ensure that we achieve the goals Canada wishes to set for itself in terms of gender parity. In response to other questions that some of my colleagues had, I would like to add that I am very aware that this bill does not fix all of the problems related to women's rights, especially not access to senior positions.

However, I sincerely believe that Bill C-473 is a step forward, a corrective measure. Without it, a laissez-faire approach will change nothing. I strongly suggest that we refer this bill to a committee so that we can give more thought to issues such as transgender individuals and sanctions in cases where boards do not achieve parity by the deadline. Experts, including people who were in charge of implementing the new process in Quebec, will be able to advise us on this matter. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to pass corrective legislation so that women can benefit fully from their rights.

The NDP has always been and will continue to be a champion of women's rights.

(1155) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): In my opinion, the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: (1200) [ English ] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 5, 2014, immediately before the time provided for private members' business. Dvision on motion deferred

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Business of Supply [ English ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—ATM Fees Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP) moved: Motion That, in the opinion of the House, Canadian consumers face unfair Automated Teller Machine (ATM) fees as a result of an uncompetitive marketplace and that the House call on the government to take action in Budget 2014 to protect consumers by limiting ATM fees. He said: Mr. Speaker, before I begin, it is important to inform you that I am splitting my time with the fantastic MP from Québec .

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to my motion, the NDP-sponsored motion calling on the Minister of Finance to announce action in budget 2014 to protect consumers by limiting ATM fees. From my great riding of Sudbury to St. John's, from Val-d'Or to Victoria, every Canadian has at some point stood in front of an ATM in stunned silence staring at the screen showing just how much they have been gouged for taking out cash from their very own bank account.

Canadians are angry, and rightly so, that their families are being nickelled and dimed by banks reaping record-breaking profits while they struggle to put food on the table and pay for the other necessities of life. According to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, withdrawal fees can cost consumers as much as $5.90 per transaction at a bank-operated ATM. If we contrast the cost being forced down the throats of Canadian consumers with those being charged to consumers in other developed countries, it makes the cost of using an ATM in Canada even more unsettling.

For instance, in many European Union countries, withdrawals from ATMs are free. In the U.K., 97% of transactions are free of cost. In fact, a report from the British Bankers' Association comparing its banking system to those of ten other developed nations found that Canada had the highest fees for ATM withdrawals from their own bank. This raises the question of why people in the U.K. and Europe get a break from their banks while ordinary Canadians continue to get gouged.

Although estimates range, analysts agree that Canadians pay somewhere in the range of $400 million a year for the privilege of using ATMs, representing nearly 5% of the revenue of the biggest banks in Canada. Thus, it is not surprising that Canadian banks are reaping record profits, amounting to $29.4 billion in 2013, up 5% from last year despite the weak economy, because they are doing it on the backs of hard-working Canadian families. How did we enter this cycle of ever-increasing fees?

Surcharging on ATM withdrawals have become standard operating procedure for Canada's banks since 1996, when the ban on surcharges was lifted following a ruling by Canada's Competition Bureau. In 2000, many banks began adding a new convenience fee in addition to their Interac fees for those consumers who use an ATM owned by a different institution or operator. This has led to ATM use becoming more and more expensive. The most shocking part of ATM fees is that on average the real cost of processing a transaction today is estimated to be around 36¢. Where does the rest of the money go?

We know that 0.7¢ goes to offsetting the cost of operating Canada's world-leading, not-for-profit Interac network. While there is obviously a cost to operating and maintaining these terminals themselves, the rest is going to pad the profits of the big banks, the big card networks, and independent machine owners. Currently, there is no limit on what the operator of an ATM can charge a consumer for using their machine. This is unfair, and it is a policy we as parliamentarians must address head on.

These fees are rip-offs, plain and simple, and the government has the power to act immediately to drive down the cost of ATM fees. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the House may think that $2, for example, is not a burdensome cost for Canadians, but here is the unfair thing about it. When the average person going to an ATM machine takes out $20 or $50 to get them through a day or two, that person is charged $2.50 for accessing that money, yet someone else may withdraw $500, and they pay the same $2.50.

This means that the financial burden of ATM fees falls disproportionately on low-income Canadians, and that is grossly unfair. That is why groups such as the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Option consommateurs, and ACORN support the NDP call to cap ATM fees.

(1205) At one point, the Minister of Finance seemed receptive to the idea of limiting these outrageous ATM fees. In 2007, in response to the NDP campaign to ban ATM fees, the minister told the House of Commons finance committee that the government agreed with the NDP that the banks ought to do something for consumers with respect to ATM fees and to try harder. However, in the end, after talking to the banks, the minister climbed down, and no action was taken to protect consumers from these outrageous fees.

Now, because of the minister's lack of action, ATM fees continue to rise for lower-income Canadians such as seniors, students, and persons with disabilities, for whom the minister expressed particular concern. While the Conservatives talk a big game about the importance of protecting consumers from the most abusive practices of Canada's largest corporations, their failure to crack down on ATM fees and the plethora of other consumer abuses undermines this claim. Here is an opportunity for the Conservatives to prove they are serious and actually do something tangible for consumers.

A failure to do so will make the government's priorities clear: Bay Street over Main Street. The minister's friends at the banks will argue that capping ATM fees would significantly decrease the number of ATMs that banks offer to Canadians. However, according to the World Bank, Canada has the highest number of ATMs per capita in the world, with 204 ATMs for every 100,000 people. The OECD average is 74 ATMs per 100,000 people. However, if we think about the cost that Canadians have to endure every time they use an ATM, it is no wonder the banks have so many of these ATMs out there.

Moreover, the banks claim that the ATM fees must be high enough to cover all chequing account-related costs. That is undermined by the fact that banks also charge many other high consumer fees under the premise of covering those exact same costs. Canada's banks charge consumers scores of other fees for maintaining and accessing funds in their chequing accounts. There are monthly fees, overdraft fees, failed payment fees, fees for failing to maintain a minimum balance, e-transfer fees, and many more.

Given that banks are already recouping their costs through these other fees, the NDP's call for a 50¢ per transaction cap for ATM fees seems entirely reasonable. With a cost of 36¢ per transaction to the bank, this would still give them the ability to recoup their operating costs while maintaining a healthy profit margin. It would also restore a sense of fairness and balance to what is truly an asymmetrical relationship between consumers and their bank.

The Conservatives claim to be on the side of consumers, but time and time again this Conservative government, like the Liberals before them, has sided with the big banks by refusing to crack down on excessive bank fees. New Democrats have put forward a practical solution that would restore a certain amount of fairness to the relationship between consumers, their families, and the banks.

By supporting the motion and including a provision to limit ATM fees in the upcoming budget, the government has an opportunity to help hard-working Canadian families who are already overburdened by household debt and are struggling to maintain their way of life. I conclude that a failure to do so will demonstrate that hard-working Canadians cannot trust the Conservative government to do what is best for them and their families. We need experienced leadership that puts Canadians, not bank profits, first. Canadians deserve better.

(1210) Hon. Michelle Rempel (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we are all for consumer protection too. We put forth a lot of work over the last year in terms of making sure that consumers are put first. I have a couple of questions, which I hope are generic and non-partisan, around this particular motion. When my colleague is talking about the $2 fees, is he looking at customers withdrawing cash from their home branch or those who are withdrawing from other branches and generically owned ATMs as well?

