SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 254 - Nov/23/23

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)

Nov/23/23 4:13:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is a colleague from British Columbia, and we know that in British Columbia we have some of the highest housing prices in the country. We know that rent has doubled, and housing costs have doubled. In this legislation that we are debating today, two of the biggest issues that we are dealing with are inflation and the cost of housing. Inflation has caused interest rates to increase which has then caused interest rate payments to be higher for people. Could the member tell us if this legislation would address inflation or interest rates?

98 words

Mr. Marc Dalton

Nov/23/23 4:14:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, no. This is just a bill of part measures. It has a couple of pieces that are good, but it does not really address inflation. One of the causes of inflation is that the Liberals have not changed their reckless spending. They have a $15-billion plant that is costing every Canadian family $1,000 to employ 1,600 temporary foreign workers. The Liberals are still out of control with their spending, and things are only going to get worse, even if they take little pieces here and there. Rather than Canadians having little pieces of what the Liberals are bringing out of Conservative bills, what they need to do is actually vote for the real deal, and see lives positively changed.

124 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Nov/23/23 4:15:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, before I get started, I really want to thank the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge for answering my question. He could have tried to skate around it, but he hit it right on. I question the sincerity in his answer, but at least he answered my question. He did not skate around it. I appreciate that, and I just wanted to put that on the record. Here we are talking about this very important piece of legislation that has to do with affordable housing and the groceries act and how we can amend other acts in order to improve those two challenges that Canadians are facing right now. However, I have heard at least two Conservatives in this debate. Just moments ago, the member for Red Deer—Mountain View was talking about time allocation and concerned about limiting debate on this, but then he never even talked about the bill. The member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge never even talked about the bill. My original question for him, had I not been waiting to ask him this question on the carbon tax in B.C., was going to be whether he had actually read the bill because what he was talking about had nothing to do with the bill. He did not even reference all the measures that are in the bill. An NDP member asked him a question, and he still did not answer it. I find it very fascinating that here we have the Conservatives with their full outrage jumping up and saying, “You're not letting us debate” and “You're allocating time.” Meanwhile, with the time that is allocated to discuss this bill, they are not even talking about it. I can only imagine it is not all that important to them if they are not even using the allocated time to actually discuss it. I am noticing a trend. When we introduced the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement a few weeks ago, the Conservatives were taking a very similar approach. They talked nothing about the bill and did not seem to have a position on it. However, after it had been tabled for quite a while and there had been a prestudy in committee and it had been going on for quite a while, all of a sudden they decided, “Oh, I think we found something that we could use to justify why we are going to vote against this. It mentions a carbon tax in the preamble. Yes, this is exactly how we will vote against this.” Suddenly, the next week, they focused on this narrative and then they voted against it, but they did not mention it once before that. I wonder who the award goes to in the Conservative Party for finding that red herring for them. It is absolutely shameful. I say this in the context that this is what is happening with the bill before us. I would love to know if they are going to vote in favour of it or if they are still in the process in the backrooms over there trying to figure out what words they can find in it to justify voting against it. In this debate, I will try to focus a little bit on what I have heard. I have heard the member for Red Deer—Mountain View and a couple of members earlier talk about the price on pollution, or the carbon tax, and I will take the opportunity to set the record straight on some of that stuff. Eight out of 10 Canadians are better off with the rebate they get back after the price on pollution. Now, I should clarify, in all honesty, that the two out of 10 Canadians who do not are probably the most well off and probably the base that the Conservatives are banking on and so they spread this misinformation to try to suggest that this is not the case. However, I will give members the facts. This has just recently been published. The average family of four in Alberta gets $1,544 back per year. The average family of four in Manitoba gets $1,056 back. In Saskatchewan, it is $1,360. In Nova Scotia, it is $992. In P.E.I., it is $960. In Newfoundland, it is $1,312. In New Brunswick, it is $368. In Ontario, my home province, it is $976. As a matter of fact, when we look at the four provinces that are fully under the federal backstop because they have not implemented their own program, the average family spends about $500 on the price on pollution and gets back $804. Eight out of 10 Canadians are better off as a result of what they are getting back. The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader raised this in a question earlier. Why do they never talk about the rebate? The rebate is such a fundamental core part of this. Conservatives are more interested in spreading misinformation by suggesting that this is a tax, by suggesting that it contributes to inflation, which we know it does not, and then, most recently, by suggesting that it somehow impacts the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. That was probably the biggest mistake they made. What they did was make a concerted effort to obviously find this little bit in the agreement and say, “Aha, we found it. In the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, we found it. It says 'carbon tax' in the preamble. Let us use it.” The genius who discovered that probably did not take the time to look. Had they done that, they would have discovered that Ukraine has had a price on pollution, a carbon tax, since 2011. Ukraine needed to do that because as part of its efforts— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

