House of Commons Hansard #143 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was agreements.

Topics

Financial Literacy Leader ActGovernment Orders

7:55 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Madam Speaker, I listened with bemusement to my colleague's comments, but I want to pick on one little point. She said that the CPP had outperformed the market by 10% last year. Does she understand that the CPP is actually invested in the market and there are very educated people who manage CPP investments in the market? That is what are we are talking about, some financial literacy so other people can make informed decisions as well.

Financial Literacy Leader ActGovernment Orders

7:55 p.m.

NDP

Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC

Madam Speaker, I wish I could say that I was amused by my colleague's delivery but I will say that he has made his point. When we have a collective, a publicly funded, publicly managed, public pension fund, and it is managed by—

Financial Literacy Leader ActGovernment Orders

7:55 p.m.

Bob Zimmer

It sounds like you need financial literacy.

Financial Literacy Leader ActGovernment Orders

7:55 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

I regret to interrupt. I am requesting members to have more orderly conduct. There is a member who has the floor and I would ask members to respect that.

Financial Literacy Leader ActGovernment Orders

7:55 p.m.

NDP

Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC

That it is the best way for us to ensure that Canadians have a secure retirement. That is what it is all about. It is not about creating another position of bureaucracy. It is not about telling people to save more money when they are finding it difficulty to make ends meet. We need to look at this in a very productive way so that we serve the needs of the public.

Financial Literacy Leader ActGovernment Orders

7:55 p.m.

NDP

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Madam Speaker, I would first of all like to thank my colleague for her very interesting speech.

I am pleased that she has given us so many examples of concrete action that we could take now to help people who are financially vulnerable, such as seniors who are not able to set aside the money they will need for a secure retirement that will allow them to live in dignity for a long time. I would like to add another example of something concrete that we could do to help people who need financial support.

The guaranteed income supplement is a sum that is given to seniors who are living the closest to the poverty line. To some extent, they can receive it but, at this point in time, if they do not ask for it, it is just too bad for them, we use the money for something else and they do not receive it.

We could allow seniors to have access to this money right now. I would like to point out that these are seniors who are living the closest to the poverty level. We could take concrete action and allow them to receive this money that will allow them to live with dignity. Instead of talking about concrete actions that we could take today to help people, the government is focusing the debate on something else.

I am fully in agreement with my colleague on this issue.

Financial Literacy Leader ActGovernment Orders

7:55 p.m.

NDP

Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC

Madam Speaker, absolutely there are a number of concrete steps that we should be taking. This party has often advocated and will continue to advocate so that our seniors do not live in poverty and are not having to choose between medication and food on the table.

We have talked about ways to address the needs of the public, such as addressing the fees for university students and the cost of post-secondary education. We should also be looking at addressing health care in a very realistic way so that people have access to health care in a timely manner.

We could be doing so many things but once again the government, after last week's travesty with Bill C-38 and then it passing through the House this week, is in the process of shutting down debate. The government was not interested in the over 800 amendments that were put forward that would have made the bill better for Canadians. It did not accept one amendment.

I am just hoping, now that the government has passed that bill, that when this goes to committee stage it will pay heed to the amendments put forward by the opposition.

Financial Literacy Leader ActGovernment Orders

8 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Newton—North Delta for perhaps setting the tone of the debate as we enter the conversation about Bill C-28 and this notion of a new financial literacy leader.

It surprises me that we are having this debate. In this era of belt tightening, the best thing that the Conservatives can come up with to address the issue of financial literacy is to create a high level, expensive, bureaucratic position with no real plan and no guarantee that it will have any of the desired effects in elevating the financial literacy of the general population. It seems like a big PR campaign and, frankly, a phenomenal waste of money.

What is even more worrisome is that there this element of blame the victim that runs throughout this whole notion, which is that if we are seeing greater financial inequality, somehow it is the consumers who are to blame for getting themselves into this mess.

We should note that the notion of a financial literacy leader has its origins in a national task force on financial literacy that was criticized as soon as it got out of the gate because the chair was, of course, a banker. The majority of the members on the task force were either bankers, or in the financial sector, or associated with it. The recommendations they came up with had more to do with making Canadians into good customers for the banks rather than elevating the standard of living conditions or even the financial literacy of the general public. The recommendations were suspect from the very outset given the origins, the motivations and, I would say, the conflict of interest from the principals chosen to be on this task force.

