SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 334 - Jun/18/24

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/18/24 4:48:22 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, Carbon Pricing.

39 words

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

Jun/18/24 4:48:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the school of wackonomics is open, and the Liberal-NDP Prime Minister is the dean. What will people learn in this school? They will learn that budgets balance themselves, that the economy is people and absolutely not numbers and that somehow raising taxes will put out forest fires. The newest graduate, who just graduated with a Ph.D. in wackonomics, is none other than the out-of-touch Liberal finance minister. She learned that once Canadians are put into a cost of living crisis, they can be told to solve it by cancelling Disney+. If they cannot afford gas, groceries and home heating because the government has raised the carbon tax scam, they can buy a bike for themselves, especially those who live in rural Canada. We have had nine years of an out-of-touch government that has been nothing short of wacko. Its wacko policies are the reason why today we are seeing two million Canadians going to a food bank in a single month, with a million more projected for this year. Now we have found out that one in four Canadians is living in poverty. Wacko, extreme, woke policies have put Canadians in this position today. Speaking of schools, schools have students. Today, after nine years of the Liberal government, students are going through a housing hell. In fact, all Canadians are living through a housing hell. It is because the government spent $90 billion on housing, only to double housing costs. Not only did it do that, but housing starts have declined in this country according to its own housing department, the CMHC. However, the government still shovels millions of dollars in bonuses to the department that has caused this issue under one of the most incompetent housing ministers, previously the most incompetent immigration minister, in Canadian history. High interest rates are a massive barrier to home builders. This is what we are hearing from every home builder and developer and even those who want to get into homebuilding. How did we get here? How did interest rates get so high? It is because when the Liberal-NDP government spent more than every single government before it combined, it created a cost of living and inflation crisis. In fact, 40-year highs in inflation have happened. It had a lot of wasteful spending too, and what did that do? That made the Bank of Canada raise interest rates at the most rapid rate in Canadian history. That is why Canada, according to the IMF, is now most at risk of a mortgage default crisis. It is this high rate of interest that is stopping homebuilding. It is putting Canadians in a bind and taking more and more from their paycheques every single month. Now OSFI, which testified at the finance committee, is warning about a price shock, as mortgage renewals could see a 50% increase in price. I can imagine when the finance minister and Prime Minister told people to borrow as much as they wanted because interest rates would stay low for a very long time. What they did not know was that the incompetent Liberal-NDP government would pour billions of dollars of fuel on the inflationary fire that it started, making interest rates go up. Now, when people renew their mortgages, they are sometimes renewing at double or triple the rate. That is not what they were promised. They were supposed a “responsible government”. What they ended up getting was a housing hell, and a high-debt, high-tax, high-spend government, which put them in this position. Now we are seeing people with good-paying jobs, like nurses and teachers, living in their cars, and students who have to live under bridges. In some cases, 16 students are living in one small space. It is because the Liberal government doubled their rents and doubled their mortgages, and now they are in a housing hell. We also found out that delinquencies are on the rise. It is because Canadians have to shoulder the burden of nine years of bad policy-making. It put them in that position. I recently talked to a single mom in my community who has three kids. She said that she left an abusive relationship and moved out on her own. Of course, she is one of the people whose rent has doubled. It went up. It has doubled over the last nine years, but recently, she had a $300 increase in her rent. For a single mom with three kids, it was already hard enough to pay for gas, groceries and home heating, so what did she do? She had to move in with her abusive ex-husband because she could not afford day care and could not afford to buy food. In fact, she was already starting to skip meals. She is one of the one in four experiencing food insecurity. When I spoke to her, she had the exact same story: It was not like this before. She came here as an immigrant and did everything right. She went to school here. She got a job. She had kids. She was married at one time. However, all she got was a government that worked against her, that raised her taxes and that made her cost of