Thierry St-Cyr

[Business of Supply, April 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on this NDP opposition day regarding the motion presented by the member for Sudbury.

The Bloc Québécois supports, in principle, the motion that is before us today, that the government should take action to protect consumers who are particularly vulnerable in tough economic times.

However, when the government introduces legislation of this nature, as we sincerely hope it will, we will make sure that it is respectful of the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces in this area.

I would note that in Quebec we have had the Consumer Protection Act since 1971, and that this act governs contracts between credit card issuers and consumers. It will therefore be important for both Quebec’s jurisdiction and Quebec’s expertise in this regard, which is considerable, to be taken into account.

I would like to point out, and I will come back to this later if time permits, that in 2007 the Supreme Court denied a financial institution leave to appeal in a case involving one of the largest exemplary damage awards in the history of Quebec. That decision affirmed a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal, and confirmed Quebec’s jurisdiction and its ability to protect consumers in their dealings with credit card issuers.

I will not read the motion before us in full, but we do agree that debt is a major problem in Canada and we find it surprising, to say the least, that the gap between the Bank of Canada’s key lending rate and credit card interest rates is continually growing, when we might have thought, given the rising numbers of all sorts of cards being widely used by consumers, that competition should be narrowing the gap. Surprisingly, the reverse is happening.

It is also true that the big banks and financial institutions are making large profits from that gap, and even though a few of the items in the NDP motion do not all come within the jurisdiction of the federal government, we believe it is worthwhile for the federal government to take action in relation to matters within its own jurisdiction in this regard.

On that point, item (a) in the motion before us talks about a measure that would “protect consumers from ‘any time, any reason’ interest rate increases and account changes”. That could provide a useful starting point that would, in this case, come under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

We have long said that the federal government could look into linking the credit interest rate to the Bank of Canada's key lending rate with reference to the criminal rate in section 347 of the criminal code, which would better synchronize the cost of credit and the usual rate of interest. In other words, rather than having the criminal rate in section 347 set in absolute terms, we think the government should look into making it relative, if you will, to the key lending rate of the Bank of Canada.

Since I referred to it earlier, I would like to elaborate on the matter of provincial jurisdiction. Everything that concerns local business and civil law comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec. So the companies issuing credit cards are subject to the rules of consumer protection contracts in each jurisdiction.

The legislation on consumer protection sets out many strict requirements specifically governing credit cards of all kinds. Section 118, for example, defines variable credit and raises the issue of credit cards. Section 126 provides that a company issuing a credit card must send a statement of account to consumers setting out a number of points I will not mention here, but which are described quite explicitly in the legislation.

Section 128 provides that a company issuing credit cards may not increase the limit of the variable credit, called usually a line of credit or credit limit, except at the express request of the consumer. That is very important, and I will come back to that. For example, it is provided that notice of any change to the terms of a variable credit contract must be sent at least 30 days before it takes effect. So we can see that there are regulations in Quebec to protect consumers and that the Government of Quebec can, if it wishes, continue to legislate in this area. We believe, however, that the federal government could also do its part in its own areas of jurisdiction, as I mentioned earlier.

A number of examples of class actions are currently before the courts in Quebec against the practices of financial institutions contravening the Consumer Protection Act. I will come back to this later. I would, however, like to give a few examples of practices considered dubious. The typical example is that of over credit limit fees.

American journalist Bob Sullivan wrote a book on the hidden fees paid by American consumers. Practices in Canada are similar in many respects. Hidden fees include the famous over credit limit fees. The problem lies in the fact that the companies issuing credit cards now allow consumers to exceed the limit of the credit card rather than simply refusing the transaction. They subsequently charge the over credit limit fee. In the United States, the fees run between $10 and $35, which is similar to such fees in Canada. Within my own circle, someone mentioned this problem to me. I was stunned to learn that an institution could charge fees when, in a way, it was the negligent party since it had allowed the credit limit established under contract to be exceeded.

