OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 221 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Monday, June 1, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES June 1, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 221 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 221 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 221 (Version officielle) 147 221 01 06 2015 2015/06/01 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

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Private Members' Business

(1105) [ English ] Elimination of Partisan Government Advertising Act

Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.)

moved that Bill C-544,

An Act to amend the Auditor General Act (government advertising) , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-544. Second reading He said: Mr. Speaker, my bill, which is supported by the Liberal Party of Canada, by my leader, and by my colleagues, is an attempt to increase confidence and to drive up trust in our Canadian democratic institutions and the way in which government as a whole operates. It is about accountability. It is about value for scarce taxpayer dollars.

It is about helping Canadians have more confidence in the way we collect their hard-earned dollars and deploy or spend them on their behalf. This bill, Bill C-544 , is about amending the Auditor General Act to appoint an advertising commissioner to oversee government spending on advertising. Everyone in this House, from all parties, I have heard, has heard from countless Canadians who are concerned about what can only be described as wasteful advertising spending.

It is time to bring Canada's advertising rules into the 21st century, and the appointment of an advertising commissioner, as in other jurisdictions, would provide accountability for all Canadians. This legislation, should it be passed, and I am always hopeful that we can get all-party support in this regard, would apply to all future governments of any political stripe. It is important to remind Canadians that this bill would permit legitimate advertising. There is a role and a purpose for government advertising. I will come to the details in a moment.

What would be expressly prohibited, however, is the kind of partisanship we have seen, which infuses federal government advertising and has for the past nine years under the Conservative government. The common look and feel of government advertising is identical to the common look and feel of partisan political Conservative Party advertising and is happening at the same time as the government uses public resources for federal government advertising. It is important to remove partisanship from federal government advertising, because it is anti-democratic.

When public resources are used to try to increase the chances for political success in Canadian society, particularly only several months away from a national election campaign, it is unfair. When I described this bill to a group of grade 5 students recently, one of the students, a 10-year old, put up a hand and said, “To me, it looks like it is cheating”. It is hard not to agree with that simple description. It is about using public resources and harnessing them for an unfair advantage for a sitting government.

The other reason partisanship has to go is because we are now hearing increasingly from experts and from good, front-line, hard-working, dedicated public servants that this kind of advertising compromises the neutrality and objectivity of public servants and the public service. More and more senior managers are being compelled, forced, to take actions that they know are favourably disposed toward the party in power at the expense of the neutrality and objectivity they signed up for when they decided to become good public servants.

Look at any website operated by the federal government and take a look at the colours. Then go to the Conservative Party of Canada website and take a look at the colours there. This partisanship issue is one that every member in the House of Commons knows cuts to the bone of fairness and accountability.

(1110) There has been unanimous opposition to the government's continued advertising. Let us look at some of the headlines. I will start with the Toronto Star : “Tory ad blitz goes simply too far”.

The Globe and Mail : “How partisan Conservative ads undermine the rule of law”.

The Canadian Press : “Cabinet secrecy blocks rationale behind government's advertising slogan”. The National Post : “Canadians growing tired of [government's] Economic Action Plan call government ads 'propaganda' in recent survey”. These draw heavily on eight polls conducted by the government's own Department of Finance. It is also important to always juxtapose choices made by governments in the way they spend hard-earned taxpayer dollars with real needs in Canadian society. We know that the current Conservative government has spent some $780 million, likely more by now, on advertising since its arrival.

Let us take a look at some of the forms of advertising it has pursued. The Conservative government paid over $12,000 per train car to shrink-wrap GO trains in downtown Toronto with Conservative blue plastic shrink wrap that had the slogan “economic action plan” splattered all over them. The Conservatives call that a message. Riders on GO Transit call it propaganda. The Conservatives spent $12,000 per car. Let us take a look at one of the more egregious examples that I think highlights the need to take action in this area.

The government has compelled municipalities and provinces around the country to spend $30 million to put up 9,850 billboards. We have now learned, through access to information requests and through working with municipalities, that municipalities were not able to get their federal infrastructure funding dollars unless they met a contractual condition, which was to put economic action plan billboards at the side of every project. The federal government went to the provinces and said that it wanted a fed-prov agreement.

Then it went to the cities involved and said that if they wanted any money, they needed to put up a billboard at their expense. That was $30 million for 9,850 billboards. Let us talk about what that $30 million might do for Canadians at a time when there are scarce resources and so many credible needs in Canadian society. Thirty million dollars buys 15 MRI machines. It pays for 500 registered nurses' salaries for one year or over 900 personal support workers for home care for one year. It pays for 10,000 hip, knee, and cataract surgeries.

It pays for 4,250 insulin pumps for kids who are coping with type 1 diabetes and cannot afford the pumps. It pays for 300 affordable housing units. It pays for one million bus passes for our seniors on pensions. It pays the tuition fees for 5,000 students. It pays for student jobs for 9,000 students over the summer. Thirty million dollars pays for 15,000 doses of chemotherapy drugs for cancer patients fighting their heroic battles and waiting for their treatments. It pays for 46,500 injections to treat osteoporosis at a time when our aging population is showing more and more the effects of arthritis and aging.

Thirty million dollars also pays for 20 million meals at the school breakfast programs for hungry kids. It pays for 46 years of the eliminated community access program for any one province, where we were supplying Internet services in our libraries and community centres for those who could not afford the $70, $80, or $90 a month to be connected on the Internet. It pays for eco-energy retrofit grants for 6,000 homes. It was $12,000 to shrink-wrap one train at a time when infrastructure funding is being cut 90% this year. This tells us everything we need to know about the government's priorities.

It is shamelessly using federal tax dollars to promote its brand, its common look and feel, its websites, and its Facebook ads. For heaven's sake, the Conservatives are even advertising now on Xbox.

(1115) This can all stop. The government, the party in power, can be put out of its advertising misery overnight. All it has to do is adopt the bill and create an advertising commissioner who is empowered to review advertisements before they go to print. The bill goes as far as empowering the advertising commissioner to actually ensure that before a print run is performed, before any government sends out an order to a print house to run, for example, 30,000 or two million pamphlets, it is approved in advance. The government has lost its way. I think the Prime Minister has really lost his way in this regard.

This is a person who came to Ottawa riding a horse called “accountability”. He railed against this for years. He railed against it while he was in office, and he railed against it while he was out of office. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation itself cannot understand why the Prime Minister is pursuing this kind of advertising policy, if we can call it that. It is also supportive of the bill and its measures. We have a situation where we can do right and better by Canadians.

We can look at the $760 million the government spent and ask, “Did we really get good value for money?” The bill allows for important messaging. Yes, it allows a government to actually inform Canadians about tax measures or program expenditures or benefits they are entitled to. All of that is available, just not the way it is being done now. A government would not be able to, for example, advertise measures that do not exist.

We can all recall several years ago the Advertising Standards Council of Canada taking the government to task for running ads on television during sporting events for programs for job training that did not even exist. For those Canadians who follow playoff hockey, they are watching ads now. Each spot is a minimum of $100,000. There is no message. That would provide support for 300 student jobs over the summer. It is important for us to remember when we talk about this kind of advertising that we need to juxtapose it against real needs in Canadian society. That is why I am bringing the bill forward.

To go back to that theme, it allows for the important advertisements. If the government is recruiting staff, it is permitted. If the government is looking for contractors to do good work for the federal government, it is permitted. If it wants a message out on health crises, like H1N1 or the SARS crisis, that is permitted. If it needs a message to folks in southern Alberta during a flood, that is permitted.

All of this would go a great distance, to come exactly back to where I began, to drive up confidence and trust in the way all governments operate at a time when too many Canadians are despondent and disappointed and are checking out. The House has an obligation to do everything it can to drive up confidence. I remain hopeful, and I ask my colleagues from all sides of the House to join us and support me in Bill C-544 so that we can do right by Canadians.

Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon (Mississauga East—Cooksville, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to respond to the following findings of the Gomery report. The report states:

The Commission of Inquiry found:

Clear evidence of political involvement in the administration of the Sponsorship Program....

A veil of secrecy surrounding the administration of the Sponsorship Program and an absence of transparency in the contracting process....

The use of the Sponsorship Program for the purposes other than national unity or federal visibility because of a lack of objectives, criteria and guidelines for the Program.

Deliberate actions to avoid compliance with federal legislation and policies....

Certain agencies carrying on their payrolls individuals who were, in effect, working on Liberal Party matters.

The existence of a “culture of entitlement” among political officials and bureaucrats involved with the Sponsorship Program, including the receipt of monetary and non-monetary benefits.

(1120) Mr. David McGuinty :

Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to speak about other important elements in the bill that all sides should and could support. For example, the bill would compel the advertising commissioner to ensure that any information to the public is about existing government policies, programs, or services that are actually available. It would inform members of the public with respect to “their rights and responsibilities under the law”. It would encourage or discourage “specific social behaviour”, for example, in the public interest.

It would promote “Canada or any part of Canada as a good place to live, work, invest, study, or visit”. It would promote economic activities or sectors of Canada's economy. It would “include a statement that the item is paid for by the Government of Canada”. It would “not include the name, voice, or image of a member of the Cabinet, a member of the House of Commons, or a Senator”. It “shall not be partisan”. Finally, it shall not be used to “foster a positive impression of the governing party or a negative impression of a person or entity who is critical of the government”.

Together, we should be looking responsibly at these kinds of measures in 2015 to do right by Canadians.

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing this bill forward. This legislation is very important to stopping the corrosive undermining of public trust by the abusive ads we have seen. When the member's brother was the premier of Ontario, he brought forward legislation to Canada to stop abusive advertising. Therefore, I would like to ask the member if he has read the comments by the Ontario Auditor General about Kathleen Wynne's decision to undermine a bill that his brother brought through the legislature to stop the abuse of taxpayer's money with this kind of advertising.

The Auditor General has raised serious questions about the undermining of this principle in Ontario. Has he read the report by the Auditor General? Does he believe that the present Liberal government is undermining the work that his brother did?

Mr. David McGuinty :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get on the record how incredibly proud I am of the work my brother did as the most successful Liberal premier in 75 years in Ontario. Namely, I would congratulate him for the bill that he brought, which has been in existence for 10 years. Right now there are debates going on in Ontario. That is a healthy thing because it is how our democratic system works. I understand that there is a push and pull right now, and there are all kinds of debates going on. However, they will come to ground. The policy remains in Ontario.