984 words

Alberta

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Nov/23/23 4:22:10 p.m.
Watch

This is not a conversation. When the hon. member finishes speaking, hon. members can ask questions. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

24 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/23/23 4:22:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the reason Ukraine has had that price on pollution since 2011 is that in order to get into the European market, which it had been trying to do for so long, the European market required that it have a price on pollution in order to stay competitive. That is why Ukraine had it. This incredible red herring that we are hearing recently from the Conservatives is nothing more than just that, a red herring. The reality is that there is a faction within the Conservative Party of Canada. Some of the MPs over there have gone down the rabbit hole of alt-right-wing American politics. Now we are seeing that come out. I kind of always suspected it, because we have been seeing it happen over the last number of years, but I did not realize that this faction actually had a stranglehold on the party. It is very likely that the Leader of the Opposition is part of that, given everything that he has done. Let us go back to the YouTube meta tags. If members want to understand the Leader of the Opposition's support for Ukraine, they should just look at his social media posts from when President Zelenskyy visited us in September. He did not tweet about it. He did not put anything on Facebook about it. He did not put anything on Instagram about it. He was completely silent. He never said a word about Zelenskyy's visit. The irony is that he did say a word about Zelenskyy appearing before this Parliament when he came a year earlier, when he came by video conference. He actually tweeted, at that time, in 2022, how proud he was to see President Zelenskyy appear before Parliament. Do members know what the member for Calgary Nose Hill did? I do not know if a lot of people caught this, but it was almost a little subtle act of defiance. Do members know what she did? When he came this year in 2023, she quote tweeted his tweet from a year ago, congratulating him on coming. That was clearly a dig at the Leader of the Opposition because she recognized how silent he was on it. The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and all Conservatives can stand up and preach to me all they want about how much they support Ukraine, but their actions speak louder than words. They are silent when the president comes here. They are silent when it came to determining what they were going to say on the Ukraine free trade deal, and then they voted against it. This is a deal that President Zelenskyy asked us to vote in favour of—

453 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Nov/23/23 4:25:39 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands is rising on a point of order.

15 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Nov/23/23 4:25:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-57 Bill C-56

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask you to remind the member of the bill we are talking about today. It is Bill C-56. I believe he is talking about Bill C-57, which was passed—

38 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Nov/23/23 4:25:55 p.m.
Watch

We are actually talking about Motion No. 30, but I would like to remind the hon. member of that being the subject we are discussing.

