Debates of June 1st, 2015

Opposition Motion—Financial Code of Conduct

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated a number of the comments the member has made.

My question is about general awareness. He recognizes the importance of education for many different things out there today.

He specifically cited no-cost accounts or low-cost accounts, which have been around for a number of years. Yes, they have been enhanced relatively recently, but they have been around for a number of years.

The government has spent $750 million on advertising much of that, very partisan, self-congratulatory advertising. Could the member indicate how much money he believes the government has actually spent on advertising to Canadian seniors, for example, that there is such a thing called no-cost accounts and low-cost accounts and how they can go about tapping into that through websites or through phone calls to the banks?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it certainly sounds to me like another example of the Liberal Party trying to ride both sides of the fence on an issue.

First, the Liberals want no government advertising. Now they want more government advertising.

As a government, we recognize that it is important to promote to Canadians some of the measures that are available to them. I am glad to hear that the Liberals recognize that. I hope they will choose a side of the fence and be on it rather than try to ride both sides, but that is a pretty typical Liberal approach, so it is not a big surprise.

He referred to some of the measures in his question. I talked about some of the measures we have taken as a government, such as securing a commitment from the major banks to voluntarily provide a range of basic banking services for $4 or less every month, including things like no extra charge for deposit, use of a debit card, minimum of eight debit transactions per month, at least two of which can be done in branch; reasonable charges for extra debit transactions; cheque writing privileges; and a free period statement or passbook record keeping.

These are all great measures our government has taken, and we are continuing to do everything we can to protect consumers and ensure they are aware of those opportunities.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss today's motion. Let me assure hon. members that under the leadership of our Prime Minister, our government is standing up for consumers and saving Canadians money.

We know that Canadian families work hard to make ends meet and every dollar counts. However, while some companies may look out for their bottom line, our government is always looking out for all Canadians. When Canadians make decisions about how to spend their money, they must be assured of a voice, a choice and fair treatment.

In the October 2013 Speech from the Throne, our government committed to take additional action to protect Canadian consumers. We understand that Canadians are tired of hidden fees. That is why we have secured commitments from Canada's eight major banks to enhance low-cost bank accounts and offer no-cost accounts. Banks also committed to provide free monthly printed credit card statements. That is why we have worked with the provinces to maintain the integrity of the framework for payday lending-type products and to support provincial efforts to regulate appropriately all payday lending-type high-interest-rate products and why we are considering a ban on pay-to-pay bank fees in our mandatory financial consumer protection framework announced in economic action plan 2015. We know that when Canadians make wise financial choices, our entire economy benefits.

Let me remind the House of one of the wisest financial decisions my constituents have made, and that is electing a Conservative government. The decision did not cost them a dime, but the return on that investment has been substantial. A typical Canadian family of four will save $6,600 this year, a direct result of our low taxes. Canadians also are not paying the higher costs associated with a carbon tax that the NDP would have imposed. Our government also balanced its books, an achievement that allows us to help families balance theirs, and will help ensure a more prosperous future for our children and grandchildren. This is in direct contrast to the Liberals and NDP, who would send Canada back into deficit and more debt.

Thanks to our balanced budget plan, many consumers are benefiting from a host of tax relief measures. Since we were elected in 2006, our government has introduced over 180 measures to provide tax relief to hard-working Canadians. We increased the amount Canadians can earn tax free, we removed over one million Canadians from the tax rolls altogether, we cut the lowest personal income tax rate to 15% and we introduced pension income splitting for seniors. We also introduced important credits, such as the children's art tax credit, the children's fitness tax credit, the first-time homebuyers tax credit, and one dear to my heart that I worked hard on, the adoption expense tax credit enhancements.

However, our initiatives go beyond law making and tax relief and include public outreach and education. In 2014, we announced the appointment of Canada's first-ever financial literacy leader. The mandate is to collaborate and coordinate activities with stakeholders to contribute to and support initiatives that strengthen the financial literacy of Canadians. This initiative will allow the government to broaden its efforts and help Canadians make more informed choices for themselves and their families.

