44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 11, 2024 10:00AM
- Jun/11/24 12:10:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I know that the Conservatives are against the budget. However, in this budget, the Liberals are giving tens of billions of dollars to oil companies and the fossil fuel industry in Canada.
I know that the Conservative Party finds it difficult to acknowledge the existence of climate change and that it is always extolling the virtues of Canada's oil industry. I would think they would be happy to see that in the budget.
Why are they then voting against it?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/11/24 12:11:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, tens of thousands of families in my riding depend on jobs in these energy companies. These are companies that were founded in Alberta. Many of them started as small businesses.
Thanks to the Government of Alberta, and thanks to the quality of the workers in my riding, we have built companies and wealth worth billions of dollars. The jobs they create pay for the houses, vacations and education of every family in my riding.
I am proud of these big Albertan companies.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in the debate on the budget implementation act, also known as Bill C-69. I will declare from the outset that I will oppose the reckless and incompetent Liberal government and its disastrous economic policy, which is contained in this legislation.
When the budget was introduced, the Liberal government told Canadians that it was adding another $57 billion in new inflationary spending, but guess what? The Parliamentary Budget Officer later confirmed that that enormous number was even higher, to the tune of $61.2 billion. That is a miscalculation of over $4 billion. This new inflationary spending only adds more financial fuel to the flames of inflation. Sadly for Canadians, as long as the NDP-Liberal government stays in power, it is only going to get worse. Already, it is costing Canadians more. In fact, the new spending in this budget would cost the average Canadian family an extra $3,687. I would ask the Canadians watching at home to pause and think about that for a moment. What could their family do if they had an extra $3,687 in their bank account?
As the shadow minister for tourism and the proud member of Parliament for the Niagara Falls riding, which includes the city of Niagara Falls and the towns of Niagara-on-the-Lake and Fort Erie, may I be the first to suggest a vacation in Niagara Falls, Canada's top leisure tourism destination? When common-sense Conservatives proposed to rescind the carbon tax and federal taxes for fuel for the summer to allow Canadians an opportunity to enjoy a vacation, the Liberal government instead criticized those same Canadians and then voted down our motion.
Really, that extra money could go toward anything, especially things that would help improve the quality of life for them and their children. Instead, the Liberal Prime Minister will continue to take their hard-earned money and then immediately throw it at the shocking interest charges that his enormous debt has racked up after nine years. This is simply unsustainable. This is not how we get to a balanced budget either, as the finance minister said she would during her fall fiscal update in 2022.
According to the Fraser Institute, last year the Liberal government was spending more on paying off its debt than it was spending on child care benefits and employment insurance benefits, but it gets worse. This year, the NDP-Liberal government will spend more taxpayer money on servicing its debt than on health care. I will let that sink in for a moment.
After nine years of the Liberal Prime Minister, it feels like we are back in the dying days of the Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne Liberal government at Queen's Park, where rampant, wasteful and reckless Liberal spending on green energy programs made Ontario's debt the highest of any sub-sovereign state in the world. What is both troubling and astounding is the fact that some members on the Liberal side are from the very same cast and government of that Ontario period. Have they learned nothing?
After nine years of the Liberal government, Canadians know prices are up, rent is up, debt is up, taxes are up, and they are fed up. Rent has doubled. Mortgage payments are 150% higher than they were before the current Prime Minister took power. Tent cities exist in almost every major city. Over 50% of Canadians are $200 or less away from going broke. The Liberal government's tax-and-spend inflation is non-discriminatory. It costs Canadians their hard-earned money and savings, and it impacts Canadians of all walks of life, of every demographic and in every region of our great country. Young Canadians have had to put their dreams of buying a home on hold, while hard-working Canadians are working overtime, or two or more jobs, just to get by. Retirees, who have worked hard their whole lives to build our country, are now struggling to hold on to their savings as high inflation and new Liberal taxes drain their bank accounts.
