Debates of Oct. 31st, 2012

Financial Literacy Leader Act

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I talked about the advisory council, which is another positive step. I agree with her. I honestly do. In my speech I mentioned the workers who I see in airports who go back and forth all over the world. They are key stakeholders. These are the people we need to see.

The other aspect I did not comment on, which I am glad she brought up, was the bilingual aspect. Yes, I agree that is one thing we should look at. I think there is a private member's bill coming from the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent that I hope will put that to rest.

This is very important not only for Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec, but for us too, and the entire country.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a daughter who goes to university in the United States. The university that she goes to requires five core courses, such as math, English, physical fitness. One of them is financial literacy. If I had the opportunity to make a suggestion to whoever gets the new position being created today about what he or she should be promoting, I would say it is an excellent opportunity for every young person at university to take a financial literacy course.

My question to the hon. member across the way is this. Is there anything that he would like to suggest in terms of financial literacy to the person who gets this job?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, let us start with the idea the member just suggested. It is a great idea. It is about time we had a core course in all of our schools. It is that important. The member's daughter talked about that core course in school being a great idea. She will, in years to come, personally benefit from doing that course. I wholeheartedly agree.

Again, the other piece is the people who have invested on their own, and I include people who travel a lot. For children it is a school thing, but those who have a skilled trade right now should talk to the associations or unions that are involved, to say that the financial leader should look at how to reach these people, not just for retirement but also for cases of long-term disability.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the key things about this position will be how the person is chosen. I am wondering if the member could give us his opinion about how the appointment should be made.

One of the concerns we have had with the government is the way it selects people for positions that come under an order in council. We obviously want someone who is going to have the skill set, but we also want to make sure we have an option in Parliament to have a go at it, as they say. I am wondering if the member could elaborate on the importance of choosing the right person and the process therein.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, as the member points out, it is an order in council appointment, which is chosen by cabinet in any which way, shape or form. That opens it up to many possibilities.

I hope it is done with a great deal of prudence in this situation. I would not want to rush the government into deciding who that person should be very soon. I would like it to take the time to get the feedback from provinces, labour groups, financial institutions and the Canadian Bankers Association. These people should have a say in what type of person that is and hopefully, through the weeds, government can figure out who that individual will be in this case. A case in point is to go after the best person. For example, the ambassador to the United States now is a former Manitoba premier. That is a good idea.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed in the course of this debate that the Liberal member for Kings—Hants voiced some very similar concerns to ours regarding the bill. I am wondering if the member could remind us what the objections are and perhaps how he would see that these could be remedied.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, when it came around to second debate, one of the things we had problems with is that there were a lot of unanswered questions. Through the course of deliberations at committee, we came forward with a lot of answers. For example, one was what the anticipated cost of the legislation would be. The anticipated cost is $3 million per year. One of the things that did not come out of this as a successful measure, but it was talked about, was the advisory council, which is the second step in the right direction. It could be accompanied with legislation down the road.

However, the discussion was paramount. The six amendments furthered the discussion as well, and I congratulate the member for that. The hon. colleague from Sudbury had some valid points about that. In the meantime, this certainly is a step in the right direction. God forbid, I get negative about this. Everything has been Pollyanna since I started speaking, but I think members get the idea.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the deputy critic for consumer protection, it is my great pleasure to speak today on a subject of great importance: financial literacy. There is no better time to talk about this issue because November, which starts tomorrow, is financial literacy month in Canada.

I know that “financial literacy” is not a hook for everyone, but it really matters to Canadians in their daily lives.

Bill C-28 would create a financial literacy leader in Canada. That is an interesting idea, but the bill before us today is pretty much an empty shell because it does not include the kind of meaningful political directions we were hoping to see. Nor does it include a definition of financial literacy, accountability mechanisms or concrete measures to increase financial literacy in Canada. That is a real shame.

Having read the bill, I have a number of questions. For example, what is the Minister of Finance's definition of financial literacy? No doubt they will say that financial literacy is having the knowledge, skills and self-confidence to make responsible financial decisions. However, such a simplistic definition gets in the way of creating a real strategy to address this complicated issue. We need a strategy for the medium and long terms. This bill does not come through.

