Debates of June 1st, 2015

Opposition Motion—Financial Code of Conduct

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. member.

It is absolutely true. When we look at different ways in which small and medium businesses send bills, whether electronically or by mail, there is no intent on their part to add more insult to injury.

That is the frustration we have with mandatory fees. That is why in our economic action plan, we will ensure these changes are done and that consumers will be protected in that area in the same manner as we have protected them in so many other areas.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, many of the Conservative members who rise to talk about the motion today infer that they will be supporting the motion, which is great, and then they go on to talk about the economic action plan.

I am reflecting on what the late Jim Flaherty said in regard to income splitting, which is a major platform for the government and is part of that economic action plan. Mr. Flaherty said that less than 15% of the Canadian population would benefit from the hundreds of millions of dollars annually that it would cost to support that initiative.

As the member talks about the issue of fairness, how does he justify telling 85% of the population that they are not a part of that $2 billion annual commitment from the government?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when there is a general discussion about income splitting, we have to look at what has actually occurred. Breaking it down, there would be a maximum amount that could be transferred to minimize the amount of tax. That is part of it.

However, it is also a case of fairness. When we look at the numbers, if an individual is making $20,000 and their spouse is making $60,000, it works out to $80,000. When we compare that to a scenario where two people are making $40,000, much more tax is being paid. I believe it is around $1,100.

Further, it is a case of looking at the potential with different types of families and making that where the fairness comes in. There are caps, which is the other aspect to it, but, again, it is to try to make it fair for all individual families because it had not been to that point in time.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have not talked much about today is financial literacy and how we can educate our youth with regard to needs versus wants and spending versus saving.

I would like to hear from my hon. colleague from that perspective.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I spent my life as a high school math and physics teacher. For 34 years, I talked about economics and dealing with the ability for individuals to manage their accounts, how to deal with income tax, setting up their Canada pension plans, and managing and understanding EI, as well as concepts of savings and annuities. Those are the sorts of things I have been proud of being able to deal with.

When I saw that our government brought in the national financial literacy, I was extremely proud. I encourage all Canadians to make sure that they can deal with that in a proper manner.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, once again it is an honour to highlight our government's strong record in boosting the financial literacy of all consumers.

In basic terms, financial literacy means having the knowledge, skills, and confidence to make responsible financial decisions. It is essential to the prosperity and financial well-being of Canadians, and therefore our country. While governments clearly have a role to play, and this government has played its part, protecting consumers must include giving them the tools they need to protect themselves.

I want to acknowledge the excellent work in this area by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc. In November 2011, he introduced private member's motion M-269 to help improve financial literacy in Canada and give Canadians valuable tools to help them make better informed financial decisions.

In March 2012, that motion was approved by the House of Commons.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member for Davenport on a point of order.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while I find the train of thought most interesting and potentially edifying, it is not the question that the House is seized with today. We are talking about a motion to ban pay-to-pay fees and introduce a mandatory code of conduct in this regard for the banking sector. I would encourage the member to speak to the motion.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the intervention by the hon. member for Davenport. Of course, relevance is an important standard that we keep in the House of Commons as best we can. That said, members will know that there is a great deal of liberty given to hon. members to present their ideas and arguments. They are required eventually to bring those ideas together in terms of addressing the question that is before the House.

I recognize the member for Edmonton Centre is scarcely a minute into his remarks and I am sure he is going to elaborate on those ideas and bring them together in the course of his remarks.

The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do find it a trifle bizarre that somebody is talking about relevance 30 seconds or so into a 10-minute speech. This topic is all about investor literacy in dealing with banks that may be charging pay to pay, to give people the understanding to be able to choose banks on that basis or any other basis. This is all about financial literacy, and if my hon. colleague will allow me my time, I think he will find that we are talking about the protection of consumers and about literacy, part of which is understanding things like pay to pay.

Canada is proud to be a world leader in promoting financial literacy for all Canadians so that they can make decisions.