living more and more expensive. This is not the only story. There are millions of Canadians in this kind of situation, to the point where people are asking why they moved to this country. Most of them are now thinking about leaving. Last year, more than 400,000 people left Canada. The top two reasons were the high cost of living and their credentials were not recognized, especially those who moved here as immigrants. What did the government decide to do? It thought it was a brilliant idea to jack up the carbon tax scam. We found out last month that again rents are at the highest rate they have ever been. On top of that, for these same people, these Canadians who are trying to get to work in their car, trying to buy nutritious meals for their kids and themselves or trying to stay warm in the winter, all of those costs went up by 23% because the government jacked up the carbon tax scam by 23%. This should be a wake-up call for the out-of-touch government. It should be an absolute wake-up call given the poverty report that came out today. We now know that we cannot believe anything that comes out of the government's mouth. It did not tell the truth about how many people were in poverty. That was proven today. We have found out that one in four Canadians could possibly be living in poverty. That is unheard of in this country. It was never like this before. It just goes to show that everything the government has done has made life worse for everyday Canadians. We hear the government say over and over again that life has never been better for everyone here, that they should enjoy what they have and enjoy what it gives them. However, the number of Canadians in poverty, which we heard about today, could rise. It is 30% for Canadians aged 18 to 30 and 44.5% for single-parent households, while 42% of renters cannot afford two or more household essentials. Some 21.7% of Canadians cannot cover an unexpected expense of more than $500, while 8.8% of Canadians cannot pay their bills on time. On top of this, 7.2% of Canadians cannot afford to heat or cool their homes. The truth is that working Canadians will have to foot the bill for the government's spending once again. The government talks about tax fairness. Never have Canadians had a bigger tax burden than after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government. Let us start with the carbon tax, a scam that it hid from Canadians recently. Did members know that it had a gag order on the PBO, which was asking to release a report, a damning report that proved the carbon tax scam committed $30 billion of economic vandalism? That means $30 billion was taken away from the economy, taken away from the paycheques of workers and taken away from investments into things like equipment and other capital investments. It is no wonder Canada's productivity is worse than it was in 2014. In fact, there are seven straight quarters of productivity decline. What does that mean? To the average person, that means Canadians are poorer, and it is easy to tie that in with the poverty report that we see today. Despite the sunshine that the Liberal-NDP government tries to portray with its economic vandalism over the last nine years, the reality is that Canadians are poorer than they have ever been before, and it is only getting worse. The Liberals introduced tax hikes, such as the carbon tax scam, but they hid the damning report from their department. It took the PBO's courage, after Conservatives put on pressure, to release the report that proves there was $30 billion of hidden costs in the scam on Canadians. In fact, because the Conservatives put the pressure on and forced the papers to be released, to no surprise, the day that the vote was supposed to happen, the Liberals released the report. The report proved what Canadians already know, which is that the Prime Minister and the carbon tax scam are not worth the cost. The carbon tax has raised the cost of gas, groceries and home heating. Because of the tax, costs have gone up to our farmers, to our truckers and to everyone else. That is why we are seeing the record rise in poverty in this country. The Liberals sold the scam as something that would automatically fix the environment. They tell us that, if we pay a bit more tax, they will pour it over top of the forest fires and put them out. The reality is that emissions have gone up and the forest fires have not gone. Every claim that the government had that the carbon tax scam was to fix the environment was false. The government's own department officials admitted that they do not tie in how much of the carbon tax scam is related to so-called fixing climate change, which is what the Liberals say. It does not work like that, and that is why they are not tracking it. Even they know it is not worth the cost. Just yesterday, the PBO admitted to our common-sense Conservatives that the cost of climate change would have no effect on the cost of the carbon tax scam to Canadians. The PBO proved it. People just have to pull up the blues from the committee yesterday, and it is clear to see that the Liberals keep jacking up the carbon tax, but it has done nothing to fix the environment. How embarrassing that is for a government whose members