Does my colleague know what the aggregate cost per year would be to Canadians? Also, do you know what the revenue created by those independently owned ATMs would be compared to the larger banks? In terms of small business ownership, what would the impact be if it was capped? I am just wondering if you consulted with these stakeholders in terms of what the impact would be on their business. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The Minister of State was asking me the question, but I believe it is her colleague, the hon. member for Sudbury , whom she would like to answer the question.

The hon. member for Sudbury . Mr. Glenn Thibeault : Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to answer as best I can. The first thing I need to make clear is that what we are talking about here today are the ATMs that are operated by our federally regulated financial institutions, the chartered banks. The ATMs that are privately owned in pubs or corner stores are in provincial jurisdiction. What we are talking about specifically are the financial institutions. I have an account at a specific bank here in Canada, as most Canadians do, or a credit union, and I pay a monthly fee. I am going to make this number up.

Say I pay $14.95 and I have 20 transactions that will I not be charged for. Once I go over that limit, even though I am using the same bank, the one that I am a member of, I get what is called a regular maintenance fee. The banks eliminate what they call a foreign fee. The foreign fee is actually a convenience fee, which is charged when using another bank's ATM. Then I have to pay a dollar for that, plus pay the other bank two bucks. It is starting to skyrocket out of control because it is unregulated. We need to hamper this and that is what this bill and motion are talking about today. Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I want to solicit some clarification. The member made reference, I believe he said, to banks’ being able to charge consumers a 50¢ cap. My question is again related to the independent machine operators, a store that purchases a machine and wants to attach its own fee, whatever fee that might be. My understanding, based on what the member has said, is that would not apply. Therefore, any independent machines that are not administered through one of our national banks would, in fact, be excluded from his comments. Is that a fair comment? The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Barry Devolin) : Once again, I would request all hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair rather than their colleagues. The hon. member for Sudbury . Mr. Glenn Thibeault : I will address my answer through you, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully we can set an example moving forward. The question relates again to the specific ATMs that are owned by John Smith or Mary Smith who has a convenience store. That is provincial regulation. I am hoping that what we can do today, to answer through you, Mr. Speaker, my hon. member's question, is to lead by example.

We have an opportunity to ensure that our banks do not continue to gouge Canadians. When there are record profits of $29.4 billion going to the banks, it is being done on the backs of hard-working Canadian families. The one thing we are saying very clearly is that we understand that the banks need to make a profit, that the banks need to recoup their costs, that the banks need to make money to service this network. That is being addressed by folks in the United States. Senator Durbin in the U.S. prepared a great report, 36¢ per transaction. We should talk to stakeholders here in Canada.

If we are similar, we should be able to have it capped at 50¢ per transaction, which would still allow the banks to do what they need to do and keep more money in the pockets of Canadian consumers so they can invest in their families and communities. (1215) [ Translation ] Ms. Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as the deputy critic for consumer protection, I feel it is important that I speak to this worthwhile motion moved by the hon. member for Sudbury . I must say that he does an outstanding job, especially when it comes to protecting consumers.

This motion calls on the government to take action in the 2014 budget, which will be tabled very soon, to protect consumers by limiting ATM fees. Banks have been allowed to charge withdrawal fees at ATMs since 1996. However, ATM fees are not currently regulated in Canada, and Canadians have been seeing a steady increase in those fees over the past 18 years. ATMs are everywhere. There are nearly 20,000 private ATMs in Canada now. They are expensive to use, and an increasing number of businesses only accept cash as a method of payment.

If customers do not have any cash, they have to make a withdrawal from the nearby ATM. Let me explain that it is unfortunately not just the retailers' fault if they do not accept payment by credit card. The credit card transaction fees charged to the retailer are just as outrageous. That is another thing this Conservative government will have to act swiftly on. Most consumers do not realize that the fees indicated on the screen are not the only ones they will be charged. The ATM screens indicate that the fees are in addition to the regular banking fees.

Most people think that refers to the usual fees of 50¢ per transaction, for which it is possible to negotiate a monthly rate. However that is not the case. These bank fees also include the $1.50 fee for the Interac network, and that amount only appears on the bank statement. One could conceivably pay up to $6 in total just to withdraw $20. That is 30% in fees. It is unbelievable. That is a significant tax that the Conservatives are imposing on us by refusing to take action. It is totally unacceptable. Canadian consumers are paying up to $6 to get access to their own money.

Many banks have started charging new convenience fees, in addition to the Interac fees, to clients who use an ATM that belongs to another institution or a private operator. That is why the costs of using ATMs keep increasing. Banks are now charging all those who are not their clients the same fees charged at privately-owned ATMs, such as convenience fees of $1.25 or $1.50 in addition to Interac fees, which are generally $1.50, and transaction fees. Fees, fees and more fees.

The show La Facture , on the French network of the CBC, managed to get a comment from the Mouvement Desjardins spokesperson, André Cajolais: ...why would Desjardins members using another bank's ATM pay convenience fees, and a banking client using a Desjardins ATM not pay the same fees? That is an intriguing position that confirms the importance of the NDP's proposal to regulate ATM fees in order to have a single fee. The Desjardins spokesperson went on to say: If convenience fees disappeared from the entire industry tomorrow morning, Desjardins would stop charging them. That is the crux of the problem.

The Canadian banking sector is a difficult market to penetrate and is dominated by a few large banks. It is anything but a free market. In more competitive banking markets, such as the market in the United Kingdom, ATM fees are very low or even non-existent. However, in the less competitive Canadian market, consumers can be charged as much as $3 or $4 to simply access their own money. These fees can sometimes be $6, as I mentioned.

(1220) This situation is completely unacceptable, especially since the banks made a record $29.4 billion last year. There is no reason to let them continue to exploit consumers through ATM fees. It is uncalled for. The NDP is suggesting a cap on ATM fees, so that Canadian financial institutions can no longer charge more than 50¢ per transaction. Unfortunately, Industry Canada's Office of Consumer Affairs stopped publishing an important annual report on the costs of Canadian banking services, and there is very little information on ATM fees.

According to the last report published in 2002, there was a significant increase in transaction fees, so we can only imagine what the situation is now. Furthermore, according to a study carried out by the Federal Reserve System Board of Governors in the United States, based on the best data available, the cost of processing an ATM transaction rarely surpasses 36¢. In light of these studies, the NDP believes that a 50¢ limit per transaction is reasonable for consumers and also for banks, which will continue to earn a profit—although perhaps not one as astronomical as they do now.

All too often we hear both the Liberals and the Conservatives—six of one and half a dozen of the other— talk about the middle class and consumer protection. This is finally an opportunity for them to show that they mean it. In 2007, the Minister of Finance told the banks that he was not satisfied with their explanation of ATM fees and that they had a responsibility to provide answers to consumers. However, in the end, the Conservative government did not introduce any measures.

ATM fees continue to increase even though there is no reason why Canadians should pay such high fees when banks are making enormous profits and these charges are lower or non-existent in comparable countries. The banks maintain that capping ATM fees will lead to a significant reduction in the number of machines available to Canadians. However, the truth is that Canada already has the largest number of ATM machines per person in the world. As household debt reaches a record high of 166% of disposable income, there is every indication that consumers have reached the breaking point.