The advertising clearance process through the Office of the Auditor General remains in place. It is the only one of its kind in North America. In fact, it is the only one in the history of North America, and by that I mean Canada, the United States, and Mexico. There is no example elsewhere, besides a few state-level examples in Australia. It is an extremely progressive example for us to draw upon, which is exactly what I have done in drafting this bill.

I again ask my colleagues to come together so they can look their constituents in the eyes, particularly those who will run again in the next election, and justify the use of scarce federal dollars for advertising purposes.

Mr. Ted Opitz (Etobicoke Centre, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak on this issue of government advertising today. Let me begin by stating that everything we do in our Conservative government is driven to ensure that our activities stand up to the highest level of public scrutiny. This includes our communications and advertising efforts to inform the public about programs and services we have in place to build a strong Canada. This makes me think of the work we do to help Canadians stay healthy and prevent the spread of infectious diseases, as an example.

It also makes me think of the work we do to support job creation and economic growth through our low-tax plan for jobs and growth, as outlined in Canada's economic action plan. As part of these efforts, we want to ensure that Canadians are able to make the most of the programs available to them. This includes vital programs to modernize a broad range of infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, public transit, and parks. It also includes vital programs to support home ownership, help stimulate the housing sector, and improve housing across Canada.

We use a variety of means to expedite funding to individual Canadians and businesses. For example, we work closely with our many partners across the country, including officials in every level of government and countless stakeholders in industry, and, yes, we use advertising. Advertising has played a key role in explaining the many programs that are part of our low-tax plan for jobs and growth. Like any responsible organization, we make use of advertising because we understand that programs to help Canada prosper cannot possibly work if no one knows about them.

That is why we set out to tell Canadians and Canadian businesses what our plan can do for them. As part of our efforts, we have launched advertising campaigns. We have created a strong online presence, and we have travelled from coast to coast to coast to educate Canadians about the programs in place to help them. They need to know. The communications policy of the government says, “In the Canadian system of parliamentary democracy and responsible government, the government has a duty to explain its policies and decisions, and to inform the public of its priorities for the country”.

The policy also states, “The public has a right to such information”. Our government takes its duty very seriously, and we are proud of the communications work we have done to ensure that Canadians have received timely, accurate, objective, and complete information about the programs and the services available to them. Our plan to creating jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity for Canadians is clearly working, and this is something we can take pride in. I would ask members to consider the following.

The Canadian economy has posted one of the strongest job creation records in the group of G7 countries over the recovery, with over 1.2 million jobs created since June 2009. Over 90% of the jobs created since that time are full-time positions. Over 80% are in the private sector, and nearly 60% are in high-wage industries. Real GDP is significantly above pre-recession levels, the best performance in the G7. Of course, we have balanced the federal budget as promised, and we are now in a position to fulfill our promise to help Canadians balance theirs.

We just have to go around the world and listen to leaders and people in other countries to realize this, because they see Canada as a huge success story. What does this all mean? It means that today we are in an even better position to weather new challenges. Let me make an important point. The advertisements used to spread the word about our low-tax plan for Canadians have been done in a way that respects the principles of accountability and transparency.

They have been done in a way that respects the existing framework of rules found in the government's communications policy and related administrative procedures. This includes the procedures in the management of advertising. These procedures ensure that all advertising activities provide value for money and uphold the principles of the communications policy. We also require that all advertising is guided by the Canadian code of advertising standards, which defines government advertising as distinct from political advertising. The procedures in place on advertising are a key part of good management.

They provide detailed, step-by-step information to help federal departments and agencies manage advertising activities and ensure efficiencies and consistent practices across government. As well, they promote strong collaboration among the key organizations responsible for managing government advertising. Our government is always looking for ways to ensure that its activities are well coordinated, transparent, and managed in a way that provides value for money for Canadians.

(1125) I can say that the bill before us today is not one of those ways. We already have a strong system in place. This is completely redundant. It is not clear that the additional financial resources and administrative requirements in Bill C-544 would provide value for money for Canadians. As such, the government will not support this legislation, and we encourage all members to do the same. Allow me to reiterate that we already have a robust system in place. It includes safeguards to ensure the integrity of government advertising.

This includes various mechanisms to ensure that communications across the Government of Canada are well coordinated, effectively managed, and responsive to the diverse information needs of Canadians. I discussed several of these mechanisms earlier. They include the communications policy of the Government of Canada as well as the procedures for the management of advertising. Advertising is an essential way for the government to inform Canadians about issues that affect them. We continue to make use of this tool to better serve the citizens of this country.

(1130) Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise representing the New Democratic Party on Bill C-544 put forward by my colleague from the Liberal Party. This bill is very important to re-establishing some level of trust with the Canadian public. The other day in the House of Commons, I heard a Conservative backbencher stand to say that he was proud to be in the greatest House in the history of Parliament. I am hoping that was a case of exuberant naïveté because the opposite is true.

What we have seen under the current government is a debasement of participatory democracy, the debasement of public institutions, and the corrosive effect on public trust from the increasingly blurry lines between what is supposed to be serving the public interest and the very narrow party interest of the government. We have seen so many examples of this corrosive impact, but, for me, it was during the hockey playoffs. I saw an ad for a young woman who was getting a job, being retrained in the trades, and how important it was that she was starting her life over.

On Monday morning, I was getting calls in my office from unemployed people asking me how they could benefit from this program. I had to tell them that this program did not exist, that the ad was lying to Canadian people, that taxpayers' money had been used to promote a program that did not exist. How does one explain to the Canadian people that the government is so cynical that it would lie to the unemployed and use millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to promote something that does not exist? This is the level of cynicism we see from the government.

Instead of serving the public interest, we have seen an increasingly dumbed-down message box from which the Conservatives believe they can spin the public. All members on the government side stand like marionettes, repeating the same dumbed-down talking points that are often misrepresentations and lies and completely contrary. If the sun is high in the sky, they will say it is a dark night. If it is a dark night, they will say the sun is in the sky, and they will repeat that message again and again.

It is like All the King's Men , and the politician Willie Stark, who believed that if a lie was repeated often enough, it would somehow be true. To protect those lies—

Mr. Jeff Watson :

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is unparliamentary to suggest or, in this case, to flat out accuse members on this side of the House of lying. I believe there are other ways of making the point. The member knows better, as he has been here since 2004. He should apologize and retract the unparliamentary language.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) :

Before I go to the member for Timmins—James Bay , I would remind hon. members that there are rules in place about what can and cannot be said. I was distracted for a moment and did not hear all of the comments by the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay. However, I will return the floor to him. If he feels remedial action is necessary, he can take it. The Chair would appreciate if he would be mindful of the rules. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay .

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Mr. Speaker. I thank you for your intervention. I note my colleagues are very uncomfortable with the fact that we talk about the misrepresentation of facts under them. It strikes close to home. They think this is a matter of privilege. It does speak to the Potemkin democracy. I understand it is very unparliamentary to accuse someone of lying, and I never would do that, but it is perfectly parliamentary to lie within this tradition. This is a fact. We see the misrepresentation of fact again and again.

As I was saying, the people who can speak out about that misrepresentation are being silenced: the silencing of our scientists; the shutting down of independent organizations; the use of Canada Revenue Agency to go after everything from birdwatchers to environmental groups because they threaten the government's agenda; and, then, of course, the misuse of advertising. Between $750 million and $780 million of taxpayer money has been used to promote the same misrepresentation of facts.

I do not know what my colleague over there thinks is possibly true about telling people they can get a job through a job training grant when the job training grant does not exist, and taxpayer money is being used on that. We need to rein in this corrosive, abusive power. We see so many examples. The Prime Minister has created his own TV network like he is the great leader from North Korea or something, with these 24 Seven videos. The Conservatives go to Iraq and do not allow the media to film, but they have their own imbedded propagandists.

What comes out of that is that the lives of soldiers are actually put at stake. The member for Nepean—Carleton has acted as Mini-Me, deciding he would run his own propaganda videos, using taxpayer money and civil servants. This is such a cynical abuse of the public trust. It has to stop. I agree with my Liberal colleague that we need to bring in some kind of rule if we do not want to see this kind of abuse of taxpayer dollars year after year, staggering amounts of money, putting up billboards, shrink-wrapping trains, promoting job creation schemes that do not exist. This is not in the public interest.

My concern with my Liberal colleague's bill is that the model we have for putting in some kind of protection for the taxpayer is in the province of Ontario, which was brought in under the premiership of Dalton McGuinty, and that bill is being gutted right now. It is being gutted by the present Liberal premier, who was stopped by the auditor general for Ontario from using Liberal red all over government ads.

The auditor general for Ontario has raised concerns about the Liberal government being able to strip the acts so it can run government ads, such as taxpayers paying for ads promoting the government during elections. It is a cynical abuse by saying that we will not do it as opposition, but if we get into government, we will do the same thing. Canadians are tired of this. They need to see something better.

They need to see Parliament rise and say that it will not only be about the party interest, that is not only the party in opposition squawking when it is convenient to squawk at government abuse, but then abusing the same system once it gets in power. We saw this when the new leader of the Liberal Party promised he would be the defender of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and then folded like a cheap suit on Bill C-51 . He said that the Liberals would have open nominations, that he would do politics differently. How long did that promise last?

I do not even think it was week before the Liberal Party was into its first lawsuit with candidates. The Liberal leader recently wrote to the leaders of all Canada's unions, saying that he supported union rights, while his own members were attacking collective bargaining on Parliament Hill. These are the corrosive cynicisms that make people believe they should not trust politicians when they see naked self-interests being put ahead of fundamental principles. The House needs to restore an accountable system that wins the trust of Canadian people.

One of those steps would be my colleague's Bill C-544 to limit the ability of government to take taxpayer money and abuse the public trust with misrepresentations, propaganda and, in some cases, outright lies. We need to restore the powers of the independent officers of Parliament to hold parliamentarians to account. The Conservative government uses incredible powers of government to hold its enemies to account, to investigate its enemies, while promoting national secrecy for itself.

The Privacy Commissioner now says that her office has been completely undermined, as well as her ability to ensure we have open access to information. Why is this important? It is important because the ability of the Canadian public to hold politicians to account is a fundamental principle in restoring accountability and trust.