Who is responsible for helping Canadians improve their financial literacy? A number of interveners have recommended ways to improve Canadians' financial knowledge. For example, the banks have created a number of initiatives to help Canadians learn more about this issue. Unfortunately, those same banks are responsible for the problem. Messages promoting healthy financial habits are too easily eclipsed by financial industry advertising about easy credit.

At a time when the number of financial products is growing faster than the need for them—there is no denying that this is true—it is extremely important to be well informed about financial matters. Financial concepts are often complicated and can be confusing for the consumer after a while or when the time comes to evaluate whether or not a product is suitable. Information provided to the client must be clearer in terms of content and presentation.

Ken Georgetti, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, summarized the situation very well: “Canadians need better government policy rather than lectures on how to save money.” The government is ignoring the harmful conduct of financial institutions.

As the main source of this difficult to understand information, the financial industry must improve the clarity of its communications. That was one of the recommendations made by the Task Force on Financial Literacy that is not in the bill.

The task force report to the minister states:

Canadians need financial information and advice that is relevant, understandable and engaging, and we believe governments and financial services providers have a responsibility to ensure that their communications meet these criteria.

Improving financial skills must be a lifelong endeavour. According to the task force experts, students should receive basic financial education. We cannot talk about financial literacy without deploring the lack of resources for youth. We are talking about elementary and secondary school students. It is a loss that economics is no longer taught in Quebec's secondary schools, because it is at that age that young people begin making many financial decisions.

Earlier, I heard the member for Burlington say that this should be taught in university. Personally, I believe that it should be taught at a younger age. It should already be part of their education. This reminds us that it is important that we accept this responsibility and take action now.

Many of these young people have started working and are continually exposed to consumerism and credit, without always having the tools they need to really understand the choices available to them. I will not talk about the fine print at the bottom of the page since it is not always easy to understand the preconditions and other similar elements.

James Clancy, president of the National Union of Public and General Employees, expressed an opinion in this regard that I share. He said that educating the public about finances, even at a young age, is good. Giving them a fighting chance to keep some savings in their bank accounts—through reduced banking fees, lower credit card interest rates or regulating industries—would be impressive. The government should focus on making serious changes to ease the burden on families and communities, and that is exactly what the NDP is proposing.

Canada's Task Force on Financial Literacy made 30 recommendations, one of which involved the creation of a financial literacy leader position. This bill does not take into consideration the other 29 recommendations.

The Conservatives do not seem to want to seriously tackle this problem since, if they did, they would have added some of the task force's other recommendations to this bill, including the creation of an advisory board that would include groups of workers and volunteers, as well as educators—in short, people who have expertise on the ground, the people the Conservatives should be listening to but ignore in many instances.

I would like to talk about another phenomenon related to financial literacy and that is the indebtedness of retirees. This seems to be a growing phenomenon.

Option consommateurs, an organization that I met with recently and that I commend, is currently conducting an awareness campaign to encourage Canadians to increase their knowledge of personal finance. The organization has noted that, unfortunately, more and more retirees are finding themselves in a precarious financial situation because they do not have enough savings for their retirement. What is more, this situation is only going to get worse when the age of eligibility for old age security increases from 65 to 67, another one of the Conservatives' bad decisions, another decision that is going to cause harm.

The NDP has a real plan to solve the problem of financial security for Canadian retirees. We are going to strengthen the guaranteed pension plans in Canada and Quebec, thereby giving Canadians an acceptable level of guaranteed income during retirement.

Furthermore, why not start up a national dialogue on the reasons why the houses we live in should be treated not as investments, but simply as roofs that all Canadians should be able to have over their heads? Retirees are not the only ones whose financial situation is deteriorating. A few days ago, Statistics Canada increased its estimate of the household debt ratio. This rate is now at 160% of disposable income. This higher level of debt makes individuals more vulnerable to economic shocks. So why is the financial burden on households increasing? The reason is easier access to credit, as well as the fact that the cost of living is increasing but wages are stagnating. This is the result of this government's ineffective economic policies.