The NDP is currently conducting a major campaign to make life more affordable and we intend to stand up for consumers every step of the way. I heard some Conservative and Liberal MPs asking how the 50¢ transaction fee would be applied. Obviously, when you turn a blind eye to the problem you cannot solve it. That is why we need an NDP government that cares about people and consumers and that can relate to what they are going through. People pay exorbitant ATM fees. That is theft. People want to have access to their own money. The situation makes no sense.

Based on the number of interviews I have given about this subject, I know that people are passionate about it. They have had enough. This government has to take a stand and include this measure in the next budget. I am warning the Conservatives: if they do not get going and finally bring forward real measures for consumers, the NDP will propose other motions. It will not give up until 2015, when it will assume power and, finally, people will get their money's worth. (1225) [ English ] Hon. Gary Goodyear (Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I am not really sure why the member is so angry about this. I can sense her passion and I appreciate the comments that she made. I wonder if she is aware of these prepaid credit cards that have a huge fee up front and so many other fees every month. In fact, it is becoming more common for parents to buy these for their children at university and college. A $50 prepaid credit card sometimes has a $5 initiation fee and then a further couple of bucks every month. I agree that those are excessive charges. I wonder if the member could answer why they are not in this particular bill. [ Translation ] Ms.

Annick Papillon : Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the hon. member opposite because I can see that he, too, is concerned about these issues. I am pleased to see that the members on the other side of the House are finally thinking about consumers. They understand that this is likely the issue of the 21st century. A budget will be tabled soon, and we are hoping it will contain tangible measures. We do not want to hear a throne speech in which the government says it wants to take certain measures and then come to realize, months later, that nothing has been done. That gets us nowhere.

Prepaid cards are a problem, but today we are discussing the motion regarding ATM fees. I would like to hear what the Conservatives have to say about this. Really, there is no reason to oppose this motion. Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, there is an important aspect to this issue. There are 46 municipalities in my riding of Laurentides—Labelle . The majority of them are small municipalities that are far from major highways. There are often no financial institutions in those areas.

The banks have centralized their operations where it is the most cost-effective to consolidate services. There is not even an ATM in Mont-Saint-Michel, where I am from. The owner of the corner store helps people out and allows them to make a withdrawal with a debit card. People often live an hour away from their financial institution. When they have access to an ATM, it is most likely not their bank's ATM. Could my colleague explain some of the problems that can cause? Ms. Annick Papillon : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments. I think it is also important to talk about the need for local services.

I would like to quote John Lawford of the Canadian Consumer Initiative, who appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance on April 17, 2007. He said: We've noticed that something odd has been happening over the last decade [so, for over 15 years now] with automated banking machines and fees. While there are more ABMs and more competition, prices have increased and service has decreased. Canadian consumers are calling on elected representatives [including Liberal, Conservative, Bloc and Green Party members] to help them out of this obviously dysfunctional market.

The solution could be the one proposed here today. Clearly, the market is dysfunctional and must improve. [ English ] Mr. Mike Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise to speak to this motion today. I guess it will not be totally surprising to indicate that I will not be supporting this motion, and I do not believe that most of my colleagues will either. It is not necessarily because of the arguments put forward by the member for Sudbury , but because I think that separating the banks from everything else is not realistic.

We have to look at our ATM and ABM network as an integrated network of not only banks but also the private providers that we often see out there. On that basis, there are a couple of things at stake, such as convenience and the competition issues. However, I think there would be unintended consequences of merely trying to throw a fixed fee on this network. I would also say that I believe our government is going about this correctly in regulating in a smart way via the information that is out there for our consumers to make wise and informed financial decisions.

Number one is the regulatory approach that we are taking, but I also want to talk for a few minutes about our comprehensive financial consumer code, which we are out consulting about right now. Over the past number of years it has been interesting to watch the proliferation of technologies. Banking has changed significantly. I remember not so many years ago, a few decades ago, that some of our farmers and other people would leave their house in the morning with a pocket full of cash and then come back at the end of the day and check the amount in the other pocket.

They would know whether they had made a profit that day if there were more money in that pocket. Also, back in the days when my father was in the provincial legislature in New Brunswick, I remember that he always carried cash and hardly ever did anything on a credit card or anything of that nature. He always had cash. To me, when we look at the proliferation of technologies, I think we have definitely made things much more convenient as time has gone by. We can see that with the number of transactions and the data from the Canadian Bankers Association on those transactions.

When we look at cash withdrawals from 2005 to 2012, they have gone down, and so have deposits and bill payments. As we go to electronic commerce and online banking, we are starting to see those changes. I agree with some of the points made earlier in that there are some cases where a business only takes cash, and in those cases we certainly need it. However, when we look at these types of things, we can look at being a futurist as well. It seems to me that at some point in time we will live in an era where we might have a chip, perhaps in our rear end or somewhere else, potentially.

As we go through a store, it would be scanned and the money would be transferred. If there would be a charge for that, then the NDP would be really bummed, I can imagine. That is just speculation, but I would love to be a bit of a futurist to know where this will go. From the strides we have made in the past number of decades, we can certainly anticipate that we will very much be a non-cash society, and probably very quickly. When we look at the economics of the ATM, regulating a fixed fee such as this is misguided, because we forget about the convenience aspect of ATMs.

Here, one of the points made by my hon. colleague across the way was about his store not having an ATM and there being no bank ATM in his community. In my community there is no bank ATM either. I live on the outskirts of Fredericton where there is no bank ATM. However, there is an ATM at my local convenience store and the surcharge is $2.25 to use it. I asked how much the ATM was used, and the answer was “significantly”. It is used a lot, which is somewhat surprising, but in some ways it is not.

(1230) As I said before, what people fail to take into account is the cost. In each of these cases, there is a cost to purchasing the machine, and this particular person is sharing in that cost. There are a lot of private white label ATMs. Space in a store costs money, as does the communications and encryption that goes along with these types of transactions. There is a cost to the physical security required, although there may be a bit of control when the machine is located inside as opposed to outside a store. Signage, advertising, fraud and upgrades also cost money.

In most cases vendors in convenience stores, at least in this person's case, actually guarantee the float for the ATM as well, so there is an opportunity cost with respect to the vendor's own money being used to ensure that the machine is stocked with cash. From that standpoint, if there were no surcharge in place, there would be no ATM at that location. Would the bank put in an ATM at that location? Around the outskirts of towns in my riding, some Irving convenience stores have a bank ATM because there is volume and when a store gets volume, transaction costs can be kept down.

I would argue that capping would affect the integration of these ATMs. If banks eventually cannot service some of these lower volume areas, they are going to get out of that business. They would sell those ATMs, which would go to a private operator, and the resulting surcharges could be anything, even extensive. We should be a bit careful when we say that we want to have a fixed fee like this because there could be dire consequences. It was not too many years ago that the only choice that people had in some small rural communities and other places was to physically go to a bank.

That bank would be open probably from 9 to 4, not some of the business hours banks have today. They would actually have to go and wait in line and take out who knows how much cash. However, that being said, there is an opportunity cost for those people from convenience stations. They can go to a place very close by and not burn gas to go maybe 30 or 40 miles at $1.25 or $1.30 a litre. They are better off than they would have been had they gone to a bank in the community.

