House of Commons Hansard #40 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was banks.

Topics

Opposition Motion—ATM FeesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in the House to support the NDP motion by the member for Sudbury, which proposes a measure that will make life more affordable.

I would like to start with an anecdote. About thirty years ago, in the 1980s, the job market and the economy were somewhat precarious. However, my mother and father had taught me that debts had to be repaid, which was done by cheque at that time. I was always very careful when I wrote a cheque. I always made sure that there was money in my bank account.

Near the end of the month, one of my cheques bounced, as they say. I could not understand why because I knew that there was money in my account. I bounced over to the bank where a woman simply told me that administrative fees were debited every month. If my memory serves me well, the fees were $12 a month. Then the woman told me that if I had $1,000 in my bank account, I would not be charged administrative fees. So I told her that if I had $1,000 in my bank account, I would have no problem paying the administrative fees. That is the banks' logic. However, I understand that we have to pay for services.

Some 30 years ago, I went through periods of financial difficulty. In 2012, a large portion of the population went through the same thing, and the situation is not getting any better. A few years ago we had the Occupy movement: Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Montreal, Occupy Toronto and Occupy Vancouver. This is an excellent example of the 1%. It is worth repeating that since 2007, the profits made by the six biggest banks in Canada have risen from $19.1 billion to $28.1 billion, an increase of over $10 billion.

In many respects, Canadians are tired of paying to pay or to access their own money. Furthermore, I am not just talking about the economic situation of the 1% and the profits the banks are raking in. I am also talking about the 99%. I am talking about people whose economic situation is becoming more and more precarious. I would remind the House that the debt load is currently 166%.

The Conservative members say that they have made sure that people understand the financial situation better and that fees are not hidden. These are all good measures for financial literacy. However, the fact remains that the average Canadian debt load right now is 166%. Canada has been lucky, because the gap between rich and poor was not that big.

However, the OECD criticized the fact that the gap between rich and poor in Canada is growing and is increasing more quickly here than in other OECD countries. That has been the case for the past 10 years, and it is extremely disconcerting.

There have been announcements about factories closing and well-paying jobs being lost. They are not always connected. Last May, 9.7% of people worked in the manufacturing sector. Earlier in the decade, in 2003, that number was 15%. I am using the example of the manufacturing sector because the sector had stable jobs that paid very well, and it still does. At first, we lost a large part of our manufacturing sector to China, for example, because production was moved there. More and more, production is being moved to the United States. In addition, a number of Canadian companies have been bought by foreign investors. We are not opposed to foreign investment, but when an increasing number of Canadian companies are bought by foreign investors, the sector and, in turn, a large part of our economy become weaker.

Statistics show that well-paying jobs have been lost. The manufacturing sector has lost scores of jobs and plenty of ground in the past decade.

However, when we look at the picture that Statistics Canada paints of the workforce, we can see what has replaced those manufacturing and public sector jobs. Quite often, they have been replaced by more precarious part-time positions in the retail sector. Far be it from me to say that those jobs are not gratifying. I have worked in retail, and I must say that it is demanding work that requires versatility in dealing with the public and providing customer service. Those are very important jobs, but this sector is the largest in Canada right now.

That means that some jobs may not pay as well or that they are more precarious because they depend on the current economic climate. Families who move from sector to sector have unstable income.

In my riding of LaSalle—Émard, a large segment of the population lives under what is known as the low-income cutoff. Forty per cent represents a lot of people who find it difficult to make ends meet, experience financial difficulties and have fewer and fewer options, such as choices about credit or ATM fees, and so on.

As the critic for co-operatives, I would like to point out the lack of choice that we talked about. That is often a fact of life in the regions.

The banks have abandoned the regions. Fortunately, there are more than 2,000 credit unions in various communities. Over 1,100 of those constitute the only financial service available in their communities. I am very pleased that they are there.

I would also like to acknowledge the excellent work done by the Association coopérative d'économie familiale, which helps put people on a solid financial footing.

Opposition Motion—ATM FeesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have the impression, as the hon. member pointed out, that the gap between the rich and the poor is widening in Canada. I believe that studies have proven it.

Although the Conservative government boasts a lot about having cut taxes, the excise tax has increased on items such as strollers, hockey helmets and other imports. At the same time, there has been a decline in the number of manufacturers, a massive reduction in the number of public servants and an increase in certain fees on different things.

