Debates of May 6th, 2014

Homelessness

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about the motion by the member for Edmonton East, which is essentially to pick a place and a point in time in order to define homelessness. Unfortunately, if that is truly the definition of homelessness, it will not actually capture those who are in housing need. That is the nature of what I hope to talk a bit about tonight.

I appreciate his interest in moving the motion. I appreciate any time the government opposite wants to rely on statistical analysis or actual real figures and data. That is a good thing. As we have found over the past, that is not something that is usually in the government tool box.

It is difficult to try to be so prescribed and so rigid with the solution. The solution, for example, suggests that the counts only be done in January in order to avoid people who may be outdoors in the summertime. It then limits the ability of municipalities and others to actually measure the true ebb and flow of homelessness.

It also suggests that there be a very rigid definition of homelessness. In fact, different cities have different meanings, different resources, and that difference needs to be reflected somehow.

Finally, the suggestion is that this is a way of allowing various governments, municipal, provincial, and federal, mostly municipal, to allocate scarce resources where they are needed most. We are always appreciative of allocating scarce resources where they are needed most, but one has to turn back and look at the root causes of homelessness and the overarching problems to determine that, in fact, we are spending scarce resources in, perhaps, the wrong way by limiting our scope to just those who are actually on the street on any given day.

In Toronto, the most recent statistics that I can find suggest that as of the end of 2013, there were 5,218 individuals who were on the street, who were homeless. There were 3,970 additional individuals living in city-administered shelters. That is amplified by the fact that there are 95,000 public housing units in the city of Toronto. Of course, under the Liberal government of Paul Martin, we stopped building public housing in the city of Toronto and many other places when the federal government got out of the business of building and administering public housing, giving it back to the cities to do, which the cities cannot afford to do.

That abandonment of the housing issue has caused there to be an ever-increasing number of people on waiting lists for public housing in the city of Toronto. As of the end of last year, there were 87,000 families waiting to get into public housing, to get into affordable housing. There are only 94,000 units. Some of those wait-lists are 11 years long.

In a family of four looking to find suitable accommodation, the children will have grown up and left before they find that accommodation. They will be living in a tiny bachelor or one-bedroom apartment for their entire youth. That kind of problem is missed in the discussion on this motion.

The Homeless Hub, which is a research organization in the city of Toronto, supported by hospitals and others, has done several groundbreaking studies on homelessness. I would like to read their definition of what they used for one of their studies. Their study was on health and housing in transition. This was to determine whether or not being in substandard housing actually has an effect on the health of the individuals, and whether or not we are actually spending a whole lot more health care dollars because in Canada we have, and are proud of, our single-payer universal health care system.

When we misguidedly spend that money after causing the illness or the disability to take place as a result of not spending money on housing, we can often spend a whole lot more money in the health care world than we should have in the housing world.

It has been suggested many times by many studies that by not spending money on proper, efficient, affordable and reliable housing, we end up driving our health care costs up. The federal government has said that it is not its problem; it is the provinces' problem. What we are suggesting to the federal government is that if it invested in the housing stock in the first place, that would then avoid the health care costs down the road and the province would not need as much health care dollars and perhaps it would be willing to give some back to the federal government.

Homelessness has been defined as living in a shelter, on the street or in other places not intended for human habitation. People who are couch surfing, or staying temporarily with family or friends, people who are vulnerably housed, so the next level up I guess, if they had their own place but at some point in the past year have either been homeless or have moved at least twice are also considered homeless.

The results of the study showed that these two populations were interchangeable, that they were all homeless to some measure and the division between them was false. The people it identified as vulnerably housed were not just at risk of homelessness, but in the past 2 years they had spent almost as much time homeless, at just under five months per year, as the homeless group did at 6.5 months per year. Therefore, instead of two distinct groups this is one large severely disadvantaged group that transitions between the two housing states.

Therefore, if the limitation of defining homelessness is those who on a particular day happen to be on a street corner or living on a street grate, my hon. colleague from Edmonton East misses a huge and growing number of individuals who, for whatever reason, on that particular day are not necessarily on the street. Therefore, we run the risk of limiting our scarce resources into a population that is much smaller than would be defined by another definition of what is homelessness perhaps even the day that it is sampled.

This study on the issue of health and housing discovered that people who did not have a healthy place to live were not healthy. They had chronic health conditions, such as arthritis, hepatitis B, asthma, high blood pressure and mental health issues. More than half of them reported a past diagnosis of mental health problems and 61% had a traumatic brain injury at some point in their lives. The top reported mental health issues were depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. When they do not have a good place to eat, they also do not get enough food, they do not get quality food and they do not have a diet that is nutritious.

They also have barriers to getting the health care they need. They report having unmet health care needs, so if something gets worse, because they are unable to find or acquire health care, it then results in more costs to the health care system down the road. They are reported as not having a health card, having to wait too long for an appointment and not knowing where to go.

