SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 329 - Jun/11/24

Jun/11/24 12:21:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about investments. It is spending. The government is spending enormous amounts, billions of dollars in fact, to fix the problems it in fact has created itself. These programs would not have been needed had the government taken actions earlier on to fix the problems that we now face. On the housing file, the government has spent $89 billion on its national housing strategy. Never has so much been spent to accomplish so little. I mentioned in my speech that the government, in 2022, built fewer homes than the former government did in 1972. That is a failure on the part of the current government.

109 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

Jun/11/24 12:22:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, let me reassure my colleague that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this budget. One of the reasons we will be voting against this budget has to do with the government's commitments toward the oil and gas industry. The budget commits up to $83 billion by 2035 to an industry that is raking in record-breaking profits while contributing to global warming. I would simply like to know if this is one of the reasons my colleague will be voting no too: the fact that this government is handing billions of dollars to an industry that does not need the money and that is helping exacerbate climate change.

117 words

Mr. Tony Baldinelli

Jun/11/24 12:23:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, again, we are voting against the government, and the budget in particular, because of the government's failures over nine years of being in power. Its actions have caused the affordability crisis we are facing today. Our hope is that a non-confidence vote will be held in our favour and that a carbon tax election will be held so a common-sense Conservative is elected to try to fix the problems the government has created.

78 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Jun/11/24 12:23:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one thing the member and I can agree on is that the Liberals have failed to ensure that Canadians across the country have housing. However, I have not heard a single concrete, sound solution being put forward by the Conservatives. One such thing that is vital, which we are talking about today, is the rental protection fund. We know that for every one house built, 11 affordable homes are being lost, yet the Conservatives continue to prop up the same corporations that are swooping in and buying up affordable homes, leaving people unable to access the homes they need. Housing is a basic human right. Why does the member continue to participate in delay tactics that are keeping Canadians from being able to access the affordable housing they need and deserve?

133 words

Mr. Tony Baldinelli

Jun/11/24 12:24:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, why did the opposition party that works in tandem with the government vote against our building homes and not bureaucracy act? We put forward a piece of legislation that would address the housing crisis in Canada, and the New Democrats voted to support their Liberal friends.

48 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Jun/11/24 12:25:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-69 is an omnibus budget implementation bill that creates or amends 67 different acts. It enacts the consumer-driven banking act, which makes the federal government exclusively responsible for regulating this sector, with the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada serving as the regulator. Today we are calling on the government to take this division out and fix its flaws over the summer. We want the government to come back in the fall with a framework that does not give Bay Street an undue advantage over other financial institutions, that respects Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction and that delegates the administration of the framework to an appropriate agency. Since financial technology or fintech companies are not federally regulated, Ottawa has opted to regulate them indirectly by controlling the manner in which the banks can transact with them. Specifically, Bill C‑69 provides that banks and other federally regulated financial institutions will be covered by the new act. They will be required to co-operate with fintech companies, but they may do so only in accordance with federal rules and standards. As for institutions that are not federally regulated, they are ignored. They can opt in voluntarily if they get the approval of their province, which would then have to waive the right to apply its own laws to the portion of their activities that comes under the open banking system. For now, Bill C‑69 does not affect insurers, due to the sensitive nature of the medical data they hold, or to intermediaries like brokers, but the framework is likely to expand to cover them in the future. The specific rules and standards that will apply to the sector, particularly in terms of consumer protection and financial liability, will be set out in another bill that is due out in the fall, but the decision to make it exclusively federal is being made now, in Bill C‑69. We urge the government to take out this division, improve it over the summer and present us with a better law this fall. Taking out this division will not delay the bill's coming into force. In practical terms, under this section of Bill C-69, the Quebec Consumer Protection Act and the Quebec Act Respecting the Protection of Personal Information could cease to apply to financial institutions for any activities related to open financial services. The impact of an exclusively federal open banking system on the prudential obligations of Quebec financial institutions, as set out by the Autorité des marchés financiers, is unclear at this point. In addition to forcing Quebec to transfer legislative power to Ottawa, Bill C-69 puts Quebec's institutions at a disadvantage with respect to federal institutions. While banks will have only one set of regulations to follow, an institution like Desjardins would be caught between two governments: the Government of Quebec, for its general operations, and the federal government, for its technological interactions with customers. Being subject to two uncoordinated regulatory bodies could be downright dysfunctional and give banks an egregious advantage over co-ops and trust companies. Bill C-69 gives Bay Street an advantage over other institutions like co-ops and credit unions. As a result—

547 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/11/24 12:28:55 p.m.
Watch

The member for Lac-Saint-Jean is rising on a point of order.