Let me also remind the House that Canadian banks understand they must be prepared to respond to the specific and often changing needs of Canadian consumers. Accordingly, the government believes that the best consumer protection framework is one in which there is competition, fees are disclosed and consumers can exercise choice. For example, we have introduced regulations relating to credit agreements, including lines of credit and credit cards, which came into force in 2010. These regulations limit business practices that are not beneficial to consumers. They require the provision of clear and timely information to Canadians about credit products, with a particular emphasis on credit cards.

Specifically, the government has taken steps to update the existing financial consumer protection framework with several key measures. These include, for example, mandating an effective minimum 21-day interest-free grace period on all new credit card purchases when a customer pays the outstanding balance in full and introducing a fee summary box. In November 2014, the Minister of Finance welcomed proposals submitted by Visa and MasterCard to reduce their credit card fees for merchants that should ultimately result in lower prices for consumers.

In April, our government announced the enhanced code of conduct for the debit and credit card industry. These new changes will make the code even stronger by addressing unfair business practices and improving transparency for merchants and consumers, including new provisions that apply specifically to mobile payments.

The revised code contains several enhancements to address unfair business practices and improve transparency for merchants and consumers, including extending the application of the code to mobile payments, which includes new consumer protections for mobile payment users; measures to facilitate the pass through of credit card fee reductions to merchants; a new complaints handling process available to merchants with code related complaints; enhanced disclosure requirements that will require plain language disclosure of key contract terms and conditions and merchant fees in information summary boxes on merchant contracts; providing greater flexibility for merchants to exit their contracts without penalty and limiting the automatic renewal of contracts; new branding requirements for premium credit cards to make these cards more easily identifiable to merchants at the point of sale; and new disclosure requirements for credit card issuers to inform consumers who apply for premium credit cards that the use of these cards may result in higher merchant fees.

Let me also reassure members that the updates to the code were developed in close consultation with a broad range of stakeholders, including the members of the Finance Canada Payments Consultative Committee, which includes members representing the credit and debit card networks, small business, retailers and consumers. Bilateral consultations were also conducted with acquirers and small merchant associations. In fact, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said at the time that the code:

...has served merchants extremely well....[It] has done an excellent job in ensuring some fair ground rules and maintaining Canada’s low-cost debit system.

Consumers will also benefit from a new requirement for credit card issuers to disclose to consumers who apply for premium credit cards that use of these cards results in higher merchant fees. This will help to empower consumers in selecting their payment method by disclosing the actual cost to merchants of accepting payments with a premium card.

Of course, this is not new. Throughout our time in office, our government has been focused on helping Canadian consumers identify and take advantage of the best possible financial products and services for their needs. As we announced in economic action plan 2015, we are working to develop a comprehensive financial consumer code to better protect consumers of financial products, and ensure that they have the necessary tools to make responsible financial decisions. Such measures empower and protect Canadian consumers, and increase their financial literacy by providing them with the right information at the right time so that they can make the financial decisions that best suit their needs.

These are actions that clearly demonstrate that our government is the only party in the House that has actually and consistently stood up for Canadian consumers. Sadly, New Democrats have been known to vote against measures to support consumers. It would be wise to start supporting our efforts, because Canadian consumers understand that they are better off with this Conservative government.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is beyond me how our Conservative colleagues can believe that they are the only ones with judgment and the ability to come up with good measures to help the middle class and taxpayers.

Last year, people in my riding and across Canada paid $180 million in excessive fees for things like receiving their bank statements and using ATMs. Banks have been taking that money out of people's pockets for years now. Since 2011, banks and credit unions have been charging people who want to get paper copies of their bills and bank statements, and the government has still done nothing to put an end to that predation.

What does the Conservative member have to say about the kind of predatory banking practices I just mentioned?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member keeps repeating that false line, but even as a rookie in this House, having been here since 2011, he should be aware of a number of actions that the government has taken, many of which I have outlined, with respect to improvements for consumers, including securing commitments for banks to provide low-cost or no-cost banking services, and Visa and Mastercard commitments to reduce credit card interchange fees with an effective rate of 1.5% for the next five years, a flow-through that will be important for consumers. I could go on and on in that regard.

The member should at least acknowledge the facts of what we have done. Beyond that, we have consistently lowered taxes and put more money into the pockets of Canadians. We have enhanced their benefits.