(1135) We will be going into what will probably be the nastiest, dirtiest election campaign in Canadian history. Already millions and millions of dollars are being used by the government in a massive airwaves war, supposedly to promote government programs when in fact it is promoting the narrow interests of the Conservative Party, with the same narrow tag lines and the same kind of coloured advertising. Canadians see through this. They see this is an abuse of the public. We need to find a better system to ensure accountability.

The partisanship and the airwaves war can continue, but it should not be done through the use and abuse of taxpayer dollars. We will support the bill. I encourage my Liberal colleagues to call on their provincial colleagues in Ontario to stop the Wynne government from stripping the basic bills in place right now that prevents her from doing such blatant, naked, partisan advertising. While they are at it, they should also call on the premier to stop the privatizing of Ontario hydro. Did the premier not run on a plan to be a progressive premier? She is doing stuff that would make Mike Harris blush.

I ask my Liberal colleagues to do the right thing and at least call her out on that.

(1140) [ Translation ]

Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak in favour of Bill C-544 , which was introduced by my colleague from Ottawa South . This bill would eliminate partisan advertising. I would like to thank my colleague for drafting and introducing this bill. I believe that it is in Canadians' interest. I will not respond at length to the comments by my NDP colleague. He said he supports the bill, which makes sense.

However, he talked about the Liberal Party's approach with respect to our leader's integrity and the measures he has put forward since coming here to clean up and clear up certain situations, from the Senate to nominations. I will not say much about that because when it comes to using public money for partisan advertising, we must not forget that the NDP spent millions of dollars in parliamentary money on totally partisan purposes. Several NDP members have to reimburse that money as soon as possible. This bill is about condemning the fact that most of the advertising done is partisan.

Since coming to power, the Conservative government has spent close to $750 million on advertising, much of which has been partisan. Meanwhile, programs that are absolutely vital to the federal government, from health to defence to public safety, are being sacrificed in the name of a balanced budget that is a long time coming. Even as the government's budget is exploding, it is spending $750 million on ads. The Conservatives spend money with no regard for Canadians' interests. They use Canadians' hard-earned money for partisan purposes.

They have repeatedly used that money to broadcast extremely partisan ads on television during the priciest time slots, such as during the Super Bowl and the Stanley Cup playoffs, when a 30-second ad costs over $100,000. Meanwhile, people are suffocating under the Conservatives' ideological cuts. First, let us look at the Canada Revenue Agency, in an area I am very familiar with. The Conservatives will not reveal which services are being cut at CRA, and instead have created a special communications team to put a positive spin on what they are doing.

When each taxpayer pays his or her taxes during tax season, which just ended, they are not contributing to the Conservative Party; they are paying their fair share to fund public services. This includes immigration services. We learned last week that wait times are out of control, but the Conservatives refuse to talk about these matters. I want to remind the House that the riding I represent, Bourassa, is very ethnically diverse. We have many services in the area of immigration, which is why some of the data posted on the Department of Citizenship and Immigration website was very shocking.

Between 2007 and 2014, there was a 73% increase in wait times for spouses and children, a 146% increase for family reunification and a 546% increase for parents and grandparents.

(1145) The Conservatives do not necessarily talk about that and I am not here to encourage them to spend taxpayers' money on disclosing that information. However, it must be said that in reality, things are quite different. All the ads and billboards the Conservatives are spending money on seem to be partisan in nature. This is an election period, and partisan ads are what the Conservatives are really interested in. They talked about immigration and all sorts of measures. However, when it comes to jobs, they even cancelled youth employment programs. It is summertime and young people need work.

How much money is dormant in the coffers? On top of that, we should mention the advertising that the federal government is doing for programs that do not even exist. It is therefore important to take the necessary measures and to say enough is enough, that we will now set up a structure to ensure that such advertising is done in good faith rather than for the Conservative government's partisan purposes. Infrastructure was another area where we saw this. There are so many areas where this government went off track, but they do not talk about that.

Lastly, my colleague's bill also requires that all advertising be submitted to a third-party review process for approval and to ensure that it is an appropriate, proportional, and even prudent expenditure of public funds. It is important to first speak out against these kinds of situations and also recognize that it takes an impartial person to confirm that these ads truly meet the needs of the public. The Conservatives have proven that they have no problem wasting taxpayers' money, and Canada's democratic system is suffering as a result.

No party, be it the governing party or not, should be able to buy an election. The studies have been very clear. Political advertising works. That is why we have very specific limits on our campaign spending. However, when a government picks the pockets of taxpayers to run a partisan advertising campaign just a few months before the election, every Canadian citizen pays the price. A few months ago, this government said that politicians are too partisan to oversee the activities of our security intelligence agencies, an issue that should transcend partisan politics.

It is impossible to escape the irony of a government that then turned around and claimed that a politician, a minister in this case, was the right person to determine prison sentences for criminals given life sentences. It is clear, however, that the issue of releasing a criminal into society could easily become politicized. Now, if the government members oppose my colleague's bill, that would mean that we should trust politicians to ensure that these ads do not serve the government's political interests. I find that hard to believe.

I will conclude by asking all of my colleagues in the House to rise above the fray, recognize that taxpayers' money should be used for taxpayers and not for the political party in power, and vote in favour of this bill to put an end to partisan ads paid for by taxpayers. Canadians deserve greater transparency.

[ English ]

Mr. Chungsen Leung (Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak on the subject of government advertising. I am proud to say that I am quite pleased with our government's accountability, responsibility, and transparency. Let me just say that one of the main issues before us today is whether Bill C-544 would bring more accountability to our system of government. Making government more accountable and responsible to Canadians is a goal that we can all get behind, but it is not clear whether this bill would lead us in that direction.

It includes new financial resources and administrative requirements that would not provide value for money for the taxpayer. As such, the government cannot support this legislation, and I urge all members to vote against it. What is clear is that we already have a number of safeguards in place to ensure the integrity of advertising, which include robust planning and reporting mechanisms. Through the “Annual Report on Government of Canada Advertising Activities”, for example, we provide a

summary of major campaigns, expenditures, and general information on the advertising and management process. This important accountability report is posted publicly for all Canadians to see. In addition, all allocations from the central advertising fund are reported quarterly on the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat's website. We also ensure the integrity of advertising by ensuring that it is well coordinated and transparent. For example, a federal department must co-ordinate its advertising with the Privy Council Office and Public Works and Government Services Canada.

As required by the procedures for the management of advertising, departments must align their advertising activities with government priorities, themes, and messages. The government takes this duty to account for its activities and expenditures very seriously. We are intent on ensuring that every taxpayer dollar that we spend is spent wisely and openly. I firmly believe that our actions speak for themselves. Indeed, over the past few years, the government has undertaken a number of measures to help strengthen accountability, transparency, and oversight in government operations.

These measures include the development of a robust regime of a proactive disclosure of information on government operations by departments and agencies, which allows government and public sector officials to be held to account. Another very important milestone was the implementation of the Federal Accountability Act of 2006 and its companion action plan. Through the Federal Accountability Act and action plan, we implemented numerous measures to make our public institutions more transparent and accountable.

Together, these two documents provide assurance that the powers entrusted to the government are being exercised in the public interest. The Federal Accountability Act includes a number of measures, but let me just focus on a few today. Through the act, for example, we created a new standard of accountability for the financing of political activities. We did that by reducing the maximum annual contribution by individuals to political entities and by prohibiting unions and corporations from making political contributions.

We also banned secret donations to political candidates by prohibiting electoral district associations and parties from transferring money to their candidates from a trust account. We also strengthened the Access to Information Act by extending its reach and scope. As a result, more government institutions than ever before are subject to the act, including departments and agencies, crown corporations, and wholly owned subsidiaries. We also strengthened the role of the Auditor General of Canada.

Thanks to the Federal Accountability Act, the Auditor General now has the authority to follow the money by inquiring into the use of funds that individuals, institutions, and companies receive under a funding agreement with any federal department, agency, or crown corporation. This change has strengthened the role of the Auditor General as an independent and reliable source of information. It also helped to reassure Canadians that their government is using their tax dollars wisely.

In addition, under the act we strengthened auditing and accountability within departments by clarifying the managerial responsibilities of deputy heads within the framework of ministerial responsibility and by bolstering the internal audit function within departments and crown corporations. In short, we have strengthened accountability in every corner of government and for all Canadians and businesses that receive government funding. Canadians work hard, pay their taxes, and play by the rules, and they expect accountability and transparency from their government.

This is why we continue to pursue opportunities and support efforts that promise to make our public institutions more transparent and accountable. This includes ensuring that Parliament and Canadians are better informed about public spending. We have achieved this by improving financial reporting, which has admittedly changed significantly in recent years.

(1150) For example, each department and agency now publishes its own annual financial statement on the full nature and extent of its activities. This innovation has been in place since 2006, and it is one of the key ways the government demonstrates accountability for its use of public funds. It has also contributed to Canada's leadership in financial reporting. Indeed, very few jurisdictions publish annual financial statements at the departmental level.

The government is committed to meeting the high expectations of Canadians, and we will continue to explore and implement new ways of providing accountability for Canadians. After all, accountability is the foundation of Canada's system of responsible government. It is key to assuring Parliament and Canadians that public resources are used effectively and efficiently. The good news is that we have achieved a great deal.

As the Prime Minister has said, “Canada now has one of the most accountable systems of government in the entire world and this is something Canadians are rightly proud of.” This is indeed a proud record of achievement, and I can assure my hon. colleagues that supporting the bill before us today will not contribute to that record. It is not clear whether its new administrative and financial resources requirements would provide value for money to taxpayers, as promised. I urge all members to join me in voting against the bill.

(1155) [ Translation ]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) :

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas has nine minutes left.

Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, that is more time than I thought I had. This will allow me to tell some of the anecdotes that I wanted to share in this debate on my Liberal colleague's bill concerning government advertising, which seems to be increasingly partisan. For example, consider the 2011 election when the Conservative Party slogan was used in the election advertising. For those watching at home, the bill would give the Auditor General more powers. That was done in Australia and Ontario, despite the best efforts of the Ontario Liberals to relax the law in recent months.

This bill would give the Auditor General more powers to check advertising content in order to ensure that it is not partisan. This is a really interesting issue because it affects the average Canadian during the playoffs, for example. The playoffs are not over yet, despite what I heard today. When there is no Canadian team left, we sometimes forget that the playoffs can last a fairly long time. The Stanley Cup finals will start this week. On a more serious note, two months ago I went to visit my father in Beloeil to watch the hockey game with my father, stepmother, younger sister and two brothers.