Furthermore, we give the wealthiest, such as banks, free reign on, for example, the interest charged on credit cards. There are no limits. We keep allowing the rich to get even richer.

What does the member think about that?

Opposition Motion—ATM FeesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for her question.

That is one area of concern for us in the NDP and for others as well. It is also a concern for an increasing number of economists and analysts. For instance, The Globe and Mail has published a series of articles explaining the growing gap between the rich and the poor in Canada. I also mentioned the OECD, among others.

We will certainly have to come up with lasting solutions to ensure that our economy creates well-paying jobs that will bring the Canadian economy into the 21st century and, more importantly, that will be there for future generations.

Opposition Motion—ATM FeesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Jack Layton, a number of years ago, advocated that there should be no fees, that in fact we should bring in a law that would disallow a bank from charging a fee if someone wanted to withdraw money from an account.

I wonder if the member could explain what has changed in terms of the NDP's position on that particular issue.

Opposition Motion—ATM FeesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

NDP

Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for raising questions and contributing to the debate.

In fact, the purpose of our measure and the NDP's current campaign is to make life more affordable for Canadians.

Since there is a lot of talk about the middle class, I would like to add that I have the opportunity to meet with a lot of people in my riding. They let me in their homes and talk with me. I would like to address those who do not have a voice, who have a hard time making ends meet and who are looking for a representative who will stand up for their needs and be committed to ensuring that governments are really fighting poverty.

I think the motion before us is a proposal not only to help people make ends meet, but also to fight against poverty.

Opposition Motion—ATM FeesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. It is very clear today that there is only one party in this House, the New Democrats, that is talking about the issue of household debt and the pressures families are facing.

We all know where the Conservatives stand. They are on the side of the big banks. That is clear, but it is the Liberals who have been weaseling and undermining every single question to try to make this an issue that is silly or that we should not be debating, when we are talking about families and seniors who are being gouged by outrageous fees.

When senior citizens have to take money out of an ATM because they do not have access to a bank, and for $40 they have to pay $7, the Liberals seem to think that is perfectly okay. That it is the market. They have even called people lazy for not going to their banks. For us it is a question of fairness.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why she thinks the Liberals have such a tin ear when it comes to the issues of ordinary Canadian families.

Opposition Motion—ATM FeesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

NDP

Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague once again. He knows exactly how to put into words the issue we are debating. He mentioned fairness. The concept of fairness is very important. Right now, as he so aptly said, in my riding, there are retired people with low incomes and single women with small pensions who must cope with the increases in the cost of living and in various fees. It is very important for me to be here in order to make their voices heard.

Opposition Motion—ATM FeesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off with the comments of the member for Timmins—James Bay. When he is in debate on this issue, one gets the impression that he might be somewhat nervous about the Liberal Party. I do not quite understand why he feels obligated to give misinformation. At the end of the day, I can assure the member and others that there are many advocates for consumer legislation and ideas in the House. A good number would be within the Liberal Party caucus and in other caucuses also.

When we talk about consumer prices, there are the big three, if I could put it that way. The price of gas is an issue that comes up constantly. Constituents want to hear what members have to say about the price of gas and what can be done. The price of cellphones is a huge issue that constantly comes up, and of course, banking fees is another issue that comes up quite frequently.

I recall back in November 2011 feeling very frustrated about gas. A number of constituents were asking what they could do. It is a very tough issue. It was suggested that what might be best is for consumers to target a particular station and declare that they will not purchase gas if it exceeds $x for a litre of gas. The point is that it is very frustrating. A lot of people believe that gasoline is nothing but a huge tax. The amount of tax on the retail sale of a litre of gas is a smaller percentage than what most people actually think it is.

I could go on forever talking about cellphones and some of the frustrations with cellphone pricing, such as the length of contracts, the way things are advertised, the exceptionally small font, and so forth.

Banking fees, again, is a very important issue. People who consider themselves consumer advocates, as I do, want to ensure that not only my constituents but all Canadians have reasonably priced fees for the services they are getting. There is an important role for government in monitoring to make sure that there is healthy competition. We also need to recognize that there are pockets, which is why we have talked about targets, that need to be looked at or taken into consideration.

