Debates of Jan. 29th, 2019

Sitting Resumed

[Jennifer O'Connell, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Youth Economic Opportunity), Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, today's legislation, Bill C-419 proposes a number of amendments to the financial institutions statutes in relation to credit cards. These amendments would modify business practices and disclosure requirements for credit cards issued by federally regulated financial institutions, including the way in which interest rates are calculated and applied to balances.

This bill is well-intended and our government shares its aim of improving financial protection for hard-working Canadians who use credit cards. In budget 2018, the government announced its intention to introduce legislation that would strengthen the tools and mandate of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, while advancing consumers' rights and interests in dealing with their financial institutions. With BIA 2, the government did exactly that.

These amendments that have been adopted with the most recent budget implementation act will lead to better outcomes for Canadians when dealing with their banks. Might I point out that, again, this was one of the most significant consumer protection packages since the FCAC's creation. Together, they will help ensure that banks have internal business practices that further strengthen outcomes for consumers, including ensuring consumers' financial needs are assessed when selling them products and services. They will ensure that the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada has the necessary tools to implement supervisory best practices, including directing banks to comply with their legal obligations and ordering restitution when charges have been improperly collected, and that consumers are further empowered and better protected, including ensuring that banks provide timely electronic alerts to consumers when they are at risk of incurring fees.

We are confident that these amendments to the framework will improve outcomes for Canadians because we grounded the legislation in evidence.

The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, or FCAC, is the federal regulator dedicated to protecting bank consumers. As part of its ongoing work, the agency undertook broad reviews of banks' sales practices and of the best practices for consumer protection in Canada and abroad. Our government's action has also been informed by an important study from the Standing Committee of Finance on consumer protection and bank practices. The consumer protection changes we did respond to issues that were identified as part of these reviews.

In contrast to the member opposite's suggested bill, the amendments we brought forward were developed in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, including consumer groups, financial institutions and officials from the provinces and territories. As colleagues know, consumer protection is an area in which both provincial and territorial governments and the federal government are active. Several provinces, including Quebec, have comprehensive financial consumer protection rules. As such, consulting provinces and territories is crucial before introducing new measures to avoid conflict and duplication.

Considering that BIA 2 contained a wide range of important amendments, I would like to at least highlight a few of the major changes. To start, our government has proposed a series of measures to improve the way financial institutions handle consumer complaints. Under our proposals, these institutions will be required to keep a record of all complaints and will be required to make this information available to the commissioner of the FCAC to help improve monitoring and oversight. In addition, the commissioner will assess the complaints-handling procedures of banks and ensure banks follow the rules.

We know that when Canadians have disputes with their banks, they deserve to have access to a resolution process that is fair and impartial. That is why bank consumers can take any complaint they cannot resolve with their bank to an independent body, free of charge. With these changes we will require these bodies to publish a summary of each final recommendation regarding a complaint, including the reasons for the recommendations. We will also require these bodies to report annually to the commissioner and to the public on their performance. These new reporting requirements will help the agency in its work and ensure that consumers are better protected.

Beyond complaints resolution, in cases where it has been found that banks have violated their obligations to consumers, we have proposed to increase the maximum penalty that can be imposed. Under our proposals, if the commissioner determines that a bank has breached its legal obligations, the maximum penalty that can be imposed will rise from $500,000 per violation to $10 million per violation. Furthermore, when the commissioner publishes a decision regarding a violation, those notices will include the name of the financial institution. We believe that higher penalties and publicly naming banks would create a stronger incentive for banks to comply.

We also introduced a new requirement for institutions to establish and implement policies and procedures to ensure products and services offered or sold are appropriate for customers' circumstances, including their financial needs; we have introduced a new definition of the term “undue pressure” and an enhanced prohibition on institutions; we have an enhanced requirement to provide cancellation periods for most ongoing products and services; we have enhanced the requirement that an institution may not impose a charge or penalty on a person unless the institution obtained the person's express consent for the provision of the product or service; and there is a new requirement that the maximum liability for an unauthorized credit card transaction be $50, unless the borrower was grossly negligent in safeguarding the credit card or specified information about the credit card.

There are also measures in our recent fall economic statement designed to empower and protect consumers as well.

First, we committed to developing a code of conduct for how banks should deliver their services to better meet the needs of seniors. To ensure that seniors can bank with confidence and to respond to the unique needs of Canada's aging population, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, with support from the Minister of Seniors, will work with financial institutions and seniors groups to create a code of conduct for banks to guide their delivery of services to Canadian seniors.

Once the code is developed, the agency will take steps to ensure that banks comply with this code of conduct and that seniors, as well as all Canadians, are aware of the rights and obligations under the code.

In addition, the agency will undertake a review of the way banks handle complaints, including an assessment of how effective the existing external complaint bodies are at resolving consumer complaints. The results of this review will help our government consider whether further changes to the consumer protection framework are needed.

Consumers want to know that financial products and services offered by banks meet the highest standards and that the fees they are paying for products and services are fair. For our part, our government is committed to supporting a financial sector that promotes competition and consumer choice and continues to deliver financial stability and economic growth. BIA 2 helps to fulfill this commitment, and we will continue to work with all stakeholders, including consumer groups, to further refine and improve consumer protection in Canada.