Therefore, let us be careful and ensure that we do not do something with unintended consequences, which I believe would mean that we would maybe have fewer ATMs. In the late 1990s, the U.S. had a big debate about this. It was proven that as surcharges went up, the ATM network actually expanded. More ATMs went into places like convenience stores, and private operators were doing that. This is one of the items they ran into. Without an adequate return, these surcharges would discourage the deployment of ATMs to our rural areas as an example, and that would mean less choice.

That would mean there will be slower growth, a limited number of the access points, and in effect, maybe some of the ATMs will be sold to non-owners. The second point I would like to make is about regulating in a smart way and doing it from an information standpoint. The point was made that if people want to take out their own money, then it should be free. If a person takes cash out of an ATM in a convenience store and it is not a bank ATM, that person must realize that the money is coming out of his or her account but is not his or her cash.

As I previously pointed out, the cash belongs to the vendor who loaded up the machine, so there is a cost to that transaction. It is not as simple as saying that is double-dipping.

(1235) With respect to the regulatory side, we have had some success over the past little while on this. I would like to comment on a couple of things that have happened in the dialogue with the banks. We have actively engaged the banking industry on the issue of ATM fees and have stressed the importance of consumer choice. One of the comments made before was about seniors, the disabled, and students. The banks have reacted to that and have responded by expanding some of their ATM networks near colleges and universities to help students avoid fees.

The banks have also started unveiling low-fee accounts for seniors and students and are improving access for the disabled. That is not all. The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada has provided consumers with information on banking costs, such as ATM fees. The more information that is out there, the more informative it will be for the actual consumer, because there are cases when consumers actually back away because they are provided that transaction fee. When they actually see it and are asked if they want to go ahead with the transaction, many people decide not to.

From a regulatory standpoint, that is why we have taken those numerous steps. For instance, recently the Minister of Finance announced new prepaid products regulations. A comment was made earlier about prepaid cards. I would also like to comment on the work actually being done, as we announced in economic action 2013, on the comprehensive financial consumer code. The main goals are to better protect consumers of financial products and to ensure that they have the necessary tools to make proper financial decisions. The tools must be adaptable to suit the needs of consumers today.

As I pointed out, there has been light years of change since even a few decades ago. I remember when people taking a trip would actually go to the bank and get travellers' cheques and sign all the cheques and take them with them. I am not as young as I look. We would take all these travellers' cheques or take out big wads of cash. At the end of the day, these debit cards have provided us with a much more secure environment, so there is an opportunity cost as well. However, we also want to provide an exclusive and comprehensive consumer protection regime.

That is why this consultation we are doing with the public will be important as we develop similar products and services to replace a fairly wide and broad mix of legislation and regulations. The consultation process is on the way. That will be a better way for us to address some of the impacts we might run into. It is important that we look at these ATMs and ABMs not just on the bank side but as a network. As I pointed out, the integration of these services is very much in play. In our rural areas, there is an impact from these private producers. In conclusion, I would point out a couple of things.

One is the regulatory side. The government is tackling this with the right approach. We are trying to keep taxes down for families so that they have more money in their pockets. That is a responsible approach. I also think it is important for us to ensure that when we regulate, we regulate in a smart manner and not in a way that will hurt competition. Maybe we need to look at ways to provide more competition in the market and more ATMs as opposed to putting a cap on fees, which could lead to unintended consequences for consumers. I will close on that, and I am open to questions from the opposition.

(1240) Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, that was very interesting. We went from the days of travellers' cheques to speculation that in the future, we are going to pay through a chip in our rear end. I am not going to go there. I am more concerned about what else consumers are getting in their rear ends right now. I heard a lot of talk about convenience. When I talk to senior citizens, this is not an issue of convenience. The banks are not interested in serving their communities, so the only way they can get their money out is through ATMs, and there is a $2.50 charge.

My colleague says that it is great for competition. I was just over in the U.K. I saw ATMs everywhere, where I was not being gouged. There I was, an international traveller. Yet I am looking at the fees people are being asked to pay. We pay a regular account fee of maybe $1. On top of that is an access fee, which could be another $1.90. There is a convenience fee. My friend was talking about convenience. The convenience fee is another $5, so we could be paying $7.90 to one of these private operators. The member said that the banks need something to make it worth their while.

Is there any fee that would bother the current government? I am not surprised that it is not standing up for consumers. I am not surprised that it is defending the big banks. However, when I have senior citizens who have to pay for their groceries so they take $40 out and pay $7.90 for that, I think that is outrageous. My constituents think that is outrageous. Is there any fee the member would think is a problem, or should we just allow the banks to gouge people whenever they want?

(1245) Mr. Mike Allen : Mr. Speaker, I would have to disagree with the previous speaker from Sudbury. As I pointed out earlier, data from the Canadian Bankers Association says that 75% of these transactions are taking place at people's home banks where, in many cases, there are no transaction fees. That is what people are doing. However, at the end of the day, there is convenience, and for that convenience to be out there, someone has to be willing to make that investment. If the investment is not made, guess what? There is not going to be any ATM in that location at all.

I am not sure how seniors are going to feel then if they have to drive 30 or 40 miles to go to a bank because of the hollowing out of the ATM market in rural areas. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have had in Winnipeg North in relatively recent years is banks actually closing. As a result of those banks closing, it is a lot more difficult to get banking services. Fortunately, a number of credit unions have taken an interest and have replaced the banks. Does the current government feel that it has any role to play in terms of protecting consumers? Mr. Mike Allen : Mr.

Speaker, the short answer to that is, yes. I think there is a role for the government to play in the regulatory environment. I talked about the financial code and the consultations we are having. We have actually seen some very good information from these cross-country consultations, which could very well lead to some very good ideas and suggestions about how some of this could be regulated. However, I also believe that in many cases, from my point of view, having that information out there makes me an informed consumer. When I am an informed consumer, I make better decisions. I know the product I am purchasing.

In fact, a number of consumers, as I pointed out before, have actually backed away from some of these ATM machines because of the information that has been provided. I think those are good things. That is a good start, and there is probably more to do. Hon. Michelle Rempel (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, earlier this morning I heard an answer in which it was clarified that the substance of this debate was on ATMs specifically run by federally regulated institutions. I wonder if my colleague would clarify.

Has there been any modelling that shows what the tipping point is between profit margin and service provision in low-volume areas? What would the impact be of these unregulated ATMs going into that space should they be vacated by federally run regulators, if the profit margin is not there? What would the modelling be in terms of the actual cost to consumers? I guess the last thing I would ask him is a more esoteric question.

What is the cost of the convenience, from an opportunity-cost perspective, of having access to cash 24 hours a day versus the cost of federally regulated banks running banking hours and allowing people to only have cash access through there? Mr. Mike Allen : Mr. Speaker, there are two issues. I will tackle the second one first on opportunity cost. I think there is a huge opportunity cost in not having these, especially in some of our communities. I can point to some of the rural communities in my area.