Of these people who are reporting as homeless or vulnerably housed, 55% have been hospitalized or have been to the emergency department at least once in the past year. Imagine if everyone in this room were to say that over half of us had been to an emergency department in the past year, the costs of our medical system would skyrocket astronomically. Individuals who are poorly housed are also a much greater cost to our health care system. I think there is a chicken and egg thing here. We are treating the health care problem, but we are not dealing with the root cause, which is the substandard housing.

I want to refer to another study because it dealt with individuals in my riding of York South—Weston. Probably the number two reason for people coming to my office is because of problems with housing. Toronto is a difficult place to live if people do not have a lot of money. These individuals who do not have a lot of money are substandardly housed and are coming to me for help, although I cannot provide a lot of help.

What the study discovered was that 90% of individuals who live in the apartment block style of housing, which half of Toronto's renters live in—and more than half of my riding is in rental accommodations—are at risk of being homeless, and 33% are at critical risk. In other words, one thing can happen to them and they will then be homeless. Those individuals need to be part of whatever analysis we do.

I appreciate the efforts of my friend, the member for Edmonton East, but I think we need to be a little wider in scope in determining just what we are sorting and what we are sampling in terms of the nature of homelessness.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to speak to the ongoing debate on the floor of the House right now with regard to homelessness in Canada and how it is reported, how the data is collected, the methodology that is used, and the definition of homelessness in the country.

This is an issue that I have come in contact with quite frequently since I was elected a member of Parliament. In fact, I actually opened my eyes quite a bit to what was happening within populations, not only in my own riding but in other parts of the country as well, and the numbers of people who are actually struggling with trying to find adequate housing and, therefore, adequate care.

Sometimes we look at homelessness as being the person we see on the street, the person who is sleeping outside and is wandering on a day-to-day basis, but there is a lot of homelessness that goes on that we often do not see. Unfortunately, I got to experience some of that close up in my own riding since becoming a member of Parliament. That was when I started getting reports from different groups and individuals of people who were homeless, who were actually sleeping in the woods outside of communities, who were sleeping in abandoned vehicles and cars, who were sleeping in abandoned houses and properties. These were not always people we would see wandering the streets every day, but homelessness existed and it was there.

Then there were the reports of people who were couch surfing. One day I went to an aboriginal centre to meet with a group of women. I sat down with these women to find out that they were all homeless. Some of them were couch surfers and some were living in tents in the woods. What was more alarming about all of this was the fact that they were aboriginal. They had moved out of small communities to come to a larger town where they could not afford housing and therefore they ended up on the streets, or in their case I guess, wherever they could find a place. Then there was the fact that many of them had come from abusive relationships and they had to escape for their own sanity. They came to a place to find housing where it was not affordable, not available, and therefore, they ended up in the circumstance they were in. A number of them had already suffered through very traumatic experiences in their lives. A lot of them were suffering from mental illness, addictions, and so on.

It was the combination of all these factors they were dealing with. The most important factor, the very foundation of it all, was the fact that they were homeless. It goes without saying that if people do not have basic stability in their lives, if they do not have the basic services they need, it is very difficult to try to tackle all the other problems that come along with it.

Only a few weeks ago, actually over the last break, I got a call one day, on a Sunday afternoon, to tell me that one of the boarding houses in my riding was going to close. There were 33 individuals who were being housed in this facility. All of them were suffering from either mental illness, addictions, or other problems. All of a sudden, they were going to be left with nowhere to go.

Due to the great work of people in the riding, through Advanced Education and Skills, the work of the Salvation Army Church, the Red Cross, and many others, within 24 hours they were able to find appropriate housing for many of these individuals. What was noteworthy about it is that they were all aboriginal people. Again, this brings me to a point that I really feel that homelessness in our northern regions is not always looked at or measured in a way that it needs to be measured, and we often find out that a lot of the people who are coming into the larger centres from the smaller aboriginal communities find themselves tackling those issues, especially around homelessness.

Now these people have been put into a more appropriate facility, so while it was a traumatizing experience for them seeing this boarding house close, they are now in better, more suitable accommodations. They were never looked at as being homeless, but then again, they were never looked at in terms of whether their needs were being met.

The data has to be accurate in terms of how it reflects the lives of people and defines whether some particular housing is having a positive impact on their lives. Many of these individuals have shared stories of how they were lodging in boarding rooms with no doors. They were in facilities with no water. They were not able to take showers, because the facilities did not work. Then we start questioning other things. Were they getting medications on time? These are the real issues that exist in our country that people are dealing with on a regular basis.

I have often made cases and claims with regard to homelessness when I have had others throw statistics back at me. They say that these are the numbers, and this is what they are saying. Oftentimes, the reality of what is happening in many communities and towns in our country is not always what is reflected in data, unfortunately. Sometimes when people are reaching out for help, we should be reaching back with solutions, not just saying that the numbers say this, that, or something else. We are already seeing today, with motions like this being brought to the House of Commons, that quite often the data is not reflective of what the real need is in the country.

I really feel that in addition to brushing up on our data and redefining homelessness, there is a lot more that needs to be done. That includes looking at the reality of the situation we face, region by region, across this country, and looking at the impacts in certain sectors, whether it be situations where people are immigrating to this country or situations where people have been long-term citizens in this country. It includes other areas, such as what women face if they are going through traumatizing experiences in their lives that often leave them homeless. There are people who suffer from mental illness and do not always have appropriate care.