We know that Canadians work hard every day to build a better life for themselves and their families. In return for that hard work, they expect and deserve a stable financial system that safeguards their savings and investments. As a government, we take the protection of financial consumers very seriously, and that is why we are continuing our work to increase fairness and transparency and ensure that all Canadians benefit from strong consumer protection standards.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-419, an act to amend the Bank Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act. This is important for consumers and Canadians. It is long overdue in this chamber.

It is an interesting debate, because we have a bill introduced by the Conservatives that is really about state intervention on the banking system, the financial sector of Canada, and Bay Street in particular, state intervention that is required because of their behaviour. There are many economists who would agree that they need to be reined in.

The Conservatives are advocating for higher regulations in order to have a greater leash on the banking sector, as well as some oversight that is different from what we have now.

I will outline the measures that are found in the bill. They are quite good in many respects and mirror some of the other states around the world that have also intervened on the banking sector.

I applaud the Conservatives for coming to the realization that the free market economy, if left to itself, is not adequate to police itself in many states. I would argue that the banks in particular require this state intervention, because consumer treatment over credit cards is unbelievably bad in this country. I would argue as well that insurance companies also need greater oversight, and there are other issues. However, this one in particular is low-hanging fruit. Other democracies are also saying that a correction to the free market is required and is very important not only for the good of consumers but also for the overall health of our economy and for other businesses, whether they are small or medium-sized businesses or larger institutions. The financial sector itself cannot be trusted to govern itself, which the Liberals are now advocating here, ironically.

Time after time, we have seen this nightmare emerge in the House of Commons. Having been in the House over a number of different election periods, at times I have heard the Liberals get up and criticize Jim Flaherty for bringing in the weak regulatory process that we have at this moment, and now, ironically, they are defending the Conservative position.

Over here, we have the Conservatives, who have come full circle and have realized that the state they had control of and had the reins on did not have our best interests at heart when they basically abandoned all accountability for the financial sector. They have agreed with what we have said many times, which is part of the foundation of democratic socialism: that there needs to be accountability, oversight and justice when it comes to the environment, financial matters and business. We cannot let free capitalism go wandering about, because there will be winners and losers. The vast majority of them will be losers, while a fairly small group, in this case the banking and financial sectors, will be the winners. Therefore, I applaud the Conservatives for coming full circle on this issue.

Unfortunately, what we have seen is the typical dance that we have here in this hall, which is that the Liberals are now on the other side, explaining why they cannot do anything and leaving it to somebody else to try to figure out. In the meantime, we have Canadians that are continually victimized.

Ironically, this was supposed to be an activist government, but it has turned into an apologist government. What we just heard was an apology to Canadians. We are being asked to support a private member's bill that is quite basic in many respects in terms of transparency and accountability and in terms of being good for consumers and small and medium-sized businesses. Why can we not come to grips with that?

In fact, it lets the Liberals off the hook in many respects. The Conservatives are saying that we need to intervene with the levers of government because the financial sector in Canada is not capable of controlling itself. That is what we are after here. The Conservatives are saying we need the minister, the cabinet, the government and eventually the Senate to send as strong a signal as possible to the banks that their time is up, that the free rein they had has expired, and that they need to provide what we have seen with other nations, which is a record of accountability for consumers, because some of the things that they do are quite egregious. It is not only the policies they have put in place for consumers and what is taking place; it is because we are a society that has become quite dependent on some of the services they provide.

I will throw out a couple of things to show how important this is for our economy, our consumer society and other businesses. Right now, there are 75.3 million credit cards in circulation in Canada, and 36.4 million of those credit cards have a balance. Of those, $200 is the average unpaid balance, and people are paying interests rates anywhere from 17% to 40%. Households spent an average of almost $550 in interest charges in 2017 on some of these cards, and 42% of Canadians do not pay their balance off every month.

The United States has acknowledged this and is bringing in new regulations and laws, which ironically we cannot get in Canada. We can harmonize our automobiles, which is very complex, and our computer systems and technology, but we cannot harmonize a piece of plastic for the benefit of consumers. We cannot harmonize the banking regulatory sector, which has been done in the United States. We have faced some of the consequences of a financial sector gone wild, and even though we have this opportunity, the government is taking a pass on it.

I do not understand that, especially because the government has all of the political coverage it needs given that the Conservatives are saying that Bay Street and the financial sector need to be reined in because they are incapable of controlling their greed.

That is what this is about. When we look at the bill from the member for Lethbridge, we can see that it identifies some of the most egregious things in the credit card policies.

One of the things it calls for is a cushioning of the interest rate. A lot of Canadians can probably relate to this. Let us say a person has to pay a credit card balance of $400.35. People who pay $400 can be charged interest on the whole thing. It could be just a simple accident a person makes with the click of a button when paying online or from getting bills mixed up, whatever it might be. Others might be like me, someone who always pays a little bit extra just to avoid that. Banks actually then get a bump in their revenue, when it is all collected up. It is quite a Ponzi scheme in many respects because of all that additional revenue they get for the next month to themselves. When we start to add that up across the board, it is quite significant.