25 words

30
Remind

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/23/23 4:26:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member was sitting in the chamber when his two colleagues just spoke, but neither of them spoke about the bill at all. The reality is that the Conservative Party of Canada does not support Ukraine. The Conservatives can say all they want about what they do, but their actions speak louder than words. We have seen that, and Canadians have seen that. It is coming to light now, and everybody is becoming aware of it. It is not supporting Ukraine for the same reason that Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene are not supporting Ukraine, which is that far right influence, and it is in the Conservative Party of Canada. They know it. For those who are still wondering, the real reason the Leader of the Opposition is so petrified to show support for Ukraine is that he would lose votes to Maxime Bernier. It is that simple. He is trying to hold on to a base. When it comes to this particular piece of legislation, we are talking about increasing competition and, by default, increasing trade. We know that, to ensure we put the right measures in place when we are looking internally within our own country, we have to recognize that there are anti-competitive practices going on. When Loblaw has nearly 40% of the market share of groceries between Loblaw's and Shoppers Drug Mart and every other entity it owns, we quickly start to see that it would be extremely difficult for competition to exist. In comparison, Walmart in the United States, which is the retailer with the largest grocery share, has about 18% of the marketplace. We know that, in Canada, there is a problem with this. That is why this bill seeks to strengthen the rules around competition. It seeks to empower the Competition Bureau further, providing it with more resources and the money it would need to effectively operate and giving it the tools to make advances and make moves, when it needs to, to ensure that competition exists. Competition is great, and we need to encourage competition, but sometimes government, or government-charged agencies, have to get involved because we do run into situations where that competition starts to get limited, and then we see price-fixing, as we saw with the Canada Bread Company and its bread price-fixing. That is why this is so incredibly important. Conservatives are going to tell people that inflation is driven by a price on pollution, when it has virtually no effect on it. They are going to tell people that a price on pollution is why the price of gas and oil has skyrocketed over the last year, and it is simply not true. The reality is that, in the oil and gas sector specifically, the carbon tax added two cents per litre. It is two cents and people get more than that back. Meanwhile, wholesale profit margins for the large oil distributors rose by 18¢ per litre. I do not hear the outrage about the profits. The profits of Loblaw were announced just yesterday for its third quarter, and it was, again, a double-digit increase in profits over the previous quarter. It is extremely important that we put the right measures in place to assist with this. I can understand why Conservatives are reluctant to do this. They never seem to fall on the side of those who are struggling, of those who need these supports and tools in place, or of those who need the benefit of healthy competition. This government will do that. I have said this many times in the House before, and I will say it again: I am very glad there is another party in the room who are acting like adults, which is the NDP. It sees this need as well, and it sees the need to push this legislation through for the betterment of all Canadians. We all know that, if we had not put closure on this today, the bill would be here forever. That is what Conservatives have done with so many other pieces of legislation.

692 words

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

Nov/23/23 4:31:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member got to the point towards the end, under your guidance. I would like to stay on the topic of the bill and talk about one of the main things this bill would do, which is that it would take the GST off of purpose-built rentals to promote the building of new rental accommodations. In my riding of South Okanagan—West Kootenay, it is almost impossible to find rental accommodation. When I talk to the city planners, they say that every day they are building more housing units than they have ever built before, but every day there are fewer affordable housing units because they are being lost to Airbnbs, people buying holiday homes, etc. The people buying the new housing units are the people who can afford them, and they already have houses. What is the member's government doing to actually build affordable, non-market housing that would really make a difference for Canadians? Getting out of the way and taking the tax off will build more units, but it will not help people who need affordable housing.

185 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/23/23 4:32:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is the government's job to incentivize various parts of the marketplace from time to time when it sees the need for the betterment for society. Sometimes we do that with respect to encouraging the growth of a particular manufacturing sector, such as we have seen with electric batteries and the car revolution that is coming along with EVs, and sometimes it is about incentivizing through removing the GST on building new rental units. On the topic of affordable housing specifically, this is just one tool of many. I have made various announcements that are based on different levels of government support. We may see the rents in a particular building being required at 80% of CMHC market rents and sometimes as low as 50% or 60% based on the supports that have been received. We also have supports for rent that is geared to one's income. The member would know that the ministry responsible deals with that as well. This is one program he mentioned, but there is a whole host of programs. We have to approach housing from a holistic perspective. If we were just doing the one measure he mentioned, it certainly would not be enough, but we are doing a lot more than that.