13 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

Jun/11/24 12:28:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there are people talking. If people want to talk, they should do so in the lobbies.

18 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/11/24 12:29:03 p.m.
Watch

That is a good suggestion. Anyone who wants to have a conversation should take it out into the lobbies. That is what they are there for. The hon. member for Joliette.

31 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Jun/11/24 12:29:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69

Mr. Speaker, thank you. I also thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean. Bill C-69 places Quebec in a dilemma in which there are no good options. If we refuse to join the federal framework, our institutions will stay trapped in the 20th century while their federal competitors step into the technological 21st century. Maybe we could let our financial institutions opt in to the federal framework, but then Quebec would have to waive the right to apply its own laws to their activities that come under the open banking system. Then there is the worst-case scenario. In order to survive against its federal competitors, an institution like Desjardins could choose to stop being a Quebec institution within the meaning of Quebec's Cooperatives Act and become a federal institution under Canadian co-operative bank legislation. Trust companies would face the same choice. Since the open banking system could eventually be expanded to cover insurance, all of our insurance companies could switch over to federal regulation. If this worst-case scenario comes to pass, the entire financial sector and all of its activities will be completely outside Quebec's jurisdiction. That is a serious threat to Montreal's status as a financial hub. In short, by using its power over banks to regulate all companies that interact with them, Ottawa is trying to force Quebec and the provinces out of the financial sector, which it failed to do when it was trying to regulate securities. Rather than taking the unilateral, centralist route, Ottawa should have chosen co-operation. It could have called a federal-provincial finance ministers' working meeting on open banking. It could have encouraged them to release a joint statement at the end of this meeting in which the governments announce their intention of developing a common regulatory approach with a clear deadline, such as 2025, and possibly setting up a federal-provincial office. It could have sent a clear message to all financial institutions, not just banks, telling them to agree on a common technology, such as a secure data transfer protocol, because open banking is coming. Lastly, it could have worked on common technical regulations on accreditation rules for fintech companies, security standards, clarification of financial liability, consumer and data protection, and other such matters. This is what we are asking the government to do today. We are asking it to take out the division on open banking that centralizes the sector exclusively at the federal level. We are asking it to take a few months to coordinate with the various players and the provinces and then to come back in the fall with a framework that respects jurisdictions and does not put provincially regulated institutions at a disadvantage. The government could have chosen another model for the open banking system. There is the Interac approach based on self-regulation, as well as the securities approach. Securities fall mainly under provincial jurisdiction, but Ottawa has laws governing federally incorporated companies. The Supreme Court has also recognized federal jurisdiction over systemic risk in the financial sector. In Quebec, the Autorité des marchés financiers is the regulator. To ensure that businesses could raise capital across Canada and that registrations in one province would be recognized everywhere, governments decided to coordinate. That is why Quebec's Business Corporations Act is very similar to the Canada Business Corporations Act and to the corporation laws of all the other provinces. The same is true for all legislation governing the various aspects of securities. Quebec retains its legislative powers. The Quebec act may be stricter in some respects. For example, Quebec is the only province that requires a French version for all corporations registered with the Autorité des marchés financiers. However, this version must comply with the common standard adopted by all governments. This is the approach I prefer. This is the approach preferred by the Bloc Québécois. There is another concern. In Bill C‑69, the government delegates the administration of the framework to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, an agency that mainly promotes financial literacy and that does not have any of the required expertise. In committee, FCAC representatives acknowledged that they did not have expertise in sharing financial data in a way that minimizes the obvious cybersecurity risks. They also told us they do not currently have a plan for developing the expertise needed to oversee the security aspect of open banking. We also asked several questions that the FCAC representatives said they were unable to answer. For example, since fintech companies are not banks, they are not federally regulated. We asked if the government had obtained the consent of the provinces, particularly Quebec, which has its own civil laws, before tabling this bill. They were unable to answer. The answer is no. During the briefing on the notice of ways and means preceding Bill C-69, it was my understanding that provincially regulated financial institutions could join the federal framework if they so chose, provided that the province consents and declines to regulate on its own those activities involving the open banking system. Is this in fact the case? I am unable to get an answer. Which provincial laws will have to take a back seat to the federal laws? There is no answer. Who will be tasked with certifying the technology companies, Ottawa or the Autorité des marchés financiers? I am unable to get an answer. Will Quebec's Consumer Protection Act apply to the activities of the open banking system? There is no answer. In the case of fraud or damages, will it be possible to launch a class action suit under the Civil Code or the Consumer Protection Act against a fintech company? Again, I am unable to get an answer. Will the sharing of financial responsibilities between the financial institution and the technology company necessitate changes to the financial institutions' prudential standards? Will the Autorité des marchés financiers need to change its rules to comply with the federal framework? Here again, I cannot get an answer. None of this is surprising. The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada is not well positioned to manage this framework. It learned it would be receiving this role just before the budget was tabled. This is ridiculous. To avoid a disaster or some risky back-pedalling, let us act today. Let us take this division out of Bill C-69, do our job better and come back with a good bill this fall.