That is one of the things this bill addresses. It would ensure Canadians just pay the interest on what is actually owed. That is a balanced approach.

Again, having to actually bring the levers of government in on this is appropriate at this point in time. I have talked about the fact that so many Canadians are dependent upon using this and are missing out on many interest payments. Life is tough enough with the rising cost of energy, rent, housing and so on. Interest payments from a simple a mistake that a person might make during a busy life are not fair and just, in terms of what banks charge people compared with what their actual bill should be.

The bill calls for transparency, which is really important. I would argue that is not only important as a social justice element, which is nice to see coming from the Conservatives in this place as they have endorsed social justice for consumers. There is also accountability, as credit card companies actually have to report what people paid in interest over a year. They have to put that on people's monthly statements, which is another good idea.

Let us move to interest rates. Credit card companies cannot retroactively raise interest rates. Another part of justice is that the interest rate at the time of a person's purchase becomes what a person actually pays out, so that later on, if there are adjustments on a card, a consumer does not get weaselled a second time around by having to pay more. That is a good and fair idea. This is not a back street, loan shark type of thing in which people show up at a second meeting and all of a sudden their interest rates are higher. This is something that can actually be done, and it should be done because it is a good business practice for everything.

There is also the notification that the bill calls for. This is interesting. The bill calls for another set of legislation to increase awareness and accountability when increasing people's credit card rates so that people do not get into further financial debt.

I want to applaud this. It has every opportunity for the light of day for consumers and a better economy, and it has all the political coverage the Liberals could dream about, because the Conservatives are asking for this and are telling us that Bay Street's and the financial sector's greed has gone wild, and that this needs intervention, needs some assistance and needs self-correction. That is what we should do here. The Liberals have all that cover, so why are they not taking it? I do not understand.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud to have the opportunity to speak to this bill today, Bill C-419, the credit card fairness act, which would amend the Bank Act, Insurance Companies Act, Cooperative Credit Associations Act and the Trust and Loan Companies Act. I want to thank the member of Parliament for Lethbridge for bringing this private member's bill forward.

Why am I so proud to speak to this today? Ultimately, government has a responsibility in protecting the consumer. Once upon a time, from 1967 to 1995, this House and our federal government had a minister of consumer and corporate affairs. Then, unfortunately, under the government of Jean Chrétien, the Liberal government, that position was eliminated.

What is the role of a minister of consumer and corporate affairs? The role of government, or governing, is to balance the interests of the individual citizen with the interests of corporations and to ensure society is protected and looks after the well-being of not only the citizens of today but of tomorrow.

The government has a responsibility to protect citizens when they are not necessarily able to protect themselves. That is what consumer protection is about. This is why we have a bank act, an insurance act and a co-operative credit act. It is to ensure that financial institutions holding citizens' money, and therefore a significant amount of power and influence, are not able to take advantage of individual citizens.

Unfortunately, we no longer have that voice at the cabinet table. We no longer have a minister whose sole responsibility is to keep tabs on those kinds of things and ensure individual citizens who are not able to go up against these great corporations, or institutions like a bank, have their voices heard. Therefore, because these individuals are not able to defend themselves in this manner, we have a member of Parliament who needs to bring a private member's bill forward simply to address some of the punitive and monopolistic practices of banks around the terms and conditions of credit cards.

This bill is about fairness and transparency, but what exactly is in this bill? This bill has seven key elements. The first would mandate that if a cardholder pays more than 95% of his or her outstanding balance before the payment due date, the bank could not charge interest on the whole amount. This means that I can be charged after the due date, not for the balance that I have not paid after the due date, but for the entire outstanding balance that was on that bill. I can honestly say that I did not know that could actually happen. I thought credit card companies could only charge interest on the balance, the amount I did not pay, not on the amount of the bill and, therefore, the amount I did not pay plus the amount I did pay. This is a critical change because it would mean that the credit card company would only be able to charge interest on the balance that is outstanding after the due date.

The second would ensure that if different rates apply to different amounts owing in a billing cycle, the companies would have to apply the payments to the highest interest rate balances first. Therefore, if I have a number of balances, each of which can be at a different interest rate and I pay off the credit card, right now they do not have to say that it goes against the highest rate first. They can charge me the highest rate on the entire outstanding balance. This would fix that. It would mean that when a balance is paid, it would go against the highest interest rate first. That sounds reasonable and fair.

Number three, it would require credit card companies to disclose, on the monthly statement, how much interest the cardholder has paid in the previous 12 months. That just seems like transparency in labelling. Absolutely, the credit card companies should be required to tell people how much interest they have paid in the last 12 months.

Number four, it would require credit card advertisements and marketing materials to prominently communicate the annual fee, the annual interest rate, the period of time until the introductory rate ended and the interest rate that would apply following that period. It also seems obvious that a credit card company would have to tell people what the interest rate would be when the introductory rate ended and what rate would apply in the following period. I did not know that this was not the case today. Absolutely, that is something that every consumer should have the right to know.