Demand at local food banks is at an all-time high. In Niagara Falls, Project Share's food bank served more than 13,000 people last year, a total of one in seven residents. Across Ontario, a report from Feed Ontario revealed that more than 800,000 Ontarians used a food bank between April 2022 and March 2023, an increase of 38% province-wide.
These miserable results are the legacy of nine years of the Liberals' rule, and their disastrous spending and budgetary plans, which have failed at every turn. If Canadians were not already enduring enough financial pain and suffering caused by their federal government, they will take no solace in knowing that the Liberal government is committed to quadrupling the carbon tax, driving up the cost on everything from food, to groceries, to shelter and energy to heat and cool their homes.
The government's most recent tax increase was a 23% hike on the carbon tax on April 1, but there is hope. There is a solution. In the next federal election, which will be a carbon tax election, Canadians can elect a common-sense Conservative government. Only common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax to bring lower prices for Canadians. We will build the homes Canadians need. We will fix the budgetary finances of this country and we will address the issues of crime, which the government policies have made only worse, not better, in Canada.
The carbon tax is just one of a series of new tax measures being schemed up by the tax-hungry Liberal government that needs to continuously feed and fund its spending addiction. In the first quarter of this year alone, businesses across Canada saw taxes go up in areas such as CPP and EI premiums, as well as the added burden of the carbon tax. Some also had an alcohol escalator tax hike to worry about, such as the wineries and craft breweries in my riding, and every business is concerned about general costs continuing to go up.
Canadians in need of a home, desiring to rent or trying to save to buy their first home face stiff headwinds. After nine years of the Liberal government, housing costs have doubled and mortgage costs have doubled. Required down payments have doubled and rent has also doubled. More houses were built in 1972 than were built in Canada in 2022. Because of the government's habitual overspending ways, Canadians are struggling with increased mortgages and interest rates, which threatens their very future.
Just this morning, Global News reported on an Ipsos poll indicating 63% of respondents would continue to remain on the sidelines of the housing market due to higher interest rates. The poll was conducted between June 7 and June 10. Some 45% of respondents maintained that they would not be able to afford a home no matter how much interest rates declined, and, sadly, six in 10 respondents said they had given up on ever owning a home.
After nine years of the Liberal government, Canadians are poor while Liberal insiders and friends of the Liberal cabinet get rich. The government has screwed up the housing file so badly that in the 2023 fall economic statement, it trumpeted the creation of a new Canadian mortgage charter to save Canadians from the problems the NDP-Liberal government had created itself. The government should be ashamed.
Only common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime so Canadians can focus on getting ahead in their daily life. After nine years, it is clearer than ever that the Liberal Prime Minister is not worth the cost, and budget 2024 would make life worse across the country for Canadians. Prices are up and rent is up. Debt is up; taxes are up, and Canadians are fed up. The Liberal government's time is up.
I encourage members of all opposition parties to take a stand with Conservatives, vote against the reckless, inflationary federal budget and vote non-confidence in the disastrous Liberal government.
1363 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/11/24 12:20:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have to give the Conservatives some credit finally. I know it is taken me a long time to reach this conclusion, but they are exceptional at stringing together misleading and false statements into speeches.
The member opposite talked about quality of life. He used that phrase in his speech. Our government's budget and the BIA invest in helping Canadians be able to save or to buy their first home; in ensuring that families can save for their children's education more easily; in ensuring that over 400,000 more kids can get food in school; in life-saving medication, which obviously would cost families if it were not offered through a national pharmacare program; in student loan forgiveness; in research funding to ensure that students and researchers can do their work at a competitive rate; in helping seniors get their teeth fixed; and in more child care spaces. The list goes on.
Does the member opposite oppose every single one of those investments designed to improve the quality of life of countless Canadians?
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/11/24 12:28:55 p.m.
- Watch
The member for Lac-Saint-Jean is rising on a point of order.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