In first nations and northern aboriginal societies we see this quite often.

Homelessness is also defined, in my mind, by the fact that there is not appropriate and adequate housing. I was actually in communities in northern Labrador last week where there was inadequate housing. Not only that, there was not enough housing to even come close to meeting the need. There were houses where up to 18 or 20 people were living in one house just so they could have a roof over their heads in a very cold, northern region of the country.

There is a lot that can be done. There needs to be more focus put on homelessness in this country. There needs to be more investment to ensure that all Canadians have a safety network and access not only to good housing but to good health care and longevity in their lives. It takes a lot more pressure off our health care system and off our country when we know that its citizens are being cared for and looked after appropriately.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the motion. I am glad to add my voice to the debate on Motion No. 455, which has been introduced by the hon. member for Edmonton East. I strongly support the motion, which calls for one nationally standardized point-in-time approach for municipalities to use in carrying out counts of homeless people. This is not as it might first appear, a trivial matter of bookkeeping. It goes to the heart of our problem with homelessness. Very simply, we cannot solve a problem until we have accurate information about it.

We are all aware of homeless people on the streets, but can any of us say with certainty just how many homeless people there are in our villages, our towns, our cities, our provinces, our territories, or across the country? This may surprise my fellow members, but there is no agreement on the number of homeless people in Canada. That is largely because there is no nationally standardized way to collect data. Even the definition of homeless varies from place to place and province to province.

Depending on what definition we use or what methods are used to survey the homeless population, we can get significantly different numbers. This makes it hard to measure our progress in fighting homelessness. Motion No. 455, if adopted, would give us an important tool to make our homeless programs more effective.

Homelessness is a complex problem. Factors include the effects of mental illness, addiction, family breakdown, physical disabilities, chronic unemployment, and so on. Many homeless people need long-term help from social agencies as well as a secure place to live while they try to get their lives back on track.

In 2007, our government introduced the homeless partnering strategy, also known as the HPS. This strategy involves working directly with communities to prevent and reduce homelessness across the country. HPS funding is delivered to 61 designated communities. In action plan 2013, we announced that we would invest almost $600 million over five years to renew the HPS. Thanks to this and its community partners, thousands of homeless people have been helped.

Through the HPS and starting April 1 of this year, we have introduced the housing first approach. In the past, homeless people were often expected to solve their personal problems, to beat their addictions for example, before they were allowed to have a permanent home of their own. The intention was to motivate them to make good choices and good changes in their lives, but this did not always work.

Under housing first, the homeless get a permanent, secure, and safe home right away, at the front end. Then they get the support that they need from a team of professionals to help them meet the other challenges they face. Housing first has been proven to work. It is an evidence-based program and the economic impact is clear.

Preliminary results from the pilot project indicate that for every $2 spent on housing first participants, the system saves $1 by reducing the cost of public services such as police detentions, hospital treatment, and shelter stays. In the case of high-service users, the results are even more compelling with a savings of over $3 for that same $2 spent.

Over a 12-month period, housing first participants spent an average of 73% of their time in stable housing. Compare that to 30% for homeless people in a control group. This is significant evidence-based success. The success of this program gives us hope that we can not only significantly reduce the extent of homelessness in Canada, but possibly eventually eliminate it. Is that not a worthy goal, one all members in the House would support?

How will we know if we are making progress toward a goal unless we have a consistent and reliable way of counting the homeless?

Just before I close I want to address one of the NDP's comments from the first hour of debate on this private member's legislation.

I can assure all members of the House that the implementation of a standard point-in-time method would not change or reduce the amount of monies available to fight homelessness in Canada. Funding has been renewed, not cut, and there is no interruption of service as we transition to housing first.

Simply put, if a standard point-in-time method was used, it would give us a snapshot of homelessness on that particular day. It would also provide a baseline that would allow us to measure change from year to year. This would help communities direct their resources more efficiently and more effectively.

We owe it to Canadians to use public funds wisely, and we owe it to the homeless to adapt more effective approaches, like housing first. The point-in-time method proposed in Motion No. 455 would make it easier to meet these goals.

Therefore, I ask the House to please support this motion. It is what is best for the homeless in our country.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of Motion No. 455, standardized point-in-time homelessness. I am very pleased we are debating it today.

As a person who has been calling for more data, and more consistent data, I am pleased to see that my colleagues across the way, at least on this motion, are beginning to realize the importance of having data to make informed decisions on long-term planning.

Whether it is homelessness, planning for old age, planning schools, university population, or a topic that has been on everybody's mind, employment and what our real labour needs are, data is what gives us the scientific evidence. However, we have recently seen the government using Kijiji economics to bolster its data to justify a growth in the temporary foreign worker program.

To get back to the subject of homelessness, as much as I am pleased that this motion is here before us, I believe it is missing something, which I hope will get addressed.