Number five, it would prohibit credit card companies from increasing interest rates retroactively on a cardholder's outstanding balance. Again, I am shocked to say that I did not think it was even legal that I could buy something 12 months ago and carry a balance on that, and the credit company could change the interest rate today and charge me the new interest rate on the balance of the amount I incurred at that time under the terms and conditions at a lower rate. That seems unreasonable and absolutely should immediately be changed.

Number six, it would require credit card companies to provide cardholders with an online mechanism to cancel their credit cards and decrease their credit limit. To communicate with credit card companies, people have no choice but to phone them, yet it is very difficult to get through. They do that, one could assume, on purpose. People pay their bills online. Most of us send emails. Most of us do most of our communication over the Internet, yet to cancel a credit card or decrease a credit limit to manage our finances more effectively, we can only do that in person. This would have it be applicable online. Brilliant.

Number seven, last but not least, the bill would legislate that credit card companies could not automatically increase a cardholder's credit limit. Wow. Again, how are they legally able to without telling cardholders? Clearly this is something we should support.

Why does this matter? There are 73 million credit cards, and 42% of Canadians do not pay off their debt, and many of them have $200 in balance. We have found that many people are within $200 each month of insolvency.

This bill would not jeopardize the free market. It would not have far-sweeping and exclusive principles. It would not completely address all the things that need to be changed in consumer protection. It would just address something critical, finite and long overdue.

My compliments to the member for Lethbridge. A private member's bill is a great deal of work, and often members of Parliament are not given due credit. These are things governments should do. These are things ministers of corporate and consumer affairs should address. However, in the absence of that, this member of Parliament from Lethbridge went above and beyond to do this very important work on things that, in my personal opinion, should already not be legal to stand up not only for the consumers in her riding but for the citizens of this entire nation.

Many of us do not have a choice not to have a credit card, because our society is structured so that many have no choice but to have a credit card. We are held hostage by the banks until such time as federal government legislation protects us.

I call on all the members in this House to support this very important private member's bill. Once again, I thank the member of Parliament for Lethbridge for putting this private member's bill forward on behalf of all of us.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-419, an act to amend the Bank Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act. My colleagues may not know this, but I have studied the issue of credit cards extensively. Today's subject definitely interests me.

I would like to point out that many of the measures included in the bill before us today already appear in the budget implementation act. However, since this is very serious subject, a lot of consultation with the provinces and territories is needed.

As I said, certain specific measures are already included as part of the consumer protection measures in the Bank Act, as they were introduced as part of the package of measures included in Bill C-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, which received royal assent on December 13, 2018.

For example, Bill C-419 proposes that a bank must obtain the consumer's consent before increasing the credit limit on a credit card and provide written confirmation if consent is given verbally. That is important. They must not increase the limit on a credit card without the consent of the consumer. The written consent is important, and we have already added this requirement to existing protections.

The bill also proposes to require the disclosure of specific information in credit card advertising, including annual interest rates. This requirement is a duplication of existing requirements, including the obligation to disclose the annual interest rate and other interest expenses in advertising.

I will go back to what my colleague said at the outset. This text amends the Bank Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act, and all other legislation I mentioned earlier. When Canadians deal with their financial institutions, they want their information to be protected, the goods and services to meet the highest standards and the fees they pay to be fair. First and foremost, people must know what they are getting themselves into with their credit card.

For more than a decade, the previous Conservative government failed to make any significant changes to Canada's consumer protection standards despite the major technological changes that would have made them possible.

In the wake of an extensive review of bank sales practices and broad consultations with the provinces and territories, our government took significant measures to promote Canadians' rights and interests. That is important. We always talk about the middle class. Credit cards are a method of payment and it is important that they be subject to the same rules and that people know how to use them.

Our government's decision to implement a new set of rules to protect Canadians when they use their financial institution represents the most significant change since the creation of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada in 2001.

Conservative MPs refused to defend Canadian consumers when they formed the government. They have no real plan to defend them now.

The bill that our colleague introduced proposes two sets of amendments to federal legislation regarding financial institutions and credit cards. The first would limit credit card interest rates for consumers by reducing the amount of interest to be paid when a borrower pays 95% of his or her outstanding balance; by applying the lowest interest rate on purchases when interest rates change during a billing cycle; and by requiring lenders to apply all payments to the portion of the balance with the highest interest rate. This is an important part of the proposal. The Banking Act already requires banks to apply payments either to the balance with the highest interest rate or to prorate it to each unpaid balance.

The second set of amendments imposes new disclosure and business practice requirements. The bill would require that lenders disclose the total of all amounts of interest paid by a borrower for the previous 12 billing cycles and that credit card advertisements clearly indicate the interest rate, fees and any applicable discounts. Other amendments would require that cardholders give their consent before their credit limit can be increased. I spoke about that earlier. It is a very important measure. There are also amendments that would require that cardholders have an electronic means to decrease the credit limit on their card if a bank provides online banking.

Our government is working hard to protect consumers. As part of our ongoing efforts to improve the consumer protection framework, our government recently completed an important review and update of the consumer protection framework under the Bank Act and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act. It is important to remember that this had not been done since 2001 and that we have been working on this since we took office.