Every budget helps consumers, incrementally, year over year, to save more money, to lower their taxes and to improve their benefits. Those budgets are about priorities. We have the right priorities when it comes to consumers and protecting them. The NDP members have the wrong priorities, or if they have some, they do not have the courage to stand up and support the measures we have taken to benefit consumers.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member actually stood up in his place to talk about all of these measures that the government has brought in. They were done compliments of the government being successful in having a balanced budget, and then warning Canadians that the Liberals and New Democrats do not know how to balance budgets.

I wonder if the member would be straightforward and truthful on the issue of a balanced budget. There is only one member in this House who has actually achieved a balanced budget, and that is the deputy leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Wascana.

My question is related to the fact that if we are seeing this because of balanced budgets, would the member not acknowledge that the only balanced budget the government received was the one it inherited from Paul Martin, when he was the Prime Minister, and that ever since that inheritance not only did the Conservatives squander it pre-recession, but that Canada has now ended up with a balanced budget for the first time and it happens to coincide with an election year?

Is the member not a little suspicious of what would appear to be a phony balanced budget?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, brought to you by a member and his party who, when we hit the great recession and brought in a stimulus package in line with what the G20 were doing, said it was not enough, and demanded a second, even a third stimulus package.

The deficits just could not be big enough, even on a temporary basis, for those members over there. We consistently balanced budgets before the great recession. We paid off massive amounts of debt, $40 billion, before the recession even began.

We committed, in the last election, that when the finances were balanced again after the great recession, we would begin returning the surplus back to Canadians where it belongs, not to enrich the bureaucrats or to enrich the select few that the opposition parties would like but to return broad-based measures back to all Canadians, including Canadian families.

We are delivering. That member will find out in the next election exactly what Canadians think about it. They are going to return us with another Conservative majority government.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to hear the last member say that their government consistently brought in balanced budgets before and after the recession, those kinds of remarks are almost as dumb as saying that budgets balance themselves.

I would like to share my time with the member from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

I am thrilled to get an opportunity to speak to this very important issue affecting nearly all Canadians and the majority of my constituents in Scarborough Southwest. After 10 years of Conservative rule and 13 years of the Liberals before them, families back home are struggling to make ends meet.

These pay-to-pay fees hit vulnerable people the hardest: seniors, people living with disabilities, new Canadians and anyone who cannot do online banking. Now the notion of charging people money just to pay their bills is absurd, but, then again, so is charging someone $4.50 to withdraw $40 from the bank as in the case brought up by my colleague from Davenport, which is just simply insane. That worked out to a fee of 11% just for an individual to withdraw his or her own money.

Bank fees hit those with modest incomes even harder because they are forced by circumstances often to make a larger number of small dollar withdrawals. It is like a tax on being poor because the bank will not make more money from them on mortgages, investments and loans, so they gouge them with these usury fees.

Going back to online banking, Statistics Canada reports that 20% of homes in Canada have no Internet and that number rises to 46% of households with incomes below $30,000. This should make it clear that these fees hit those who can least afford it the most.

The big five banks make around a half a billion dollar a year profit off ATM fees. They are now making almost $180 million each year on pay-to-pay fees. How long before those numbers rise to $1 billion just for Canadians to access their own money and to pay their own bills?

I will move on to the Conservatives' famed voluntary code of conduct and why we need to change it to a mandatory one and make it stricter, frankly.

Last year, the government introduced changes to force the banks to offer more free and low-cost accounts. These accounts come with a very limited number of debits per month. Therefore, to get around this the banks now are starting to include things like bank transfers, bill payments, student loan payments, credit card payments into the number of debits so it will jack up the number of debits that each individual will make.

Many people with those low-cost or no-fee accounts with only seven or eight debits allowed per month are going to end up getting hit with even larger fees for going over the number of allowed debits, which means they are going to have change what type of account they have and pay more for it just to get more debits so they in fact reduce the cost per transaction.

This is why we need to move to a mandatory code of conduct with stricter rules. Every time the Conservative bring in these voluntary codes of conduct, it is really just a suggestion to the banks. Then what the banks will do, because they always will ensure they make whatever bottom line they want, and we just have to look at the first two-quarters of this year where the banks in Canada turned $15 billion in profit, is find ways to sneak around the different changes that are made if they are only voluntary. We need to make them mandatory and we need to make them stricter.