There would be a significant drive for people to actually go to get money, because the closest place could be 30 to 40 miles away. In many cases, we have a significant number of seniors in our rural areas. In some of these rural areas there has never been a bank. It is beginning to be harder for some of these seniors and folks to actually get out and travel. From that standpoint, it has actually been made better. With respect to the points on the charges, I am hopeful that these consultations we are having will be helpful in that regard.

I would suggest that there would be a minimum of a couple of dollars added to charges once these ATMs are handed over to a private operator as opposed to the banks. That will happen more and more, because the low-volume areas will just dry up without the higher cost.

(1250) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I approach this motion with a sense of disbelief that we are spending an entire day on this issue. I know that a lot of people are upset with the banks. I am looking at the banks' profits. The five big banks in Canada in 2013 had a $2 billion increase over their profits of 2012. They are now up to $29.5 billion a year. I would like to talk about some kind of sensible corporate taxes on these kinds of profits. I think we are starting at the wrong end of the debate by talking about ATM fees.

That said, I would like to ask my hon. colleague across the way if he does not agree with the point that with the record profits of the Canadian commercial banks, it is time to look at reasonable taxation rates. Mr. Mike Allen : Mr. Speaker, I talked about the ATMs and their being linked. We cannot separate the issue. It is a service. With respect to banks profits, raising taxes is not going to happen. We are certainly not looking at a high-tax environment. I can tell the NDP members that in addition to not supporting this motion, I suspect that they should not wait for us to have a carbon tax in the budget.

They should not wait for us to raise CPP taxes. They had better not wait for us to raise corporate taxes, because we will not do that. At the end of the day, we should also look at these corporations, which pay significant dividends to pension funds and others. Those are accruing to seniors and are benefiting our communities. [ Translation ] Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, the member wants to lower taxes, but on the other, he refuses to legislate to set limits on the fees that banks can charge. This means it would simply be a transfer of money.

People will have a little more money in their pockets because they will pay less in taxes, but at the same time, they will have less money because the Conservatives refuse to legislate on the ATM fees people are being charged. Basically, is that not a covert way of raising taxes? [ English ] Mr. Mike Allen : Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out before, consumers can look online and see the different rates and different charges for different accounts. It is easy to see that information.

I think the member is clouding the issue of bank fees and ATM fees, because 75% of these transactions take place at people's own banking institutions.Therefore, in many cases, people are actually not paying a transaction fee. I think we are muddying the waters on those two fees. Hon. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to join the debate that has been put forward by the official opposition today. I think a more useful debate that we could have had today is around the issue of the security breach and what exactly has been going on in our country.

That would have been much more in keeping with our role here. As much as I support focusing on the consumer agenda, I do believe that our role as federal legislators is to focus on the bigger issues that affect all of Canada, like the security breach, which I am sure we will be hearing more about later today. I am pleased to speak to the motion put forward by the member for Sudbury , calling on the government to include measures in the 2014 budget that would reduce ATM fees.

The wording of the motion before the House is more nebulous than the party's position, which is to bring in a cap on ATM fees of 50¢ per transaction. That position is a change from his party's previous position, which was to outlaw bank ATM fees altogether. I find it interesting that my colleague from Sudbury put forward a motion that is less precise than his party's position. Quite possibly he will want to speak to that to clarify the difference between the two positions. It is this lack of precision in the motion that leaves a lot to

interpretation. I will conclude my remarks today with an argument for a narrow

interpretation of this motion. First, I want to talk about prevalence and the cost of ATM services in Canada. I would also like to discuss the government's agreement with the banks for low-cost bank accounts and how these agreements relate to this motion we are dealing with today. The market for ATMs in Canada is a big market. Prior to 1996, there was a clear lack of competition in Canada's marketplace for ATMs. In the early 1990s, the Competition Bureau investigated members of the Interac Association for anti-competitive behaviour.

This investigation led to the Competition Tribunal issuing a consent order in 1996, which opened up the market for white label ATMs. That consent order also required Interac to permit surcharging for the use of its network. Today, Canada has the second-highest number of ATMs per capita in the world, after South Korea. In 2012, there were more than 60,000 ATMs across Canada, and a third of those ATMs were owned by chartered banks. While the number of bank-owned ATMs has risen steadily in the past 10 years, the use of ATMs is actually declining, as Canadians are clearly moving toward a cashless society.

The number of deposits and withdrawals at ATMs has dropped almost 20% since 2005. Meanwhile, some ATM fees have gone up considerably. The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada monitors ATM fees in Canada, and according to the numbers provided by the agency, these fees can vary widely, depending on which ATM is being used. For example, if someone uses an ATM that belongs to the financial institution where one has an account, using that ATM can cost anywhere from between $1, $2, or nothing at all.

However, if someone uses an ATM that belongs to a financial institution where one is not a customer, then that transaction can cost anywhere between $1 and $6. If someone uses a white label ATM, which is an ATM owned by a private operator, one can pay up to $8 for that transaction. Many Canadians, when they first started using those machines, did not realize the difference between Toronto Dominion Bank's machines and the Bank of Nova Scotia's machines. Then when the white label ATM was introduced, people had no idea of what they were being charged until they had made a few transaction. It was significant.

As Liberals, we recognize that affordable access to basic banking services is essential for all Canadians. We believe that the government has a legitimate role to play in establishing rules—and we did just that previously—that ensure Canadians can access a reasonable level of financial services at a reasonable cost. That is why, under the previous Liberal government, then finance minister Paul Martin introduced a framework to reform Canada's financial services sector.

(1255) As part of the many reforms that were made at the time, legislation was also passed that guaranteed access to basic banking services for all Canadians, including low-income Canadians. The reforms also established rules prohibiting banks from placing a hold on government cheques of $1,500 or less. They required signed agreements with banks to provide consumers with low-cost bank accounts at a cost of less than $4 per month, the affordable banking accounts. We also established the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to monitor the banking sector, enforce these agreements, and help protect consumers.

Under the federal government's agreements with banks, the low-cost accounts include a free debit card, a free monthly statement, free deposits, and between 8 to 12 transactions each month, including ATM transactions, at no extra charge. That was the last time that significant reforms were seriously looked at, and those changes were brought in to protect consumers, especially low-income seniors. All of this was done at a cost of no more than $4 or less a month. These agreements are monitored and enforced by the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada and have the exact same effect as regulations.

If the banks were to fail to live up to these agreements, the federal government could easily turn these agreements into binding regulations because of the legislation passed by our previous Liberal government. As I said, under these agreements, most Canadians can avoid high ATM fees by using low-cost bank accounts. In fact, I know many Canadians who do not pay any ATM fees whatsoever, thanks to the work done by the previous Liberal government.

Instead of paying high fees, they plan ahead; only use ATMs that belong to their financial institutions; use the cash-back service at participating retailers, of which there are many; and stay within the monthly limit of transactions that are covered by their low-cost accounts. I understand that the banks are committed to expanding the number of transactions included in low-cost accounts, and those discussions are ongoing. That is something that I believe all of us would support.

Poor implementation of this motion, though, could put these low-cost accounts at serious risk, or it could result in the imposition of higher fees on services that are not directly covered by legislation. A limit on ATM fees that effectively acts as both a price ceiling and a price floor could also mean that Canadians who do not pay any ATM fees now would then have to pay 50¢ per transaction. If this were to happen, there are Canadians who would be worse off. A limit on ATM fees could also result in closing down ATM operators who provide a legitimate service to Canadians.