In the 12 years between my military career and my political career, I was a financial adviser and branch manager for investment firms in Edmonton. A large part of our job was counselling people on effective financial and retirement planning, which too many people take for granted, sometimes with disastrous results after it is too late to change. People do not plan to fail, but they do fail to plan.

We continue to take action to ensure that Canadians can learn the skills they need to make solid financial choices, such as what bank to deal with, which may or may not be charging particular fees.

In 2011 we declared November as Financial Literacy Month. Each successive literacy month has involved more organizations, bringing more resources and events that have helped more Canadians improve their personal money know-how and skills. Budget 2013 committed $3 million specifically to initiatives to develop Canada's financial literacy.

In April 2014, Jane Rooney was appointed as Canada's first financial literacy leader. I am sure that many in the House, perhaps even my hon. colleague, may have heard Ms. Rooney talk about the National Steering Committee on Financial Literacy and the consultations it has held with a broad range of individuals and groups. That is a great example of collaboration to strengthen financial literacy in action.

Our country can also be very proud to now have its own Canadian financial literacy database. This one-stop shop will guide Canadians toward the information, educational tools, and events they need to answer their financial questions and improve their financial know-how. This new tool is the perfect example of the power of collaboration among public, private, and non-profit sectors to deliver useful information and resources that people can use right now.

Hundreds of activities are already being featured in the database, and I strongly encourage all members of the House to take the time to look at the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada's website at itpaystoknow.gc.ca. This tool was created for the benefit of all Canadians.

Efforts such as these and others offered by the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada are certainly needed. Many struggle to pay their regular bills and many more lack financial understanding about the costs of owning a home and about how much money they will need to retire. Young people, seniors, newcomers to Canada, and low-income Canadians are among the most in need of targeted efforts to improve their financial literacy so they do not fall prey to nickel-and-diming by banks.

Many seniors, for example, are entering their retirement years carrying debt. We need to act to give them the tools they need to understand their retirement needs, and we are. In 2014, the FCAC carried out public consultations with seniors groups across Canada and in mid-October released “Strengthening Seniors’ Financial Literacy”, the seniors component of the overall national strategy for financial literacy.

The seniors strategy has four goals: first, to engage more Canadians in preparing financially for their future years as a seniors; second, to help current seniors plan and manage their financial affairs; third, to improve understanding of and access to public benefits for seniors; and fourth, to increase tools to combat financial abuse of seniors, such as nickel-and-diming by banks.

We are already seeing results. As a stated goal of FCAC's national strategy for financial literacy, combatting financial abuse of seniors has brought together many public, private, and non-profit sector organizations united by a common goal. I will highlight some of the objectives and initiatives targeting financial abuse that are part of this effort.

The first objective is to ensure seniors and their caregivers have access to the tools they need to identify and prevent financial abuse and are aware of what to do if it happens.

The second objective is to ensure governments and stakeholders collaborate to enhance understanding of financial abuse and fraud targeting seniors, the factors that contribute to financial abuse, and effective fraud prevention techniques.

The effort will provide front-line credit union staff with the tools they need to recognize and help combat elder abuse, and it helps to meet both those objectives.

I also spent three years as a member of the board of the Lakeland Credit Union in Cold Lake, Alberta. I want to applaud the credit union movement for the great work it does, especially in smaller communities and especially in combatting higher fees for financial services.

Credit Union Central and Elder Abuse Manitoba are being joined by many other groups active in supporting in this area.

Some examples include the new horizons for seniors program, which supports projects led or inspired by seniors who make a difference in the lives of others in their communities. Expanding awareness of elder abuse, including financial abuse, is among its critical objectives.

We live in a complex world where we can spend money by clicking a mouse, swiping a card, or using a mobile device. With so many ways to spend money, it is easy to get buried in debt and it is not so easy to dig oneself out. In fact, according to Statistics Canada, household debt among Canadians remains close to record highs. This can make consumers vulnerable to a rise in interest rates. It can also impact the food budgets of families on fixed incomes.