In 2004 and 2006, Option consommateurs launched a class action suit against certain financial institutions which issued credit cards. Their suit was against financial institutions which had made unilateral decisions to raise customers' credit limits and to allow people to exceed their limits by imposing over-limit charges, fortunately an offence under the Consumer Protection Act. I would emphasize that what was “fortunate” was that this practice is banned by the consumer legislation, and not the non-compliance with the law by certain companies. I am sure that was understood by everyone.

So, in November 2006 and October 2007, this class action was allowed by the Superior Court against the following financial institutions: Amex Canada and the Bank of Nova Scotia for over-limit charges to customers; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Citibank Canada, HSBC Canada, MBNA Canada, and the Bank of Montreal, for both raising credit limits without the cardholder's consent and for imposing over-limit fees. The National Bank of Canada was also included for increasing credit limits.

According to Option consommateurs, the purpose of this class action was to obtain the reimbursement of illegally charged fees and exemplary damages.

In closing, it might be worth pointing out that the consumer protection bureau states in its Internet site that:

The merchant or financial institution cannot raise the credit limit, if there is one, except at the express request of the cardholder. The mere fact that the consumer exceeds his or her original credit limit by making a purchase or purchases does not constitute an express request within the meaning of the act.

The class action is still underway and we wish good luck to all those involved .

I will not have time to discuss excess late payment charges. I will simply point out that it would be appropriate, in these difficult economic times, for the government to pass legislation on this. That is why we are supporting the NDP motion.

[Official Languages, April 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this is another example of a government that just does not respect its own law. It is always those who cry out the loudest for law and order that do not respect it.

What is his government waiting for to do its job and order the Canada Border Services Agency to comply with not only the Official Languages Act but also the directives of the IRB tribunal?

[Official Languages, April 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the use of French at the IRB, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism is demanding that the independence of the board be respected. So be it. However, the Canada Border Services Agency reports directly to the Minister of Public Safety.

Consequently, will the Minister of Public Safety stop condoning the reprehensible behaviour of the agency by remaining silent and order it to translate its evidence into French and to respect the commissioner's decision?

[Citizenship and Immigration, April 22nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, during an IRB hearing on April 9, the Border Services Agency once again submitted new evidence in English only. When the opposing side insisted on receiving a French version, the agency decided to withdraw the evidence rather than have it translated.

Can the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism explain why the Border Services Agency was so hostile, why it chose to risk losing a case rather than “lower” itself to using French in Quebec?

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, April 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank all the people who have supported this bill and have even campaigned and encouraged all the members to vote. Some organizations have even formally shown their support, and I want to thank them.

I would like to name a few of them, even though I have only five minutes: Amnesty International, its francophone Canada section and the Edmonton and Toronto sections; the Association éducative transculturelle; the Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association, which, God knows, is aware of the gaps in the current act; the Barreau du Québec; the Canada Tibet Committee; the Carrefour d'aide aux nouveaux arrivants; the Centre africain de développement et d'entraide; the Centre communautaire congolais des aînés; the South Asian Women's Community Centre; the Centre de femmes Marie-Dupuis; the Centre d'Éducation et de Développement Interculturel; the Centre des femmes de Verdun; the Centre des travailleuses en maisons privées; the Centre justice et foi; the Centre social d'aide aux immigrants; the Christian Reformed World Relief Committee; the Church of the Resurrection; the Comité régional d’éducation pour le développement international de Lanaudière; the Confédération des syndicats nationaux; the Conseil central du Montréal métropolitain; the United Church of Canada; the Fédération des femmes du Québec; le Groupe Solidarité Justice; the Jesuit Refugee and Migrant Service; the Montreal City Mission; the Coffret; the Maison de la famille; the Mennonite Coalition for Refugee Support; the Mouvement contre le viol et l'inceste; the Quaker Committee for Refugees; the Réseau d'intervention auprès des personnes ayant subi la violence organisée; the Service d'accueil des nouveaux arrivants de Shawinigan; the Legal Aid Services at the Centre francophone de Toronto; the Southern Ontario Sanctuary Coalition; the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes; the Synod of the Diocese of Niagara; the Toronto Refugee Affairs Council; West Hill United Church; and the YMCAs of Quebec.