claim to be stalwarts of the economy and the environment, but their ranking on the climate change index fell. It fell four spots, to 62 out of 67 on the world stage, but it is on par with the embarrassing Prime Minister, who jet-sets around the world just to embarrass Canada further. We need serious leadership once again in this country. The PBO also said that Canadians pay more into the tax than what they get back. The claim that eight out of 10 Canadians get more back in rebates than what they pay into it is false, and the PBO proved that, over and over again. Carbon tax scam 1, which the PBO did costing and an analysis on, proves that a majority of Canadians, six out of 10 households, are worse off because of this scam compared to what they get back in rebates. There is another part to this whole thing. It is called carbon tax scam 2, the clean fuel regulations. That has zero rebate, and it affects every single Canadian in every province. The PBO, yesterday, admitted to me that, if a majority of Canadian households are worse off with carbon tax scam 1, which has the phony rebates, then when we factor in carbon tax scam 2, which has no rebates, overall, a majority of households are still worse off. Therefore, the Liberals' claim that it leaves Canadians better off is false, and the claim keeps being proven wrong over and over again. On top of all of that, the Liberals introduced a job-killing capital gains tax hike, which is a direct attack on hard-working farmers, fishermen, physicians, tradespeople, home builders and, of course, small business owners. Today, the finance committee heard from a plumber who talked about how his small business is his retirement savings. He did not put money into RRSPs, and he does not have a pension because he put all of his time, effort and money into his business. He admits that he is not rich. He is not one of the ultrarich that the government keeps talking about. He did everything right. He worked as hard as he could to leave something for his kids, his grandkids and their kids. However, on par with the Liberal-NDP government, hard work is punished in this country. I know many people who live in Calgary Forest Lawn who left their home countries and took a big risk to come here. They took the risk because they wanted to go to a country where they were promised that, if they worked hard, they could make something of themselves and leave something for their kids. After nine years of the Liberal-NDP government's failed economic policies, the Canadian dream they were promised is broken. It is gone. That is why nine out of 10 young people say they have lost the dream of home ownership. That is why two million Canadians are going to food banks in a single month, and people with good jobs are living in their cars or tents. They have a government that will not stop attacking their success. In fact, it vilifies success. The greedy government will do anything to fill its coffers. The only people it really cares about are rich Liberal insiders, like those with the $22 billion in consultant fees that it paid. Not all Canadians are well connected like that. They wish they were, but the government is doing everything it can to work against hard-working Canadians. We heard from a farmer today who only wanted to work hard, make food for Canadians and leave his farm to his four daughters. However, once again, this job-killing capital gains tax hike would ensure that less will go to his kids and their kids and more will go to the greedy government. As I mentioned before, Canada is in a productivity crisis. GDP per person has gone down. That is the definition of how successful people are in this country. It has gone down, and it continues to go down. The government drove away $460 billion of investment that went to the U.S. It made sure that U.S. workers get paid better than Canadians. That means Canadian workers get 58¢ of investment for every dollar of investment that goes to an American worker. The government's high-tax, high-spend ideology has driven away investment and workers from this country. What did that do? That made talent leave as well and, with that, made Canadians poorer. I will tell Canadians that hope is on the horizon. It was not like this before the Liberal-NDP government, and it will not be like that after it is gone. After the next carbon tax election, when the member for Carleton would become the prime minister of this country, Canadians would get what they deserve and what they have been promised by this common-sense Conservative government. We would axe the tax. We would take the tax off for good for everybody and bring down the cost of gas, groceries and home heating. We would build the homes by incentivizing municipalities to build. We would fix the budget and bring in a dollar-for-dollar law. Indeed, we would make sure that income taxes are lower, simpler and fairer for all Canadians and not punish hard work as we have seen being done under the government. We would also stop the crime. We have seen drugs, disorder and chaos increase all across the country. We would put an end to that. We would once again bring home the Canadian dream of working hard and being able to accomplish great things. We would bring it home.