Once again, and we have seen this many times, this government would rather lower the corporate tax rate, claiming that that will create jobs, instead of giving a tax credit to businesses that create jobs. That is what the Conservative government does.

If this government cares about protecting consumers, it should implement regulations on credit cards, so we can impose a cap on interest rates and eliminate the excessive fees paid by consumers.

Considering the lack of enthusiasm for financial literacy shown in recent years—or even decades—by the Minister of Finance and his colleagues, they need help, and a financial literacy leader position could help Canada at least take a small step in the right direction. We will continue to push the government to go further, because even though it has made a step in the right direction today, there is still a long way to go.

The NDP proposed some amendments in committee, in order to address some flaws in the bill, such as adding a bilingualism requirement and adding provisions that clearly define the meaning of financial literacy and require more accountability from the financial literacy leader. However, the Conservatives rejected all of our suggestions. They flat out rejected the six amendments proposed by the NDP.

We are very concerned about the fact that there is no explicit requirement that the incumbent of this position be bilingual. We think that if someone is responsible for improving financial literacy across Canada, he or she should be able to communicate in French and English.

As my hon. colleague from Sudbury said earlier, the NDP believes it is possible to find a financial literacy leader who is competent, highly qualified and bilingual. He thinks that can be done for other positions too, such as government officers.

We would not be shooting ourselves in the foot if we hired highly qualified, bilingual people. On the contrary, we would be showing the whole world that we are proud of our two official languages: English and French.

That is clearly an advantage in undertaking dialogue with other countries, particularly on these issues. Speaking two languages is an advantage. It would be good for the government to understand that and take it to heart as my party and I have done.

In conclusion, Canada would be better off if Canadians improved their knowledge of the economy and made responsible financial decisions. To make that happen, we need a strategy that calls for a concerted effort on the part of clients, schools and various organizations, including those in the industry. That is why we need an advisory council made up of union and financial institution representatives and educators. That is worth repeating.

I would like to share some information. A Conservative member told me that one of my strengths is being able to cite experts in the field. I will indulge him by citing a few experts who support what we are proposing.

According to Barrie McKenna, a business columnist for the Globe and Mail, waiting for financial literacy to fill the void is like asking ordinary Canadians to be their own brain surgeons and airline pilots. The dizzying array of financial products, mixed with chaotic and increasingly irrational financial markets, makes the job of do-it-yourself financial planning almost impossible, no matter how literate you are. The average credit card agreement is as intuitive as quantum physics. Canadians are constantly bombarded with pitches to take on more debt, whether it is right for them or not. They are often blindly steered toward high-fee products and complex financial instruments. The accompanying disclosure statements are written by, and for, lawyers. There is a sounder and no doubt less costly path, but it does not suit the financial services industry or many business groups.

He goes on to say that Ottawa could mandate plain-English disclosure. Working with the provinces, the government could enhance regulation of industry sales incentives and defined-contribution pensions. Ottawa could strengthen the CPP, forcing Canadians to save more money for retirement, while benefiting from the CPP's low administrative costs.

Of course I agree with some of what he says. However, I cannot stress bilingualism enough in this area, as that is what is important. Mr. McKenna clearly highlighted the importance of understanding that, at present, consumers are bombarded by financial products. We must all do our part in order to make financial information easier to understand.

Thirty per cent of Canadian families do not have retirement savings outside of the Canada pension plan. Twenty-five per cent of Canadians have accumulated more debt in the past year. Never before has Canadian household debt been so high. Now more than ever the government must implement policies to help people and families in debt. That is important.

Financial literacy is an important aspect of the consumer protection framework. As I said earlier, this bill does not go far enough. The fact that many Canadians do not have any savings and the rise in consumer debt are symptoms of the discrepancy between the rise in the cost of living and salaries, rather than financial illiteracy. Too many Canadians live paycheque to paycheque. This situation proves that the government is not taking a leadership role and that it is incapable of addressing issues that are truly important to Canadians. The government has never implemented strict laws and regulations to protect consumers. And this bill falls far short of providing real help to consumers.