At one point, my father went into another room where he could still hear the TV. During the commercial break, we heard the same government ad not twice, but three times. When my father came back into the room, he asked whether he had really heard the same government ad three times. I told him he had, and that that was how the government was spending his money. He asked me how much these ads had cost and I told him that we were talking about several million dollars.

It was recently announced that $7.5 million had been set aside, but that does not include the approximately $70 million that has been spent in recent years. That is some pretty extravagant spending. Obviously, during a hockey game, these ads play over and over and cost a lot of money. We repeatedly saw the same ads, and my family thought that it was absurd that all of the programs announced were accompanied by an asterisk and the disclaimer that those programs were subject to parliamentary approval. It is ridiculous to have such expensive ads for programs that have not yet even been approved by Parliament.

The government will argue that it is no big deal since it has a majority. That shows just how much arrogance and partisanship is wrapped up in those ads. To top it off, the programs are not even available to people yet. Of course, as others have pointed out in this debate, some of the ads are for programs that do not even exist. Those programs are a problem because, as we have also mentioned, that money would be better spent elsewhere considering all of the money the government spends and the cuts it has made. For example, we are trying to help people in our ridings who spend hours on hold with Service Canada.

There have also been cuts to veterans' services and the CBC, among others. Cut after cut, they keep telling us that it is about accountability and a balanced budget. In my opinion, that message is a very hard one for people to hear and accept. When they watch television, they see ads. The ads are all over the Internet and on YouTube too. People also see economic action plan signs on the side of the highway all over the place making a big show of the government's so-called record. This is very worrisome.

Every political party understands that, when it is in power, it has a responsibility to spend taxpayers' money wisely. Obviously, that sometimes includes making tough budgetary choices, but the public has far more respect for those choices if the government does not turn around and spend the money on advertising, especially during an election year, but that goes without saying.

(1200) The advertised programs are the cornerstone of the Conservative Party election platform, which makes it harder for the public to accept such spending. The number of times we hear people talk about this brings me back to what I was saying at the beginning of my speech. Everyone is talking about this, even those who do not follow politics very closely. They see that something does not add up in the way the government is using money for its ads, especially, as I said, in the context of reduced services. This is even more troubling when we listen to question period.

It is often a sorry spectacle of Liberals and Conservatives debating who was the worst government when it comes to certain issues. Immigration is an example of an issue where they wonder who was the biggest failure. Partisan advertising is another example of that, really. It is nothing new and the Conservative government insists on following the sorry example of the previous Liberal governments when it comes to misspending on advertising and all the fees that come with it. Canadians are concerned about this, which is all the more reason for us to support this bill.

It is also important to mention the Australian example. A law was passed in 1995, but it was recently amended, in 2010, because there was a problem with the auditor general's mandate with respect to the approval of government advertising and ensuring that the advertising is not partisan. Thus, the work in committee will be extremely important so that we do not make the same mistakes and to ensure that, by giving these powers to the Auditor General, he or she will be able to properly do this work and make sure that the advertising is not partisan. This is very worrisome issue.

As I mentioned several times, Canadians are concerned about it. In closing, it is important to point out that this just makes Canadians more cynical. When we go door-to-door and talk with the people in our ridings, we often see that they are cynical. That has been one of my greatest disappointments since going into politics. Using public money for partisan advertising of a party's record, instead of using it to inform Canadians of what the government is doing, only fuels cynicism. That is a very good reason to pass this bill and put an end to this practice.

Of course, we must do our job in committee to ensure that the Auditor General can do what we are asking him to do with this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) :

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

Government Orders Business of Supply

(1205) [ Translation ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Financial Code of Conduct

Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP)

moved: Motion

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should ban all pay-to-pay practices by banks operating in Canada, through the enactment of a mandatory financial code of conduct to protect consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Beauport—Limoilou . [ English ] It is an honour to stand here in this place today on behalf of the good people of Davenport in the great city of Toronto, and in fact on behalf of all Canadians who are upset to the point of anger over unfair pay-to-pay fees. A pay-to-pay fee is a fee a customer is charged just for the right to pay their bill. This is patently unfair, and it plays out in a variety of different ways. Today, we are discussing, specifically, the banks.

Colleagues in the House will recall that the NDP led a very strong campaign to ban pay-to-pay fees, and due to that pressure the government introduced, in its last budget, the one before this one, measures to ban pay-to-pay fees on telephone companies, ISPs, telecommunications companies and cable companies. However, it did not include banks in that ban. Of course, when that did not happen, banks were free to do what they wanted with pay-to-pay fees, and we have seen them increase and expand.

Right now, pay-to-pay fees, just on transactions, just on statements that are mailed to people's houses, are worth about $180 million a year. That is $180 million that Canadian consumers have to pay the banks, the big five, just to get their statements in the mail. This is outrageous. It is ridiculous. It is unfair. Today we have an opportunity to finally close the door on this unfair practice that Canadians from coast to coast to coast agree is unfair. I am sure my colleagues across the way on the government side have heard from their constituents about these fees.

It is time for all of us to do the right thing, do what we were sent here to do, and that is fight for, protect and speak up for Canadians who sent us here, who we represent. Banks are some of the most powerful corporations in the country. There are very few institutions that can stand up to a bank. An individual small business, an individual person, a hard-working Canadian, has a tough time doing that. However, that is what we are here to do. That is what we can do today. I invite my colleagues from all the parties to support this motion to ban pay-to-pay fees.

I want to read a bit of a letter that I received on this issue from a woman named Cynthia in my riding, a small business person, who said:

I have multiple accounts with TD Canada Trust and have been a customer with them for 30 years(!).

Now, this is what we call customer appreciation.

They charge $2 for EACH account statement.

I 've opted for online billing, but I need to print out copies for my records, so I end up paying for ink and paper to print my own bills. Either way, I lose.

Many in my riding have their own businesses. I represent a riding with many small, micro-entrepreneurs who are trying to make a living, oftentimes out of their own homes. She goes on to say:

I have my own business. I can only laugh at the idea that my customers would be agreeable to me charging them for printed invoices.

When was the last time any of us went to a restaurant, for example, and when we got the bill had to pay for the bill, too? That is what is happening. It is a big business; $180 million. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre found in a survey that it did that almost 40% of Canadians said they were not comfortable or could not use online billing, and 74% said they disapprove of companies charging extra for bills or statements.

(1210) Let us talk about who this would affect the most. It would affect those who do not have Internet access, seniors, persons with disabilities, many people for whom English or French is not their first language, and people who do not want to bank online for a variety of good reasons. In a sense, it affects communities that are already at some level of disadvantage in our society, and it is our job to ensure that they are treated equally and fairly. These are unfair charges, and they are allowed to happen because the current government has opened the door for them.

Whenever we talk about pay-to-pay fees here, the government rebuts the idea by touting the code of conduct under which the banks are governed. I am sure the government will do that today. However, what the Conservatives will not say, but what we will remind them of today, is that the code of conduct that they trumpet is a voluntary code of conduct. Let us imagine if the commute of Canadians watching this today was governed by a voluntary code of conduct.

I can only imagine what Highway 401 would look like if it was governed by a voluntary code of conduct, but that is basically what we have going on here with the banks. Why would the government not ensure that banks were following a code of conduct that is mandatory, not one that the banks can pursue by choice? When it is by choice, we see consumers having their pockets picked time and again while the Conservative government stands by and watches it happen and essentially allows it. We have an opportunity today to do something very important for consumers right across the country.

A couple of weeks ago, one of the five big banks—which, by the way, just posted over $2 billion in profits in its recent quarter alone—announced that it would charge extra pay-to-pay fees just for the right to make a mortgage payment, a student loan payment, or a credit card payment. It wanted to charge an extra bit of money just to pay a bill, until a huge outcry both on the street and in the House of Commons forced RBC to back down. However, that did not stop it and all of the other five big banks from increasing fees on everyday transactions.

Someone told me recently that when they took out $40 at a bank machine, they were charged $4.50 to take out their own money. That is outrageous. We need to have a serious conversation about what is and is not fair. It would be one thing if these businesses were in distress, but how is it that the government allows Canadian banks, who are all posting over $2 billion in profit every quarter, to nickel-and-dime hard-working Canadians? Shame on the government. Today we have the opportunity to do the right thing by hard-working Canadians who have to play by the rules, make ends meet, and work hard.

They do not deserve to have their pockets picked in this way. Today we have an opportunity to right this unfair practice. I look forward to this debate today and to this House agreeing tonight that we will end pay-to-pay fees forever.

(1215) Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention today and for his work on this file. My question to him is quite simple. I would like him to expand upon how this motion would help small businesses in our communities. I know that a number have had several challenges with respect to negotiating fees and costs related to payments made through MasterCard, Visa, and a series of other operators. I would like him to expand upon the small business advantages that would happen with respect to this motion.

Mr. Andrew Cash :

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed an issue that affects consumers and small businesses. Right now, many small businesses are just snowed under by a preponderance of transaction fees when customers use credit cards or debit cards. We have long been calling for a cap on these fees. This would make a big difference for small businesses. When we talk about small businesses, I think it is important that we qualify what some of these small businesses are. Many of these businesses, including the one that I referred to earlier in my speech, are operating on micro-thin profits. These fees sometimes make the difference between whether they go into the red or stay in the black from month to month.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, both for small business and the average individual, transaction fees have a very important impact on our middle class in terms of disposable income. Other opportunities might be there if there were a few more constraints on the fees charged by financial institutions. Could the member provide some further comment as to what else we could do to make these measures much more all-encompassing in terms of the different types of fee structures that are in place, in particular for small businesses? As he has pointed out, the consumer ends up having to pay for these fees far too often.

Mr. Andrew Cash :

Mr. Speaker, one of the first speeches that I attended with Jack Layton was around the issue of capping ATM transaction fees. We have long called for a cap on those fees, and the cap should be 50¢. We have done a lot of work on this aspect and we know that 50¢ is a fair fee, both for the institutions and for the consumer. I think that should have wide support here in this House. However, today we are focused on pay-to-pay fees. We are focused on these because they are particularly egregious and really do target vulnerable communities, and it is just plain wrong and unfair.

Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Davenport for bringing this important issue forward. I know that he and other members, such as the member for York South—Weston , have been great advocates on this issue. In fact, the reason RBC was forced to rescind or reverse its decision on these fees was that members like these actually went and stood in front of RBC branches with petitions and frankly shamed the bank into moving backwards on that decision. I remember a show that was on CBC Marketplace in 2013 called “Canada's Dumbest Charge”.

Of course, pay-to-pay fees was one of the top contenders for the dumbest charge in Canada. Of course, the kind of advocacy work that CBC does might be one of the reasons the government keeps trying to undercut it and remove its funding. I would like to ask the member if he saw that show and what he thought about it being one of Canada's dumbest charges.

Mr. Andrew Cash :

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree. It is not only dumb; it is unfair and it is wrong. We have to set this situation in context, and the context is the government's refusal to act and its refusal to tighten up the rules. The Conservatives expect Canadians to play by the rules. Why do they not expect the same thing from the big banks?

(1220) [ Translation ]

Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Davenport for sharing his precious speaking time with me, because our time is very limited. This is an opposition day and we are dedicating our entire day to this topic. I am sure that he could have shared a number of thoughts from his constituents regarding the problems with these pay-to-pay fees. I want to start by reading the motion, because it is very short and clear:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should ban all pay-to-pay practices by banks operating in Canada, through the enactment of a mandatory financial code of conduct to protect consumers.

I want to reflect on my 10 years of public life. It has already been 10 years, and I can hardly believe it myself. This fall will mark my fourth election campaign. I have met all kinds of people in these 10 years. Every single day in the past four years specifically, I have taken time to hear from the people of Beauport—Limoilou. What I find really striking, and I am sure my colleagues have seen this too, is that people are proud of their accomplishments, whether they have raised a family, found a job, bought their first house or owned a house for 20 or 30 years.

However, one constant is becoming increasingly obvious: people are complaining more and more about the rising cost of living in general and especially the countless fees they have to pay. They also talk to us about taxes, but their main issue is the fees they have to pay left, right and centre, fees on all kinds of simple transactions, fees that businesses charge to compensate for declining revenues in highly competitive markets. However, the most offensive fees are no doubt those that make up the enormous profits of huge Canadian companies, particularly our big banks.

I am a long-time observer of the Canadian economy. I have been interested in it for 30 years, and I have seen how admirably stable our chartered banks are. However, I have also witnessed them taking advantage of people over and over, and I believe that governments are complicit because they have not done anything about it for years. That is so disappointing. My colleague from Davenport chose to target pay-to-pay fees for paper bills. That is certainly the most offensive example of abuse on the part of the big Canadian banks.

It is an outright insult to the millions of Canadians who, unfortunately, depend on paper bills. I think it is unfortunate because changes made by big businesses such as chartered banks hold people hostage and force them to change their habits or try to adapt somehow. I currently have the great pleasure of being a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. However, for all of 2014, I was a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

I am very proud of having had a front-row seat to and an active role in passing legislation to prohibit these pay-to-pay fees for getting paper copies of telephone, cellphone, or cable television bills, among others. It was a great victory and we are very proud. We led the charge for a very long time. My colleague from Davenport spoke of our late leader, Jack Layton. I very much remember our campaign all those years ago. Our beloved Jack got in front of an automated teller machine and denounced the ever-increasing fees and the fact that people had to pay to withdraw their own money.

(1225) Before I go on, I will provide some very interesting and very important statistics to inform this debate. According to a poll by the PIAC, 33% of respondents said they were not comfortable with the idea of receiving a bill electronically. That is one in three Canadians, which is a rather significant part of the population. According to Statistics Canada, one in five Canadian households do not have Internet, but more importantly, 46% of homes with a household income of less than $30,000 a year do not have Internet. That is almost half of all the lowest-income households.

Some 40% of senior Canadians do not use the Internet. When I went door-to-door, especially as part of our campaign against eliminating door-to-door mail delivery, many people told me they supported the NDP campaign not because they felt uncomfortable or deprived at the loss of home mail delivery, but because they were thinking about their neighbours, namely seniors, households with very young children, people with reduced mobility, or people who do not use the Internet and who will end up paying a heavy price when mail is no longer delivered to their door. It is the same in this case.

Someone like me, a young 48-year old who is comfortable using the Internet, can easily make the transition. That being said, my mother does not even have a cell phone and has never used the Internet in her life. Why should she be charged for a paper invoice? That is outright robbery. My mother is far from being alone; on the contrary, many of her friends of the same or similar age are also entirely dependent on paper. With that in mind, how can a responsible government that respects all Canadians allow people to be cheated in this way, forced to pay $2 for every invoice?

It might not seem like a lot, but it is huge. My mother worked for part of her life, but her retirement income is pretty modest. For her, every cent counts. How can we tolerate a government that allows this kind of outright theft? It is stealing. I am not even talking about other charges that also seem to go up every year, or even twice a year, in the case of transaction fees. Even people who have very little income have to make a few withdrawals or a few transactions from their account.

For someone like my mother, having to pay $1 or $1.50 for each transaction and $2 for a paper copy of her statement to see what is happening with her account is, quite frankly, scandalous. Any responsible government should really look at the situation and protect people from this kind of abuse. That being said, I am very pleased to be able to speak to this issue on behalf of all Canadians, and especially my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou. This is yet another subject that we will be debating in the weeks to come and over the summer.

(1230) [ English ]

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring up an example that recently happened in my constituency. This is where government has an issue with respect to photo radar. When a constituent receives a ticket, the back of the ticket notes that the person can phone in and make payment or mail it in. The interesting thing is that if the individual chooses to mail in the payment, it costs more money. I think this is becoming even more prevalent. We need to watch this in the private sector, but other agencies look at roundabout ways to collect additional fees.

One would have thought, for instance, that if we were to pay over the telephone, it would be cheaper than having to pay by mail. Could the member comment on that?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Raymond Côté :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for that example. It is quite a good one and rather interesting. It is a privilege for me to sit on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. In 2013, we studied income inequality in Canada. It is a reality. In fact, we are steadily sliding down the slope of income inequality. Although the income of a small fraction of the population is rising very quickly, the income of the vast majority is stagnating or even decreasing when the cost of living is taken into account.

These small fees are being charged left, right and centre, and people are being squeezed and losing a lot of their purchasing power. How can they fight back? The fact that we are leaving them at the mercy of this type of arbitrary fee being charged all over the place is scandalous. That is why we want to go one step further. This is very simple and very easy to understand and to support, and it will give all Canadians a little breathing room.

[ English ]

Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I notice that in the 2013 Speech from the Throne the Conservatives promised to take action to “End “pay to pay” policies, so customers won’t pay extra to receive paper bills”. They re-pledged to do the same thing in the 2014 budget to “eliminate the practice of pay-to-pay billing”. However, the legislation excluded banks from that prohibition. Instead, the Conservatives have been talking about financial codes of conduct, which fail to cover banking fees and are entirely voluntary. Therefore, could my colleague comment on whether the Conservatives' voluntary code of conduct will be sufficient?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Raymond Côté :

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Victoria for his question. My answer is very simple: it is not sufficient. The Conservatives now have a well-established reputation for being all talk and no action. Take, for example, the economic action plan and the famous building Canada plan. Every year they promise money. However, we get all kinds of complaints from all over the country, from municipalities and provincial governments, questioning whether the money is actually being spent. These governments are complaining that the federal government is blocking this money but does not provide a reason.

We are in the process of studying the budget implementation bill and one other aspect is outrageous: although the Conservatives committed to stop using the surplus from the EI fund, they used it to balance the budget this year. The Conservatives say one thing and do the opposite. Then they then claim to be good managers. Let us not kid ourselves. That is intellectual fraud. That is the underlying problem.

[ English ]

Mr. Andrew Saxton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to use my time today to endorse the spirit of this motion and to review certain measures by our government that have already taken place to put Canadian consumers first. In my remarks I will also illustrate how this government has often been able to ensure positive commitments from financial institutions without resorting to mandatory measures. It is quite remarkable to see the NDP members actually put forward any sort of public support for Canadian consumers, especially since they have voted against every pro-consumer measure that our government has introduced.

Nonetheless, we will be supporting the motion today because our Conservative government has a strong record on consumer issues, and I am glad the members of the NDP are happy with that announcement. We will continue to put Canadian consumers first. We certainly hope they will too.

In doing so, however, I would like to remind the hon. member that consumer protection measures like the updated code of conduct this government released in April benefits two different groups: the businesses that rely on financial institutions to operate, and the consumers that make those businesses and ultimately our entire economy a success.

It was the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, after all, that noted that the code of conduct for the credit and debit card industry in Canada “has served merchants extremely well....[It] has done an excellent job in ensuring some fair ground rules and maintaining Canada’s low-cost debit system”. Accordingly, a valid and constructive examination of the motion before us simply must ensure both small business and consumers are priorities.

With the NDP refusing to support our measures helping small businesses, on top of all the measures to protect consumers, I question the sincerity of the NDP's motion today. In the motion, the hon. member has trained his sights on the business-to-consumer space, the B2C space. B2C, on the other hand, describes the relationship between a company and the end user of a service. Without question, these relationships are important. Canadian families work hard to make ends meet and every dollar counts.

When Canadians make decisions about how to spend their money, they must be assured of a voice, a choice and fair treatment. These words once again recall the 2013 Speech from the Throne and the very first strokes of what was to become our consumer first agenda. It is here that hon. members may have first heard the term pay-to-pay, for it was on this occasion that we committed to end pay-to-pay policies in specific industries in Canada, starting with the telecommunications sector. Contrary to the wording of the motion, the pay-to-pay concept goes beyond banks.

For those who are not aware, pay-to-pay billing refers to a new charge on monthly phone bills that previously did not exist. This fee may cost up to $6 each month and is charged to Canadians who choose to receive their monthly phone bill by mail, that is the paper version. Here again, promises made, promises kept. Last December, legislation prohibiting telecommunications companies from charging Canadians for receiving paper bills received royal assent. This was a very good first step, but it was by no means our last.

One of the most important relationships Canadians have is with their financial institution, and Canada's banks are world-class. The World Economic Forum has recognized Canada's banking sector as the soundest in the world for the seventh straight year. That is something of which we can all be very proud. Our nation's financial institutions continue to meet global regulator reform thresholds on time and often ahead of schedule. Three of our six major banks count among Bloomberg's list of the world's strongest.