2801 words

Mr. Darrell Samson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Lib.)

Jun/18/24 5:08:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about two issues that I am concerned about, which are affordability, of course, and housing. Our government has been focused, in the last number of years, on key issues for families and supporting Canadians. If the member is saying that we have an affordability problem, a housing crisis, et cetera, then why are the Conservatives voting against all the good programs that we are bringing forward? On the dental program, they voted against it. On pharmacare, they voted against it. On early learning and child care, they voted against it. On the Canada child benefit, again, they voted against it. When the member talks about axing the tax, what he is actually saying to Canadians is that, if the Conservatives take power, they would axe all those programs. It is easy to understand because they are voting against them, which means they are not in favour of them. I would like the member to tell me, and tell Canadians, if he would axe all those good programs or not?

176 words

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan

Jun/18/24 5:09:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let me start by saying that when we form government, Canadians would be able to realize the Canadian dream. The member is asking why we voted against some of those measures. Well, it is clear to see that we do not want to be complicit in the economic vandalism of this Liberal-NDP government, which, after the last nine years, sent two million Canadians to a food bank and made one in four go into poverty. We are not gullible like the NDP, which needs to protect our leaders' pension like they keep doing by propping up the government. We are going to do what is right for Canadians. We would axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget, stop the crime and bring back that Canadian dream.

131 words

Pension

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

Jun/18/24 5:10:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69

Madam Speaker, the budget implementation measures in Bill C-69 are full of interference in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. Whether it is a question of housing, health, education or the banking sector, the fiscal imbalance really is on full display. I would like to know what my colleague thinks.

52 words

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan

Jun/18/24 5:11:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague makes it very clear that, after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, everything is broken. Everything he is listing is just a list of the things that the government has done. We see that Confederation is also more broken than it ever has been before because the divisive Prime Minister has pitted region against region, sector against sector and Canadians against Canadians. However, that is what he wants. He rules by dividing, and then he deflects and blames. We would bring home a country that is more united.

93 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Jun/18/24 5:11:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I had the benefit of being in the same finance committee meeting as my hon. colleague this morning where I heard the same evidence about the capital gains inclusion rates. Of course, most of what my hon. colleague has just said in here was simply contradicted by the evidence, including that there is zero evidence that the capital gains inclusion would have any negative effect on job creation in this country. The member seems to be opposed to raising the capital gains inclusion rate. I am wondering if he can explain why the Mulroney Conservative government raised the capital gains inclusion rate in 1988 from 50% to 66.67%, and then again, in 1990, to 75%. Were the Conservatives wrong about the capital gains inclusion rate then, or are they wrong now?

134 words

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan

Jun/18/24 5:12:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, the member was in the committee when a small business owner was there, a plumber, who did everything right, worked as hard as he could to leave something for his kids and their kids, but the capital gains tax is going to punish all that hard work. This member sat there, yet he would rather listen to Liberal-NDP-paid economists than everyday, hard-working Canadians. That is a problem with the government. It keeps propping up the Prime Minister to protect its leader's pension, all at the expense of the suffering of Canadians. Second, let me remind the member that when John Manley, who was the finance minister under the Liberals, reduced the capital gains tax to 50%, what ended up happening? Well, productivity went up. Government revenues went up. Do members know why? It is because it helped stimulate the economy once again.

151 words

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Jun/18/24 5:13:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech. As well, I listened intently to the last two NDP-Liberal MPs who asked questions The funny thing is that they complained that, when the Conservatives attain government, we would cut their great programs, such as the green slush fund from which, of that billion dollars, almost $400 million went to conflicted directors' own companies. I am wondering if the member could expound on the other great Liberal programs that have resulted in this kind of corruption, which the Conservatives would end when we assume power.

96 words

Corruption

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan

Jun/18/24 5:14:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, we are going to cut the number of Liberal seats in this House when we form government. That is the first thing we will cut, and, of course, we are going to axe the tax. We are going to cut the tax on gas, groceries and home heating, and, indeed, we will cut out the corruption. My friend, who is a great hockey player, highlighted just one piece of a plethora of corruption that we have seen under the government. There is the WE scandal and the green slush fund that is growing in scandal every single day, which he and other members are doing a great job of highlighting. We are also going to cut out the Infrastructure Bank, which has built exactly zero projects. It is a $30-billion program. It has built zero projects, yet it has shovelled millions of dollars to Liberal-connected insiders. This is the kind of corruption we are going to cut under a common-sense Conservative government once the member for Carleton becomes Prime Minister.