1094 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.)

Jun/11/24 12:36:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work at the finance committee. I have enjoyed working with him. I understand that there are interjurisdictional issues that the member has rightfully pointed out in the debate today in relation to the consumer-driven banking framework. He and I have had some good discussions about that, and I look forward to more. There are a lot of other things in the budget implementation act. I understand that the Bloc will not be supporting the BIA for the reasons that members on that side have given, but could the member speak to the merits of the BIA in relation to, for example, the Canada carbon rebate for small businesses, the investment tax credits for clean-tech manufacturing and clean hydrogen, the new research infrastructure funding, funding for grads and postgrads, or a national school food program? I believe that the Bloc is in support of all of those things.

158 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Jun/11/24 12:37:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his remarks. I really like working with him too. Bill C-69 seeks to amend 67 different statutes. It contains some good things and some that are not so good. For example, it contains the global minimum tax aimed at countering tax havens, and that is good. My colleague was talking about credits for what the government calls “clean” hydrogen. In fact, this is an $11-billion subsidy for the oil companies and the hydrocarbon industry to help gas companies with that. We do not support this. However, we do support the measure that earmarks $1 billion for the school food program. This was one of our asks. And so it goes. There are things we support and things we do not support. Overall, the cons outweigh the pros, so we will not be voting for this bill.

149 words

Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lévis—Lotbinière, CPC)

Jun/11/24 12:37:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague's remarks. I want to pick up on what he said at the end of his speech, when he called this budget ridiculous. Can my colleague elaborate on the ridiculousness of the current government?

42 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Jun/11/24 12:38:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question and for all his interventions in the House. In my speech, I focused on division 16, the open banking system. Clearly, the government did not consult Quebec, the other provinces or any market players. The sector, in other words the business community, has been asking the government to legislate since about 2016. The government finally presented a rough sketch of a bill, but there are major problems with what it is proposing. It really seems like the government does not listen and is slow to act. It does not do much. When it finally does do something, it creates serious problems, as it did in this case. Everything will be decided next fall in a future bill. What is being decided here in this bill is that the federal government is taking control of all jurisdictions that should normally be shared. I therefore urge my colleague to talk to his Conservative Party colleagues about voting with us to have this division taken out of the bill.

179 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Jun/11/24 12:39:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one of the items brought up by my colleague is a national school food program, and I want to touch on that. We all know of and see the great programs that Quebec put into place for child care and school food programs. I am wondering if the member could speak to the difference those programs have made in the lives of children and students and how important it is that children across Canada have access to school food programs, in contrast to what we are seeing right now, which is the Conservatives blocking, delaying and voting against essential programs that Canadians across the country rely on.

109 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Jun/11/24 12:40:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her thoughtful comment. I would say to her that, after the Quiet Revolution, Quebec started developing a social model, Quebec's social-democratic model. This model continued to develop while the governments of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin slashed transfers to the provinces, particularly for social services, in order to balance their budgets. We saw poverty shoot up and the wealth gap widen significantly in the other provinces. Meanwhile, Quebec used the means at hand to implement various measures with the help of community and social groups, people who believe in the redistribution of wealth and equal opportunity for all. Everyone tightened their belts to implement these measures. That is when the family policy, including child care centres, was rolled out, allowing more women to join the workforce. That is also when we adopted a pharmacare plan that covers people without prior coverage. That is all very limited, but while the federal government was slashing transfers by 40%, we put this in place to preserve the social fabric. As expert studies show, at that time, the level of inequality in the other provinces began to look similar to that of the United States, while the conditions in Quebec began to look more like what is found in Scandinavian countries. There are a great many elements, and we always get community groups involved.