As much as the motion calls for a count of those who are homeless, it misses some of the categories. Members should think about the fact that the data being called for would not give us a complete picture because some groups would be overlooked, specifically women, children and those who are invisible. There is a whole segment of our society, through no fault of its own, that is invisible to us, which is very sad.

However, we are going to support the motion because it is at least the beginning of an acknowledgement that we do need data.

Collecting data is not easy. I recognize that even though we need homeless action plans to combat homelessness which are regional and specific to different parts of the country, I believe that when we are collecting data, it is good to have some definitions of what we mean by homelessness and who is covered. However, I do not see that in the motion.

I live in one of the fastest-growing cities in Canada, Surrey, where population growth is happening at a fast rate and there are incredible pressures on our city when it comes to investment in transit, for which it did not get much support from the federal government, and for other infrastructures. I am a little concerned that this could be another one of those moments when we see more costs being downloaded onto municipalities. I am concerned about that and I would be remiss if I did not raise it today.

The motion is silent on where the funds for training and data collection would come from. There has to be training for those who are doing the data collection. Therefore, we need to work on the methodology a bit and also on who will end up paying for this.

In municipalities like mine, we are very concerned about homelessness, as are people across Canada. It is good to have data because it will help to drive future policy. However, at the same time, we have to look at the root causes of homelessness.

For example, in my beautiful province of British Columbia, many people ended up on the streets once some of our facilities were closed for those who had mental health challenges. These people were unable to manage without the kind of supervision they had in the facility.

I also know that child poverty is on the rise and that my province of British Columbia has a very high child poverty rate. As well, the reports I have read recently have validated what seniors in my riding are telling me, which is that they now have to choose between medication and eating, and sometimes they fall behind with their rent. With the growth in senior poverty, we have some major concerns.

We should be looking at the high unemployment among youth, which has driven many youth into the homeless sphere. We should be taking a look at the rise in seniors' poverty and at the number of women living in poverty. We must not ignore children living in poverty or the high number of families in aboriginal communities who are living well below the poverty line. Collecting data is a good start.

I heard my colleague say that the government is not going to renege on its commitment. In the 2013-14 budget, the government announced that it would renew the homelessness partnering strategy, known as HPS—we are all so fond of acronyms—for five years, by investing $119 million per year starting in March 2014. Between 2011 and 2014, the total budget for the HPS was $134.8 million per year. The HPS budget for 2014 to 2018, therefore, has a net loss of $15.8 million per year. That is a huge hit to an area that absolutely needs to be addressed.

There are many reasons people are homeless, such as unemployment, inability to make an income, or mental health issues, yet at a time when poverty is on the increase and more people than ever are struggling and a growing number of homeless are on the streets, the government is going to be reducing the budget by almost $16 million per year. That causes me great concern, as it does to those who are out there.

Another key point I want to make at this stage is that we cannot solve problems by collecting data alone. We need a national housing strategy, and we need it now. We have waited too long. When I am back in my riding, it is very hard to explain that in a country as wealthy as ours, in one of the top G7 countries around the world, we have these kinds of homelessness and poverty levels, and now we have a government that is cutting money to address homelessness in a very serious way. A budget of $135 million per year, approximately, is not huge. If we take $16 million out of that, it is a huge hit, and that is a major concern.

We have to remember that when people are homeless, a certain amount of depression sets in and mental health issues grow, but it also adds to some of the petty crimes that we hear about. In my neighbourhood in Surrey, every time I have coffee with my constituents at a local coffee shop, the number one issue that comes up over and over again involves break-ins and petty crimes such as people snatching purses, and it is the people who do not have anywhere to live.

I am not saying all crimes are being done by the homeless; I am saying that it drives people into crime when there is no infrastructure in place. As I said, if the government wants to leave a mark, it would produce and implement a national housing strategy and introduce a poverty reduction plan for children.

I always live in hope that one of these days my colleagues across the way, who do such great speeches about being caring about their communities, will pay attention to some of the most vulnerable who do not have a voice for themselves and who need parliamentarians to be their advocates.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Edmonton East for bringing this motion forward. We know that every city has its own method of calculating the number of homeless, but this can lead to varying results that make it rather difficult to plan adequately and to meet the needs of the homeless.

What the motion does is to recommend a standardized point-in-time approach for use in communities across the country to measure homelessness. The goal is to provide communities with the tools they need to implement a consistent homeless count.

As my colleagues also pointed out, under the renewed homelessness partnering strategy, the government is adopting a housing first approach to homelessness. Housing first gives people who are homeless a place to live immediately and permanently, and then gives them the necessary supports to improve the other aspects of their lives.

In many cases, this means getting them help, whether for addiction or a mental or a physical illness, so that they can get back on their feet and lead productive lives.

The recent Mental Health Commission of Canada's pilot project, the at home/chez soi project, demonstrated that the housing first approach rapidly reduces homelessness while alleviating pressure on shelter, health, police, and judicial services. We are incredibly proud of this policy shift.

Through the pilot project, we now know that housing first rapidly ends homelessness and leads to other positive outcomes for quality of life. We also know that it is a sound financial investment that can lead to significant cost savings.