178 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/18/24 5:15:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the finance critic for the Conservative-Reform party says that they are going to cut the Infrastructure Bank. He is just reaffirming a policy that we know. My question for him is this: Is the member aware of the many projects that are taking place in his home province? One of the examples would be the investments in irrigation, which is helping farmers diversify. Liberals have continuously been there to advocate for farmers, and the farmers would actually be fairly disappointed in the Conservatives' not recognizing the importance of irrigation in the province of Manitoba. Why does the Conservative Party oppose that particular program?

110 words

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan

Jun/18/24 5:16:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a bit rich, coming from the most anti-Alberta government in Canadian history. We thought Trudeau 1 was bad, but under the current Prime Minister, we have never seen such brazen attacks on the hard-working people from my province, the greatest province in this country, Alberta, as those that have come from the Prime Minister. The attacks do not stop, whether they are on our province, on our energy sector, on our farmers, or on everyday hard-working Canadians. I do not think there is any Canadian today who can trust that whatever the government is doing is in the best interest of Canadians. We recently saw that with the carbon tax scam, where the environment minister, who is probably one of the most anti-Alberta ministers I have ever seen, hid a report that proved to Canadians that there is a $30-billion carbon tax loss to the economy and to workers. The government did everything it could to hide that report, so I do not know anyone who can trust that the government is doing anything in the best interest of Canada or Canadians.

191 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Jun/18/24 5:17:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked about the cost of living and touched on the issue of housing. At the moment, there is a trend on both the Liberal and Conservative sides. There is a coalition trying to interfere in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction when it comes to housing. Both the Leader of the Opposition's bill and the latest budget from the party opposite attempt to get tough with cities so they will propose housing solutions. These magic wands will not work. Instead, the money earmarked for housing could be transferred unconditionally to Quebec, because housing comes under Quebec's jurisdiction. What does my colleague think?

110 words

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan

Jun/18/24 5:18:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let me just correct the record first. The only coalition is the carbon tax coalition of the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc. There is no way we would be complicit in any way like the Bloc has been in making sure that housing costs have doubled. That is not something we were complicit in. I will say that our common-sense plan to fix the housing crisis in this country will do just that. We will bring up the supply by incentivizing municipalities to build and stop the gatekeeping—

93 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/18/24 5:18:54 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Joliette has the floor.