After all, there are Canadians who are willing to pay a premium for this convenience. Some people prefer to use the white label ATMs in their buildings rather than go across the street or down the block to a bank-owned ATM. There is a white label ATM in this building, and there are times, where for convenience or time, I am sure many of my colleagues have used that ATM, even if they dislike the $6.50 or $4.50 they are charged. However, because of convenience and time, they end up using it. They are willing to spend a few dollars per transaction for that convenience.

Where Canadians have a choice of which ATM to use and avoid ATM fees altogether, is it appropriate for the government to get further involved, to reduce consumer choice and legislate ATMs out of business? Does the NDP also believe that government should outlaw convenience stores that charge more for milk than the grocery store down the road? At what point do we decide that we are interfering too much? I cannot believe that New Democrats would want that, of course, and I am sure they would not, but to do so would be a ridiculous infringement in the marketplace.

(1300) Canadians should have the choice to pay a premium for convenience. That said, there are some Canadians who live in communities, especially rural communities, without bank-owned ATMs. Not everyone has the option of planning ahead to avoid ATM fees. Instead, some Canadians only have access to higher-cost white label ATMs. These Canadians can face unfair ATM fees as a result of an uncompetitive marketplace.

In rural communities where they do not have the option, the question should be, should it not be required that the major banks ensure there is a proper ATM machine, or that they look at what is being charged at white label ATM machines? While some Canadians do face high ATM fees, I would urge the government to be careful in how it would go about limiting these fees.

The government should be careful to avoid unintended consequences, such as raising the price for Canadians who currently do not pay ATM fees, eliminating a legitimate business model that provides Canadians with a convenient service, or reducing access to ATMs in communities that are already underserviced. Let us go back to the wording of the motion.

It states: That, in the opinion of the House, Canadian consumers face unfair Automated Teller Machine (ATM) fees as a result of an uncompetitive marketplace and that the House call on the government to take action in Budget 2014 to protect consumers by limiting ATM fees.

If we ask ourselves whether all Canadian consumers face unfair ATM fees as a result of an uncompetitive marketplace, the answer clearly has to be no. Canada has the second most ATMs per capita in the world. In Canadian cities, there is no shortage of ATMs to choose from. As I said earlier, if a person lives in a community with bank-owned ATMs, one can plan ahead and avoid the ATM fees altogether. However, if a person lives in a rural community that only has high-cost white label ATMs, there is an argument to be made that the marketplace in that community is not competitive.

If the only ATM a person has access to charges $8 per transaction, he or she is clearly facing unfair ATM fees, which is what I believe my colleague was trying to profile today. To make it clear: there are cases where I believe this motion should apply and cases where it should not. For example, if people are at a bar or an adult establishment that has a high-cost white label ATM and they do not want to walk across the street or down the block to their bank's ATM, then I do not believe this motion should apply to them.

I do not believe that in such cases the government should step in and act as a nanny state to save people from themselves. They should be free to spend their own money how they see fit. However, if they are in a rural or remote community and their only option is an ATM charging $8 per transaction, there is room for the government to step in and take some action. Because of the nebulous wording of this motion, I believe the government should take a very narrow

interpretation of it. The government should not regulate ATMs out of business. It should not reduce consumer choice and eliminate options of convenience. However, in cases where Canadians have no other option but to pay excessive fees at white label ATMs in order to withdraw cash from their accounts, there is room for the government to take action. Clearly, the intent of this motion is to give people who require white label ATMs a better option than being hit with fees of $8 per transaction. The very people who are getting hit the most with these $8 transactions are the very people who can least pay them.

I believe the intent of the motion is to make sure we are putting options out for people who are not able to pay $8 every time they need to withdraw $50 from their bank account. There should be a better option. If we were to look very carefully in to regulating this, it might be the way to go.

(1305) Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to hear the member say that she thinks Canadians have a choice to pay a premium charge. The reality is that most Canadians, especially in smaller and rural communities, or where banks have left their communities, have no choice but to use ATMs. The motion being debated today is about how people are being ripped off. I would point out to the member that we are talking about federally regulated ATMs. It does not cover the ones she was speaking about, in grocery stores, convenience stores, or gas stations.

We are talking about federal regulation. The motion has been very clear on that, and the debate today has been very clear on that. I would like the member to explain, because it was not clear from her remarks, whether or not she and other members of her party support the motion today, on the basis that we do need to protect consumers. Hon. Judy Sgro : Mr. Speaker, quite clearly, the intent here is to get some sort of control over the unwarranted gouging of consumers. That gouging clearly occurs on these white label ATM machines, when people are charged $8 or more for using that machine.

Often, people do not find that out until after they have used it, or they have no choice. We are supporting the motion going forward, to have a look at ATM fees in that particular area. We would be supportive of seeing some sort of cap put on it, but very carefully, because we do not want to discourage another successful business in our country. However, at the same time, Canadians have to be well aware that when they use those machines they are going to have to pay a higher fee.

The secondary issue is to make sure that there is more access in these rural communities and that they are better protected from the $8 to $10 fees they are sometimes charged.

(1310) Hon. Michelle Rempel (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, following on my colleague's last question, whenever we are debating economic principles it is not just a matter of if we do this then this will happen. Oftentimes it is, if we do this this might happen and then five other things that we have not modelled the assumptions around. I would like my colleague who just gave her speech to expand on a couple of things. First, we talked about how this motion may well not be subject just to the federally regulated banks, that it does not in theory include the private ATMs.

If the federally regulated ATMs were pulled out of a market because of profit margin losses and replaced by private sector ones, would that not affect, or could it not affect, a certain demographic that uses those machines disproportionately? What would the impact of that be on Canadians? Second, because I love to debate economics in this place, I wonder if she could expound on the appropriateness of the government to legislate informed choice in this matter. Do consumers not have the choice when they put their card in and the fee is listed to say yes or no as to whether they will accept that fee? Hon.

Judy Sgro : Mr. Speaker, a big part of all of this is about educating consumers and making sure that they are fully aware when they use any banking machines. I recently had to open a new bank account. I was told verbally and in writing about all the different banking fees, quite clearly and in really good consumer language. It is much better than it used to be earlier. It is about educating the consumer to be fully aware. It is not about putting competitive businesses out of business, because we need competition in the marketplace.

We are talking very specifically in today's motion about the white label ATMs that are charging unfair amounts to the very consumers we are concerned about. Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague, the Liberal critic for industry, for her remarks here today. The motion itself is quite vague. It does not specifically refer to federally regulated ATMs. It simply says “by limiting ATM fees”. It is helpful that the NDP member who presented this motion has clarified that it is only intended to apply to federally regulated financial institutions.

I represent a riding in rural and small-town Nova Scotia. When I stop at Douglas Sanford's corner store on the way to Cheverie on a Friday evening, one of these machines is there. Sometimes I will use it as a matter of convenience, but it has a higher fee. We have to think about the people for whom that ATM represents their only access to cash and to target an approach in such a way that would help them attain the cash they need without paying extra for it. It may be the only place they can get to. I am thinking of a senior, or someone with a disability or with limited transportation.

