Annick Papillon

[Search and Rescue, February 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak to the first matter I dealt with at the beginning of my mandate. I am referring to the marine search and rescue centre in Quebec City. As members know, after exerting ongoing pressure on the Conservative government for over two and a half years, we have finally managed to save the marine search and rescue centre in Quebec City. That says a lot.

It says a lot about all the work that has been done. I must thank the people who also pushed the government to reverse its decision to close the marine search and rescue centre in Quebec City. Thirty-five or 37 years ago, this centre was created because the government wanted to have this expertise in Quebec City and because it was the only officially bilingual centre in North America. That is still true today. That is why it is important to keep this centre open.

Unfortunately, a sword of Damocles hung over the centre for two and a half years. It lost people and it lost expertise. At least the sword of Damocles is now no longer there. People can get back to work, without fear that the Conservatives will abolish the centre. That is a step forward. I am very proud of having successfully championed this file, especially because I asked a number of questions about it in the House. I also held a number of press conferences on the subject. I reached out to people in the field.

I still remember a time when all we had was a few resolutions about the issue. People did not know anything about it. Some people in Quebec City were even unaware of the existence of the marine search and rescue centre in Quebec City. By talking about it and meeting people on the ground, we moved forward. We sought out resolutions from a number of municipalities and fishers' associations. Shipowners were also on our side. The Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed two motions on the matter. We had the support of them all.

I would like to salute the extraordinary collaborative work done by the people in the centre and the 35 911 centres in Quebec. They work very hard with the search and rescue centre when emergency calls come in. With them, we achieved this success. As the federal member of Parliament for Québec, I would like to say thank you to them. This is no small success.

I am going to keep talking about it because I never want to go through such a tragic episode again. I never want another sword of Damocles to hang over that centre for no reason.

The file is not closed, quite the opposite. Personally, I would like to know how much the logistics competitions cost. I want to find out about all the competitions held that still did not result in people being found for Trenton. All those logistics exercises were done in order to come to the decision to move the centre from Quebec City. However, they never succeeded in doing so. We know that the money was spent for nothing. It was all for nought, actually. I want to know if the Conservatives know the numbers. Can they give them to us?

[Business of Supply, February 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments.

I think it is also important to talk about the need for local services. I would like to quote John Lawford of the Canadian Consumer Initiative, who appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance on April 17, 2007. He said:

We've noticed that something odd has been happening over the last decade [so, for over 15 years now] with automated banking machines and fees. While there are more ABMs and more competition, prices have increased and service has decreased. Canadian consumers are calling on elected representatives [including Liberal, Conservative, Bloc and Green Party members] to help them out of this obviously dysfunctional market.

The solution could be the one proposed here today. Clearly, the market is dysfunctional and must improve.

[Business of Supply, February 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the hon. member opposite because I can see that he, too, is concerned about these issues. I am pleased to see that the members on the other side of the House are finally thinking about consumers. They understand that this is likely the issue of the 21st century.

A budget will be tabled soon, and we are hoping it will contain tangible measures. We do not want to hear a throne speech in which the government says it wants to take certain measures and then come to realize, months later, that nothing has been done. That gets us nowhere.

Prepaid cards are a problem, but today we are discussing the motion regarding ATM fees. I would like to hear what the Conservatives have to say about this. Really, there is no reason to oppose this motion.

[Business of Supply, February 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as the deputy critic for consumer protection, I feel it is important that I speak to this worthwhile motion moved by the hon. member for Sudbury. I must say that he does an outstanding job, especially when it comes to protecting consumers.

This motion calls on the government to take action in the 2014 budget, which will be tabled very soon, to protect consumers by limiting ATM fees.

Banks have been allowed to charge withdrawal fees at ATMs since 1996. However, ATM fees are not currently regulated in Canada, and Canadians have been seeing a steady increase in those fees over the past 18 years.

ATMs are everywhere. There are nearly 20,000 private ATMs in Canada now. They are expensive to use, and an increasing number of businesses only accept cash as a method of payment. If customers do not have any cash, they have to make a withdrawal from the nearby ATM.

Let me explain that it is unfortunately not just the retailers' fault if they do not accept payment by credit card. The credit card transaction fees charged to the retailer are just as outrageous. That is another thing this Conservative government will have to act swiftly on.

Most consumers do not realize that the fees indicated on the screen are not the only ones they will be charged. The ATM screens indicate that the fees are in addition to the regular banking fees. Most people think that refers to the usual fees of 50¢ per transaction, for which it is possible to negotiate a monthly rate. However that is not the case.