I named a few of these organizations because I did not wish to spend all five minutes on it. I wanted to show that people from all backgrounds and organizations, not just organizations that defend immigrants and refugees, support this bill.

First, it is the law. It is surprising to see the Conservatives refuse to implement the law. We are told constantly that it is the law and order party, but the Conservatives are tripping over themselves to avoid implementing the act. The next time they claim to defend the law, we will remind them of this situation.

I was surprised to hear the member for Richmond state that we should get rid of those who take advantage of our system and accept those who genuinely need our help and protection. We all know the problem lies in how to do that. That is why we want a refugee appeal division.

I will use the courts to make an analogy. It would be like saying that we are going to abolish the Court of Appeal, the Superior Court and the Supreme Court of Canada because what is truly important is that criminals go to prison quickly and that those who are not guilty be released quickly. We know that; however, that is not the issue. The issue to how to ensure that mistakes are not made in both directions. My colleague clearly pointed this out. The rate of denial by some board members is almost 100%.

The application by a citizen from my riding, Abdelkader Belaouni, a blind and diabetic Algerian, was rejected by Laurier Thibault, a board member who has denied 98% of the applications he has reviewed. In light of this record, we would have to say that something is not working and that there is no justice.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, other board members accept virtually all applications. At present, not even the minister can appeal this decision. However, if a refugee appeal division were in place, he could do so. We could save precious taxpayer money, as my colleague from Richmond stated. We would all benefit from a more effective, efficient and, above all, fair system.

For this reason, I invite all members to support this bill.

[Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act, April 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today.

I am also happy to hear my colleague in the Liberal Party say he will support the bill and is concerned about social housing. That is not really what we remember of the Liberal government, especially under Paul Martin, when it made deep cuts to the transfer payments for social housing. This seems to confirm what people always say about the Liberal Party: it is more progressive in the opposition than in power. If it ever does get back into power, the Bloc Québécois will make sure it forms a minority government and there are as many Bloc members on hand as possible to ensure that its alleged concerns about social housing actually result in some concrete action.

What we are talking about here is safe, affordable housing. I started talking spontaneously about social housing, although that is not the only issue here. It is a major concern, though, of the Bloc Québécois and there is a lot of it in my riding. Jeanne-Le Ber is a riding in southwest Montreal that is crossed by the Lachine canal, and which, as hon. members may recall, was Canada’s industrial birthplace. It was here in my riding that industrial Canada was born.

There are still many people in my riding who are part of what is called the working class. They have very modest incomes, and all too often, they even live in poverty. In some cases, their families have been living for generations in such working-class areas as Saint-Henri or Pointe-Saint-Charles. They are therefore very rooted in the community.

There are some new people as well, including me. They come to live here and are more affluent. Often they are professionals or retired baby boomers who want to move closer to the centre of Montreal after having raised their children in the suburbs. They buy splendid condos with views over the Lachine canal or convert apartments, duplexes or triplexes into single-family homes. It is fantastic. It is a great place. This influx causes a problem, though, because it results in a clash or confrontation, even though I do not like the word. There are two conflicting uses for the land. Every time a triplex, for example, is converted into a single-family dwelling, two apartments disappear where people of more modest means could have lived.

We have to find a way to reconcile these uses because I think that kind of diversity is good. It is good to have neighbourhoods that include people of all social classes, people with higher incomes and those of more modest means. That is a social ideal I can envision, and I think it is much better than a society with poor neighbourhoods, ghettos in one part of town and rich neighbourhoods with big fancy houses in another.

However, we have to understand that the people who have been living there for generations, people who have relatively low incomes, are finding it harder and more expensive to keep living in south-western Montreal because newcomers to the area, those who have moved to Verdun, are improving their properties, which causes rent to go up and makes it nearly impossible to find affordable housing.