If we look at it from the perspective of banking as an industry, I believe we would find that there has been movement from within the Liberal Party to deal with that particular industry. In fact, a member commented earlier about how healthy our banking industry is today. Many, including me, would go back to the 1990s, when the Chrétien government made significant changes in regulations that ultimately prevented the banking industry from becoming larger through the acquisition of other banks, such as TD maybe amalgamating with the Royal Bank. I am not suggesting that those would have been the two banks. However, there was a push by the banking industry to become larger.

We know about the issue of loans, in particularly mortgages. We saw a change in policy by the Government of Canada with regard to loosening the amount of money required to get a mortgage. I believe it went from 10% to 5%, something the Liberals opposed. We argued that it was not in the best interests of the economy or consumers. We are glad to see that the government has reversed that.

The point is that the Liberal Party has a history of recognizing the need for the Government of Canada to play a role in the banking industry. We have seen that in terms of consumer products. My colleague, our critic, referred to low-cost banking. That was something put into place during the 1990s, when, through legislation, we were able to virtually guarantee low-cost banking services. That would have ensured, for example, that with a low-cost banking account, people would get free bank cards. It put in some minimum transactions to take place. We needed to ensure that the consumer was in fact being protected and that, yes, the government did have a role to play.

I have asked government members about how they feel regarding the whole issue of banking, particularly ATM fees. The response has not necessarily been surprising. It has been somewhat disappointing. If we listen, for example, to the member for York Centre, one would take away from his comments that the Government of Canada has absolutely nothing to worry about and that it should not get directly involved in any fashion. Leave it the way it is. There is enough competition that one does not have to worry about it.

That is the wrong attitude to have about such an important industry. There is no choice. If we live in a modern society, we have to engage with the financial industry. There is no choice, living in Canada.

It is important that members of the Conservative Party recognize, as we have recognized, that there is a role for the government to play. Unfortunately, I do not think that the member for York Centre is alone within the Conservative caucus. Many within his caucus believe the same. I find that to be somewhat unfortunate.

We need to look at the issue in its simplest form. In Canada, we have an estimated 60,000 automated teller machines scattered all over the place. A number of speakers before me stood up and said that within a five-minute walk or drive, there are a few accessible ATMs. In certain areas, there is a very high concentration of ATM services and a good sense of competition. However, we need to recognize that there is different service being provided by the industry.

We have the banking industry, and this is where the NDP seems to be focusing all of its attention this afternoon. Within the banking industry, we might have one third of all the ATMs out there, so if there are 60,000, it is probably just under 20,000. For example, in the province of Manitoba we have somewhere in the neighbourhood of just over 500 ATMs, making up approximately one third of the total number of ATMs.

Within the banking industry, it varies quite significantly. If people do their banking at a particular institution and withdraw or deposit money there, quite often they will find there is no ATM fee.

Hypothetically speaking, if one banked at CIBC and went to the TD bank, there is a higher risk that one would in fact pay some sort of fee to use that ATM. I have not heard of a $6.00 to $8.00 charge for withdrawal of money through our banking industry or our big banks. I do not mean to sound overly naive about it, and I am open to others giving some examples of where there is a $6.00 to $8.00 fee. I am aware that there are other ATMs throughout the country, and quite often the service fees at those machines are quite high. I suspect that when we hear from time to time about charges of $8.00, that is most likely where those fees are being charged.

Individuals or corporations that use those machines vary quite significantly. For example, someone who has a corner grocery store may have made the decision that it is in his or her best interest to get an ATM installed in a corner of the store and would use it as a source of income subsidizing that particular store, or it might be for a multitude of reasons. Some might want to have it so people could withdraw money to spend in the community store.

I do not necessarily claim to understand why it is that everyone out there makes the decision to get an ATM in their store, but I do know it is a growing area. We have more and more independent operators wanting to acquire ATMs.

We need to recognize that there is a substantial difference. For example, NDP members are saying they want to put a cap on ATM fees, but it is important we recognize that they are talking about the smaller percentage of ATMs. All they are talking about are the ones that are regulated federally. If they want to deal with the majority of them, I would suggest they would have to start working with the provinces, which have jurisdiction, to try to see if there is in fact some sort of consensus that could be achieved.

However, there is no one-price-fits-all, which would even apply to the smaller number, those within the banking industry. I do not believe there is a one-price-fits-all, which is something that needs to be taken into consideration.