The Conservatives keep talking about how they keep trying to do things to save people money and to help businesses, but nowhere in the last 10 years has the government moved to address one of the most ridiculous merchant fees that exists.

An example is a small business like a restaurant, which accepts credit cards because many people use credit cards nowadays. When people pay the bill, they put the tip on the bill. Let us say it is $30 and they put a generous $4 on the bill. Depending on the card used, the merchant will pay anywhere from 2.5% to potentially up to 6% in merchant fees on that transaction for $34.

In places like Ontario, where it is required by law for the employers to remit the tips back to their employees, and that is exactly how it should be, that business is then paying a merchant fee on that $4 tip it has to give to the employee. It is in fact giving that $4, but it is really costing it $4 to $5 because it has to pay that merchant fee on it as well.

Nowhere has the government ever suggested that we should remove this fee, despite suggestions from the opposition. This would be a tangible measure that would help a lot of small businesses make ends meet.

The banks are always a pleasure and a joy to deal with. I was talking to someone at my bank today while I was writing this speech. It worked out pretty well because I noticed all of a sudden that I was getting hit with more fees. I called the bank to see what was happening. It took me 35 minutes on the phone. Most Canadians do not have that kind of time to waste. I was sitting typing my speech, so I was doing two things. I talked to someone about what was going on. Sure enough, the bank had raised the minimum thresholds on my accounts in order to not pay those monthly fees. I asked when I had been informed about that and was told a letter had been sent. No, it had not. I was then told there should be a message in my online inbox. There was no message.

This again is a case where if the banks are not required to do something and properly inform consumers about what is going on, consumers then have to waste their time, energy and effort just to get fees back that should never have been charged to them in the first place.

All of us in the chamber are blessed with very high salaries compared to average Canadians. In many cases, we should be able to keep minimum balances in our bank accounts to avoid those fees. However, most Canadians cannot do that. Most Canadians would not be able to find another $1,000 all of a sudden to put in different bank accounts to not get dinged with these fees. Then they could end up losing another $20 or $30 a month. A single parent in my riding, with two children and child care, cannot afford that.

Child care is prohibitively expensive, and neither of the two parties will do anything about that. They want to put a little money back into people's pockets, while they continue to pay $15,000 to $20,000 a year in child care fees. They get $5,000 but then fork out $20,000. That is $15,000. That is not more money in their pockets. That is more money out of their pockets, whereas the NDP is planning to create $15 a day child care. That would make the total child care costs for those families $5,000 to $6,000 a year. That means families would end up with $10,000 to $15,000 back in their pockets. That is how we make a more prosperous Canada, a more equal Canada. It is also by getting rid of ridiculous pay-to-pay fees.

I have heard several members talk about how their government brought it up in the Speech from the Throne in 2013. That was only after the NDP had been hammering on it for a year. There was no equivocation in the Speech from the throne. The government did not say it would do it in this industry but not in this sector. Then when it actually came up with the rules, it excluded the banks. We asked the Conservatives why. They said that it was because the banks were not charging those fees right now. All of a sudden, the banks are now charging those fees. Why? Because they are allowed to. They will do whatever the market can bear and they will try to maximize their profits in every instance.

I am thrilled to hear that the government will actually support the motion. It is supporting a lot of our motions these days. It must mean we are ready to govern or something. However, will it actually implement the changes?

There was a unanimous vote in the House on feminine hygiene products. The government will put that into effect July 1. However, will it bring this change in for July 1? Will it bring this in legislation or accept an amendment to the budget implementation act to include it? That question remains. Therefore, supporting the motion is all fine and good, but it is the action required afterward that matters.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, some people with mental health issues might not feel comfortable doing business with banking services. Does my colleague think that is a problem in his riding? Unfortunately, the government forces them to do business with banks to get their benefits, and on top of that, they have to pay to pay fees.

Does my colleague think that this way of doing things marginalizes a group of people, particularly people with delusional disorder, who might be a little more reluctant to do business with banking institutions and a computer system that collects their data?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is definitely one more challenge that people with mental health issues do not really need. Furthermore, they are not the only ones affected by this.

Studies show that more than 40% of Canadians were not comfortable with the idea of online banking. That is why online security is definitely still very important, and it can be worrisome for many people.