Even he recommendations that came out of the task force were ignored when it came to putting them into a bill. The task force recommended that this new financial literacy leader be guided by input from an advisory council made up of industry, unions, educators, volunteer organizations, et cetera. However, there is no mention of that whatsoever in Bill C-28. It seemed reasonable to have an advisory committee to at least steer, give some direction and some sense of purpose to this new expensive bureaucracy, but that notion was ignored.

The other thing the task force recommended was that the financial literacy leader should be accessible to the general public through reports tabled by the Minister of Finance in Parliament. That did not find its way into the bill either.

Therefore, the financial literacy leader would be operating in isolation doing, we do not know what, having the effect of, we do not know what. Who will audit the efficacy of the financial literacy leader?

Those are some of the things that bother me. This is an urgent issue but the problem lies more with the lack of protection for consumers than it does the consumers' personal education.

I want to talk for a minute about what the government could be doing.

There used to be a time within living memory, and I am not that old but I remember, when there was a minister of consumer and corporate affairs. It was a whole department with a fairly high profile minister. This was not just a small portfolio in cabinet. There were heavyweights like André Ouellet, big names in Canadian politics were the ministers of consumer and corporate affairs. Their stated mandate was to protect the best interests of the consumer, not the financial sector, not the predatory lenders and not the gougers and users who charge 10 and 15 points above prime for credit card lending rates.

If the government really wanted to do something for the consumers' best interest against predatory lending, why would it not cap the credit rates to 6 points above prime and never mind 18 points above prime? Why does it not enforce the Financial Administration Act and the Bank Act to make banks live up to their charter and provide reasonable access to Canadians to basic financial services, and if they will not live up to their charter, why do we not pull their charters?

The banks have an exclusive monopoly on some very lucrative financial transactions, like cashing cheques and credit cards, in exchange for providing basic services to Canadians, even when it is not the most profitable thing in the world. However, what do they do? They close down bank branches in every neighbourhood in this country.

In my riding alone, 15 bank branches have closed down. That is a vote of non-confidence in my neighbourhood and it is an abrogation of their obligation under their charter. We have charter banks for a reason. We should pull their charters if they are not going to live up to their financial obligations. Every time a bank pulls out of my neighbourhood, do members know what pops up? Another Money Mart or another Payday lender, and it is not charging interest at 60%, that is in the Criminal Code. If a lender charges more than 60% per annum, it is a criminal offence called usury. The interest rate at these Payday lenders is not 1,000% or 2,000%. It is as high as 10,000% per annum. People cannot make that kind of money selling cocaine but yet it is happening on the street corners of every major city in this country because the banks have reneged on their obligation to provide basic financial services. They are charging 3% to cash a government cheque. It is against the law and the government will not enforce it.

Members can walk to the Sparks Street Mall right now and some money lender in a Money Mart will charge them 3% to cash a government cheque. It is illegal but the government does nothing to enforce it. Instead, it will put in place this expensive bureaucrat, God knows who. I presume some failed Conservative candidate is in line to be the new financial literacy leader.

This is the most appalling thing. I believe this is all part of the whole notion of driving down Canadians' expectations. The government believes in a low wage, low cost economy and low wage, low cost economy is a recipe for poverty, mark my words.

Forty-seven percent of the children in my riding live below the poverty line, and members heard me correctly. The child poverty rate in Norway, Denmark and Sweden is less than 3% because they do not have this notion of a low wage, low cost economy. They do not see it virtuous to drive down workers' wages. They do not see it as virtuous to smash unions.

I saw a bumper sticker the last time I was in Washington, DC. that read, “At least the war on the middle-class is going well”. That government has embarked on a comprehensive detailed attack on labour and the left, just like the neo-Conservatives in Canada have followed suit, eliminating things like the Fair Wages Act, enabling the Merit shop contractors and the non-union sector to flourish and prosper.

This is the way to drive down the middle-class. This is the way to drive down wages and drive down expectations. Then the government will blame people for not saving their money and, instead of having a real pension plan, they can have one of these pooled pension plans that the employer does not have to pay into, only the worker.

It is all part of picture. The Conservatives' vision of Canada is to recreate Canada in the image of the United States, and t is not a model we want to follow. I have been to the United States recently where in North Carolina a decent job pays $9 to $10 an hour. Is that the economy and the vision of the Conservatives where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and then some guy is getting gouged by these financial institutions?

My colleague from Newton—North Delta had a good point. No amount of financial literacy will help somebody understand how to sell short on a derivative of a hedge fund or understand some of these arcane financial instruments that these financial engineers put in place to deliberately obfuscate and make it impossible to make an informed choice or decision. I challenge any stockbroker on Bay Street to explain some of these derivative hedge fund monstrosities that were actually a great cause of the demise in the most recent downturn.