212 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Nov/23/23 4:34:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the bill we are debating today contains parts of two different Conservative private members' bills buried within it. I am wondering if the member opposite could enlighten us as to how many other great Conservative ideas it will take for his government to get to the point where it can finally look at balancing the budget.

58 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/23/23 4:34:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, does the member really think that Canadians care whose idea it was? It is an amazing idea. I thank him very much for it. Let us celebrate it together. Now I hope the member will vote for it. That was such a ridiculous comment. I know this better than most people. I brought forward a private member's bill in 2016, and before it got voted on, the government put it in a piece of legislation it had brought forward. I rejoiced in that, knowing that Canadians would be better off as a result. Only a petty politician would spend time talking about it being a certain person's idea, not someone else's, and why the other person is getting the credit for it. Who cares? This is for the betterment of our country.

137 words

Celebrate

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Nov/23/23 4:35:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the reality is that we have the scale and scope of a housing crisis, and it is manifest right across this country. In fact, in my riding of New Westminster—Burnaby, average rents are now $2,500 a month for a one-bedroom apartment. That means families are homeless or are doubling or tripling up. In some cases, there may be half a dozen people living in a one-bedroom apartment. With that scale and scope, and knowing how awful the Harper regime was, why did the Liberals not move to immediately build the housing that is absolutely necessary? Why are they looking, through the fall economic statement, to wait two years before the funding that is so crucial to building affordable housing, which is based on 30% of income, and that so many Canadians need now, is put into place? Why are the Liberals, despite the pressure, hesitating on doing the right thing?

157 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/23/23 4:36:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, but it has a false pretext, which is to assume that nothing else has ever been done, which is not the case. We have had, for a number of years now, the national housing strategy. I am aware of several projects in my own riding that have been built, as well as those on the west coast and on the east coast. This is what I find most frustrating about the last two questions. They assume that this is the only measure that has ever been taken by the government on housing. We have been dealing with housing challenges since we came into office. We had the first national housing strategy introduced, I believe around 2018, and we have been trying to tackle this ever since. Yes, the problem has been getting worse. That is why we are throwing even larger measures at it right now, such as the one the member indicated.

159 words

Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)

Nov/23/23 4:37:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on the whole affordability issue, and this bill apparently deals with affordability, how can we guarantee that it is going to go down or get easier for constituents in my, the member's and everybody else's ridings? We have tried this and that, and we have said that we were going to lower prices, but people are still feeling the pinch. How can he say this bill would help Canadians with affordability?

75 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/23/23 4:38:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I cannot guarantee anything. I do not think anybody can guarantee anything realistically. What I can say is that we look at where the problem is. We know the problem is in food inflation. We know that food prices have inflated much faster than the average. We know there is a small oligopoly in Canada in the major retailers of food. That is why the minister responsible brought those CEOs to Ottawa to talk about what can be done. That is why this bill would empower the Competition Bureau to do more by putting more teeth into its ability to deal with the problems of anti-competitiveness. Again, this is one measure that I think goes to the heart of competition and to ensuring competition because we recognize that, when there is healthy competition, people get the best value for their dollar, which they are not getting right now specifically as it relates to the retail grocery industry.

160 words

Mr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer—Mountain View, CPC)

Nov/23/23 4:39:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, just so the member is aware, we are talking about Motion No. 30. Therefore, there is no reason why anybody should be chastised for not talking about some of the other issues. Of course, they are important and have been described before. One thing I would like to mention, because the Liberals seem to feel they have found something special to speak about, is that, yes, Ukraine is part of carbon pricing in the European Union, but that is so it can participate. In 2019, and this comes from McKinsey and Company's Ukraine carbon pricing policy, in Poland it was $1.00, in Sweden it was $139, in Ukraine it was 36¢, and in Canada at that time, to be fair, was $20, which is 55 times more. That is what we are talking about. Therefore, I think it is somewhat rich that the Liberals are taking that position. The point I wish to make is that I have gone to OECD meetings in Europe where they were discussing the concept of the carbon tax. The major push from this country was that those countries must make sure to put their stamp on Canada's carbon tax. That happened both in Berlin when I was there and in Birmingham two summers ago. These are the types of things the government is pushing, and it continues to do it now.