We believe that the best way to support consumers is to establish a single window consumer protection department or agency that would handle all consumer issues. If the government really wants to protect consumers, then it should move forward with credit card regulations and implement regulations that would cap interest rates and eliminate excessive fees paid by consumers.

In closing, I would like to briefly talk about retirement. Many retirees have more and more debt. The population is aging and many people are worried about what we will do for them. The NDP has an effective plan for financial security in retirement. We would strengthen the Canada and Quebec guaranteed pension plans by gradually doubling benefits in an affordable manner to a maximum of $1,920 a month—this is not a gold rush—thereby providing Canadians with an adequate level of guaranteed income during their retirement.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her commitment to bilingualism, which I think is very good. I am trying to learn French myself. It is not going so well, to be perfectly honest, but I am trying. Maybe the next time her speech could be in both French and English. It would be great to see her practise that.

The member said one thing that caught my attention. I appreciate her comment about youth education, but she also said that the Conservative government should do things for job creators, instead of our commitment to lower taxes, to which we are committed. However, the biggest job creator in the country over the last number of years has been in the oil patch. Therefore, oil companies have been the biggest job creators over the last number of years. Is the member advocating for a tax credit for oil companies?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Burlington.

I could give him some French lessons, if he would like. I strongly believe that all members should be able to speak French, too. I am offering my services. I will help him learn French, because I think it is important.

Now, regarding large corporations, lowering taxes for large corporations is not the right way to create jobs. The Minister of Finance even said so himself this summer. Indeed, the government now realizes that lowering taxes for large corporations does not necessarily result in more jobs.

The solution lies with the NDP's proposal: create tax credits to promote job creation. That is a direct, concrete solution.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the new member from Quebec for her speech. This is not a bad bill that the Conservatives have put forward, but it just does not do enough.

She mentioned food banks. Cape Breton has a lot of food banks and the uptake is increasing, especially over the last few years. It is unbelievable the number of people going to food banks.

Could she expand a bit on what she said about the food banks in her region and that the cause may be some of the policies of the government which have led to an increase of food banks in her region and other places in Quebec?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it will be my pleasure. I very much appreciate my hon. colleague's comment.

Indeed, it makes no sense that so many people need food banks right now. In my riding of Québec, which usually does pretty well and has a relatively low unemployment rate, the need for food assistance has been doubling or tripling every year. It makes no sense.

This tells us—us parliamentarians, that is—that there is growing social inequality and the poor are getting poorer. Some people are having a hard time paying their rent and others are probably feeling overwhelmed by the high cost of cellphones, and so on. And since they cannot understand everything that is happening around them, they are forced to turn to food banks to make ends meet.

So there is a connection here with Bill C-28. I thank the hon. member for his comment, because we absolutely must address this situation.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Québec, who made a very important link between financial literacy and consumption. Financial products are becoming more and more complicated, and people are getting increasingly confused.

Does the member for Québec not think we should start by simplifying our financial regulations and financial products before teaching people about increasingly complicated products? Would this not promote better knowledge and better use of financial products?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Louis-Hébert. This is an interesting idea, as is the NDP's suggestion to have an advisory committee, but this suggestion was unfortunately rejected by this government.

Nevertheless, we will continue to push this idea, because an advisory committee, being made up of stakeholders, could help the financial literacy leader make the right decisions.

The idea behind the advisory committee is that two heads are better than one. It is a matter of bringing everyone together to find the best solutions.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Québec.

I am very concerned about household debt, which is reaching record levels. Members of the middle class are getting sucked in to taking on too much debt without necessarily understanding all of the consequences for their future, their old age, their health—they could face expensive health problems—their retirement or the higher education of their children.

Still, I do see this bill as a good thing, a step forward, even if it will not help all Canadians to become aware of the importance of having basic knowledge about banking, taxation and so on.

I would like to know whether my colleague is optimistic enough to believe that this bill will send a shock wave through the Canadian public and help people a little. I am worried that in coming years, Canadian household debt could climb even higher from 160% to 170%.