For those participants who were in the highest need, every $10 invested led to an average savings of $21.72. We also know that it works over a length of time. For the housing first group, an average of 73% of participants were in stable housing, in comparison to 32% for the usual care group over the course of the study. As I said before, we are very proud of this policy shift because these are the strongest results we have ever seen in an attempt to reduce homelessness.

Communities with housing first funding targets, under the homelessness partnering strategy, will be required to implement an initial point-in-time count, but the standardized point-in-time approach can be used by any community wishing to do such a count. The count will determine baseline levels of homelessness.

This standard point-in-time method will allow us to track changes in the Canadian homeless population and allow local communities to adjust their programs to prevent and reduce homelessness.

The point-in-time approach is widely used in the United States and Australia to track changes in levels of homelessness and to measure the success of efforts to reduce it. In a recent report to Congress, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development used national point-in-time results to demonstrate its efforts to reduce homelessness since 2010.

Also, the count will give us a much clearer idea of the overall extent of the problem. When communities use a point-in-time approach to better understand the demographics of their homeless population—for example, how many veterans, aboriginals, seniors, or young people are homeless—they will be better able to reach out to these groups and to provide the support they need to get stable housing.

Since 2006, our government has worked with communities across Canada to develop local solutions to homelessness. Whereas the approach to the problem was once fragmented, our leadership has helped mobilize a more cohesive and effective response.

With the launch of the point-in-time initiative, the federal government will help communities shift away from a focus on emergency aid to the homeless, toward longer term solutions. This approach is an integral part of the national homelessness strategy, which acknowledges that communities are best placed to address local homelessness issues and that the federal government's role is to support them in finding local solutions.

The point-in-time initiative simply makes sense. That is why I urge all members to support this motion.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank all my colleagues for their interventions today and on the previous day as well.

I would close by simply stating a couple of things that I do not want to be misconstrued. There is nothing simple about homelessness. There is nothing simple about the difficulty in analyzing and assessing what the true needs really are.

Doing a point-in-time count and coming up with certain specific definitions would bring it in line with the United States. They have been doing this throughout the United States for a number of years.

I believe what epitomizes the necessity of doing this is the last two counts that were down, one in Calgary and one in Edmonton. Calgary counted in January, and in the Calgary count, they came up with something like 60 people. They were counted by still being out on the street. The Edmonton count, done in October, counted something like 1,100 people who were out on the street.

We can see that the difference in the number of people had largely to do with weather. As a young person, I used to do a lot of camping out. There are a good number of people who will be visiting the cities, and they will camp out in the parks in the River Valley area. They would be like me. I had a home. I just was away from my home, because I preferred to visit Montreal, Toronto, and different parts of the country.

We have to be careful of statistical analysis. In the tent city set up in Edmonton, there would have been a substantial number who really were visiting the city and camping out there while they are visiting.

It is a very complex issue. Certainly there is no one simple answer. I think we can get to the bottom of the issue statistically by doing a thorough definition of who we want to count. I believe that January would be a common point in time to be counting across the country to come up with statistics.

This does not mean that the count methodology cannot include other local conditions and issues, such as health issues or other things they may wish to include in their particular counts. However, the national count that is turned over to the federal authorities should have the statistical information that is done throughout the United States. It should be done across Canada so that we can have some basic formulated statistics to work from.

I have been following this issue for 14 or 15 years and have visited some 120 or 130 homeless shelters in Canada and the United States. I have been to the shelters in January, late at night. Certainly cities like Edmonton can do far better in their planning for emergency shelter than opening the floors of LRT stations and putting out Red Cross blankets to emergency house people because it is January and they desperately need a place to go for their safety. Surely we can do better than that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 7, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Consumer Protection

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, Canada's major banks made huge profits once again in 2013, in particular as a result of increased bank fees. These fees are a hot topic in my riding, but I think this issue concerns everyone. All Canadians are affected by bank fees. This issue affects business people, small business owners, the middle class and the least fortunate. Everyone is affected by the fact that the major banks impose surcharge after surcharge. We need to take action.

I want to share some figures. In total, Canada's six major banks earned more than $30 billion in profit. I am sharing these figures because when we take a close look at them we can see that each of these banks made huge profits. Here are the annual profits of Canadian banks: the Royal Bank of Canada, for example, made $8.4 billion in profit; Scotiabank made $6.7 billion; TD Canada Trust made $6.1 billion; BMO made $4.2 billion; CIBC made $3.4 billion and National Bank; of Canada made $1.5 billion.

Every year, we see the same thing: the banks continue to rack up billions of dollars in bank fees. We cannot help but think that these banks are making profits at someone else's expense. It is at the expense of all Canadian consumers who use their services. It is time that this Conservative government restored order.

On the other side, we also see that Canadian household debt has reached an all-time high. In 1980, for instance, the ratio of household debt to personal disposable income was 66% whereas it is now 164%. That is unbelievable. The Governor of the Bank of Canada, Stephen Poloz, described household debt as a major threat to the Canadian economy.