10 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Jun/18/24 5:18:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑69 is a budget implementation omnibus bill that creates or amends 67 different acts. The government promised never to use this type of thing, but for the past several years, it has continued to do so. Bill C‑69 enacts, among other things, the consumer-driven banking act, which establishes that it is the federal government alone that regulates this sector and that the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada acts as the regulator. We asked the government to take this division out of Bill C‑69 and correct some of its shortcomings over the summer so it could come back this fall with a framework that does not give Bay Street an unfair advantage over other financial institutions, that respects the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, and that will be administered by a competent body. However, the government just voted against our request. The government is not working well. It is not listening, it is being partisan, and it is undermining Quebec. That is why we will be voting against this bill. I am going to talk more about the open banking system, beginning with some context. As things stand, all financial services are based out of financial institutions that people do business with directly. These institutions are legally and financially responsible in the event of fraud or data theft, so they are fiercely protective of our personal data. Under an open banking system, financial institutions will have to share our data with platforms that will enable us to access all our accounts with one click. It would be a minor revolution. Ultimately, we can envision a system in which financial institutions essentially just create financial products, with client relations being handled by tech companies that do not themselves provide financial products, but act as intermediaries and data aggregators. That calls for a framework. People want the flexibility an open banking system offers. That is why financial technology or fintech companies have already started coming on line despite the legal limbo. They are not well regulated, so they find other ways to evolve. Users themselves provide their credentials. The app goes into a user's account, extracts data from the screen and stores it. Financial institutions' secure networks get regular visits from actors outside the financial sector, and that makes them vulnerable. The more advanced these strategies get, the greater the risk. We know that the level of risk varies. An aggregator that scans public data to show us mortgage rates at all financial institutions in one click is low risk. When it collects our personal data to give us a detailed picture of our financial situation, that carries more risk for the protection of sensitive personal information, namely financial information. If the app can be used to perform transactions, which implies that it places orders, that opens up a whole new level of risk, the risk of fraud. Let us also not forget that a series of orders quickly placed with the help of an AI system could completely destabilize all financial institutions. What about the principle of needing to know the customer? That principle is the foundation of our anti-money laundering laws. How can a financial institution apply this principle when it is communicating via an app? Lastly, an important part of risk is the financial capacity to take on risk. Without that, the consumer could lose everything. Prudential regulations have to adapt. What we need is a clear framework with clear obligations and responsibilities. The financial sector is a shared jurisdiction. The federal government has authority over banks and federally incorporated financial institutions. Financial institutions that are not banks, namely credit unions and trust companies, fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Financial intermediaries, such as investment dealers and financial advisers, fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Tech companies in the financial sector are not currently regulated, but they are likely similar to financial intermediaries. There are different models in all this. There is the Interac approach. The Interac system, which enables exchanges between institutions and allows us, for example, to use our debit card everywhere, was developed by the financial companies themselves. These companies agreed on a common technology and standards to ensure that transactions are secure. Companies that adopt and comply with the common standards can join the system and offer Interac. This is the approach taken by the United Kingdom. In Canada, it is the approach that was favoured by the Advisory Committee on Open Banking in 2021. The advantage of this approach, which is the simplest and most flexible, is that each government retains full regulatory power and adopting the open banking system does not result in any transfer of power. The disadvantage is that it is a form of self-regulation. The standard adopted may very well be aimed primarily at developing the sector rather than protecting citizens. Personal information, financial risks and fees come to mind. The banks, which initially advocated self-regulation, realized that squeezing out the legislator would not work and that co-operation would be a more realistic option. Another approach, the one that we advocate and prefer, is the securities approach. Securities fall mainly under provincial jurisdiction, but Ottawa has laws governing federally incorporated companies. The Supreme Court of Canada 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 corporations legislation is very similar to the federal corporations legislation 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. For years now, the federal government has wanted to centralize securities regulation in a single commission and concentrate the entire financial sector in Toronto, to the detriment of Montreal in particular. Quebec and the Quebec business community have always opposed this. In 2021, my party successfully amended the budget implementation bill to close the federal office responsible for creating a single securities commission. It was a really nice moment in a committee meeting over Zoom. I remember it clearly. The model of co-operation between governments, which has survived repeated attacks by the federal government, is still going and is working well. As I was saying, the securities model is the approach that my party and I favour for the open banking system. However, in Bill C‑69, Ottawa is opting for unilateralism and centralization. As I was saying earlier, Bill C‑69 enacts the consumer-driven banking act, which would make the federal government the sole regulator of this sector, with the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada serving as the regulator. That is a problem, too. The agency does not have the qualifications to do that at all. Since fintechs are not under federal jurisdiction, Ottawa has opted to regulate them indirectly by regulating how 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. Institutions that are not federally regulated will be ignored. They can opt in voluntarily with approval from 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, because of the sensitive nature of the medical data they hold, or intermediaries such as brokers, but the framework will likely 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. In practical terms, 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. That is no small thing. We are getting ready to pass this bill at third reading in the House, but 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 still unclear. 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, under this bill, 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. That is ridiculous. The fact that Quebec institutions will be subject to two uncoordinated regulatory bodies could be downright dysfunctional and give banks an egregious advantage over co-ops and trust companies. That is unacceptable.

1604 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/18/24 5:30:27 p.m.
Watch

We have to move on to Private Members' Business. The hon. member will have eight minutes and 30 seconds remaining when the House resumes consideration of this bill.