I am very concerned for the Canadian economy.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very valid point. We can see that the member also has a background in medicine.

With respect to household debt, everything is connected. People are worried, and of course anything can happen, such as health problems. Everything is interrelated. I appreciate the comment.

I, too, am very worried about household debt. I think that things are changing and that this bill is a first step. After Liberal and Conservative governments, the fact that this government is finally waking up to the importance of taking a good look at financial literacy is a good thing. Yes, this is a first step.

But I think the government should go farther. We need to define the mandate of the financial literacy leader more clearly, define what we want, come up with a long-term strategy, create an advisory council and appoint a bilingual financial literacy leader. These elements would follow up on recommendations by the task force and would improve our chances of making more progress.

That would make me feel a little more optimistic.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that some people have been forgotten in this bill. The financial literacy leader would be unilingual. What is more, this bill will not change anything for those who have less money to spend on everyday expenses and on private financial products.

Does the hon. member agree with me that it is important that the entire population of Canada be included in this new policy?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for this suggestion.

I agree with him. Better information is needed.

As I said in my speech, people are overwhelmed with information. They have difficulty distinguishing between all the products that are presented to them, which makes their task much more difficult. It is important that they be better informed. That is the direction that we need to take. I can never say it often enough and so I hope that, in so doing, I will be heard. This could enlighten everyone.

In my opinion, it is important for people to be more knowledgeable, to be more confident as consumers and to be more enlightened on this topic in order to be able to make the right choices.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. Before I recognize the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, I will let him know that we will need to interrupt him at about five minutes to the hour, this being the end of time allocated for government orders this afternoon.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise this evening and speak to Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act.

I do support this bill, although with some reservations, which I will speak to. My main concerns are the lack of an advisory council and the lack of inclusiveness. I do think this bill could have been more inclusive. I hope that when the government reviews this piece of legislation, it makes that a primary concern.

In listening to the debate this afternoon, I have wondered about the percentage of our economic trouble that is caused by low financial literacy. If we recount the state we are in at the moment, we have quite low economic growth. Our growth rate has just been reported and downgraded to 1.6%. We have been through a major recession. If we look across the water to Europe, the United Kingdom has been through a double-dip recession. There is all kinds of trouble in Greece and other countries. The United States has been struggling, although there are some signs of a little bit of a pickup there.

What is the cause of the problem? We know that what happened in 2008 was mainly the result of economic turmoil in the United States, where consumers became too indebted and bought into some bad mortgages. The financial institutions in the United States had invented financial tools that enabled mortgages to be bundled and packaged, and sold from institution to institution. Most institutions had no idea what they were buying but just thought it was a great deal. Earnings went up and up with apparently little or no risk. The economy, under the Bush regime, just continued on until we had a crash.

The investors who bought all of these bundled mortgages realized that the mortgages were flawed and faulty, and there was a crash. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and other institutions went under. If we think about that collapse, it not only happened in the United States but went right around the world as well. There was a big increase in unemployment. I read an interesting book written by Gordon Brown on this topic, talking about how global leaders acted very quickly to try to stem a depression, which I think was a real possibility. We are still feeling the effects today.

When I think about this I wonder how much of it was caused by a lack of financial literacy. I would say that very little was. It was really about the large financial institutions that were playing fast and loose with the rules, fooling each other as much as they could to make large profits.

While I see the inherent value of these changes, I do think there is a much larger picture to be taken into account here. I would also say that these things are very unpredictable. In 2008, we had the Minister of Finance on the other side of the House saying that there were no problems with the economy, and all of a sudden we lapsed into a recession.

I would suggest that it is actually the government that needs to sharpen its pencil and take more account of these things, for example, by listening more closely to the Parliamentary Budgetary Officer.

I am disappointed that there was no effort to include an advisory committee in this act. I hope that the government reviews this, perhaps a year into the implementation of the act. The advisory committee would not only bring more eyes to look at this but would also be more inclusive.