More important, Canadians have high regard for their financial institutions: 87% have a favourable impression of banks in Canada, significantly higher than any other service providers; 75% give banks a good rating for being stable and secure; and 79% of Canadians get good value for their service fees. This is positive news because it shows Canadians recognize that a profitable banking sector benefits communities across the country and the Canadian economy as a whole.

Those countries that do not have a sound banking sector, including the ones most impacted by the global financial crisis a few years ago, have come to envy those that do.

(1235) In the banking sector, as in the telecommunications sector, our government has been proactive about ensuring that Canadians do not face unfair or undisclosed charges for services rendered. Our efforts in this regard are long standing and cut across many different areas of the banking and financial industry. They are even in collaboration with other levels of government. However, while we have a strong banking sector, we also understand the concerns of Canadians who feel nickel-and-dimed by the big banks.

It is why we have introduced tough measures to protect Canadians from predatory banking practices and have continued to look for ways to protect Canadian consumers when dealing with their financial institutions. Some of our measures leverage public education. For example, in budget 2014, we committed to raising public awareness about the associated costs of payday lending and other lending products with high interest rates. We are also giving provincial governments the space they need to fully regulate payday loans, including a 2007 change to the usury provisions of the Criminal Code.

Many more of our efforts draw on the benefits of clear disclosure to help consumers make good choices. Disclosure rules ensure that service providers, credit card companies, or federal financial institutions that offer mortgages, highlight relevant consumer information about charges and consequences in a manner that is visible and accessible.

For example, the prepaid payment products regulations, which came into force last May, require disclosure of fees in a prominent information box on exterior packaging; disclosure of pertinent information on the product's use, including on how to access the full terms and conditions and a toll-free number to make a balance inquiry; prohibit the expiry of funds; and prohibit dormancy fees during the first 12 months following card activation. To put consumers first, our government has prohibited unfair practices where necessary.

That includes, for example, the use of unsolicited credit card cheques, which encourage funds to be withdrawn directly from a credit card. These cheques are considered to be cash advances, which can accrue higher interest rates and fees and do not provide an interest-free grace period. Another example of our government's consumer commitment is the access to funds regulations, which reduce the maximum cheque-hold period to four days from the previous seven days for cheques of less than $1,500. The regulations also provide consumers with more timely access to the first $100 of a cheque.

These are some of the actions that the government has taken, which in turn have prompted changes within the banking industry. However, our financial industry has always been a driver of positive change. Financial companies also recognize the value of treating their clients fairly, whether they be consumers or businesses. It is the Canadian way, and our government has repeatedly helped to make that happen. For example, budget 2014 called on banks to enhance disclosure to consumers of the costs and consequences of collateral charge mortgages relative to conventional mortgages.

In response, on September 3, 2014, eight major banks, and the Canadian Bankers Association on behalf of its smaller member banks, committed to providing consumers with general comparative information on residential mortgages. Banks also committed to providing specific information about these same topics to consumers on their individual mortgages at the time of or before entering into a mortgage loan agreement. The NDP voted against all of these consumer protection measures.

Just over a year ago, Canada's eight largest banks voluntarily committed to enhancing low-cost bank accounts, and to offering no-cost accounts with the same features as low-cost accounts to a wider range of eligible consumers, especially students and seniors. Industry-initiated change has not been limited to our federally regulated financial institutions either. Last fall, we welcomed voluntary commitments by Visa Canada and MasterCard Canada to cut credit card fees by close to 10%. Visa and MasterCard started to implement the reductions in April 2015.

This is a very important commitment for retail business owners in particular.

(1240) Canadians have proven to be enthusiastic adopters of new and evolving payments technology. From the early days of automated teller machines, now known as ATMs, to newer tap and go technologies at point of sale, the days of exchanging hard cash for goods and services, for many, seem long ago and far away. I am proud to say that Canada leads in this respect. Businesses that accept payments must now consider a much larger number of payment options, ranging from cash to debit to credit, and emerging digital technologies as well.

That is why, alongside the recent release of our updated code of conduct for the credit and debit card industry in Canada, we have also undertaken a consultation, seeking the views of Canadians on how to ensure that payments innovations are safe and provide adequate consumer protection. Payment systems are vital to the movement of money in an economy. Given their importance, the government provides oversight of these systems based on the broad policy objectives of safety and soundness, efficiency, and consideration of user interests.

It is our strong hope that one of the major conversations that this consultation will spark is related to efficiency and how to ensure that our payments industry remains competitive so that consumers do not face higher costs when using new payment technology. At the same time, businesses can make the right choices about the kinds of payments they will accept. More important to this debate today, which I am surprised the NDP has already forgotten, is that the banks have already committed to ending pay-to-pay charges.

It makes this debate somewhat unnecessary, as the NDP is completely ignoring that the banks have made a commitment to the federal government that they will not charge customers for bills when money is owing. Our government completely agrees that we should support eliminating the practice of making customers pay fees to see their bills or invoices, which is why, in the spring or summer of 2014, the banks made their commitment to ending this practice for Canadian consumers. Our government fully intends to accept the banks' voluntary commitment.

I am sure the hon. member knows that our government does not regulate the day-to-day operations of banks, but this issue is something we take seriously, which is why we are proud that we are able to work with the industry to help all consumers. Then, there is the financial code of conduct that the member has raised. Again, I am faced with some confusion. Economic action plan 2015, the extraordinary budget that the Minister of Finance introduced this year, proposes a new financial consumer protection framework for banks.

This is the same budget that the opposition has already committed to voting against, which comes as no surprise when members opposite vote against most of our government's measures without even reading them. Economic action plan 2015 proposes to amend the Bank Act. It will strengthen and modernize Canada's financial consumer protection framework to respond to the diverse needs of Canadians. Not only will it make the consumer protection provisions of the act more transparent and consistent with regard to the banks' dealings with consumers, it will benefit all Canadians, including the most vulnerable consumers.

Since it would be enshrined in the Bank Act, the framework would be mandatory. Again, New Democrats need to read the budget before they propose their motions. Our government's use of voluntary codes of conduct has increased transparency at banks and is considered a model framework around the world. Every Canadian bank has accepted and implemented our voluntary code of conduct.

We are taking it one step further to make sure the framework will prohibit certain business practices, improve access to basic banking services, and broaden requirements for clear and simple disclosure of information for banking products and services. I am sure that the point is clear already, but let me quote from the budget text itself:

The Government of Canada intends that the Bank Act provide the exclusive set of rules governing consumer protection for banks. One comprehensive set of rules will allow banks to officially deliver national products and services and provide consumers with the benefit of knowing they have the same uniform protection when they deal with their bank anywhere across the country.

I am not sure what more the member wants. This is a clear example of our government taking true leadership on this issue and helping all Canadians, by putting these principles in law.

(1245) Let me be crystal clear for the NDP. Banning pay-to-pay bank fees is the kind of thing we intend to look at, including in our mandatory financial consumer protection framework that we promised in economic action plan 2015. Our government understands that when Canadians make decisions about how to spend their money, they must be assured that their interests come first and they are given fair treatment. I could spend a whole day listing the measures we have introduced to help consumers and that the opposition has voted against, but I see that my time is almost up.

Let me comment on one more measure that I believe is extremely important, and that is financial literacy. Our government has been working to support the financial literacy of Canadians since we came to power. We have created the financial literacy leader position and invested funds to ensure that Canadians have the skills and knowledge to make informed financial decisions. As we have said many times, this will not only result in economic benefits for Canadians, it will also benefit the entire economy. Protecting consumers and supporting small businesses remain a central focus of our government.

We continue to work through our many channels to effect positive change for both groups. From regulations to voluntary industry-driven codes, consumers today enjoy far greater protections than ever before, even as the products and services they enjoy also evolve in step with technology and our increasingly digital world. Canadian consumers and businesses stand to benefit first from these exhaustive efforts, which is only right and fair.

Again, while we support the motion here today, I urge the NDP to stop playing political games and finally support the countless measures that our government has introduced to protect Canadian consumers. It could perhaps start by supporting economic action plan 2015.

(1250) Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for that speech and support for the motion. I would like to get some clarification. The motion calls for a mandatory financial code of conduct to protect consumers with regard to pay-to-pay fees at the banks. We would note that when the government had the opportunity to ban pay-to-pay fees in budget 2014, it excluded banks. That is why we are here today. I would like to ask my hon. colleague to clarify that the intention is to bring in a mandatory code of conduct that would ensure these fees are banned and ask when we would see that.

Mr. Andrew Saxton :

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the member stay tuned. Economic action plan 2015 proposes to amend the Bank Act to strengthen and modernize Canada's financial consumer protection framework to respond to the diverse needs of Canadians. I should also point out that our government understands the concerns of Canadians who feel nickel-and-dimed by the big banks. That is why we have introduced tough measures to protect Canadians from predatory banking policies. We have taken action to improve low-cost and no-cost banking options for over seven millions Canadians, and we have introduced and strengthened the debit and credit card code of conduct as well. I encourage the member opposite to stay tuned.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments that the member has put on the record this morning. One of the frustrations that many consumers have is the ever-increasing number of small businesses that will have fees, for example, for using credit cards or an ATM. A good example would be that if people want to pay for a taxi ride with Visa, they would pay an extra $1.50 just for access. We all know that the actual cost is nowhere near $1.50. It would be substantially less than that, and I would argue likely less than 25¢.

Given that we are more and more moving toward a cashless society, I want to know from the minister whether he or his government are looking at proactive consumer-based legislation to deal with monetary fees that consumers are being obligated to pay if they choose to pay, for example, with a credit card or at an ATM?

Mr. Andrew Saxton :

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague opposite that both Visa and MasterCard Canada have agreed to lower their interchange fees to businesses by 10%. They have done that voluntarily, and it is a significant advantage for consumers, because those costs would ultimately be passed on to them, as well. I would also like to point out that our government is providing Canadians with the information to make informed decisions about their banking needs. There are many low-cost alternatives available to Canadians, but they ultimately decide what is in their best interests and in the best interests of their families.