The measures to be added to the previous Bank Act will be based on the information in two reports prepared by the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, the FCAC. The first report consisted of an exhaustive review of bank sales practices, and the second reviewed the best practices in financial consumer protection. Our government was also guided by an important study carried out by the Standing Committee on Finance on consumer protection and bank practices.

The Standing Committee on Finance works very hard. Ten parliamentarians meet at least twice a week and work on reports. These people come to an agreement before making recommendations. They meet with many witnesses. When the Standing Committee on Finance, or any House committee, prepares a report, 10 parliamentarians study everything in the report to ensure that the recommendations made to the minister will improve legislation. This is done by mutual agreement.

Consultations are also needed with the provinces and territories to update the consumer protection rules. Bill C-419 introduced by our colleague across the aisle has not been the subject of extensive consultations with stakeholders, including provincial and territorial governments. This is in contrast to what was done to prepare for the most recent measure we put in place. Consultations with the provinces and territories are essential. I cannot stress that enough. These are not things that are easily changed. Consultations, witnesses and experts are needed. It is important to ensure that everything complies with all the previous rules, as well as the laws already in force. Every possible impact of amending legislation as complex as the Bank Act must be considered, as it governs banking institutions.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

If the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles wants, she can have another minute when the House resumes debate on this motion.

The time provided for consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

International Trade

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to address a question that I had for the Prime Minister months ago about the new NAFTA and whether we would see a debate inside the House to have transparency and be open about what Canadians were signing onto through the Liberals in the renegotiation of the new NAFTA. What we know now is that great uncertainty surrounds the ratification.

The New Democrats were pleased to see Democrats in the U.S. have success in the new Congress. I have visited Washington and there is a significant change in tone and conversations taking place around the new NAFTA. It is quite clear at this time that Democrats in the U.S. are looking to reopen the deal to renegotiate some of the portions around the environment, labour, the high cost of pharmaceuticals and the drug patent extension in the new deal.

It will come as no surprise that the New Democrats will welcome the work of Democrats in the United States in an effort to improve the deal and see some progressive elements come to fruition in it. Unfortunately, what we have signed onto in the new USMCA is a concessionary deal. Therefore, we are hopeful that those efforts will be successful and that the Liberal government in Canada will be open to improving labour standards, environmental standards and, of course, to seeing the cost of drugs being reduced for Canadians and for all people across all three countries who will be impacted by this deal.

The future right now of the deal is quite uncertain, but there is a positive path forward that will see improvements made to this deal. I am hopeful the Liberal government will have wide open arms to them on behalf of Canadians. It is an opportunity not just for us to improve the deal on those three areas I mentioned, but also to address the still lingering and very harmful steel and aluminum tariffs. We now know that somehow Russia has been able to have aluminum tariffs removed, yet Canada has not. Therefore, we need to take every opportunity at this time to improve our trading relationship with the United States. Again, I hope we will welcome these additions and look for improvements in the lives of Canadians.

At the heart of the new NAFTA are millions of people who work every day for a decent life for their families and communities. Twenty-three years ago when NAFTA was being originally negotiated by Mulroney Conservatives, they tried desperately to sell Canadian workers on the idea that it was more than just a trade deal. They tried to make the case that the trilateral deal would bring prosperity to everyone across the continent. They claimed it was going to be an equalizer for all.

Working people studied NAFTA carefully and began to raise the alarm bells that it would not work. Labour and civil society brought their concerns to the streets over the weak side agreements that they rightly claimed would do nothing to change the inequalities. We have seen this play out across our country as well.

The Conservatives pressed on in the original NAFTA and now, in 2019, we can see the impact this idea, which was promoted by them, has had on working-class people. Successive governments have neglected to address the alarming reality that the NAFTA promise of 1988 has not led to an increased standard of living for all. The only benefit has been for those who already hold the power and the influence.

Income and wealth inequality in Canada today is at a crisis level. As my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby rightly pointed out today, 46% of Canadians are $200 away from financial trouble. Working people, like those in Oshawa who are fighting for their jobs, will be impacted by the new NAFTA. Despite the fact that Liberals are saying everything has been solved in the new trade agreement, that again is not reaching working people.

Today I rise with my question for the Liberals. If trade deals like the new NAFTA are so good for working people, why are the auto workers in Oshawa out fighting for their lives right now, and I would note with no Liberal representation in sight? All of those workers have noted that as well. If these deals are so good for working people, then why, after signing this deal, does the harm continue to impact working people who are losing their jobs while Mexico is growing?

[Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs), Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, throughout negotiations, our government has been committed to transparency, inclusiveness and openness. We engaged and consulted with a variety of stakeholders from all economic sectors, with labour organizations, women, youth, indigenous peoples, civil society organizations and academics. We also worked very closely with our provincial and territorial colleagues and delivered a whole-of-Canada approach to advancing Canadian interests across the table.

There has been a lot of praise given to this government for negotiating this deal and it is thanks to many stakeholders and industries across the country, including the Canadian Labour Congress and Unifor.