If we had kids going to engineering school and actually learning how to build things instead of going to financial engineering school to learn how to construct these incomprehensible financial instruments, we would be a lot better off. We would have a generation of young people who could do things instead of a generation of young people who are trained to cheat people and help the financial sector cheat Canadians.

We want to see consumer protection in its purest form. As I said, we do not have to look very far back in Canadian history to when we had a minister of consumer and corporate affairs who was a champion for Canadians, not a shill for the financial sector. That is what we are seeing here.

We cannot support this bill. We disagree profoundly with the Conservative vision of any kind of enhancing or enabling of people to cope with the financial services sector.

Financial Literacy Leader ActGovernment Orders

8:10 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a few seconds to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech, which was articulate, inspirational and witty, like the member himself.

We put our money into a bank. It charges us administrative fees for taking money out of the automatic bank machine. If we are unfortunate enough to go to another bank, which makes billions of dollars each year, it will charge us $1.50, $1.75 or $2 to withdraw our own money.

What does the Conservative bill do to stop people from being robbed by the banks?

Financial Literacy Leader ActGovernment Orders

8:10 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, exactly; my colleague is getting the point that the Conservatives seem to be missing, that if they want to do something to protect consumers, they should do something to protect consumers. They should not embark on this public relations campaign that we are going to put in place this expensive bureaucrat with no mandate, no accountability, no reporting structure and no advisory committee to give him or her a sense of direction. We are just going to put this person in place and the Conservatives would say that they have done something to help Canadians protect themselves from being gouged. But they should look to the root of the problem. They must stop their friends on Bay Street from gouging Canadians. It is not that difficult if they would stand up on their hind legs. The great only appear great because we are on our knees.

Financial Literacy Leader ActGovernment Orders

8:10 p.m.

NDP

Andrew Cash NDP Davenport, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his eloquence this evening in the House. It is deeply appreciated, at least on our side. I want to get to something that the member said about the propensity of the government to blame victims. We have, for example, record household debt in this country and a lot of it due to the lack of affordable housing. The government's response is just to hector Canadians into saving more while at the same time bashing them over the head that they should spend more.

With respect to the pensions crisis, the Conservatives' response is not to increase the Canada pension plan. Their response is to present some pooled pension Ponzi scheme, and here we are tonight, where instead of dealing with income inequality and with the fact that wages do not keep apace with the cost of living in Canada, the Conservatives present us with some piece of paper that is not going to help Canadians deal with the very real financial issues.

I would like the member to delve deeper into the government's propensity to blame victims, not just in Canada but globally.

Financial Literacy Leader ActGovernment Orders

8:10 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, it is true that Canadians need better government policy, not lectures by the government on how they should be saving more money. This report and the bill that stems from it heap blame on individuals and completely ignore the predatory behaviour of financial institutions.

My colleague made an interesting point. I am not sure that the inequality bothers the Conservatives. I am not even sure that equality is a stated policy objective of the government anymore, whereas it used to be a prime motivation in terms of social policy. Equality was the goal. Inequality seems to be accepted as perhaps just the way God wanted it. I do not know.

Financial Literacy Leader ActGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Madam Speaker, the member talked about this bill as being a way of exhorting Canadians to save. There is a particular group that the Conservatives insist ought to save so they can pay for two more years that they are not going to get old age pension, age 65 and 66.

Who is going to be able to save for that? And who is going to be most affected by that? Are they going to be able to save, regardless of whatever exhortation the government lays down?

Financial Literacy Leader ActGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, it is almost a cruel joke that the flip side of this same social policy initiative is the financial literacy leader. On the one hand, the Conservatives are telling Canadians they can no longer retire at age 65 and they are going to have to save more to work longer. However, the only idea they have to assist people with that impossible task is a highly paid bureaucrat who undoubtedly would be some washed-up Tory flack, a failed candidate from the last federal election with no mandate and no particular ability to actually help Canadians cope with the new reality that is being foisted on us.

Financial Literacy Leader ActGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Is the House ready for the question?

Financial Literacy Leader ActGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Financial Literacy Leader ActGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

The question is on the motion that the question be now put. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Financial Literacy Leader ActGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Financial Literacy Leader ActGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

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

Financial Literacy Leader ActGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Financial Literacy Leader ActGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

All those opposed will please say nay.

Financial Literacy Leader ActGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Financial Literacy Leader ActGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Financial Literacy Leader ActGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The vote stands deferred until 5:30 p.m. tomorrow before private member's business.

The House resumed from April 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.