This is why our government has made financial literacy a priority here too. It is a key component of Canada's economic action plan. That is the reason we set aside an additional $3 million in budget 2013 for collaboration and coordination. At the FCAC website right now, there is valuable advice on getting out of debt, rebuilding a credit rating, and paying off a mortgage faster, among many other topics. There are also calculators for choosing the right bank account or mortgage and setting financial goals.

Our government understands that when Canadians make decisions about how to spend their money, they must be assured that their interests come first and that they are given fair treatment. That is why our government has consistently demonstrated a strong commitment to consumer protection by ensuring that Canadians are being treated fairly and getting value for their hard-earned dollars.

We have demonstrated that commitment in many ways: by better protecting Canadians using prepaid cards with increased transparency and new consumer protection rules; by requiring greater disclosures of mortgage prepayment charges; by strengthening the position of credit card users by imposing a mandatory 21-day interest-free grace period on credit cards, banning unsolicited credit card cheques, and requiring consent for credit limit increases; by better protecting seniors using financial services by requiring enhanced disclosure by banks on the costs and benefits of using powers of attorney and joint accounts, as well as requiring more robust processes and staff training related to these services; by enhancing access to basic banking services by expanding and modernizing no-cost basic banking services for youths, students, and seniors, as well as ensuring consumers do not have to pay for monthly printed credit card statements; by improving transparency and fairness in the credit card market by developing options to lower the costs faced by merchants to accept credit cards while ensuring those lower costs are passed on to consumers; and by securing a commitment from the major banks to voluntarily provide a range of basic banking services for $4 or less per month.

We must ensure that Canadians are best positioned to make wise financial decisions, allowing them to drive Canada's economy. This is just another way that our government is ensuring that Canada can create jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity.

Specific to today's motion, banning pay-to-pay bank fees is the kind of thing we intend to look at, including in the mandatory financial consumer protection framework that we promised in economic action plan 2015. Canadian consumers can count on our government.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for an excellent speech. Earlier, I spoke too soon.

I want to ask my hon. colleague, given the importance of, as he described it, financial literacy, especially among young people, and given that it is difficult for many Canadians to even find the time to switch banks when the big five banks are largely moving in lockstep on many of these fees, does he think it is important for this Parliament and this government to move quickly to ensure that the intention we express today around pay-to-pay fees is fast-tracked with legislation so that when the House recesses, we have a law on the books?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and his patience.

Consumers do need to make choices, and it is very difficult sometimes. He is quite correct. There is a plethora of information and small print, so it is really hard for the average person to sort that out. Therefore, it is important that governments take the opportunity, when they can, to make it easier for consumers for their own protection.

We do not regulate the day-to-day operations of banks, but we have obtained commitments from the banks to end pay-to-pay practices.

In terms of legislation or bringing it into law, or whatever needs to be done by the House to do that, as a general statement we would all like government to move more quickly. However, when one is not in government, it is always moving far too slowly. Even when one is in government, it moves more slowly than I would like in many areas. That is a function of the realities of government, the realities of bureaucracy, the realities of working to put it all together.

Yes, I agree that we should move as quickly as we can. We made the commitments and we intend to follow up on them.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to a question I asked one of my colleague's caucus mates a moment ago. It speaks directly to his opening remarks.

He said this was very much, in fact entirely, a question of financial literacy. I think he referred then to a $3-million expenditure of some kind, in terms of overall outreach in financial literacy terms for the country. I am not sure what fiscal year he was referring to.

I want to ask the member to be clear for us. How much has the Government of Canada spent on financial literacy engagement and advertising with respect to Canadians, to help them get their spending, in some circumstances, under control?

We know how much the government has spent in other sectors, including $30 million on 9,850 billboards across the country, including in the member's riding, and counting. I am asking him specifically how much the government has spent on advertising to communicate with Canadians a meaningful message on financial literacy.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question clearly has a political purpose, which is fine. We are here for politics.