As the Prime Minister said, we are very grateful to Canadian stakeholders who took part in these consultations. The views provided were very helpful in informing Canada's position at the negotiation table and in finding creative solutions to address the unconventional proposals at the table.

Jerry Dias and Hassan Yussuff have worked closely with us every step of the way to ensure that this deal would be the best possible one for workers, for labour and for Canadians. This close co-operation with stakeholders and labourers is why this deal is great for Canadian workers.

The member opposite will be happy to know that the enforceable provisions in the new NAFTA that protect labour are the strongest in any Canadian trade agreement to date. The new auto rules of origin will directly secure the future for auto workers in cities such as Windsor and Oshawa. Jerry Dias, of Unifor, has said that this is a much better deal than the deal that was signed 24 years ago.

The new agreement also reinforces the strong economic ties between Canada, Mexico and the United States while recognizing the importance of inclusive trade by including key outcomes in areas such as labour and the environment as well as on gender and indigenous peoples.

It preserves Canada's preferential access to the U.S. market while updating and modernizing the old NAFTA agreement in areas such as digital trade, telecommunications and anti-corruption. Importantly, it means that Canadian workers and their families will enjoy greater opportunities than ever before.

The member opposite will also be happy to know that with the new agreement, we have sought the strongest labour chapter of any trade agreement Canada is party to. The agreement's labour chapter aims to level the playing field on labour standards and working conditions in North America and contains commitments to ensure that national laws and policies provide protection for fundamental principles and rights at work.

The new agreement also contains enforceable provisions that protect women's rights, minority rights and indigenous rights and environmental protections that are the strongest in any Canadian trade agreement to date.

For the first time in a Canadian trade agreement, the outcome incorporates a general exception that clearly confirms that the government can adopt or maintain measures it deems necessary to fulfill its legal obligations to indigenous peoples. As Perry Bellegarde said in a statement, “The provisions addressing Indigenous Peoples in [the deal] make it the most inclusive international trade agreement for Indigenous Peoples to date.”

Through the ratification process, we look forward to bringing the agreement to Parliament, and this includes the Standing Committee on International Trade, which it was my honour to serve on for two years with the member opposite. I look forward to the future of this agreement.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that while the Liberals love to invoke Jerry Dias, the president of Unifor, and my former president, right now the Liberal government has abandoned auto workers in Oshawa. It is not helping them to keep their jobs.

While the Liberals like to stand in the House and invoke labour and act as though they are the party that is standing with labour in the negotiation of this deal, I can tell the House clearly that Unifor members are contacting me every day, that Jerry Dias and I are speaking, and Colin James, who is the president of Unifor Local 222 in Oshawa, where one of her members sits. Jenn Cowie, who is an incredible activist, is out there every single day.

Once again, governments of Canada, Liberal and Conservative alike, but the Liberal government today, have left working people to fend for themselves. There are no workers out there in the cold today at GM fighting for their jobs in Oshawa who believe that the Liberal government will ever stand with them.

This trade agreement has done nothing to prevent the loss of jobs, and the Liberals have shown that they will not stand with working people when push comes to shove.

New Democrats will continue to stand with working people and with auto workers in our country. No one is fooled by the Liberal government.

[Pamela Goldsmith-Jones]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand in the House and state that the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement preserves key elements of the North American trading relationship and allows for continued regional prosperity and stability.

It is most unfortunate that the NDP is opposed to this trade deal and the progress we have made for Canada. What we have moved forward with in North America is historic in terms of labour standards and protecting the rights of workers.

The government engaged proactively with over 1,200 Canadian stakeholders in modernizing NAFTA. We will continue to engage directly with a wide array of stakeholders as we move toward ratification and implementation.

Canadians know and are largely supportive of our new agreement and have underscored the importance of securing stability and predictability in our commercial relationships with the United States and with Mexico. The new NAFTA deal is good for Canada's economic prosperity and good for middle-class Canadians. We look forward to bringing this agreement to Parliament.

Health

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, seniors play an active role in their communities. They make a valuable contribution to society. However, too many of them are falling through the cracks, and families are having a hard time supporting their aging loved ones.

Poverty among seniors is on the rise. Too many seniors are being forced to choose between buying food and buying medicine. In the not-too-distant future, one in four Canadians will be 65 or older. That is a quarter of our population, which is why a feasible plan for the future is crucial. We need a plan that includes free universal pharmacare because our seniors cannot wait any longer.

Seniors have worked hard to build our country, but the rising cost of living is making it impossible for many of them to make ends meet.

The lack of affordable housing, expensive prescription drugs and inadequate support measures are making life more difficult for seniors. Today, over 250,000 seniors are living below the poverty line. In a country as rich and prosperous as Canada, that is unacceptable.

That is why the NDP is championing a national seniors strategy. We believe that seniors should be able to live with dignity.

When will this Prime Minister commit to a national seniors strategy, a strategy that includes a universal pharmacare program?

When will this government take real action? When will this government stop resorting to half measures to help our seniors instead of adopting a comprehensive approach? We need this strategy for our seniors.

In July, my office was inundated with calls. I am very pleased that seniors in my riding know that they can call me when there is a problem and we are here to listen. Those seniors were distressed because this government abandoned them yet again.