I will conclude by talking about the value of inclusion. For example, if labour unions were brought more onboard in this bill, they could go to their memberships and spread the word not only about this new institution but also help increase financial literacy among their members. I really would advise the government to take that into account.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas will have 15 minutes remaining for his speech when the House resumes debate on the question and, of course, the usual 10 minutes for questions and comments.

It being 5:55 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Blue Sky Policy

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

moved:

Motion No. 387

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should further the success of its 2006 Blue Sky Policy, which has resulted in great progress in increasing the freedom of movement of people and goods, and should: (a) seek additional opportunities to create jobs in various sectors of the economy and enhance trade and tourism; (b) work with important stakeholders to support the Blue Sky Policy; (c) recognize that increased competition benefits Canadian consumers; and (d) seek more air service agreements to serve Canada's consumer, commerce, trade and investment interests.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to my private member's motion, Motion No. 387, blue sky policy. I thank the member of Parliament for Saint John for seconding this motion. It is an important motion for all of Canada.

I am here today to seek all party support and I think this is a measure that all parties can support. The motion calls on our Conservative government to continue with the implementation of our 2006 blue sky policy, Canada's international air policy.

Mr. Speaker, you already read the motion, but I want to repeat, for the benefit of those listening, what the motion specifically calls for. It states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should further the success of its 2006 Blue Sky Policy, which has resulted in great progress in increasing the freedom of movement of people and goods, and should: (a) seek additional opportunities to create jobs in various sectors of the economy and enhance trade and tourism; (b) work with important stakeholders to support the Blue Sky Policy; (c) recognize that increased competition benefits Canadian consumers; and (d) seek more air service agreements to serve Canada's consumer, commerce, trade and investment interests.

The blue sky policy guides our government's approach to the negotiation of international air transport agreements. Without these agreements, airlines cannot offer scheduled services between countries. Scheduled international air services are an important generator of economic activity not only for the Canadian air industry but also other sectors of our economy, for example, tourism. Since the inception of the blue sky policy, our government has negotiated new or expanded air transport agreements covering close to 70 countries around the world. These agreements create more air service options not only for the travelling public but also the business and tourism sectors.

Before blue sky, Canada had an open agreement with two partners. We now have open agreements covering 43 countries. I will briefly explain the blue sky policy and why scheduled air service agreements are important.

Under the general legal framework of the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation, countries negotiate bilateral air transport agreements to allow their respective airlines to offer scheduled air services between their territories. This is required since, under this convention, every country is sovereign over its airspace. These agreements typically grant operating rights, such as destinations to be served, number of airlines allowed to operate and frequency of flights. They also include safety and security provisions and important doing-business rules. The air industry is a vital part of the fundamental infrastructure of Canada's economy, like the banking or telecommunications sectors, for example. In Canada, the air carrier industry generates 42,000 direct jobs and another 20,000 in the rest of the supply chain.

Studies have shown that one new international flight a week to a Canadian airport can generate up to 100 jobs and several million dollars in employment income on a yearly basis. In 2011, the air transport mode carried 78.4 million passengers and 739,000 tonnes of freight. Air services also support our trade objectives. For instance, in 2011, Canada's total trade with the rest of the world was $342 billion, of which $117 billion were exports and $225 billion were imports. Canadian and foreign airlines carried $110 billion worth of goods, mostly high-value perishable or time-sensitive goods.

As former minister of state responsible for tourism, I am particularly aware of the importance of direct air connectivity to our key markets as an element of success for our tourism industry. These key priority markets include the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Brazil, Mexico, Australia, India, China, Japan and South Korea. As we work hard to market Canada in these countries through the Canadian Tourism Commission and provincial tourism departments, it is important to recognize that, without direct flights, tourists are more likely to go elsewhere.

Back in 2006, our government decided to modernize Canada's international air policy in recognition of the important role that our aviation industry plays in our economy. We consulted broadly, not only airlines and airports, but also trade groups, consumer groups, tourism associations, provinces and regional communities. We listened and delivered the right policy for Canada, one that takes into account the particularities of our geography, our population, our air industry and our economic needs.