28 words

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Jun/18/24 5:31:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-224

Madam Speaker, when the Bloc Québécois leader's office informed me that I would be delivering a speech in the House about Bill S‑224, I thought it was a joke, but it is not. Apparently I really have to do this. Bill S‑224 is quite simple. It contains a single clause. The committee worked hard on this. We heard from witnesses, and we ended up deciding to delete the clause in question as well as the title of the bill. As such, what we are left with now is just the bill number, S‑224. What can I say about that number? It does bring back some memories. Originally, the purpose of this bill was to better protect sex workers from human trafficking. The challenge—indeed, the obstacle—we almost always face when attempting to define a concept is that what we do not say has a much greater influence on what we mean than what we do say. We tried to amend the definition, and witnesses told us that, far from helping, the bill was actually detrimental. The bill would likely have equated “sex work” with “human trafficking”. I will quote Ms. Lam, executive director of the Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform. On June 12, 2023, she said, “If Bill S‑224 passes, anyone who helps sex workers stay safe...will be charged with human trafficking. People will be too afraid to be associated with sex work, making sex workers more isolated and vulnerable.” That short quote pretty much sums up the problem we faced. The Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment that would have allowed us to develop a definition more respectful of the comments and notes we received from various witnesses in committee. We were trying to come up with a definition for a person who exploits another person. Unfortunately, our amendment was rejected in committee, and we are left with this empty shell as a result. I could go on at length about the virtues of the legislative definition and protecting sex workers, but those listening to me will tell me that I am wasting their time. Therefore, with the Speaker's permission, I will stop there, but I will say that we must not abandon Bill S‑224. I think that protecting sex workers is important. Human trafficking is something we absolutely must ban and fight as best we can, but, once again, we will have to work a little harder to ensure that we define these concepts properly and that we do not harm rather than help.

449 words

Mr. Jamil Jivani (Durham, CPC)