What should we do to encourage diversity in these neighbourhoods? We have to find a way to create a more balanced market. Demand is high, and that kind of pressure increases rental rates, so we have to intervene to create downward pressure that will result in a more balanced market.

There are ways to do that. One way is to build social housing, affordable housing and housing co-ops. People in my riding are working very hard to make that happen, and they need government support. The question is, which government should be providing that support?

The Bloc Québécois believes that this issue falls under the Government of Quebec's jurisdiction. These are social programs that provide direct assistance to individuals. We believe, as does the Government of Quebec—unanimously, I might add—that it should have full control over the implementation of social housing, community housing and affordable housing policies in Quebec.

However, we also believe that the federal government should contribute financially. Among other things, we believe that 1% of the budget for federal government programs—some $2 billion per year—should be transferred to Quebec and the provinces so that they can implement their own housing policies.

Furthermore, in the last session we introduced a bill that proposed using the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation surpluses, which are funded in part by revenues generated through premiums paid by wealthier citizens when they purchase homes. Thus, it would be a meaningful gesture to distribute this wealth and use these billions of dollars sitting idle at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to provide affordable housing to those most in need.

Having said that, I am pleased to see that, at least on this matter, the NDP has broached the issue of respect for Quebec's jurisdictions. The clause giving Quebec the right to opt out of any national program with full compensation—that goes without saying—is necessary in order for us to support the bill. We will support it and send it to committee. Needless to say, if it returns to this chamber without that clause, we will no longer be able to support it.

We are hopeful that this clause will be introduced and debated in committee. We are talking about the right to opt out with full compensation. It goes without saying that if Quebec is not given compensation and is simply told to take it or leave it, this will not work. The Government of Quebec already invests in affordable housing programs and it must continue to be the one and only authority in this matter.

In this regard, I would like to read an excerpt found on page 21 of a study on the cost of federalism for Quebec in the housing sector prepared by the Société d'habitation du Québec in September 1995.

Federal housing measures represent interference in a provincial jurisdiction. The federal government has imposed very rigid rules for housing measures. It has also made its financial participation contingent upon a multitude of administrative rules as well as pan-Canadian objectives and criteria, making it difficult to plan interventions in a Quebec context. The presence of the federal government in this sector of activity has resulted in much administrative duplication engendering additional costs that undermine the coherence of interventions.

This was obviously written before the deep cuts by the Liberals. Now that it is time to reinvest in affordable housing, we believe that the government must continue to respect the authority of the Government of Quebec in this matter.

[Citizenship and Immigration, April 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Ariel Arenas, a former Mexican police officer, believes his life is in danger because he knows too much about drug traffickers, but his refugee claim has been refused. Mr. Arenas is in a dilemma at the present time. He is the object of an expulsion order from the border services, yet at the same time he has been ordered to appear before the IRB at his wife's hearing.

After question period, could the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism take the 20 steps necessary to bring him over to his colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, in order to explain to him that if Mr. Arenas wishes to comply with the subpoena, he would need to still be in Canada?

[Committees of the House, April 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and I seek the unanimous consent of the House to adopt the following motion:

That the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, presented on Wednesday, February 25, 2009, be concurred in.

[Citizenship and Immigration, March 31st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, only 37 or 42% of the existing 89 competent board members were renewed. The remaining 58% were not renewed, even though their qualifications were recognized by the IRB.

Are we to understand that the minister did not renew the contracts of the remaining 58% because he did not consider them conservative enough for his taste and he wanted to keep spots to reward friends of the party, as the Liberals did before them?

[Citizenship and Immigration, March 31st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism claims he is bound by the recommendations of the committee responsible for applications for appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. But according to the latest Auditor General's report, there is a standing list of candidates that is updated regularly from which the minister can choose. There are currently 99 names on that list. The minister therefore had plenty of other choices.

Why, then, did he choose to appoint controversial Conservatives like Pharès Pierre and John Cryer, who is a homophobe?