When I go door-to-door, I always meet people who do not want to sign or look at a document online because they are afraid that someone will steal their information and misuse it.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech very carefully the last number of minutes. When it comes to facts, that is not something the Conservatives really want to discuss.

The member talked about how the Conservatives wanted to put money back into the pockets of Canadians. In this case, they are taking money out of the pockets of Canadians and giving it to their friends, the big banks. That is a lot of money, $180 million a year, that they are taking from Canadians, giving it to their friends and helping them steal from Canadians.

What would an NDP government do after October 19?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we hear the other parties talk about putting money back into people's pockets. We would rather leave it there in the first place by bringing in good quality, affordable child care, at a $15 a day, which would drastically lower the cost of child care for families that need it. That would leave the money in their pockets.

By ending pay-to-pay fees and by putting a cap on ATM fees, for example, we would then be leaving money in the pockets of Canadians rather than taking it out and then putting it back.

The Conservatives, with their income-splitting plan, would be taking take $2.5 billion of peoples' money and putting it into the top 15% of income earners, the people who frankly do not need any help.

The Liberal policy changes here and there, day to day. It is kind of like a moving target, but it will not be the kind of policy like ours, which will reduce costs for Canadians.

A good quality, affordable child care is the number one thing we can do for families to help them make ends meet.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, Co-operatives and Mutual Companies; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, the Environment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to talk about the parliamentary secretary's very surprising comments. He said that the banks are going to implement measures whereby consumers who pay off their credit cards every month, for example, will not pay any fees.

There is an inherent difference between our philosophy and that of the Conservatives, who sit on the other side. If a student's credit card is maxed out at $800 and the student pays the minimum amount and interest every month, it will take about 15 years to pay off the credit card. Richer people can of course pay off their debts. That is the philosophy of the people on the other side of the House.

We must protect all consumers, both small and big. I congratulate the member for Davenport, who moved this motion on June 1, because this is the day that my bank, and probably several others, announced increases in a number of fees it charges consumers. For example, my bank is increasing the fee for an NSF cheque from $45 to $48.50.

This motion on pay-to-pay fees calls on the government to ban all pay-to-pay practices through the enactment of a voluntary financial code of conduct. It could gradually be made mandatory. The purpose of this motion is to protect consumers. That seems pretty clear to me.

The most profitable banks in Canada have decided to make us pay extra fees to carry out all sorts of basic transactions. If we want to make a credit card payment it will cost us an extra $2. If we want to make a regular mortgage payment or pay down a student loan it will cost $1. If we want to use a contactless debit card it will cost $2. The banks are going to make us pay to use our own money.

What is more, it is middle-class families who are already struggling and carrying too much debt who are going to pay. They will not be able to afford the so-called premium bank accounts, such as the infamous accounts where you do not have to pay fees if you keep $5,000 or $3,000 in your account. This certainly works for some Canadians, but there are many who live paycheque to paycheque. Some earn $15,000 or $20,000 a year and cannot afford to keep $3,000 or $5,000 in their bank account. This includes many seniors.

I would like to read from an article in Le Devoir, from May 19:

The Canadian banks, RBC, TD, the CIBC, all closed with higher earnings than for the same period last year.

The bank posted net earnings of $2.5 billion.

The Royal Bank saw its profits increase by 23% to $625 million.

CIBC saw its earnings practically triple to $911 million.

Retail and Business Banking posted a net gain of $583 million for the second quarter, an increase of $37 million.

It is obscene, because these are not co-operatives. All Canadians will not share in these profits, but rather a small minority of individuals. Those who cannot afford to keep $3,000 or $5,000 in their bank account to avoid paying monthly bank fees will not benefit.

Not too long ago, in April, if I am not mistaken, I introduced Bill C-663, which deals with excessive bank fees. There are currently no regulations to limit bank fees in Canada. On top of fees for everyday services, banks also charge additional fees for occasional services, such as for NSF charges. Banks make millions of dollars in profits on fees charged to individuals for banking services.

Fees need to be regulated immediately, especially NSF charges. The following measures could be taken, and it would be quite simple: prevent banks from charging fees to customers who deposit a payment from a third party when the payment ends up being NSF. Mr. Speaker, if I write you an NSF cheque, you are the one who will be charged. Just like that, you will be fleeced that day, so it is a double punishment, a double charge. We could also set a maximum amount for NSF fees and require banks to provide customers with a grace period to cover the overdraft before dishonouring a cheque or refusing a debit. That would be entirely in good faith. Banks should treat their customers as we treat our constituents and give them a warm welcome. It would be really nice if a bank could call customers to let them know about an NSF situation and give them a chance to come and cover the amount and avoid the charges and a bad credit score.