One of my constituents, who is 70 years old, came to see us because his old age security benefit was much lower than usual and he did not receive his guaranteed income supplement.

We looked into it to ensure that he received those benefits quickly, but in the meantime he could not afford his medication and had barely enough money for groceries. It is terrible.

Last week, I was talking to one of the seniors in my riding who said that he and his wife worked their entire lives and now, with such a small pension, they are having real trouble making ends meet.

Mr. Paul is 75 years old. He told me that he does not understand why the drugs he has to take cost so much. The Prime Minister rose in the House to tell me that the government was working hard for seniors, but in reality, our seniors are now visiting soup kitchens because they cannot make ends meet. Some must make the difficult choice between paying rent or paying for medication. That is shameful.

I also heard from Ms. Sénécal, who told me that seniors need a decent income, and she is absolutely right. She also asked me to make sure that everyone aged 60 to 64 receive a pension without discrimination.

Ms. Lafleur told me that creating a national pharmacare plan and increasing pensions was a priority.

Ms. Leclair and Mr. Breton both told me that the pension amounts should be higher. They are absolutely right.

Mr. Desmarais, a constituent of mine, told me that his drugs are abnormally expensive. He said that he pays $75 for exactly 5 millilitres of medication. Is this normal? He needs this medication, but why is it so expensive?

This government needs to listen to our seniors. I am listening, that is for sure.

[Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs), Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to contribute to tonight's debate on pharmacare and prescription drugs, which play such a vital role in our health care system and the well-being of seniors. I am pleased to address the question from the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot regarding this issue.

Prescription drugs are an increasingly important part of our health care system, helping to prevent and cure disease and save lives. However, Canada's drug spending is not producing all of the benefits that it should. Drug spending in Canada has increased significantly since medicare was first established. Drugs are now the second largest category of spending in health care, ahead of physician services. Canada is paying higher prices for prescription drugs than most other developed countries and these prices limit access to innovative medicines, place a financial burden on patients and mean fewer resources for other areas of the health care system.

Since 2000, drug spending has increased faster in Canada than in all other of the comparator countries, seven other countries against which the Government of Canada benchmarks its prices. At the same time, research and development investment has fallen even further behind. Not only does Canada receive less pharmaceutical research and development investment than any other comparator country, but Canada receives less investment today than it did 30 years ago.

Our government is firmly committed to taking action to lower the cost of prescription drugs. However, before we can turn our attention to the idea of a national pharmacare program, we need to get the foundations in place to support the effective management of pharmaceuticals in this country. That is why our government is showing leadership and a real commitment to engaging provinces and territories on making significant improvements to address the issue. This includes reducing the cost of patented drugs through the modernization of the regulations governing the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. Amendments to the regulations will give the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board the tools and information needed to protect all Canadians from excessive patented drug prices.

We have also worked to lower drug costs by forming a united front with our provincial and territorial partners to negotiate with the makers of patented drugs to reduce the price of their products. Federal participation in the pan-Canadian pharmaceutical alliance produced savings for provincial and federal governments of over $1 billion in 2017. Health Canada has also launched the regulatory review of drugs and devices initiative. This initiative represents the most significant effort in many years to improve the availability of prescription drugs for Canadians, particularly for drugs used to treat rare diseases. As we know, the availability of medications to treat rare diseases was recently studied by the Standing Committee on Health.

On the topic of a national pharmacare program, the House is aware of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's recent report on this issue, as well as the study completed by the Standing Committee on Health, which was presented to the House in April 2018. We welcome this work, and in response, have followed up by committing, through budget 2018, to the creation of an advisory council on the implementation of national pharmacare, which is chaired by Dr. Eric Hoskins. The council is engaging with Canadians and provincial, territorial and indigenous leaders, as well as experts, stakeholders and patients. It is also conducting a fiscal, economic and social assessment of domestic and international pharmacare models, with the aim of reporting back to the federal government this spring on how best to implement a national pharmacare program.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is saying that we are paying more. That is why the government needs to take action. As we speak, the Canadian Health Coalition is on Parliament Hill to tell us that Canada is the only country in the world with a public health care system that does not cover prescription drugs. As a result, one in 10 Canadians are unable to afford the drugs that have been prescribed to them.

The parliamentary secretary said that the Standing Committee on Health and the Parliamentary Budget Officer have done studies. Studies are not enough. The government needs to take immediate action. The time for consultation is over. This problem is well documented. We need a universal, public pharmacare program right now.

When will the government take action?

[Pamela Goldsmith-Jones]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her advocacy.

Canadians are proud of our universal health care system and we all recognize that the system can be improved. For too many Canadians, our existing patchwork of drug coverage is not working well enough, leading to poorer health for some and higher costs for us all. In response to this, in budget 2018, our government announced the creation of an advisory council on the implementation of national pharmacare, chaired by Dr. Eric Hoskins. Our government looks forward to receiving the results of the council's work this spring.