(1255) Mr. Jeff Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention today and for laying out the government's agenda with respect to protecting consumers. If I understood him correctly, the incremental approach the government is taking, first by banning pay-to-pay in the telecommunications sector, has allowed for the ability to get these types of voluntary agreements with the banks while allowing the government to proceed with what I heard the member say was a much more comprehensive approach to consumer protection in the financial industry.

I wonder if the member could confirm that this is, in fact, the approach of the government. Could he confirm that it is not just a one-off with respect to pay-to-pay for banking customers but that we are taking a comprehensive look at consumer protection broadly within that sector.

Mr. Andrew Saxton :

Mr. Speaker, not only are we reducing fees and making sure that fees are more competitive in the financial industry, but we are doing it in other industries as well. In the telecommunications industry, for example, we are increasing competition in the telecommunications market by amending the Telecommunications Act to cap wholesale domestic wireless roaming rates. We are putting an end to cross-border price discrimination by cracking down on companies that use their market power to charge higher prices for consumers.

We are strengthening Canada's food safety system by investing $390 million in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's food safety programs. We are removing tariffs on baby clothing and certain sports and athletic equipment to help to reduce the cost of these goods for Canadian families. We are adopting a wireless policy focused on stimulating greater competition, which has helped to reduce wireless rates by 20% since 2008. In addition to that, we require all-inclusive air fare advertising to ensure that consumers can clearly see the total price of an airline ticket.

Members can see that the list of measures we have taken to help consumers goes on and on, well beyond the financial services industry. We just wish that the opposition would get on board and start supporting some of these important measures and stop voting against every single one of them.

Mr. Andrew Cash :

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, listening to my colleague opposite talk about the concern he and his government have for consumer protection. If there was that concern, why did the government not ban pay-to-pay fees for banks in the budget of 2014, when it did that very thing, under pressure from the NDP, and banned them for telecommunications and phone companies? Additionally, I would just like to clarify that the term “pay-to-pay” was coined by a young volunteer in my office in Toronto when we were building this campaign and working to come up with a name.

This young man, who was just in high school, said that it is a fee to pay a bill and that we are paying to pay our bills. That is how this whole issue got rolling. I would like to ask the member opposite why the government did not ban pay-to-pay fees for banks when it had the opportunity? It could have saved consumers $180 million this year. It could have done that. It could have put that money back into the pockets of hard-working Canadians, but it did not. It allowed the banks to go on their merry way. Why is that?

Mr. Andrew Saxton :

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague opposite that, in fact, in the throne speech of 2013, it said:

End “pay to pay” policies, so customers won’t pay extra to receive paper bills;...

It was not exclusive to the financial services industry. We intended to end pay-to-pay practices in all industries. We think this is in consumers' best interests. They should have a choice as to whether they receive their bills in paper form or digital form, and they should not have to pay for that choice. In addition to that, I want to point out that in economic action plan 2015, we have introduced measures such as delivering a new and exclusive financial consumer framework for federally regulated banks. We are strengthening the financial literacy of Canadians through a national financial literacy strategy.

We are continuing the national counterfeit enforcement strategy to ensure that Canadians can have confidence in their currency, and we are supporting the growth and competitiveness of credit unions, which are essential local institutions in many communities across Canada. Members can see that there are a lot of very good consumer protection measures we have introduced in economic action plan 2015. We certainly hope that the members of the opposition will vote in favour of them and show that they also have a commitment to helping consumers.

(1300) Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion from the member for Davenport seeking a ban on pay-to-pay fees charged by Canadian banks. I want to start by examining the issue of pay to pay and how it relates to existing consumer protection measures in the financial sector. Then I would like to use the rest of my time to discuss a more meaningful way to bring fairness to the middle class and those Canadians working hard to join the middle class. I believe that the underlying issue of today's motion is one of fairness. The motion before us calls for “a mandatory financial code of conduct to protect consumers”.

While the text of the motion does not explicitly lay out an objective, I believe that its main objective really is fairness, which is something any reasonable person in this House can support. It is an issue that speaks to our founding principles, peace, order and good government, and is a recognition that we need strong consumer protection measures so that Canadians are treated fairly when they make a purchase or enter into an agreement. There is an inherent imbalance between large institutions and large businesses and individual consumers with respect to information and power.

Most individuals need the protection of strong laws and consumer protection measures to help even the scales. Canadians are justifiably proud of our banks. We have some of the largest and most successful banks in the world. Our resilient banking system did not just happen by accident. It was shaped, largely, by reforms in the 1990s, directed, in fact, by the strong governments of Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien, when globally, the banking systems were being deregulated in Europe, the U.K., and the U.S. Canada did not follow suit at that time and did not follow the global trend of deregulation.

Canadians and our banking system are better off for it. However, every system needs balance. A strong banking system must be complemented by strong consumer protection measures that ensure fairness for Canadians. In today's economy, access to basic banking services is essential for consumers. We are moving towards a cashless society. It is becoming nearly impossible to carry on today without a bank account. Even the federal government is pushing Canadians towards an increasingly cashless society and electronic transactions. The government is in the midst of phasing out, for instance, its use of printed cheques.

As of next April, Canadians will be required to accept all payments from the federal government by direct deposit. This will include tax refunds and federal child benefits as well as CPP, OAS, and EI payments. The government has said that it will only issue cheques under exceptional circumstances. For example, it will continue to issue cheques to people who live in remote communities where they do not have access to a financial institution. For everyone else, it is clear that the government sees bank accounts as a prerequisite to receiving financial support.

Liberals believe that the government ought to show more compassion, understanding, and flexibility in allowing more Canadians to continue receiving cheques. For instance, we can look at situations with many of the elderly, who may be less disposed to using electronic banking, or low-income Canadians, who may not have ongoing and reliable access to high-speed Internet or who cannot afford those connections on an ongoing basis.

We recognize how essential it has become for Canadians to have access to basic banking services, particularly, as I mentioned, for low-income Canadians, who cannot afford to see their meagre earnings eaten up by large fees. That is why, in 2001, the Liberal government brought in legislation to guarantee access to basic banking services for all Canadians, including low-income Canadians. It is why the Liberal government banned the banks from placing a hold on government cheques valued at $1,500 or less.

It is why a Liberal government brought in rules requiring each of the largest banks to offer a standard low-fee bank account. These accounts include between eight and 12 transactions per month as well as a free debit card, free deposits, and free monthly statements.

(1305) At the same time, a Liberal government established the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to monitor the financial services industry, educate consumers, and enforce new, stronger consumer protection measures. These reforms were introduced by a Liberal government. They were an important step forward, but a lot has happened over the last decade. Technology has changed everywhere. Smart phones are now everywhere.

More Canadians are doing their shopping and banking online, and a growing number of companies in telecommunications, broadcasting, and the banking sector are pressuring Canadians to pay their bills online as a way to cut costs. In the past few years, we have seen a proliferation of pay-to-pay fees. Let us be clear about what that term actually means. “Pay to pay” is widely understood to mean the practice of charging customers an additional fee for mailing them a paper invoice or statement, in a lot of cases. It does not mean an end to all transaction fees for payments.

Last year, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre estimated that Canadian consumers were paying between $495 million and $735 million per year to receive paper bills for telco and banking services combined. Of that total, $180 million was for the banking sector. PIAC also conducted a survey that found that a third of Canadians were uncomfortable receiving bills or statements online, for a variety of reasons. I mentioned seniors, particularly, who may be averse to that. Many Canadians are worried about falling victim to online scams and identity theft.

Earlier this year, thousands of employees at the Canada Revenue Agency were unable to identify a fake email phishing scam that was sent to them as part of a test. It is understandable that cautious Canadians would take extra steps to avoid the possibility of being scammed. Another reason some Canadians insist on paper billing is because they simply do not have a choice. They do not have high-speed Internet at home. This is a significant barrier to low-income Canadians. According to Stats Canada's latest Canadian Internet use survey, only 58% of households in the lowest-income quartile have Internet at home.

That compares to an access rate of 98% and 94% in the first and second income quartiles. Not surprisingly, the PIAC survey found that low-income Canadians are more likely to pay their bills in person or by mail rather than online, and they are not alone. Canadians living in rural and remote communities are less likely to have reliable high-speed Internet at home. Seniors are less likely to use the Internet regularly, making them more likely to end up paying extra fees for paper billing.

It seems unfair to punish Canadians with extra fees because they are poor, they are low-income, or they live in an area where they cannot get high-speed Internet. It seems to me that we are disadvantaging those who are already disadvantaged. PIAC estimated that Canadians without Internet access spend between $77 million and $102 million per year on paper billing.

Pay-to-pay fees were virtually unheard of before 2010, but between 2010 and 2014, a system came into place that forced some of these most vulnerable Canadians to pay extra fees just to find out how much they owed for banking and telco services, which are considered essential in the modern world. In the last few months, new consumer protection measures have come into place. Bill C-43 introduced measures to end pay-to-pay fees in the broadcasting and telco sectors. It prohibited service providers from charging customers who receive paper bills for wireless, Internet, telephone, and television services.

Liberals voted in favour of these measures during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. There have also been new measures to limit bank fees. The government has built on the reforms Liberals introduced in 2001 and expanded low-fee and no-fee bank accounts. Students, low-income seniors, and Canadians with disabilities are entitled to basic banking services with no fees. With low-fee and no-fee accounts, many Canadians can avoid pay-to-pay fees at their banks.

(1310) However, according to the banks around 15% of Canadians pay fees for mailed bank statements. Apparently, the banks are willing to waive these fees for customers who face economic hardship or who do not have Internet access, but there is more that can be done to avoid pay-to-pay fees across the federally regulated financial sector. Of course, the devil is in the detail. Closing the door on pay-to-pay fees would not mean a thing if it leads to similar fees popping up elsewhere. The government must be clear in how it defines the term pay-to-pay. Does it refer to invoices for accounts where the customer owes money, such as credit cards and mortgages? Does the government have a broader

interpretation that would include statements for all financial accounts at the bank, including investment accounts, or is the government's

interpretation even broader still? It seems that a small number of people are trying to morph the term into something far more comprehensive, covering almost any financial transaction fee on any payment. Therefore, we need some level of clarity around that. No one likes bank fees, but banning transaction fees in a modern world of e-commerce has to be done discerningly. It is really important to recognize that there are many meaningful ways we can bring fairness back to Canadian families who are struggling. Today's motion reflects one way.