We in the Liberal Party recognize that there is a need for us to advocate for and protect our consumers. Therefore, in principle, we will be supporting this particular motion. However, I think we have to be very honest with Canadians in terms of exactly what it is that the motion is purporting to do.

In fact, there have been some changes, which I put in terms of a question to the previous speaker. At one time the NDP did have a position. Jack Layton did say there should not be any fee whatsoever. The NDP has now made a change and is saying that there should be a 50¢ flat fee, which is based on the fact that it is resentful of the billions of dollars that banks are making on an annual basis.

What I am most concerned about in terms of Winnipeg North is the banking industry as a whole and the impact it is having in my riding and communities across Canada. I can say that, yes, people are concerned about banking fees—there is no doubt about that—but there are many communities that are concerned about banks closing branches, as a major issue, and the impact that has on our communities.

When a bank closes a branch, quite often it then puts individuals in a position where they have to go to ATMs where they will be charged these huge fees.

I think it would have been a healthier discussion if we would have had today's debate more on the bigger picture. If we wanted to deal with ATM fees, maybe it should have been with respect to the banking industry as a whole. There are many aspects of that industry we could talk about that actually have an impact upon consumers. I think there is a great deal of merit for that.

We need to recognize that the banking industry has changed considerably over the years. There were the limited hours during which we could go to the bank; some suggested 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., from Monday to Friday, which was very real. Then there is today, where it is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week because now it can be done online. From having to wait in long lines in banking institutions to being able to sit in front of a computer in our homes, and everything else that has happened in between, we recognize that the industry has changed tremendously over the years.

I especially appreciate our credit unions and the phenomenal role they have played in terms of moving into areas where the banking industry has pulled out. Here, I am talking more about locations because that is of concern to my constituents.

We need to take a look at how we can ensure these fees that are being charged are appropriate. The bigger issue, I believe, is looking at where we might be able to improve, by working with the different levels of government, our provinces, and taking more of a holistic approach at dealing with the issue of banking fees, in particular the ATM fees. That is why I posed the question earlier today in terms of my home province of Manitoba, which has a New Democratic government. I posed the question in terms of what it has done to deal with the ATM fees because that is the larger percentage of fees in the province of Manitoba. I had thought that the member might have been able to inform me, as I do not know the details. However, to the best of my knowledge, it has not.

I do believe that if we take a holistic approach at dealing with the financial industry and how it services our constituents, we might be able to learn something from that. If we base it on the past, we will find there is a need from time to time for the Government of Canada to play a leadership role in providing guidance within our financial industry.

We have done that in the past, whether it was Paul Martin or Jean Chrétien or others. Legislation has been brought in and third parties have been brought in to ensure there is competition. There is that need, and that need is very real.

As much as the Conservatives will likely end up voting against the motion, as many of them have implied, I think they are being shortsighted. They could do consumers and all Canadians a favour, at the very least by recognizing a need for the Government of Canada to watch over and ensure there is competition, that there are reasonable rates, and to work with the different levels of government to see if there might be something that could be done.

It is called having an open mind. I do not see an open mind coming from the Conservative government on this issue.

I understand that we will probably end up having a vote on this tomorrow or whenever the vote is. I trust that the government members might have an opportunity to rethink their position and put the consumer first, along with Canadians. I think we could—

Opposition Motion—ATM FeesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Order. It being 6:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

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

Opposition Motion—ATM FeesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Opposition Motion—ATM FeesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

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

Opposition Motion—ATM FeesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Opposition Motion—ATM FeesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

All those opposed will please say nay.

Opposition Motion—ATM FeesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Opposition Motion—ATM FeesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Opposition Motion—ATM FeesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

NDP

Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC

Mr. Speaker, the NDP requests that the division be deferred until tomorrow, Tuesday, February 4, 2014, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

Opposition Motion—ATM FeesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Accordingly, the recorded division stands deferred until tomorrow at the end of government orders.

I see the Chief Government Whip is rising on a point of order.

Opposition Motion—ATM FeesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would request that we see the clock at 6:30 p.m.

Opposition Motion—ATM FeesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Is there unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:30 p.m.?

Opposition Motion—ATM FeesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed from January 30 consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Canadian ForcesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant relating to the business of supply.

(The House divided on the motion which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #47

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I declare the motion defeated.

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