I do not have a specific number. I do not have a copy of the estimates with me. The number I was referring to was $3 million in budget 2013 specifically for initiatives to develop Canadians' financial literacy. That went, at least partially, to appointing, in April 2014, Ms. Jane Rooney, Canada's financial literacy leader.

I cannot give the specifics about what she does day to day, or anything like that, but I know she has been active in that area. A lot of came back to my colleague for Edmonton—Leduc. We are all committed. We are all at various stages of life. Some of us are seniors, some are in other stages, but we all need a little support.

If the member is looking for a specific dollar amount, I clearly do not have it. I can say that the government is committed to protecting consumers. This is part of it. The support of this motion is part of it. There is no one silver bullet. However, taken together, we are making progress and we will continue to do that.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for La Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech on financial literacy. Obviously that is important in our society.

This motion is really about mandatory fees. We all hate mandatory fees, whether it is from banks or the government. Recently, the leader of the Liberal Party talked about big mandatory fees when it comes to CPP deductions. There is no choice. People have to pay in. Of course, he said it would be modelled after what we have in Ontario, where it would be invested in infrastructure projects and so on. It would not even be held in trust.

Could my colleague please comment on that, the idea of mandatory fees and a payroll tax, both for employees as well as for employers?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am not sure the question is really relevant specifically to the content we have in front of us. I do see the hon. member for Edmonton Centre rising. He may want to handle the question, just the same. We will let him go ahead.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will cut my hon. colleague some slack, because it is all related.

It is about the knowledge of how to deal with those issues. One of the issues, as Canadians, is how to deal with retirement. CPP is there. It is in relatively good shape. It is well managed. We need to give Canadians options that they need to understand. That is where this comes in, whether it is bank fees or whatever. Canadians need to understand the options.

The only option should not be to give the government money and it will look after that money. The options should be that there are TFSAs, CPP that we all contribute to, income-splitting and a variety of things that Canadians can use to manage their retirement. That is what it is all about. It is giving Canadians the option and the education, and then letting them make their own decisions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that I can rise today and spend 10 minutes talking about a motion that I think is very important. It shows where the NDP and all of the other parliamentarians here in the House of Commons stand. I can see that the motion moved by my colleague from Davenport is resonating with the other parties.

Right now, big Canadian banks are abusing taxpayers and the middle class. We know that, in the past, the Conservative government preferred self-regulation for many industries, including the banking industry. Unfortunately, that is not working because there is not enough competition and all of the financial institutions have something to gain by squeezing people just a little more.

When we talk about excessive banking fees, we are not necessarily talking about big amounts of money individually. For example, someone who wants to get a bill in the mail rather than electronically, for whatever reason, often has to pay $2 or $3. We are not talking about big amounts of money, but unfortunately all of those fees charged across Canada add up to $180 million. That is a lot. People in the riding I represent in the Saguenay and those in the riding held by my colleague from Surrey North, with whom I will be sharing the second part of my speaking time, are paying those fees.

There are excessive fees and, unfortunately, the Conservative government is choosing to turn a blind eye. I wonder why it has avoided dealing with this for so long. We know that last year, the government responded to pressure from the NDP to tighten the screws on big companies that were charging fees to send a bill to a person's home, but oddly, the government left out the banks, which often send out paper copies of bank statements. It is the clients who pay.

What the NDP is asking Canadian parliamentarians to do is to vote in favour of the following motion:

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

I would like to think that all the financial institutions, including the one I use, put their clients and Canadian society ahead of profits. However, in our economic model, it is unrealistic to think that every decision the financial institutions make will serve the public interest ahead of the interests of shareholders or banking executives.

For that reason I believe, as do my NDP colleagues, that we should make this code of conduct mandatory. That is not unreasonable. We are asking the major banks not to take advantage of people. People who pay excessive fees for using an ATM or receiving a bill are not naive. We are basically caught in this system.