233 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/23/23 4:41:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comment about talking about whatever we want. Maybe he should talk to the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands about that, as he is the one who called me out on it. This does not matter because nowhere in this deal does it commit Ukraine to Canada's system. It is a red herring to suggest otherwise. The member will have to explain to me why Conservatives never raised the issue. First, they started talking about how it was a woke free trade deal. They started out talking about everything but a carbon tax. They only started talking about a carbon tax being in this about a week ago. They just discovered it then. They should not act like they have been on this all along because they have not. They know it is a red herring.

144 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Nov/23/23 4:41:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am always happy to see you. I like speaking when you are in the Chair. I know you are eagerly awaiting my speech, but I know you are even more eagerly awaiting that of the colleague with whom I am sharing my time, the member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot, a man so very cultivated that his riding is zoned for agriculture. I feel like repeating that we are faced with closure yet again. They are reducing our debate time and bypassing the process. They are taking time away from the Standing Committee on Finance for a bill that we feel is important. The argument the government gives for working this way is this. It says that housing is so important that we need to ram this through by bypassing parliamentary processes and that the Competition Act reform is so important that we need to ram it through before Christmas by bypassing parliamentary processes. I am not very satisfied with that type of logic for the following reason. There have been problems with the Canadian competition regime for years. In the early 1980s, we had 13 big box stores in Canada. Geographically speaking, Canada is a rather large country. We allowed mergers and acquisitions to occur at the expense of consumers to the point where the minister can now sit down with the entire grocery market around a coffee table in his office one morning. The government let that happen. The Liberals and Conservatives let that happen. We have had alternating Liberal and Conservative governments, and this has never been urgent until now. It was never urgent until the Liberals' pre-session caucus meeting where an argument broke out and then, all of a sudden, they had to move quickly. All of a sudden, this is so urgent that every parliamentarian who is not a Liberal is having their rights violated. Housing and the GST on housing are so urgent that they have to be rammed through under a gag order. Where did this measure come from? I am not saying it is a bad measure. I am not saying that it will not help increase the supply of housing. What I can say is that the Liberals had a caucus meeting prior to the parliamentary session. They were down in the polls, they panicked and they had to do something about housing. They came up with the GST measure, but were not even able to include the parameters of a major change to the tax laws in the bill. Now here they are introducing a very flawed bill that will give the government disproportionate regulatory power. Now they are telling us that it has to be passed quickly. However, they had not thought about it before. This is the government's new way of skirting democratic debate: gag orders. Today, when we ask questions about the administration of the Canada Revenue Agency's programs, we are told that the CRA is independent. Now there are new bills where we are given only a framework and everything else is set by regulation. The Liberals had promised help for the disabled. They finally introduced a bill with a framework, but it does not include a penny for the disabled and its parameters are unknown to us. That is why I have to say that, once again, the Liberal government is disrespecting parliamentarians. I believe in parliamentary work. I disagree with lots of people in the House, but I recognize that they take the time to look at the issues, read the bills, propose amendments, rise in the House and express their views on bills. I think those parliamentarians should have the right to speak. Now the Liberals are talking about the cost of living. They say we have to bypass the whole process because of the cost of living. The economic statement contained no immediate social housing measures. That is what Quebec wanted. We have permanent programs to build low-income housing and housing co-ops. The federal government has been stalling on handing money over to Quebec for years. The Bloc Québécois had to push to get the last $900 million we were owed. There is virtually nothing in the latest economic statement that acknowledges the urgency of the situation. Take the cost of living, for one. Now that there are only five major grocery chains left, we have to hustle for legislation they took decades to introduce. On housing, not only is there nothing in the statement, but, to