Banks need to produce reports listing all of the bank fees they charge customers for all of the services they provide in Canada, and it is important that the reports also indicate the real costs associated with these services. In the United States, the fee for processing an NSF cheque seems to be about 50¢, $1 or $1.50. At my bank, these fees have just increased to $48.50. That means that there is a very big margin. It may cost more in Canada than in the United States to process these cheques, but if the banks were transparent we could see exactly how much the service costs and they could then charge a percentage based on that cost.

The NDP, along with the media and millions of Canadians, believe that the banks are raking in huge profits, and meanwhile Canadians struggle to make ends meet and are paying increasingly exorbitant bank fees. The banks earn the most profit from the fees they charge customers and the fees they charge for banking services. These fees are taken directly from the pockets of the middle class and from people who do not have much money.

In the 2015 budget—on page 248 for the members opposite who have read it—the Conservatives have some empty words about banks. They were rather modest and cautious. They talk about improving transparency and accountability, for example, through enhanced public reporting on complaints and on measures taken to address the challenges faced by vulnerable Canadians. This does not refer to Canadians who have $3,000 or $5,000 to avoid paying bank fees, but to those who do not have those kinds of means. They would be in less of a predicament if the banks called them and they were not billed $45 to $90 for non-sufficient funds.

Whom do these measures affect the most? Young people, people with low incomes, seniors, members of minority ethnic groups and people without credit cards. Some 28% of people who have had to pay overdraft fees have told me that they closed their bank account as a result. Once they have no access to banking, they can no longer receive services. About 65% of individuals who have paid overdraft fees say that the transaction that resulted in the overdraft was for $50, and 15% indicated that the transaction was for $5 or less. Having to pay $45 for a $5 overdraft is absurd.

Canadians should not have to hand over their hard-earned money just to get a bank statement or pay a bill. That is called “pay to pay”. Canadians pay as much as $180 million per year just for bank statements. Nobody should be punished for receiving bank statements or paying bills.

Maybe people have forgotten, but not so long ago, bank fees did not exist, and companies did not charge fees to send bills in the mail. Now that companies are no longer sending bills in the mail, they want to make all the unlucky ones who get them pay to pay.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard many comments today on this motion, and the one I am most sympathetic to is the fact that there are many individuals on fixed incomes, particularly seniors, who are not able to go on the Internet or who choose not to do their banking online. The core of the motion is really about paying to have monthly bank statements mailed or paying extra for choosing to pay a bill a certain way.

It would appear that there is unanimous support for this motion, and I am wondering if the member could reflect on why she feels that the government has been dragging its feet in making the statement it made today, which is that in principle, it does not believe that there should be pay-to-pay fees.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is not doing anything tangible to deal with the banks. It is being too wishy-washy, to put it politely. The government's budget is geared to greater transparency in the complaints process. However, it is not going to tell the banks to hand over their figures and tell the government how much their clients spend on ATM fees. Since there is money moving in and out, a user log could be issued.

The budget is not short on prose, but what we are asking for is concrete measures and an action plan to truly help consumers.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today calls on the government to introduce consumer-friendly measures for hard-working Canadian families, something we not only stand for but are already doing. For example, in our most recent budget, our government introduced several measures to empower consumers, including delivering a new and exclusive financial consumer framework for federally regulated banks and strengthening the financial literacy of Canadians.

I am wondering why the opposition does not stand up and support the plans we have already put in place.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, the government's measures are too wishy-washy. They should be part of an action plan to help consumers. In order to support a serious plan, we need to have a serious plan together with a program to achieve an end goal, namely consumer well-being.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, my colleague talked about her excellent bill, which is absolutely related to the issue at hand because it also addresses bank fees. The government indicated that it was going to support the motion. I would like to know whether there are other bank-fee-related measures the government could apply immediately at the same time that it is supporting our motion, in order to lower fees for consumers, especially those with a low income, who cannot keep $3,000 in their account to avoid paying bank fees.