The blue sky policy was adopted in November 2006. It calls for a more proactive approach to the negotiation of new or expanded air transport agreements and, in particular, the negotiation of reciprocal open skies type agreements when in the overall interests of the country. The policy has several objectives. It aims to: provide a framework that encourages long-term and sustainable competition in international air service; provide opportunities for Canadian airlines to grow internationally; enable Canadian airports to market themselves with more flexibility; support our international trade objectives; and support a safe, secure, efficient, economically healthy and viable Canadian air transportation industry.

While these agreements are primarily driven by aviation considerations, they have economic benefits that go beyond this sector of our economy. Consequently, it is important for the policy to be implemented with the appropriate degree of input from relevant stakeholders.

This is why Canadian airports and airlines, as well as the tourism sector under the federal tourism strategy, are regularly consulted on negotiation priorities. When contemplating a larger negotiation, such as the one that led to our historic comprehensive air transport agreement with the European Union, consultations are even broader.

Federal departments and agencies, such as the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Canadian Transportation Agency, the Department of Finance, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Canada Border Services Agency, are also consulted on issues related to the implementation of the policy. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, in particular, provides information related to foreign policy and international trade considerations.

In its May 2012 report on Brazil, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade commended our government on its consultation process and stated that it was the best practice for other federal departments to emulate. That was the transport department.

I am proud to say that since our Conservative launched the blue sky policy, we have signed new or expanded air transport agreements covering close to 70 countries around the world. In 2011 alone, we expanded agreements with Brazil, Mexico, Japan and China. These efforts have resulted in new air services being launched to the benefit of travellers, shippers, as well as the business and tourism sectors.

Blue sky is the right policy for Canada. It supports our air industry as well as our international trade, tourism and economic development objectives. It also promotes competition and helps to produce more choice for Canadian consumers. This is precisely why I tabled Motion No. 387 last June.

The results continue to come in. For example, in the 2006-10 period, the number of international destinations accessible from Canada increased by 9%. The annual number of direct international flights has increased by 43% overall and Canadian airlines have increased the total number of outbound international flights by 56%.

It is for all those reasons that I invite all members of the House to support Motion No. 387, so that this blue sky policy can continue to produce benefits for all Canadians.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since 2006, the Canadian government has signed over 30 open sky agreements with 50 countries and yet the number of tourists coming to Canada dropped from 20 million in 2002 to 16 million in 2011. We are losing five million air passengers to the U.S. every year due to uncompetitive prices.

According the UN World Tourism Organization, we have dropped from seventh in the world in terms of travel destinations to eighteenth . Obviously, these blue sky agreements do not seem to help our travel deficit, which is exploding, increasing sixfold in just the last decade to almost 16 million by the end of 2011.

How would more blue sky agreements help with our travel deficit and create jobs in Canada given that we have lost 11,000 jobs because of expensive fares.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, our government has been aggressively targeting growth nations for increased tourism travel. I will use, for example, China where the Canadian Tourism Commission, which is supported by our government, has been aggressively going after the Chinese tourists, which is so important.

I should mention that it was the Prime Minister who, a couple of years ago, signed the approved destination status agreement with China. The results have been impressive since that agreement was signed. I will give an example for the hon. member. Travel from China totalled 237,000 person trips in 2011, that is up 22% over 2010, with spending totalling $408 million which is an increase of just under 30%.

We will continue to aggressively market Canada to the world.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very specific with the country of the Philippines. The member talked about Japan, Korea and China. One of the other countries in Asia that I think needs to have more attention given to it is the Philippines where there are all sorts of wonderful opportunities to look at what can be done to enhance air travel between our two countries.

To what degree has the member advocated to open up and provide those types of air travel opportunities for citizens of both Canada and the Philippines, especially if we take into consideration that the Philippines today is Canada's number one source country for immigrants?

If the member wants to address some of the concerns that the previous questioner had, he should enable people from countries like the Philippines to come through visiting visas. The number of visiting visas that are being turned down, ultimately, does have an impact on the overall travel where we could have a lot more people travelling from that country to Canada.

I am interested in what the member would have to say on those two points.