I think that is what the hon. member is getting at. Does the hon. member agree that it is not only in rural and small-town Canada but also in some inner-city communities where the same situation may exist? Hon. Judy Sgro : Mr. Speaker, every time I see someone using a white label ATM, the one with the $8 fee, it always seems to be the very people who can least afford it. It is why I go back to the issue of educating the Canadian public on the difference.

I know that when people use the machine, it says they are going to get hit with a certain fee, but it is always the poorer person who is not well enough to walk the distance who ends up using these machines. It would be a very good thing for the government to take a serious look at the motion we are debating today and how it can, without removing choice and interfering in competition, attempt to regulate a more reasonable fee and to have some consistency across the country.

(1315) Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very troubled in this debate. The Conservatives seem to be arguing against this motion calling for a reduction in user fees for ATMs by quoting data from the Canadian Bankers Association. We need to recall that the office of consumer and corporate affairs, which does not exist any more, used to monitor these costs. We had government actually governing and oversight on behalf of consumers. It is deeply troubling that the government would turn to the bankers who, by the way, apparently reported more than a $30 billion profit last year.

We know that Canadian families are suffering under record family debt. Compare that to the $30 billion and they lose a lot of credibility, and oh, the poor bankers will have to shut down ATMs if we lower the fees. There is a real lack of credibility. There has been some criticism that the motion is too narrow. Would the member like to speak to the fact that it is a critical role of government to protect Canadian consumers and make sure that there are not overly usurious rates imposed on them? Hon. Judy Sgro : Mr.

Speaker, I am very much aware of the role of the federal government because it was a Liberal government that brought in the current rules we are dealing with, as far as protecting people from being gouged by the banks is concerned. I think we have all been through that experience over the years of arguments with the banks, as they make their billions of dollars and are nickel-and-diming each and every one of us as we use their facilities. It was the previous Liberal government that brought in the changes that protect consumers, capped the fees, and worked out the current regime we are working under.

The issue of the white label ATMs and the $8 is one that was nonexistent at the time and is clearly an opportunity for the government to look at to ensure that consumers have choice and that smaller communities have access without having to pay ridiculous fees. [ Translation ] Ms. Marie-Claude Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I should say that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Timmins—James Bay . I am pleased to rise here today on the opposition day motion moved by my very competent colleague, the member for Sudbury .

I will read the motion, because sometimes when we begin a debate, we lose track of the issue and forget what we are debating: That, in the opinion of the House, Canadian consumers face unfair Automated Teller Machine (ATM) fees as a result of an uncompetitive marketplace and that the House call on the government to take action in Budget 2014 to protect consumers by limiting ATM fees. Thus, it is pretty straightforward. We are calling for concrete action to protect consumers. To put this into context, ATM fees have been charged in Canada since 1996, that is, for the past 18 years.

However, surcharging is not regulated. There are absolutely no regulations to protect consumers. Banks can charge whatever fees they want for transactions that people make to access their hard-earned money. That really is a problem. Furthermore, since 1996, these unwarranted fees have been rising steadily. There are administrative fees, but they are not very high. I will come back to that later. People currently pay up to $6 per transaction to access their money. In my opinion, that is unacceptable. My colleague from Timmins—James Bay and the NDP clearly agree with me. Let us talk about household debt.

We know very well that setting a limit on ATM fees is not the magic solution to household debt. However, it would help a lot. The cost of living goes up every year,

whereas incomes have declined by 7% in the past little while. Paying $6 to access one's own money is irritating. It hits people in their pocketbooks. A $6 charge may seem small, but several $6 charges in one month can blow the budget and force people to buy lower-quality food. That is a problem. Once again, the middle class and low-income people are paying the price. The government is squeezing the middle class more and more. As I was saying earlier, several measures are needed in order to address household debt. Quality jobs must be created. We agree with that. In addition, workers' incomes must increase.

There are a number of other possible solutions. However, what we are proposing is very important and is part of a set of solutions that can help consumers. We must put a stop to these bank practices that exploit consumers. According to the former governor of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney, household debt could be the biggest and most immediate threat to the Canadian economy. It could spur the government to take action. I do not know. We cannot ignore this important aspect of the Canadian economy. Right now, household debt has reached an all-time high of 166% of income.

This means that when someone earns $100, they owe $166. I do not think I need a more concrete example. These figures give a good idea of the situation.

(1320) There is every reason to believe that consumers, especially those in the middle class, have reached their limit. Right now, Canadian household debt is at around the same level as U.S. household debt before the 2008 financial crisis. What else will it take for our government to take action? Finance is not my strong suit, but I know enough and I am smart enough to realize that this does not make sense. I am not the finance minister and I never will be, but if I were, I would take action.

Could we not give middle-class and low-income Canadians a break and make their lives a little easier, simpler and more affordable? People are tired of paying, and I understand. Right now, banks are allowed to charge Canadians nearly $6 per transaction. According to the best data we have, the average cost of a transaction is about 50¢. Someone is making a buck here, and it is not the middle class or low-income Canadians. The Minister of Finance has made a few comments in the media and in the House about ATM user fees. I will quote him because I find this interesting.

On March 6, 2007, he told the Toronto Star : I tried to point out that, in my view, there are some legitimate concerns by Canadians on this subject, particularly seniors, students and persons with disabilities, many of whom have limited mobility so they don't have as much choice in terms of which banking machine they might be able to use.

Again in 2007, in reference to the NDP campaign in favour of banning fees— because the NDP has been working on this for a long time, even though it was not yet the official opposition—the Minister of Finance told the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, “...we also agreed [with the NDP] that the banks ought to do something in terms of consumers with respect to ATMs”.

On February 16, 2007, in the Globe and Mail , the Minister of Finance also said that he was not satisfied with the explanation from Canada's banks for why they charge a fee when other banks' customers use their automated teller machines, and he asked them to try harder. The Minister of Finance clearly has concerns, but no concrete action has been taken since 2007. The problem existed well before then, but the government did not start talking about it until 2007.

It talks about it, says that this is appalling and that we should perhaps do something about this problem because it is hard on the middle class, seniors and persons with disabilities, but it does nothing. There is a real problem. This would be a good opportunity for the government to finally do something for consumers and the middle class, but it is doing nothing. I have more to say on this, but unfortunately my time has run out. I would be pleased to answer questions. (1325) [ English ] Hon. Michelle Rempel (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, my colleague opposite talked about access for consumers. I wonder if she could discuss the price elasticity assumptions that her party has made around the point at which the price of this service would affect the supply. That is, at a certain point people will look at a substitute good for this product, so if we regulate this, would this somehow not only provide a disincentive to the service provision or supply but also profit in a going concern? [ Translation ] Ms. Marie-Claude Morin : Mr. Speaker, right now, services do not necessarily reflect the fees being charged.

We are not asking that the banks suddenly close, fire their employees and force them into unemployment. We are also working on reforming employment insurance, which I wanted to mention as an interesting aside. All we are asking is that the banks have a 50¢ ceiling. That is a reasonable limit for the banks; they can still make money. We know that these corporations must turn a profit; that makes sense. However, they do not need to crush the consumers who simply want access to their money at a decent price, which also makes complete sense. [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, no one would question the importance of consumer-related protection. In fact, history would show that as a government we have on numerous occasions moved into that whole area in terms of how it is we can best protect consumers. My question is in regard to the motion we have before us today, which targets ATM fees. However, it is very specific in that it is talking about banking ATM fees. If we take a look at the province of Manitoba, for example, we see we have more independent operator machines, which is where we get the huge costs of $5 or $6 to use one of those machines.