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

Mr. Speaker, we really need to bring in legislation. The government could pass legislation in many areas and give people more purchasing power. For example, we really need to look at bank fees. It is not that complicated. We ask banks to provide a report every November. The Governor in Council can then submit a report 30 days after the House resumes in January or February. Thus, limits for all consumer fees are set.

The banks are going too far. They have to understand. That is way too much. They are taking billions of dollars directly out of Canadians' pockets.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted today to support my colleague's opposition day motion and to continue our government's strong support for middle-class consumers and small business owners and operators. I would like to say that I will share my time with the hon. member for Willowdale.

It is no secret that small business is the lifeblood and the engine of our economy. Small businesses account for 99% of all businesses in this country and employ half of the working men and women in the Canadian private sector. Our government believes that small business owners should spend their time growing their businesses and creating jobs, not battling high taxes and red tape. We have already cut taxes significantly for small businesses and their owners. We cut the small business tax rate to 11% in 2008, and increased the amount of annual income eligible for this lower rate from $300,000 to $400,000 in 2007 and then to $500,000 in 2009. This makes a huge difference to small businesses.

We cut the general corporate income tax rate to 15% in 2012 from approximately 22% in 2007. That is a 30% reduction in tax for corporations generally. This reduction benefits successful small businesses on their way to becoming big businesses when their income exceeds this $500,000 income level.

We increased the lifetime capital gains exemption on qualified small business shares from $500,000 to $750,000 in 2007. The government further increased the exemption to $800,000 in 2014, indexed the new limit to inflation, and further increased this exemption to $1 million for farmers and fishermen in 2015. The lifetime capital gains exemption is estimated to be delivering over $1 billion in federal tax relief annually for small business owners, including farm owners and fishermen.

We also reduced small business EI premiums by introducing the small business job credit. This credit is expected to save small businesses more than $550 million in the next year or so.

To further encourage small business growth, last month's budget proposed to further reduce the small business tax rate by nearly 20% by 2019, taking it down to just 9%. For a small business with taxable income of $500,000, this tax cut and other tax relief the government has provided since 2006 would result in an overall federal tax reduction of 50%. It is cut in half.

However, small business owners and operators in my riding of Vegreville—Wainwright would be alarmed to know that the Liberal leader said he would reverse our tax cuts to small business. I also note that both the NDP and the Liberal Party would dramatically hike payroll taxes for small businesses and their workers.

The Liberal leader has said, “We're looking at an expansion and a mandatory expansion of the CPP of the type that Kathleen Wynne put forward in Ontario.” That is what he said. He wants a mandatory expansion to the CPP. For someone earning $60,000 per year, the Liberal leader's policy would be a cut of $1,000. That would be in addition to the $1,000 payroll tax increase that would have to be paid by the small business owner. To be clear, not only would this mandatory increase in payroll tax reduce employees' take-home pay, but it would also force small businesses to cut jobs, hours, and wages for their employees. That is simply what would happen.

When it comes to promoting job creation and economic growth, which ultimately benefit all Canadians, including consumers, our government continues to make responsive and responsible decisions. Our government is implementing policies focused on raising Canada's economic potential and creating stable, well-paying jobs.

However, we cannot be complacent. These are tough economic times here at home and right around the world. Small businesses are stretching dollars as far as they can go, and they need support so that our economy can continue to grow. That is why our government took action to address credit card fees. Every time a merchant accepts a credit card payment, he or she pays fees, and, as is the case with any other cost, fees can affect prices for consumers and usually do.

Last fall we accepted voluntary commitments by Visa Canada and MasterCard Canada to cut credit card fees by close to 10%. This is meaningful. Specifically, the proposals from Visa and MasterCard include voluntarily reducing their respective credit card fees for consumer cards to an average effective rate of 1.5% for a period of five years and ensuring that all merchants receive a reduction in credit card fees. More importantly, Visa and MasterCard started to implement the reductions this past April, so they have already kicked in.

The purpose of these voluntary commitments is simple. It is to reduce the cost of credit card acceptance for merchants in order to keep prices lower for consumers. Let me reassure the House that, as the finance minister has said:

If Visa or MasterCard do not comply with their public commitments the Government will take all necessary measures to keep prices low for all consumers.