make things worse, they are complicating matters with Quebec by creating the department of interference in Quebec's municipal affairs. It is a bad idea. Pierre Elliott Trudeau's government tried it back in the day and gave up. That government had no luck doing anything with it. Now it is the son's turn. Repeating a mistake twice is never a sign of common sense. It must be an intergenerational thing. Small and medium-sized businesses and chambers of commerce in my riding are asking that we give our businesses more time to repay their Canada emergency business account loans. What is this government's contemptuous response? It says that the federal government provided $8 out of $10 of assistance during the pandemic and that it has helped businesses tremendously. However, it did so with our tax dollars, and piled up a debt that our children will have to pay interest on. This is not money that the federal government conjured out of thin air. It is money that the federal government borrowed at the expense of future generations. True, we collectively took the risk. However, the government is telling us that since it helped businesses during the first phase of the crisis, it has the moral right to abandon them during the second. Now the government is talking to us about competition. When people in my riding go out shopping, how many small businesses, suppliers and shops will be closed? How many fewer stores will people have to choose from? What effect will this have on consumer choice and prices in rural areas, where often the only place people can buy many products is from a small business? Despite all that, the government is doing absolutely nothing. Earlier, I had a phone conversation with a produce grower in my riding. He called to tell me that he had a bad season, that it was terrible. I see Conservative MPs looking at me and they know that what I am saying is true. We all get these calls. People are asking us when the government is going to pay out emergency support to get them through the year. The government's answer is that it will not do anything. It will not offer them any emergency assistance to make up for the worst season they have ever had. How will consumers be affected when produce markets close? In the world of fruit and vegetables, we need produce growers to provide us with local, environmentally friendly products that are grown nearby, that are homegrown and that revitalize our rural areas and regions. The government is doing absolutely nothing about that. I understand that the NDP wanted to shut down the debate. I do not know what they got in return, but I am very curious. Everyone in the parliamentary precinct is dying to know what the NDP is getting in return for shutting down the debate. Everyone wants to know how the movie ends. I cannot wait to find out. I do not know what the NDP got but I think it was probably pretty costly for the Liberals, although the NDP did not get anything in the economic update. What we want are measures for the middle class. We want measures for our farmers, for our businesses and for housing, but there are no such measures. Now, on the substance of the bill, it is a good bill. We have been saying for years that this kind of legislation should be introduced, specifically regarding competition. In Canada, our competition regime is archaic on every level. It is not that the commissioner of competition does not want to do his job. The Competition Bureau employs competent people, but there are fundamental flaws in their mandate. Among other things, mergers and acquisitions are allowed based on efficiency gains alone. In Canada, when two businesses merge, no one asks whether the cost reduction and efficiency gain will allow them to be more competitive with the others and in turn lower the price consumers pay. They only ask whether they are able to be more efficient and to hell with the consumer. I do not have enough time to get into the details of the bill, but I can say that it will change this particular situation. It will also prohibit other anti-competitive practices. In Canada, it is prohibited to directly come to an agreement with a competitor to reduce competition, but getting the dirty work done by another is allowed. For example, a business has the right to tell the shopping centre it is renting space from that it cannot rent space to another grocer or another hardware store. They get others to do the dirty work. This bill contains a number of good things. They include the government giving the Competition Bureau more power to conduct investigations, obtain documents and compel witnesses to testify. That will be a good thing. I will conclude my speech by saying that a bank merger is coming. HSBC is being acquired by the Royal Bank of Canada, or RBC. This file is on the Minister of Finance's desk, and the Competition Bureau only looked into the efficiencies that would be generated by the transaction. If the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry is at all committed to his principles, he will require that the Minister of Finance wait for this legislation to be passed and for the Competition Bureau to conduct a new analysis before authorizing this transaction.

1674 words