234 words

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn, CPC)

Jun/11/24 12:41:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are poor, a theme that is all too common after nine years under the Liberal-NDP government. Canadians know that they could do all the right things: They could go to school, have a part-time job while they are going to school, make ends meet, get a job, and work and put in as much as they can to save up. However, at the end of the day, the government will do everything in its power to work against all that hard work. The Canadian experience, or the Canadian dream, that we used to have in this country used to include things that would seem very basic for any country. If people put in hard work, they could own a home, own a business and send their kids to a good playground or a school where they would not find such things as needles and crack pipes. They would be able to just walk down the street without fear of being mugged or fear of going through tent cities such as those we are seeing across this country. However, after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, that experience is gone. Nine out of 10 young people say that they have lost the dream of home ownership. They see a Liberal-NDP government with a carbon tax scam, which has been increased once again. Because of this, single moms have to make decisions about skipping meals now. There is a woke, ideologically extremist government that will do everything in its power to make sure Canadians will never be successful. This is because we have an out-of-touch Prime Minister who has probably never had to fill his own car with gas or go grocery shopping on his own. I am not even sure if he knows how to open doors anymore. He probably needs to be retrained after next year, when he is not going to be prime minister anymore. The sad part is that the incoming Liberal leader is no different. It is Mark “carbon tax” Carney who is going to be crowned. The pain that the Liberal-NDP government is inflicting on Canadians does nothing to these trust-fund babies or these elitists, but it does everything to harm the middle class and workers. We do not have to look very far to see the pain the government has caused after nine years, with nothing but blind support from the NDP. On top of the tent cities, there are food banks with larger and larger lineups at them and with different demographics than there were nine years ago. In fact, people can have a well-paying job and still have to line up at a food bank. They could be a teacher or a nurse but still end up sleeping in their car because, after nine years, the Liberal-NDP government has doubled housing costs. The government spent $89 billion on housing. Rents and mortgages have doubled; in fact, rents are at the highest rate they have ever been in Canadian history. However, this is no surprise, because we have an out-of-touch Liberal-NDP government that has no clue. According to them, Canadians have never had it so good. However, none of the Liberal or NDP MPs or the Prime Minister actually talk to Canadians. They would rather rub elbows, as Mark “carbon tax” Carney does, with the elites of the world. They would rather do that than sit at a dinner table with everyday Canadians and workers, such as the ones who cannot afford groceries anymore, who are deciding whether they should get that extra grocery item or who are thinking about whether they can actually afford heat or rent this month. Kids are starving because of the cost of food. That is nine years of the Liberal-NDP government. The problem is that productivity in this country has declined once again, for the seventh consecutive quarter. GDP per capita tells us how productive the country is. I spoke on Bill C-69 just weeks ago; at that time, GDP per capita was at the lowest rate since 2016. The week before that, GDP per capita was at the worst rate since 2017. Today GDP per capita is worse than it was in 2014. Canadians have been hit with 40-year highs in inflation because of the Liberal-NDP government's out-of-control spending. They got the most rapid interest rate hikes seen in Canadian history. They got slammed by a carbon tax scam that only went up, did nothing for the environment and only made the cost of gas, groceries and home heating even more expensive. Not only did the government do that, but it also made sure that investment in this country fled. More than $200 billion of investment has already fled since 2016. That is the record of the current government; however, again, Canadians have never had it so good according to the Liberals. In fact, Canadians have had it so good that they want to leave. More Canadians are leaving each year now because of the high cost of living. The Canadian dream that everyone thought of or came here for, just as my family did, is gone, and the proof is in the numbers: the food bank usage, the people fleeing from here or thinking about leaving here, the number of bankruptcies and the insolvencies. I will give an example of a small business owner. Small business owners are the ones the government considers to be tax cheats. I have a friend in the GTA, who left everything back at home and took the big risk of coming to this country. He came at a good time, when taxes were low and rent was half of what it is today. That was under a Stephen Harper government. It was a time when people knew that they could put in hard work and get something back. He started his first job as a janitor in this country; now he is a very successful transport owner. What happened in that time, and what has happened to him now? He was able to save up. He was able to send his kids to a good school, and now they are a part of that business as well. Now he is being taxed more than ever before by the ideology-driven government. In this country, after nine years, success is vilified. If people make money, the Liberals are going to take it. Now my friend has been hit with higher carbon tax costs; he cannot find workers, because the government has broken the immigration system; and, on top of all that, extortion has happened to him. After nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, he is getting hit with every single bad policy: He is paying higher taxes, he is not getting the labour he needs so he can grow his business, and his success is not only vilified by the government, but now extortion is happening to him because the soft-on-crime policies of the current government have done that to him and his business. Now, this person's family lives in fear every single day. The family members live in separate hotel rooms. They have bulletproof windows on their house and cars. On top of that, they are now thinking about leaving. This is a story that is all too common in this country after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government. By every measure, productivity has gone down; that always affects the most vulnerable people and the middle class, the ones whom the Liberal-NDP government is supposedly always standing up for. However, hope is on the horizon; it cannot come soon enough. Under a common-sense Conservative government, we would turn this country around. That Canadian dream would be revered once again around the world. Under the leadership of the member for Carleton, we would axe the tax. We would get rid of the carbon tax for all and bring down the cost of gas, groceries and home heating. We would make sure business owners can keep that money, so they could invest more in themselves and in workers. \We would fix the budget. We would bring in a dollar-for-dollar law, so that a dollar spent needs to have a dollar of savings somewhere, and this would help lower inflation and interest rates. The current government does not understand this, because the Liberals think that budgets balance themselves. We would build the homes, not more of the bureaucracy that we have seen under the government, which has doubled the cost of housing in all respects. We would stop the crime by bringing back mandatory minimum sentences so that we can have safe streets and safe communities once again. Under a common-sense Conservative government led by the member for Carleton, we would bring home that Canadian dream once again. This is something that, after nine years, the out-of-touch Liberal-NDP government has destroyed.