These bank fees also include the $1.50 fee for the Interac network, and that amount only appears on the bank statement. One could conceivably pay up to $6 in total just to withdraw $20. That is 30% in fees. It is unbelievable. That is a significant tax that the Conservatives are imposing on us by refusing to take action. It is totally unacceptable. Canadian consumers are paying up to $6 to get access to their own money.

Many banks have started charging new convenience fees, in addition to the Interac fees, to clients who use an ATM that belongs to another institution or a private operator. That is why the costs of using ATMs keep increasing. Banks are now charging all those who are not their clients the same fees charged at privately-owned ATMs, such as convenience fees of $1.25 or $1.50 in addition to Interac fees, which are generally $1.50, and transaction fees. Fees, fees and more fees.

The show La Facture, on the French network of the CBC, managed to get a comment from the Mouvement Desjardins spokesperson, André Cajolais:

...why would Desjardins members using another bank's ATM pay convenience fees, and a banking client using a Desjardins ATM not pay the same fees?

That is an intriguing position that confirms the importance of the NDP's proposal to regulate ATM fees in order to have a single fee. The Desjardins spokesperson went on to say:

If convenience fees disappeared from the entire industry tomorrow morning, Desjardins would stop charging them.

That is the crux of the problem. The Canadian banking sector is a difficult market to penetrate and is dominated by a few large banks. It is anything but a free market. In more competitive banking markets, such as the market in the United Kingdom, ATM fees are very low or even non-existent. However, in the less competitive Canadian market, consumers can be charged as much as $3 or $4 to simply access their own money. These fees can sometimes be $6, as I mentioned.

This situation is completely unacceptable, especially since the banks made a record $29.4 billion last year. There is no reason to let them continue to exploit consumers through ATM fees. It is uncalled for.

The NDP is suggesting a cap on ATM fees, so that Canadian financial institutions can no longer charge more than 50¢ per transaction. Unfortunately, Industry Canada's Office of Consumer Affairs stopped publishing an important annual report on the costs of Canadian banking services, and there is very little information on ATM fees. According to the last report published in 2002, there was a significant increase in transaction fees, so we can only imagine what the situation is now.

Furthermore, according to a study carried out by the Federal Reserve System Board of Governors in the United States, based on the best data available, the cost of processing an ATM transaction rarely surpasses 36¢. In light of these studies, the NDP believes that a 50¢ limit per transaction is reasonable for consumers and also for banks, which will continue to earn a profit—although perhaps not one as astronomical as they do now.

All too often we hear both the Liberals and the Conservatives—six of one and half a dozen of the other— talk about the middle class and consumer protection. This is finally an opportunity for them to show that they mean it. In 2007, the Minister of Finance told the banks that he was not satisfied with their explanation of ATM fees and that they had a responsibility to provide answers to consumers.

However, in the end, the Conservative government did not introduce any measures. ATM fees continue to increase even though there is no reason why Canadians should pay such high fees when banks are making enormous profits and these charges are lower or non-existent in comparable countries. The banks maintain that capping ATM fees will lead to a significant reduction in the number of machines available to Canadians. However, the truth is that Canada already has the largest number of ATM machines per person in the world.

As household debt reaches a record high of 166% of disposable income, there is every indication that consumers have reached the breaking point. The NDP is currently conducting a major campaign to make life more affordable and we intend to stand up for consumers every step of the way.

I heard some Conservative and Liberal MPs asking how the 50¢ transaction fee would be applied. Obviously, when you turn a blind eye to the problem you cannot solve it.

That is why we need an NDP government that cares about people and consumers and that can relate to what they are going through. People pay exorbitant ATM fees. That is theft. People want to have access to their own money. The situation makes no sense. Based on the number of interviews I have given about this subject, I know that people are passionate about it. They have had enough. This government has to take a stand and include this measure in the next budget.

I am warning the Conservatives: if they do not get going and finally bring forward real measures for consumers, the NDP will propose other motions. It will not give up until 2015, when it will assume power and, finally, people will get their money's worth.

[Consumer Protection, January 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are going deeper and deeper into debt, and they are being gouged by excessive credit card interest rates. In the meantime, the banks collected more than $30 billion last year. By refusing to crack down on the banks, the Minister of Finance is choosing to defend the banks' interests over consumers' interests, even though the Conservatives claim to stand up for consumers. What tangible things will the Conservatives do to reduce credit card interest rates?

[Air Transportation, January 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, it is quite clear to me that we do not live on the same planet. When we talk about protecting consumers, what we mean is giving them rights and the means to assert those rights.