When we were growing up we were told to save, which is a very good thing. I hope that people no longer put their $20 bills in a wool sock at the bottom of a drawer. I think we all agree that that can cause different problems. People are encouraged to invest, to save and to put money in the bank or credit union for school, for retirement and for medium-term projects.

We trust financial institutions. As consumers and Canadians, we trust our financial institutions to properly manage our money and to ensure that we can withdraw our money when we need it.

Unfortunately, in 2011, we really began noticing the tack being taken by large corporations and the big banks: they began charging $2 to people who wanted to receive their bills at home. That was when we noticed that the charges were less than ideal. This type of abuse was condemned by the media and even the general public.

Our services, including bank services and telecommunications services, are already so expensive these days. If people have to pay another $2 or $3 for the huge privilege of paying a bill, which I say sarcastically of course, then they are being fleeced.

I am proud to say that my colleagues and I have gathered over 12,000 signatures over the past few months to support the NDP's petition, which calls on the government to do the right thing and ban pay-to-pay fees. It is a relatively new phenomenon. There was no mandatory code of conduct in the past, but even so, for the past 50 years, banks and large corporations did not normally charge their customers for a paper invoice. The vast majority of people feel that it is just common sense that this kind of expense is part of the operating costs of any company, bank or SME.

In fact, most SMEs do not charge these fees, even though they need their customers' money more than large corporations to stay in business. Why, then, do the big banks feel the need to charge these excessive fees? It is just wrong.

When it comes time to vote today, we could take a step forward by adopting the NDP's motion, so that taxpayers and the middle class can keep more of their money in their wallets. As I mentioned earlier, Canadians pay $180 million a year in abusive fees charged by the big banks. It is unacceptable. Unfortunately, as I also mentioned, the Conservatives have been complicit in this abuse for quite some time.

For over two years now, the NDP has been exerting pressure on the government to eliminate these kinds of fees. However, it disappointed me, because either it did not take this issue seriously or it preferred to help its friends, the big banks.

In the 2013 throne speech, the Conservative government promised to put an end to “pay-to-pay” policies so that consumers would not have to pay fees to get paper statements. The NDP highlighted that initiative in 2013. However, the government did not do much in 2013 except make nice promises.

A year later, the 2014 budget once again promised to end the practice of charging fees for bills. When it came time to walk the walk, however, the budget implementation bill exempted banks, leaving Canadians to pay $180 million per year, as I mentioned.

We, the opposition members, and the Canadian people are now familiar with the government's approach. It makes promises but does not follow through often enough. My Conservative colleagues will tell us that they have reduced various fees and cut red tape for businesses to help them make more money. Bureaucracy sometimes prevents businesses from doing business and can make life extremely difficult for people for all the wrong reasons, which is frustrating. However, I still do not know why the government did not want to tighten the screws on the banks at that time.

I do not have much time left, but I have so much to say. I could have spoken for 20 minutes, but I really want to hear what my colleague from Surrey North has to say about this. I will conclude with some statistics.

A Public Interest Advocacy Centre survey showed that 40% of respondents were not comfortable with paying their bills online, so we cannot assume that everyone wants to pay bills online. The survey also showed that one in five households does not have Internet at home. Among the lowest-income households, those with an income of $30,000 or less per year, 46% do not have Internet at home.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I pulled a short letter that a constituent sent to me regarding this issue. She writes that she has multiple accounts with TD, has been a customer there for 30 years and that it has charged $2 for each account statement. She has opted for online billing, but needs to print her copies for her records, so she ends up paying for ink and the paper to print her own bills. As she says in the letter, “Either way, I lose”. She also goes on to say, “I have my own business. I can only laugh at the idea that my customers would be agreeable to me charging them for printed invoices”.

Could my colleague share with us some of the realities in his riding and how a ban on pay-to-pay fees would help many of the people he represents?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague from Davenport for bringing this very important motion forward and also for his question.