More than ever, the Canadian government must act, show leadership and address the problem of bank fees if it wants to demonstrate that the Canadian economy is really one of its priorities. If that is the case, it must act and show leadership to save the Canadian economy from these bank fees, which are threatening and increasingly crushing the most disadvantaged and the middle class.

Credit card interest rates can be as high as 18.9% for cards issued by financial institutions and 24% to 28.8% for cards issued by department stores and gas companies. That is huge.

We in the NDP have practical solutions that demonstrate our ability to help consumers in 2015. We urge the Conservative government to act, to take note of the issue and to restore balance in the banking sector, because banks are making disproportionate profits, probably on the backs of consumers.

That is the major distinction that needs to be made. We understand that banks can make profits, but when they are making billions of dollars in profits, there is clearly a need to act and stop subsidizing them as the Conservatives are doing.

My question is simple: do the Conservatives intend to act on this issue?

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to once again educate the hon. member as to the many measures our government has taken to empower consumers struggling with financial products and services that are becoming more and more sophisticated. With the financial markets innovating constantly, it can be difficult for Canadians to manage the exceedingly complicated financial decisions that they must make throughout their lives. This is an issue our government takes seriously. That is why we have taken action on it.

We introduced regulations relating to credit agreements, including lines of credit and credit cards, which came into force in 2010. These regulations limit business practices that are not beneficial to consumers. These measures require the provision of clear and timely information to Canadians about credit products with a particular emphasis on credit cards. Specifically, the regulations mandate an effective 21-day interest-free grace period on all new credit card purchases when a customer pays the outstanding balance in full.

The regulations also lower interest costs by mandating allocations of payments in favour of the consumer. They allow consumers to keep better track of their personal finances by requiring express consent for credit limit increases. They limit debt collection practices that financial institutions use in contacting a consumer to collect on a debt. They provide clear information in credit contracts and application forms through a summary box that sets out key features such as interest rates and fees. They help consumers manage their credit card obligations by providing information on the time it would take to fully repay the balance if only the minimum payment is made every month. Finally, they mandate advanced disclosure of interest rate increases prior to their taking effect, even if this information had been included in the credit contract.

In addition, the regulations require that any disclosure be made by a federally regulated financial institution in a language and presented in a manner that is clear, simple and not misleading.

These measures empower and protect Canadian consumers and increase their financial literacy by providing them with the right information at the right time so they can make financial decisions that best suit their needs.

Let me also remind the hon. member that our government's policy is not to impose undue restrictions on banks but rather to ensure customer complaints are handled effectively through two key elements: an internal dispute resolution mechanism and an independent complaint handling body.

In the time remaining, let me describe very quickly how the complaint handling process works and how the two elements of the process work together.

The financial sector third-party dispute resolution currently requires consumers to first attempt to resolve the issue with the bank's internal ombudsman. Consumers have the right to request a written copy of the bank ombudsman's final decision. Should consumers want to pursue their complaint further, the dispute resolution providers operate as parallel systems to the traditional courts. However, individuals always retain the right to seek redress through the courts should they feel that the independent third-party dispute resolution body does not address the matter to their satisfaction.

The institutions are also required to disclose their specific dispute resolution process to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, the FCAC, and to the public. In carrying out its responsibilities, the agency ensures that federally regulated financial institutions adhere to the consumer provisions of the legislation governing financial institutions and to their commitments to the public. In addition, the FCAC assists individual consumers with inquiries about financial services and undertakes consumer education activities to help ensure that consumers are well informed.

Finally, our government believes Canadian consumers deserve accessible and effective financial services that meet the needs of consumers and operate in the public interest. We will continue to ensure their interests are well served.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the Conservatives are not doing enough since more than one out of every two Canadians lives paycheque to paycheque and is struggling with the rising cost of rent, food and electricity. The cost of everything is going up.

My colleague was saying that the Conservatives are not going to impose restrictions on banks but instead are going to give them free reign. Of course, the banks have to make billions more in profit and continue to see that profit grow exponentially. I know that everyone is thinking that this does not make sense. Clearly, these billions of dollars in profit were earned on the backs of Canadian consumers. It makes no sense whatsoever.

On the other hand, the NDP is constructive. We propose sound, practical, effective solutions that demonstrate our incredible leadership. For example, we are proposing to limit ATM fees to 50¢ per transaction. We are proposing to put an end to prohibitive credit card interest rates and set a prime rate of 5% so that Canadians can access credit without the banks making enormous profits.

It seems to me that there are solutions out there. The Conservative government just needs to have the balls to implement them.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon. member that ensuring consumers are protected in their dealings with financial institutions is an essential commitment of our government.

As we announced in economic action plan 2013, we are working to develop a comprehensive financial consumer code to better protect consumers of financial products and ensure that they have the necessary tools to make responsible financial decisions.

To make the framework even more relevant to rapid technological innovation, the code would be adapted to suit the needs of consumers today and well into the future. For instance, it would respond to the realities of a digital and remote banking environment as well as to the needs of vulnerable Canadians, including people with disabilities and seniors at risk of financial abuse.