Jun/18/24 5:34:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-224

Madam Speaker, I stand in the House today in full support of Bill S-224 in its original form. I want to commend my colleague, the member for Oshawa, for his hard work and tireless advocacy on behalf of human trafficking victims. I consider him to be a friend and a mentor, in addition to being my neighbour. I have seen the hard work he has put into fighting for victims of crime and trying to get all parties on board with a common-sense idea to hold offenders who commit the crime of human trafficking to a higher standard than we hold the victims. Unfortunately, the bill has been attacked by the Liberal government with not only an amendment that hollows it out and guts it, but also an amendment that goes so far as to actually delete all of the contents of the legislation, making it meaningless and also making the bill ineffective in challenging the status quo. Unfortunately, it is on brand for the Liberal Party of Canada to disrespect victims of crime, to maintain a status quo of chaos and disorder, and to not stand up for those who are suffering from the way the justice system currently operates. The Liberal Party of Canada does not support victims of human trafficking, just as they do not support victims of all crimes. It is not a government interested in serving the interests of law-abiding citizens, but is more concerned with being easy on criminals. Undermining Bill S-224 is completely on brand because we know how little they care about victims of crime. I can go over the record. Liberal bail policies, for example, have turned courthouses into turnstile houses. Police officers work very hard in our communities to make arrests, to enforce the law and to keep our communities safe, only to see those who they arrest released back into the community to commit the same crimes over and over again. Catch-and-release bail policies have contributed to a spike in all sorts of crimes across Canada, from auto theft to violent crime, and are contributing to a system of chaos and disorder. We have also seen the Liberal government's approach to enforcing drug laws. Certainly, members would recall that in British Columbia we saw the results of a sadistic experiment to legalize hard drugs, further promoting chaos and disorder. We also have a problem of judge shortages. We have seen that the government is not interested in appointing enough judges to ensure that we have a functional justice system. Long delays have caused cases of violent crime to be thrown out of the courts. I ask anyone hearing my words to just imagine being a law-abiding citizen, who does everything that they have been asked to do, such as going to school, getting a job, paying taxes and contributing to this country, and a crime is committed against them or their family. The system that they pay into does not have their back. In fact, it is so ineffective that the person who committed the crime against them never has to face consequences for his or her actions. That is the system of chaos and disorder that we have under the Liberal government because, again, it does not have the backs of law-abiding citizens. Instead, it is concerned with being easy on criminals. This system of chaos and disorder is the status quo under the current Prime Minister. The reality is that by opposing Bill S-224, by putting forward an amendment that renders it absolutely meaningless, the Liberal government is clinging to the status quo. It is clinging to the chaos and disorder that it has caused. The crime of human trafficking is a particularly heartbreaking one. It exploits the most vulnerable people in our communities. For those of us from Ontario, it hits close to home. From 2012 to 2022, two-thirds of the human trafficking cases reported across Canada occurred in Ontario. The 401 Highway corridor has become a hub for trafficking crimes. It is fair for Canadians to expect some action from the government to address these concerns. We have heard from police officers who are frustrated with the status quo and who have said quite openly that it makes it harder for them to do their jobs. I would like to quote a member of the Durham Regional Police Service, who I am fortunate enough to say serves my home community of Durham. Constable Jeff Tucker said, “There is a lack of understanding for the victims. The victims are retraumatized every time they have to testify over and over again.... The criminal justice system provides more rights to the accused than the victims.... Victims are not protected by the system, only criminals.” This is a very serious problem, and it is not hard to see why police officers would be disappointed with the status quo we have. Currently, under the law, only 8% of human trafficking offenders are convicted, and Bill S-224, in its original form, sought to solve this problem. The justice system is broken, to put it bluntly, and it is not hard to figure out who is responsible. The Liberal Prime Minister, in power for nine years, is responsible. Despite all his efforts to claim no responsibility for his own actions, he has broken the justice system, and a course correction is necessary. I would like to use my time to share the perspective of the mother of a human trafficking victim. Lynda Harlos has been a champion for Bill S-224 in its original form. Lynda is an advocate in the fight against human trafficking and is the founder of the organization Parent With A Purpose, where she is a sex trafficking and abuse prevention educator, and she shares her story of being the mother of a sex trafficking survivor. Lynda writes, “In the current global landscape, the question is not if a child will be targeted for exploitation, but when. We must ask ourselves this: are our protocols robust enough to prevent them from becoming victims and, if they do, to ensure justice is served? Every night, I lay my head on my pillow, tormented by the knowledge that my naivety led to my daughter's trafficking. Can you, as policymakers and leaders, rest easy without feeling shame and guilt, knowing that justice remains out of reach for her due to a lack of 'proof' for her suffering? Was she expected to photograph the moment she was being waterboarded for not complying with a client's demands? Should she have documented her trafficker threatening her son's life as retribution for her refusal to allow further abuse? In a household of three women, two have endured repeated sexual assault, yet these incidents remain unreported. Why? Because we are painfully aware that current laws will revictimize us without delivering justice. My daughter would willingly face revictimization if there were any hope that justice would prevail. While local organizations excel at addressing victims' basic needs, they fall short in securing justice. The solution is straightforward: punish those who exploit our children and the perpetrators who buy from them, not the victims. It is imperative that we strengthen our legal frameworks to protect and deliver justice for the most vulnerable among us.” I thank Lynda for her work and for her advocacy. I thank all of the people who stood up in support of victims of violent crime, including the member for Oshawa, who has been a tireless advocate. Members of the House have an important decision to make. Will they support Bill S-224 in its original form, or will they allow a Liberal amendment to continue promoting chaos and disorder across our country? It should be a no-brainer. It should be very obvious that change is needed and that the course correction of this country is in the hands of its leaders to listen to the people of Canada. I leave that on the conscience of all members of the House, and I am thankful for the chance to speak in support of victims' rights.

1360 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/18/24 5:44:33 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question? Some hon. members: Question. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 2. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

83 words