Much to my dismay, the riding that I represent, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region, is not one of the wealthier ridings in Canada, and our unemployment rate is very high.

Unfortunately, many people are not necessarily part of the middle class. Either they are living in poverty or they have very tight budgets and have to make tough choices. This includes people raising families and single people alike.

I go door to door a lot in my riding, and these individuals often welcome me into their home or apartment, where I can see their situation. I often go to them with a petition. One such petition was precisely about these pay-to-pay fees.

I also often ask them for an email address, so that I can stay in touch with them. Honestly, I always feel a twinge of sadness when they tell me they do not have the Internet at home, and unfortunately, it is not usually by choice. Often, these individuals do not even have a phone.

I think the federal government needs to do everything in its power to ensure that people who are living in precarious financial situations can pay their bills like any good citizen, and not be exploited by these overly greedy financial institutions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the tens of millions of dollars that have been collected through individuals or banks collecting on the pay-to-pay, the people who are most affected by that are those who are on fixed incomes or who can least afford to do extra paying.

The member just made reference to those people who might not have access to the Internet. There is no doubt that some people in society are hurt more and affected more by the whole principle of paying to pay. Would the member not agree?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague for that good question.

Not only do these fees affect everyone, but the negative impact is even more outrageous and cruel for different segments of the population. We might even say that this type of fee is discriminatory towards certain segments of the population.

I mentioned those who live in a very precarious financial situation, but there are also seniors. I am quite pleased when some of them turn to the web.

However, since the Internet was not part of their everyday lives for decades, some seniors are not inclined to have a computer or Internet access. A disproportionate number of those people end up paying these extra fees, and I find that tough to take.

Essentially, both families and individuals are being penalized by this. I understand my colleague's question. Seniors and people living in poverty are affected by this more than others. This is outrageous for every segment of the population.

I would like the people at home to look at their bills and add up how much money they spend on these excessive fees every year as a family or as an individual. They would be surprised, and I think they would be even more outraged.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to speak in the House on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North. Today, we are talking about pay-to-pay fees. The motion states in part:

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

To explain it in simple terms, pay-to-pay fees are not only charges from the bank to send people their bills, but charges for people to pay their bills. It is a payment on top of a payment.

It sounds ridiculous. We should not be discussing this in the House. The Conservatives should have banned this practice a long time ago. They have been in government for nine years. Before that, we had the guys in the corner. None of those members chose to address this issue over the years. The banks have been gouging Canadians, trying to take their hard-earned money just to receive a bank statement.

Under the Conservatives, Canadians are paying millions of dollars to their friends, the big banks. Estimates from research show how big an issue this is. It is $180 million of the hard-earned money of Canadians that the friends of the Conservatives, the big banks, have pickpocketed from the very people who need the money to make ends meet.

Instead of cracking down on these excessive fees, the Conservatives have refused to take action over the last nine years, siding with their friends, the big banks. It is the New Democrats who are standing up for Canadians. We are fighting on behalf of Canadians to ensure they are not being gouged and that their pockets are not being picked by the banks, with the help of the Conservatives.

In 2011, Canadians started noticing this extra billing. The banks were starting to charge Canadians for getting their bills through the mail, and it was not only the banks that were doing it. Utility companies, telephone companies, Internet and cable companies were also doing it. All of these companies started to jump on the bandwagon, looking at it as another way to gouge Canadians, waiting to see if anybody noticed. The Conservatives did not notice it at all. In fact, they were helping the big companies that were gouging Canadians. It was the NDP that raised this issue first, back in 2012. We have been trying to get the Conservatives to come on board and help protect Canadians. They have not been paying attention to any of that, so it is good to see them supporting this motion.

My question for the Conservatives is whether they will have this amendment in the budget implementation bill, or will they want a unanimous motion in the House so we can get this done before the House rises for the summer? We are willing to work with the Conservatives and the third party to ensure that we put a stop to this gouging and picking of the pockets of Canadians. We can do this right now. We can do it today.