Foreign Affairs

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking tonight as part of what we call adjournment debate. This is where we have an opportunity to ask a follow-up question, going into greater detail about a question that we asked earlier in question period. Today, I am following up on a question I asked on November 5, 2018, a question about Asia Bibi. The question was as follows:

Mr. Speaker, Asia Bibi spent eight years in solitary confinement in Pakistan in the world's most high-profile blasphemy case. We are excited about her acquittal, but she and her family remain in grave danger. Ministerial permits have been used in the past to help vulnerable victims of false blasphemy charges in Pakistan, such as in the case of Rimsha Masih, under the previous government.

Will the minister continue this proud Canadian tradition and offer asylum to Asia Bibi and her family?

Around the same time, I co-signed a letter to the Minister of Immigration and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, highlighting the same issue and calling for Asia to be given asylum. I want to recognize the leadership of the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek who organized the letter. I note that the letter was also co-signed by the members for Peace River—Westlock, Yorkton—Melville, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, Scarborough—Guildwood, Humber River—Black Creek, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Saskatoon—University, Langley—Aldergrove, Edmonton Manning, Lethbridge and Kitchener—Conestoga.

However, the more important advocacy for Asia has come from the community. The strong, vocal and active Pakistani Canadian community and Pakistani Christian community in particular.

In the years that the Asia Bibi case has been going on, she has also had very strong advocates in Pakistan, people who courageously fought and continue to fight for tolerance, pluralism, freedom and justice. Two prominent politicians, Shahbaz Bhatti and Salman Taseer, gave their lives advocating for freedom and justice. We salute their memory and their courage. Members of both the Bhatti and Taseer family live in Canada. Shahbaz Bhatti's nephew actually works in my office. Clearly, politics runs in the family.

A great deal more work needs to be done to advance tolerance in Pakistan and to reform the blasphemy law, but the acquittal and release of Asia Bibi is a powerful step forward that gives all of us great hope. It gives tolerant freedom-loving Pakistanis hope that their country will move forward. It gives them hope for the realization of Muhammad Ali Jinnah's vision. Jinnah was the founder of Pakistan. He said in 1947:

You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed -- that has nothing to do with the business of the State....We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle: that we are all citizens, and equal citizens, of one State

The release of Asia Bibi is one important step toward the realization of that reality.

Media reports suggest that the government may have some information to share with respect to this case. As an update to my original question, could the government share with us any new details about Asia Bibi receiving asylum in Canada?

[Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs), Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, this government is seized with the case of Asia Bibi. Together with like-minded countries, we have been and continue to be extremely engaged on this issue. I can assure my hon. colleague that the core priority for this government in the present situation is ensuring the safety of Asia Bibi and her family.

It is disappointing that the member opposite has decided to introduce this debate and possibly jeopardize those ongoing efforts. The House should be aware that my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has spoken personally to the member opposite about the delicate discussions that are presently under way on this case. That is why it is unfortunate that the member opposite has decided to bring this matter forward in this manner, as both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have consistently stated that the Government of Canada is deeply engaged on this issue.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs has spoke directly to her counterpart and we are working closely with like-minded friends and allies on this issue. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said, Canada is prepared to do everything we can to ensure the safety of Asia Bibi.

The case of Asia Bibi has caught the attention of the world. In 2009, she became the first woman to be convicted under Pakistan's blasphemy laws and was sentenced to death. In 2014, she appealed the sentence to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Supreme Court heard her case, and on October 31 of last year she was acquitted. A review of her case by the Supreme Court of Pakistan took place today, January 29, 2019. We are gratified that the Supreme Court has upheld her acquittal and that she has been cleared of all charges. We have urged the Government of Pakistan to take all necessary steps to keep her safe and are confident that it will do so.

The protection and promotion of human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, is a core priority of this government's foreign policy. Internationally, Canada always advocates strongly for the respect of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including article 18, which guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. We share the concerns of all Canadians regarding any limits on the fundamental human right to freedom of religion or belief. We have raised these concerns with Pakistan and we will continue to do so.

The Government of Canada will maintain its broad engagement with Pakistan on a wide variety of important topics, including human rights and the protection of religious minorities. We will continue to encourage and assist the Government of Pakistan in taking concrete steps to improve the situation for all religious minorities. This government will always stand up for the protection of religious minorities around the world.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her words. However, I will say that I am surprised by the critical comments she started off with. All I asked was if the government has any updates to share based on media reports. If the answer is no, then fair enough. Those media reports are out there, but if the government does not wish to comment on them, that is up to the government.

Again, all of us wish this family the best, and we wish the people of Pakistan the best. I hope that the outcome will be positive.

[Pamela Goldsmith-Jones]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague has said, the government is extremely engaged on the case of Asia Bibi. To that end, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has spoken directly to her counterpart in Pakistan. We are working closely with like-minded friends and allies towards our common goal, which is, of course, to ensure the safety of Asia Bibi and her family.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said, Canada is prepared to do everything we can to ensure the safety of Asia Bibi. However, it remains a very delicate situation. I would urge all members of the House to remember that we are talking about a woman whom I think we all look up to. We appreciate the genuine concern and compassion of each and every member of the House of Commons, and we should conduct ourselves in accordance with her best interests.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:36 p.m.)