Let me turn members' attention to the enhanced code of conduct for the debit and credit card industry that was announced in last year's budget. It aims to promote fairness in the credit card market and addresses the issues that businesses told us about.

We worked hard to fix the problems. Merchants will now have a new, more user-friendly complaints process for code-related complaints. We are improving disclosure requirements within contracts. Businesses will have more flexibility to exit their contracts without penalty. In addition, the code will now apply to mobile payments.

This stronger code also offers new protection for consumers. Credit card issuers will have to inform consumers that using premium cards may mean higher fees, so there will be new branding requirements for premium cards to make them more easily identifiable. We are also introducing new protections with mobile devices so that consumers have choice.

We want to go even further than this. Every year Canadians make roughly $24 billion in payments. More and more of these transactions are being made electronically. However, while debit, credit, and prepaid cards are subject to federal regulations, digital and electronic wallets largely are not. That is why our government launched public consultations on the national retail payments system. We want to hear what Canadians think about the way that they pay so that our consumer protection will continue to be cutting edge.

In conclusion, taking together all that has been done since our Conservative government was elected, I can say with confidence that protecting consumers and supporting small business remains a central focus of our government.

We are working with the provinces and territories to make consumer protection regimes more robust and to defend Canadians using high interest rates and payday lending products. We have worked with the financial sector to ensure that Canadians benefit from greater transparency and pricing disclosure. At the same time, we are defending consumers from having to pay the costs associated with the high-tax agenda of the Liberals and the NDP. That is something that consumers should think about more. Canadians generally should think about that more. What would the consequences be of electing a Liberal or NDP government in the next election? It is something that I do not like to think about, because I do not like higher taxes, but that is what the result would be.

The NDP has pledged to implement a carbon tax that would raise the price for consumers on groceries, gas, and everything else. This is something I will not support, and my constituents simply will not support it either.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to that speech very carefully. The member talks about the NDP and the Liberals raising taxes. The only tax I see in this is in the guise of fees on consumers.

The Conservatives are helping their banking friends to pick the pockets of Canadians. Instead of putting money back in their pockets, they are actually helping the corporations to pick the pockets of Canadians to the tune of $180 million. They have had nine years to bring in legislation to help protect Canadians and help Canadians keep their money where it should be, yet now they are saying that they will be looking into this.

My question is simple. Will the Conservatives do that before the House rises in a couple of weeks?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question asked and the comments made by the member opposite. I do not agree with them, but he certainly has a right to make comments like that.

In terms of what our government will continue to do from now until the time the House rises and what we can accomplish during that time, quite frankly that largely depends on the official opposition. The opposition must be willing to co-operate for a change, instead of opposing every single thing this government brings in.

That is what the opposition members do. They oppose everything. If we look at a list of legislation that they have actually supported, we see they have done it because they have been embarrassed by the statistics, which show that they oppose virtually everything. The list is an extremely short list, and there is only a list of legislation that they support because of the embarrassment of opposing everything.

It is up to the member to determine what we as government will look at and accomplish before the end of the session. He has to look at himself and his colleagues beside him to determine how much legislation our government will pass in the rest of this session.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a number of members might have been somewhat surprised that the government indicated it would support this motion before us today, given its track record on the issue.

However, I have a very specific question for the member with respect to advertising. The government has spent literally three-quarters of a billion dollars on advertising over the last number of years. Much of it was political in nature. However, in terms of educating the public, there is value in using advertising to promote no-cost and low-cost accounts in an apolitical fashion. I wonder if the member could comment on the value of making Canadian consumers, in particular our seniors, more aware that there is an opportunity to save money if they can communicate with financial institutions where there are no-cost and low-cost accounts.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to the last part of the member's question, perhaps I have a lot more faith in my constituents and in Canadians generally than he does. I think most Canadians recognize that banks do have special no-fee programs and other types of programs for people approaching retirement age. That is well known and well understood.

With respect to the member's comments on advertising, the government does spend money on advertising. The difference between what our government does and what his government did when his party was in office a few short years ago is that our money actually goes to a wide range of advertising companies in a fair and open way so that we can let consumers, voters, and Canadians know what programs we have to offer them. His government sent over $40 million into the pockets of political friends.

We do not do that. That is why we brought in the Accountability Act as one of our first pieces of legislation when we took office in 2006.