The Liberal plan for fairness is another way to help struggling middle-class Canadian families and those Canadians working hard to join the middle class. The Liberals have put forward a plan to stand up for Canadian middle-class families. We recognize that too many Canadian families are struggling just to make ends meet. They are struggling under the crushing weight of record levels of personal debt, $1.66 for every $1.00 of disposable income. Canadians have been taking on more debt as the job quality in Canada has deteriorated.

In fact, according to CIBC Economics we have the worst job quality in Canada that we have had in 25 years. We have seen full-time jobs with benefits being replaced by part-time work. Too many middle-class Canadians have not had a real pay raise in a long time and too many young Canadians have yet to really start their careers. They face a labour market that still has 160,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians today than back in 2008. Young Canadians face a growing pressure to take unpaid work, just for the work experience.

We have all heard of recent graduates who are stuck in a cycle going from unpaid internship to unpaid internship, while their parents are struggling to help pay the bills. That is another reason why more and more Canadians are going deeper into debt, the direct financial subsidization of young Canadians who have good educations but cannot find good work to support themselves. Many middle-class parents are delaying their retirement in order to help adult children who simply have not been able to achieve financial self-sufficiency.

It is no longer unusual to hear of young Canadians still living with their parents into their late 20s or beyond. Meanwhile, income inequality has grown, and growing income inequality does not just go against our sense of fairness, it is also bad for economic growth. We have learned that from the IMF, among others. A Liberal government would make the tax system fairer and cut the middle-class tax rate by 7%. That is a $3-billion tax cut for those who need it the most. We could afford to do this by asking the wealthiest Canadians to pay a little more so the middle class can pay less.

We would introduce a new tax bracket for the top 1% on incomes over $200,000. We would also cancel the Conservatives' $2-billion income splitting scheme that the C.D. Howe Institute has actually told us will only benefit 15% of Canada's richest families. Income splitting provides $2,000 more to those who do not need the help. It does nothing to help single parents or low-income families. In fact, according to the C.D. Howe Institute, 85% of Canadian households, those who need the help the most, will not get a dime from income splitting.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, higher income families are not only more likely to qualify for benefits under income splitting, the average benefit actually rises with family income. The Conservatives are providing the most help to precisely those who need it the least. We do not think it is fair to ask struggling Canadians to pay for a $2,000 tax break for the Prime Minister's family or, in fact, for the family of the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

(1315) Income splitting is not just unfair, it also needlessly complicates our tax system and is bad for growth. It is complicated that we need to follow an 85-step process just to apply. Even the tax experts within the Department of Finance who wrote the rules got it wrong the first three times it came to Parliament. It is also bad for growth. The PBO has shown that income splitting will actually weaken our economy rather than strengthen it. He estimates that it would cost the equivalent of 7,000 full-time jobs.

The Liberal plan would do more to grow the economy and help families with the high cost of raising kids. A Liberal government would provide one bigger tax-free monthly cheque to Canadian families with children. Under our plan, every family earning less than $150,000 per year would receive more monthly benefits. With the Liberal plan's new Canada child benefit, a typical two-parent family with two children earning $90,000 per year would get $490 tax-free every month. Under the Conservatives, the same family today only receives $275 after tax.

When we compare the two plans, the Liberal plan would provide an extra $2,500 per year tax free over what Canadians are now getting under the Conservative government. Therefore, that family making $90,000 a year with two children would be $2,500 better off every single year. With the Liberal plan, a typical single-parent family earning $30,000 a year with one child would get an extra $533 tax free every month. That is significantly more generous than the $440 that family gets under the Conservatives currently.

A Canadian family making $45,000 per year with two children would receive an extra $4,000 per year after taxes under the Liberal plan for fairness than they are receiving right now under the Conservatives. It boils down to choices, and Canadians have two fundamentally different choices now. The Conservatives are offering tax breaks for the wealthy, and the Liberals are offering a plan to help the Canadian middle class with a middle-class tax cut and a new, fairer, more generous and simpler Liberal Canada child benefit. Liberals believe in a country that works for everyone.

We will put more money in the pockets of Canada's middle-class families and those Canadians who are working hard to join the middle class. In conclusion, today's motion focuses on small fees that are an irritant to Canadians. It is a step that we expect all parties can support. However, a Liberal government would go further by tackling the bigger issues facing Canadians. We would provide real, meaningful help to Canadian families who are struggling and a middle-class tax cut that would put more money back in the pockets of the Canadian families who need the help the most.

A Liberal Canada child benefit would help vulnerable Canadian families, low- and middle-income families with children who need the help the most. We can afford to do that and still balance budgets, because we are prepared to make a choice by asking wealthier Canadian families to pay more. It is fair and it is also good for jobs and growth, because when we cut taxes on the middle-income and lower-income Canadians, it is more stimulative to the Canadian economy. We will be presenting more plans for jobs and growth in the future and fairness for Canadian middle-class families.

We are looking forward as a government moving forward to really helping those families after the next election.

(1320) Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. colleague for his comments around these fees. I wanted to clarify that a pay-to-pay fee is a fee one has to pay to pay a bill. That is what a pay-to-pay fee is. It does not matter whether it is a bill that comes in the mail or one that the banks charge. This is what RBC was charging but backed down due to pressure from consumers and the NDP. The hon. colleague seems to be concerned about ensuring that the banks have the ability to charge fees for things. I wanted to get his opinion about this.

Today, RBC announced that it was charging a new $5 fee for its high-interest savings account. Every time customers go over one transaction they will have to pay $5 to put money into their savings account. The member was talking about how important it was for banks to charge transaction fees. Is he in favour of this fee?

Hon. Scott Brison :

Mr. Speaker, although I appreciate the question from the hon. member, one would think that I had said in my remarks that we did not support his motion. We do support his motion, and his gratitude is overwhelming. In terms of the specific fee that he mentioned, I have not seen information on that. If it is on the service he has described, it seems high and exorbitant. However, I have not reviewed that fee. I am not sure how the hon. member likes to conduct himself, but I like to get the facts on something before I offer an opinion.

I have been around long enough to not offer an opinion until I have seen the facts on something like that. Therefore, with no disrespect to the hon. member, I would like to have a little more detail and I would be glad to discuss it with him at any time.

Mr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the fairness of new plans that he and his party are introducing. It was only a week ago that his leader talked about plans not having to be fair. Fairness is what we have delivered with the universal child care benefit program. Clearly, four million families qualify and some seven million adults. That is why our government has consistently introduced consumer-friendly measures, including consumer debit and credit card code of conduct, and increasing access to low- and no-cost banking options, programs that the opposition and the third party have voted against.

I wonder if my colleague opposite would maybe comment on fairness and why he did not support these measures, which were geared to consumer fairness.

Hon. Scott Brison :

Mr. Speaker, I would direct my colleague in the Conservative Party to his House leader and other members of the Conservative government who are responsible for the omnibus bills that force the House opposition parties to vote on hundreds of items that are totally unrelated to the fiscal situation of the government, which should be budgets.

The government is in the habit of putting in massive pieces of legislation that affect a wide range of unrelated areas of government and forces us to sometimes vote against measures that if we were provided with an opportunity to vote on as individual items we could possibly support.

Therefore, if he wants to understand why opposition parties, New Democrats, Liberals and independents vote against measures that on the surface sound like they might make sense, then he ought to ask his own government why it put those more sensible measures in with measures that we fundamentally disagree with as part of omnibus legislation. I would direct him back to answer a question with a question.

The hon. member ought to be asking his own government why it continues with this counter-democratic practice of omnibus legislation that forces opposition parties to vote against some reasonable measures that we could potentially support if the government did not continue with this ham-handed anti-democratic omnibus approach.

(1325) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that the core issue of the motion was fairness. I appreciated many of the comments he made. In a comparison between the Liberal Party's approach to fairness versus to the Conservatives' attempt at fairness and the many deficiencies we have seen in the last budget they presented, I am wondering if the member could expand upon the importance of getting it right. If we get it right, we will have a healthier, stronger middle class, and if we are successful at doing that, we will have a stronger economy. Would the member not agree? Could he provide some comments?

Hon. Scott Brison :

Mr. Speaker, it is an important question, and I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North , who intervenes in this House from time to time and does so with great passion and with an understanding of the issues. I have campaigned with him in his riding, and there is no member who has any more direct relationship with his constituents than the member for Winnipeg North. I have seen that in his riding. The whole issue of combining a plan for fairness with one for jobs and growth is based on what some economists describe as a marginal propensity to consume or to spend.

What that means is that if the same amount of money is provided to low-income or middle-income families and to high-income or wealthier families, the low-income or middle-income families are more likely to spend that money than the high-income or wealthier families. It is actually good for jobs and growth. Economists, including our colleague from Markham—Unionville , who is a former chief economist of the Royal Bank of Canada, understand the importance of providing a real break to low- and middle-income families.

Those are the families that are struggling the most, so it is fair and it is the right thing to do in terms of tackling inequality Incidentally, inequality is really bad for jobs and growth, and we are getting a lot of reports on that. Measures to address inequality for low- and middle-income families, such as cutting their taxes and increasing their benefits, actually are good for jobs and growth as well.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, since my colleague spoke about the measure, I want to ensure that he understands the Canadian tax system. If we reduce taxes on an entire bracket in the middle, the people who benefit are those who have higher incomes. They will benefit from the tax cut for this entire bracket. If we compare a single person who has an income of $50,000 a year and a single person who has an income of $150,000 a year, it is obvious that the latter will benefit more from the tax cut. Does the member agree with what I just said?

Hon. Scott Brison :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. I have a good understanding of our tax system. I agree with my colleague that our tax system is too complicated. Under the Conservative government, it has also become less fair. That is why the Liberal Party has presented a plan to cut taxes for the middle class. This plan includes a new tax bracket for incomes over $200,000 a year. This will make our tax system fairer and will really help middle-class families. I think that makes sense for our economy and our society.

(1330) [ English ]

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak on the opposition motion. I will be sharing my time with the member for Newton—North Delta . I think the motion before the House is very important for most ordinary Canadians. It calls on the government to ban all pay-to-pay practices by banks through the enactment of a mandatory financial code of conduct to protect consumers. Let us take a minute to think about who we are talking about. We have seven nationally chartered banks but only five really big banks. Just so we understand their financial position, let me quickly review that for hon. members. The Royal Bank of Canada has assets of $655 billion; Toronto-Dominion