1508 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.)

Jun/11/24 12:51:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was a bunch of slogans strung together with a lot of falsehoods scattered throughout. The main one I would take issue with right now is that the member blames the federal government for global inflation. Members in the Conservative Party do this on a daily basis. This is interesting because every country in the world, postpandemic, has been dealing with an inflationary environment. The member opposite does not acknowledge that and is trying to pin that on the federal government. In relation to this, though, we have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio, the lowest deficit and the strongest projected GDP growth in the G7. We are rated number one for budget balance by the International Monetary Fund. We have 141% postpandemic job recovery, which is higher than that of the United States, and we have maintained our AAA credit rating. We are the first country in the G7 to have experienced a rate cut by our central bank. How does that square with the member opposite's claims?

175 words

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan

Jun/11/24 12:52:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a little rich, coming from the specific member, to be talking about falsehoods. If the Liberals want to talk about falsehoods, they should remember how they sold the carbon tax scam. They said it would be revenue-neutral. Well, that was false. They said it would somehow fix the forest fires and the environment. That was false. In fact, their own environmental department says they do not even track how much this carbon tax scam brings down emissions, and emissions went up. The Liberals know it is just like the Prime Minister: not worth the cost. On top of that, the member wants to talk about inflation. The carbon tax scam added to inflation. It is a big chunk of today's overall CPI number that we see. In fact, if the Liberals were to take away the carbon tax scam, as Conservatives would do, it would dramatically bring down inflation, which means we could bring down interest rates. This carbon tax scam is nothing but a Ponzi scheme under the Liberal government, supported by the NDP, because all they want to do is protect their leaders' pensions.

192 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Jun/11/24 12:53:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we heard my colleague talk about small business. As the former small business critic for the federal NDP, I know that the Conservatives were literally invisible during COVID-19. They did not bring any new ideas to help protect workers or to help small businesses survive. The NDP brought ideas to work with the government and to make sure that we protected jobs. In addition, when it came to credit card merchant fees, we saw the big credit card companies raking over small businesses, but the Conservatives sat silent. It took years of the federal NDP putting pressure on the Liberal government to actually cap merchant fees so that we were in line with Australia and the European Union. We are bringing forward ideas to deal with the labour market crisis, such as child care, dental care and pharmacare. We heard from small business that child care is critical to unlocking workers that need to participate in the workforce. Why are the Conservatives blocking supports, such as child care, dental care and pharmacare, for small businesses?

178 words