However, I doubt the sincerity of the Conservatives' pledge, because they have not done it for the last nine years. Is this another gimmick before the election? I hope not. I hope the Conservatives are sincere and get this done before we break for the summer.

The Conservatives did include an item in the budget implementation act and the throne speech because of the pressure we have applied over the last three years. We have talked to consumers and to families about the very fees that have been extracted from them.

Because of pressure from the NDP, the Conservatives backed off and eliminated pay-to-pay fees for the telephone, cable, gas and utility companies. Why not the banks? Is this because the banks have a very special relationship with the Conservatives? The five big banks made $16 billion in the last two fiscal quarters. The Conservatives say that they will put money back into the pockets of Canadians. Here they are helping to steal money from the pockets of Canadians to give to their friends. This is their record. Are they really interested in being on the side of families? My colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party are on the side of Canadian families, of seniors, and of people who are making ends meet. The current Conservative government is not on the side of the average or middle-class families. In fact, it is helping to pick the pockets of those very families it pretends to be helping out.

I have often talked about this. I owned a small business myself. I know that small business is the economic engine of this country and generates the majority of the jobs being generated in the Canadian economy. When it comes to protecting and fostering small businesses and helping them create new jobs, the Conservatives lack any sort of motivation to help the very people who are creating these jobs.

The Conservatives borrowed one of our ideas. The NDP said we would cut the small business tax by 2 percentage points and would do it sooner. The Conservatives borrowed that idea, which is fine. However, they will back end it so that it will start a few years later than what we had proposed. This was our idea to ensure that consumers are protected. Now the Conservatives are getting on board, but I feel uncomfortable as to how sincere they are in bringing about this change.

Small businesses the economic engines of this country. Having been a business owner I know first-hand about the very merchant fees being charged or how small businesses are being gouged by the credit card companies and the big banks. I am not talking about small charge here, I am talking about 3%, 4% to 6%. That is a lot of money. That sometimes is the difference between making a profit or not making a profit. I know that because I experienced it first-hand when I watched thousands of dollars being racked up by the credit card companies under the guise of merchant and other fees. That sometimes was the difference between whether we made money one month or the next month.

If we look at the other fees that the banks are charging, they are anywhere from a couple of dollars to $3.00 or $4.00 when we try to withdraw our own money. This is not someone else's money but our own money. We have been asking and pressuring the current government to ensure that Canadians get reasonable service. We know the banks have to make a profit and that they have to deliver. However, gouging is something that we on this side of the House will not tolerate.

I can assure members that come October 2015, Canadians will be looking for a leadership that protects their interests and are looking to the NDP. The Conservatives will not be here come October because they have failed to protect Canadians and have failed to protect the very pockets of the families they are helping to pick out of to give to their friends.

With that, I am ready for any questions from the Conservative side.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is ludicrous that the government and the Conservative members across the aisle say that they support the middle class, cutting taxes and eliminating fees. They did not ask a single question after my colleague from Surrey North finished his excellent speech. I wonder if they were listening. I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, and I would like to thank him for it.

I would like to ask him a question about the rather unhealthy relationship between these big banks and their customers. In the first half of the year, the five major banks earned $16 billion. What kind of power do these banks have over the little guy, families, youth, the poor and seniors?

How can the little guy fight against those big institutions?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what power does the little guy have? The power rests within this group here, the NDP, because we will fight on their behalf in this House. The gouging that is taking place has gone on for long enough. We have had that third party in the corner there, and we have had the Conservatives ganging up on Canadian consumers for far too long. It is time to stop. It is time to stop this pay-to-pay that has been going on. It is time to stop paying the big fees that they charge consumers to even take out their own money.

Come October 2015, I can assure members that we will be standing up for Canadian families, and Canadians will recognize that. The Conservatives and the Liberals will be sent packing outside of this House.