I understand that to be provincial jurisdiction in terms of regulating. Given the importance of the issue and the importance that the NDP has put on the issue today, I wonder if the member could provide the feedback she has received from the provincial government in Manitoba, which happens to be NDP, on how it has attempted to address this issue. Has it brought in regulation? Can the member inform us on how it has dealt with the bigger picture of those independent machines? [ Translation ] Ms. Marie-Claude Morin : Mr.

Speaker, the NDP has always worked with the provinces, unlike what the government is currently doing. We have every intention of consulting the provinces on this project and working with them. (1330) [ English ] Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, relating to the comments made earlier by my colleague from the Liberal Party, he forgets that it was his government that actually cut the consumer affairs ministry back in the 1990s. He also forgets and did not ask the question that relates to the very specifics of the provincial jurisdiction.

We are making sure we would lead by example at the federal level. However, the member is not recognizing that the banks are cutting branches in rural locations and small cities and putting in ATMs. This is forcing people to utilize ATMs rather than go to their banks. One of the member's hon. colleagues talked about people being lazy. What about the disabled? What about seniors?

I would like to hear comments from my colleague that folks are not lazy but they are tired of Conservatives and Liberals forgetting about consumers and not addressing the important issues they are talking about each and every day. [ Translation ] Ms. Marie-Claude Morin : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his excellent question. Yes, we are indeed seeing that the government is doing absolutely nothing to address this issue.

We are also seeing that the most vulnerable members of our society are the ones who are penalized by all these measures taken by the banks and that the government is doing nothing to address. This affects a lot of people. I am talking about low-income and middle-class Canadians, seniors and people with disabilities. It also affects those who live in rural areas where, as my colleague said, branches are closing their doors, forcing people to use ATMs. Since people with disabilities have a harder time getting around, they use their card every time, instead of going to a bank.

That is often the case with the current government: it is the most vulnerable members of our society who are affected. [ English ] Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is an honour, as always, to stand in this House to represent the great people of Timmins—James Bay and to speak to their concerns about the issues of affordability and fairness. Those at home who are watching from ridings like my own, very rural with a lot of senior citizens, will see the flip-flopping and back-flips from the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. They desire that we do not debate this.

The Liberals said right off the bat that they thought it was very unfortunate we were debating this. They talk about the issues of choice and say we should not interfere in the wonderful marketplace. It is the same argument I hear from the Conservatives about the mythical land of Adam Smith, where we have the little baker and the little blacksmith and the market regulates itself. Then of course we have the little banker and the big dread hand of government coming in and squeezing down. My colleague from the Liberal Party talked about the creation of a nanny state.

It shows the incredible disconnect between the Liberals and Conservatives and what is happening with real Canadians right now in 2014. We have the highest record of household debt ever, at 166%. We have mortgage debt over $1.1 trillion. Consumer credit debt has reached $500 billion. Average debt for the average person is now about $30,000. This includes their credit card debt. It also includes their student loans and their car payments. The issue is that when people are being gouged by the banks, it hurts. My colleagues keep talking.

They are twisting themselves into knots today to try to hide behind high school economics text books as opposed to talking about what is happening in the real world. When my daughters went down to Toronto to go to school, they tried to get bank accounts. The banks were not interested in their business. They needed this form and they needed that form, so they had to get support from back home through the caisse populaire. Thank God the caisse populaire was there to represent them.

However, it means that when my daughters are in Toronto, they do their banking with their ATM cards because they do not have the banking services at hand. In many of our regions the banks have pulled out because they are making record dollars. They made over $29.4 billion in profits. Of that, they are making $420 million in ATM fees. It is not worth it to them to service the little towns. It is not worth it to them to service senior citizens, so they will stick them with the ATM machine. My colleagues in the Liberal and Conservative Parties say that people have a choice. Choice is a false word.

Consumers have a choice, but suddenly they do not have banking services. When they have to get money out, it costs them $40. They are getting dinged sometimes $7 on hidden fees. My colleagues, the Liberals and Conservatives, say people could make an informed choice, as though they think people are stupid and lazy and do not bother to look at the screen. When they look at the screen and it says it will cost $2.25 to take out their own money, the screen does not tell them about the hidden fees. People are being ripped off and people are being gouged.

My colleagues, the Conservatives and the Liberals, talk about how the whole system will collapse if we make any efforts to help consumers. Oh, my God, the ATM business will run out of business. We would be intervening in the marketplace, the dread marketplace. The Conservatives intervene, by the way, any time they feel it will help their friends in the oil patch; they are more than willing to intervene in the marketplace. However, when it comes to helping the senior citizens who are getting gouged $7 to take $40 out to buy their groceries, oh my God, they see the dread hand of the socialists stepping in.

Let us look at other markets. I was just in the United Kingdom where they do not have ATM fees. There is no shortage of ATM machines; they are all over the place, and all over Europe, where they have dealt with this. That is not to say there should not be a fee, because it is a service and people pay for a service, but the question is this. When a person goes to an ATM and the regular account fee is $1—$1 on $40, okay—that seems fair, but then they get the network access fee, which is another $1.90 on top of that, so now it is $2.90. Then there is the convenience fee of another $5.

Both the Conservatives and the Liberals have been saying it is so important to protect the concept of convenience. They tell the consumers that when they go to their local corner store and they do not have a bank, and they try to get $40 out, it is a convenience. It is not a convenience to the consumer; it is a convenience to the banks, because they are getting 40% off consumers.

(1335) It is a rip-off. It is a gouge. However, we do not hear them say that. They will say anything else other than it is a gouge, because their heart, fundamentally, is with the people who are doing the gouging. That is where they feel more comfortable. If people are getting gouged, well, that is the wonder of the market, the great thing about consumer choice. If people have no bank, that is where they have to go, and they get gouged. Is capitalism not a beautiful thing? We should all hug it every single day. We have seen the failure of the big banks to live up to the social contract and to represent fairness.

They can still have record profits and they will still have record profits, but I find it unconscionable that in this day and age someone could be charged $7 to take out $20. The Liberals have never pretended to be consumer friendly, so I am not going to worry too much about them. However, we see the Conservatives have been on the road to Damascus and have suddenly decided that consumer issues are important, so they have taken out some TV ads to beat up the telecoms. They will not do anything about it, but they will make them the enemy. However, the Conservatives will not do anything.

We have the big, tough finance minister, who was going to go in and read the riot act to the banks. Do members remember that? It was in 2007. A Toronto Star editorial said that for several months the finance minister has told the banks that he was not satisfied with their explanations. Whatever the banks did, the consumers wanted answers. Then, of course, the Minister of Finance went in, in March 2007. It was his big showdown with the banks. He was going to stand up for consumers. He stood up, all right. He came out like a schoolboy after seeing the nuns. We never heard anything more about it after that.

The banks continued on. What we are talking about is the rightful place of the federal government. The federal government has a role. This is not interfering in the market; it is about establishing certain standards of fairness. What we have seen w