We will continue to remain vigilant to ensure that our financial system remains a competitive Canadian advantage and that consumers receive the highest possible standards of service.

Infrastructure

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have risen in the House several times to support the people of Grenville, its heritage committee and the RCM of Argenteuil in their attempts to save the Grenville Canal, a heritage gem in my region.

Hundreds of people from the region came on board to launch our campaign to save the canal, and thousands of people signed the petition that I brought to Ottawa on their behalf.

Since then, I have repeatedly asked the government to take immediate action. I have followed up to see whether any action will be taken.

I am still working with local stakeholders to prevent this regional gem from deteriorating. Unfortunately, it is gradually falling to pieces.

We have received no response from the government, just empty promises. On February 4, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment tried to reassure me by saying that:

...our government is strongly committed to supporting communities and to the preservation of Canada's built heritage....Our government will continue to be proud stewards of the Rideau Canal and work to ensure that it is protected in order to provide personal moments of inspiring discovery for Canadians and for people from around the world.

That is great for the Rideau Canal.

On February 14, the Minister of the Environment answered with the following:

Budget 2014 is investing a significant amount of money in urgent areas, including nearly $400 million to fix dams, bridges, and highways through national parks that are in urgent need of repair.

I am not talking about the Rideau Canal or bridges, highways and dams.

I would like the government to stop answering questions that are really important to my constituents with snippets of their economic action plan, which really does nothing for my region.

I have seen the deterioration of the canal up close. With support from the RCM, the municipality has done an excellent job of limiting access along the canal because of the risk of collapse. Efforts have been made to rebuild some of the collapsed portions. However, that is just a temporary solution because the canal continues to deteriorate. In fact, in the past few weeks, there has been another collapse.

What the municipality of Grenville, the RCM of Argenteuil and the NDP are proposing is to have heritage infrastructure in good condition that benefits everyone both economically and culturally. Unfortunately, the government seems to forget the important leadership role it must play when it comes to Canadian history.

I will therefore repeat my question on behalf of the people of Grenville, Argenteuil and my entire riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel and all Canadians who want to protect Canada's built heritage.

Will the federal government do its job and commit to saving the Grenville Canal?

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, after decades of neglect on behalf of the Liberals, our government has made record investments in the infrastructure and maintenance of our national historic sites and national parks.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the member opposite for highlighting our 2014 budget commitment of nearly $400 million for improving highways, bridges and dams.

The Grenville Canal land and its management are, and have been, the responsibility of the municipality of Grenville since 1990. On the advice of the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, the creation of the Grenville Canal, and its significance following the War of 1812, was designated as a national historic event in 1929. In 1931, a large stone cairn was constructed to hold a bronze commemorative plaque. That original 1930s cairn and plaque are still in place today, proudly sharing with Canadians the historical significance of the Grenville Canal.

A review of the designation was undertaken in October 2005 at the request of the municipality. The status of designations committee, a subcommittee of the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, reaffirmed the 1929 board decision.

In Canada, protection of heritage property that is not owned by the federal government is the responsibility of each provincial and territorial government under its respective legislation. While a national historic designation helps to focus public attention on a particular site, it does not affect ownership of the site or provide protection.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite all the excuses given by my colleague, the federal government has a moral responsibility when it comes to the Grenville Canal.

Significant work is required to reopen the canal. The municipality and the residents of Grenville, barely 1,000 people, cannot take on the cost of this work alone.

The federal government, which owned and managed the canal for 160 years, is responsible for Canada's historic sites and the Ottawa River waterway, where the canal is located.

Given that the municipality is seeking assistance from the federal government to protect its canal, which is very important to it for tourism and economic reasons, will the Conservatives continue to avoid this responsibility, or will they finally act in a proactive way for this canal and my region?

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, budget 2014 provides nearly $400 million over five years to make further improvements to our highways, bridges and dams located in our national parks and along our heritage canals. These improvements are required after years of neglect on behalf of the Liberals and will facilitate better access to these national treasures.

Through our government's record investments, we will ensure the continued safe and efficient movement of people and goods, create employment opportunities in many communities and support economic growth.

Our government is proud of these investments and will continue to promote and preserve our national parks and national historic sites so Canadians can enjoy them for years to come.

National Defence

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak about a question I asked in the House concerning the options report for the F-35 jets. This relates to the government's effort two years ago to essentially prorogue the program of the F-35 purchases.

Why did the government want to prorogue that program? It was because the heat got pretty hot. This has been a systemic failure of a procurement project for military equipment of essentially massive proportions, and the government was caught out. It provided information that according to the Auditor General and the Parliamentary Budget Officer was not true and in fact represented a government that was keeping two sets of books, one for internal consumption and one for the public.

To avoid the scrutiny of the House and the media, the government did what it called a reset to re-examine the options for replacing the CF-18s.

This has been an incredible failure to deliver by the government, with example after example in the area of military equipment causing a growing lack of confidence by industry in the government's ability to manage military equipment procurement. It is causing troops to have to use aging equipment, which can be dangerous, as we saw with the Protecteur, a supply ship on the Pacific coast that burst into flames in mid-sea.