What Canadian has never had their luggage lost without being informed, or had their flight delayed or cancelled, or found themselves without any recourse against an airline that refused to listen to them or compensate them for certain delays, and has then had to live with the consequences of such a situation?

All we are asking for is legislation. My colleague is really showing bad faith by saying that the NDP wants to tax Canadians. The NDP wants to give consumers rights. My colleague across the way should see that there is a big difference there. The NDP believes that when voluntary measures do not go far enough, legislation is absolutely needed. The government needs to show the necessary leadership and take responsibility. As we know, when it comes to consumer protection, people will not vote for the Conservatives, because they do not agree with them on that.

To protect consumers, the NDP is proposing all kinds of things. We have our “Making life more affordable” campaign. I invite everyone to check it out, because we are proposing various measures, including not only the air passengers' bill of rights, but other measures to give Canadian consumers a break, because they often have to deal with very difficult situations and need more assistance.

[Air Transportation, January 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the airline passenger bill of rights being proposed by the NDP would implement new regulations that will better protect the rights of air passengers when they are treated unfairly by airlines.

The new regulations would require air carriers to compensate passengers if their flight has been overbooked or delayed for a long time or if their luggage is lost. This bill is based on European legislation that greatly reduces delays and problems with overbooking. This is a 21st century bill. It is important to recognize that many airlines already offer passengers good compensation. There is no doubt about that.

The purpose of this bill is not to attack the airlines, but rather to improve services provided by air carriers and penalize only those companies that try to fleece customers in order to increase their profits. Companies that follow the rules will not have to pay. However, those that make a profit at the expense of passengers will have to compensate travellers for their mismanagement. It is as simple as that.

Why should customers not expect better service? Why should passengers not be informed of flight changes, delays and cancellations under penalty to the airlines?

Why not post new regulations at the airline counter informing passengers of their rights and the compensation claims procedure?

Air passengers deserve clear rules for compensation and reimbursement when their travel plans are changed without notice.

In December, I asked the Minister of Transport whether her government would agree to legislation on air passengers' rights. Unfortunately, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport never answered my question.

I will try again and hope for an answer this time. I have heard rumours, and I would like to know whether the Conservatives are interested in joining the 21st century, in creating an air passengers' bill of rights and in doing what is done in Europe, where consumers have rights. During the latest Speech from the Throne, the Conservatives said that consumers would be a priority. They also mentioned the possibility of coming up with such a bill of rights.

I would like to know whether they plan to satisfy the expectations of Canadian consumers. If they do not, why are the Conservatives refusing to adopt an air passengers' bill of rights, as suggested by the NDP? It is not that hard. We do not want to hear the same old lines; we want an answer. Why are the Conservatives opposed to a bill that would bring us into the 21st century and give consumers rights?

[Consumer Protection, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has just launched its “Making life more affordable” campaign. The NDP is the only party in Canada that understands what life is really like for families.

The cost of living has never been higher, and half of all Canadians live paycheque to paycheque. Making ends meet has never been harder. That is why the NDP thinks it is time to take action, ban fees for receiving paper copies of bills, limit ATM fees to 50 cents per transaction, cap credit card interest rates, bring in a gas price ombudsman who can put an end to the collusion between the oil companies and respond to the complaints from consumers who are feeling robbed, and implement an air passenger bill of rights like the one in Europe.

The solutions are simple. The Conservative government can make all the promises it wants, but it is not doing anything. In 2015, the NDP will deliver.

[First Nations Elections Act, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague and I now have to say that it is unacceptable that this government does not consult more with first nations. They play a key role in our Canadian Constitution and we all should be very proud of this.

My hon. colleague, who made such an impassioned speech, is very well known. I recently saw a documentary on the great explorers of northern Quebec in which he was praised for being among those who listened to our first nations. I also think that he understood them, and I am very proud of him and his work. I think we should pay much more attention to his perspective on this issue. This is important, because I know that many Canadians share this view.

I would also point out that his work is recognized even beyond our borders. When I travel, I see what the Conservatives are doing to our international reputation and to the way we treat others—because the debate is about that too. I am really disgusted with that attitude.

I hope that in 2015 we can do some housecleaning. We will quickly clean things up so we can enjoy a truly international reputation.

[Search and Rescue, December 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Conservatives voted against an NDP motion calling on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to appear in committee to indicate what she intends to do in the crucial matter of the maritime search and rescue centre in Quebec City. Even the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière voted against the motion, without good reason.

After two years of dithering, deferring decisions and unjustified spending on ineffective transfer attempts from the only bilingual centre in North America, can the minister tell us what she has in mind for the centre in Quebec City and exactly what she has done since she has been in that position?