Let us go back to the F-35 purchase decision.

First, the government never addressed the question of “Why jets?”, not just what jets. It went right to a particular product and went full bore ahead to purchase it. “Why jets?” would be an appropriate question to address and to consult on. What is government's predicted need for defence equipment 10, 20, 30, and 40 years from now, and what kind of equipment would serve that need?

These questions were never asked. There was no statement of requirements that would determine what the replacement for the CF-18s would be required to accomplish. Instead, there was a sole source of a very expensive product called the F-35, which was still under development.

Second, this was based on the misinformation that we, being Canada, were already committed to a contract for the F-35. That was simply not true, even though that was the justification put forward by the Prime Minister himself and the Minister of National Defence.

Third, there was no competition, so there was no opportunity for other providers of potential replacements for the F-35 to demonstrate that their products could meet those requirements that had not actually been articulated.

Last, the cost of this particular program has been zooming into the stratosphere. First it was to be $9 billion, then $16 billion, then $29 billion, then $46 billion, and now two think tanks are telling us that this is still underestimating the true cost.

Why not at least start being transparent and put the report forward, as I asked in my question?

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss our government's actions related to the replacement of Canada's fighter fleet.

Let me start by saying that after a decade of darkness for the men and women in uniform under the Liberal government, it is the Conservative government that made the decision to make the single largest investment in Canada's troops.

When our government established the seven-point plan for CF-18 replacement, it embarked on the most independent and transparent procurement review in the history of Canada. Through the seven-point plan, we are committed to ensuring that due diligence, oversight, and transparency are applied in every respect.

To summarize, we established a National Fighter Procurement Secretariat and the Deputy Minister Governance Committee, which have primary responsibility for decision-making, coordination and oversight of the plan.

We also appointed two eminent Canadians—former auditor general Denis Desautels and economist Kenneth Norrie—as independent members of the Deputy Minister Governance Committee in order to enhance the impartiality of the decision-making process.

One of the most important aspects of the seven-point plan is the evaluation of options. The Royal Canadian Air Force has undertaken an extensive assessment of the aircraft against the missions of the Canada first defence strategy. An independent panel consisting of people who have the technical know-how, strong financial backgrounds, and detailed knowledge of Canada's military and procurement systems has overseen the evaluation of options. We even put an open critic of the procurement on the panel. The independent panel ensured that the evaluation of options was rigorous and impartial and that the results to be made public are comprehensive and understandable.

This independent panel is made up of four external experts: Mr. Keith Coulter, a former fighter pilot and chief of the Communications Security Establishment; Mr. Philippe Lagassé, a noted expert on procurement and an assistant professor of public and international affairs at the University of Ottawa; Mr. James Mitchell, a former senior public servant who currently sits on the audit committees of two government departments; and Mr. Rod Monette, a former comptroller general of Canada.

We have been very clear from the outset of this plan that we would make the results public. We have reiterated this on several occasions. The Liberals did not invent this plan for disclosure and their demands for it are pure theatrics.

In fact, the public can already access information about much of the work carried out under the seven-point plan. To keep Canadians up to date on progress made under this plan, the secretariat frequently posts information on its website.

For example, the Department of National Defence has published two of its annual updates. Canadians should know that the lifecycle costs in the 2012 and 2013 National Defence annual reports were subject to an independent audit by outside experts KPMG and Raymond Chabot respectively.

Again, I want to repeat that when the government established the independent panel to oversee the evaluation of options, one of its very important roles was to make the findings of the evaluation of options understandable. It was our clear intention from the outset to make this report public. Of course, in exchange for their agreement to participate in the evaluation of options, companies and governments involved requested that commercially sensitive and classified information related to the aircraft not be made public.

In the coming weeks, the ministers will carefully study many reports that evaluate the options for maintaining the capabilities of the Canadian Forces' fighter jets. The reports also include industrial spinoffs, costs and other factors to be considered in making the decision.

Our government is looking closely at the cost and risks associated with the design of the aircraft as part of the decision-making process.

While the Liberals are politicking and grandstanding, we must not lose sight of the key point. We must ensure that the Canadian Forces have the equipment that they need to do the work that we ask of them. This is not a small request. It requires great and unimaginable sacrifice, and, in return, we owe them no less than to ensure that we get them the right equipment to do the job that we ask of them.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to military equipment procurement, the government has not one shred of credibility left. There have been eight lost years in which the government has not only made an enormous set of promises without prioritizing them, but it has failed to deliver on any procurement that was a competitive bid at this point. Therefore, we are seeing a failure, whether it is land, sea, or air, in terms of the government providing equipment for troops that they deserve.

In conclusion, this is not a recoverable situation for the government. It has compounded matters by making stealth cuts to National Defence, including $14 billion in lapsed funding, and other budget cuts that are causing the armed forces to scramble just to take care of ill and injured soldiers and veterans. It is failing on that.

I invite the member opposite to consider the eight lost years under the Conservative government that have been all promise and no delivery.