Debates of March 23rd, 2023

Finance

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we often talk about the support needed for families. My colleagues and I believe in supporting a robust social safety net to make sure families have what they need, including dental care. Our teeth are part of our bodies, and if we want to support good health, we also need to support holistic health, which includes our teeth.

I wonder if the member shares my opinion that we need to put in place a national dental care strategy so that all individuals who live in Canada can access proper dental care.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that dental care is very important for families, and I understand the costs and concerns around access to dental care. However, I am also concerned that the government's approach to just about everything it has done is to harm our ability to have a robust economy that can afford the sustainable programs Canadians rely on.

I have concerns about cost and about how any type of system would work, and I have no confidence in the government to deliver one. I encourage members of the NDP, including the member for Winnipeg Centre, to demand a bit more accountability regarding the failures of the government on any of a host of issues, perhaps including dental care.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country.

Today, we are discussing the finance committee's pre-budget consultation report. I want to start off by saying right out of the gate, and I have talked about this many times in the House, that we as Conservatives oppose all tax increases at this time. That includes the excise tax increase, the payroll tax increase and the carbon tax increase, the last of which increases the price of everything that is shipped across the country.

To set the stage, inflation is at a 40-year high and we know that food inflation is higher. When inflation was around 6%, food inflation was over 11%, almost double.

I did a survey in my community. I send out surveys that go to every residence, and it is amazing how many thousands of people mail them back. It is such great information for me. It is such a great way for me to gain feedback from the community, in addition to all the other types of outreach I do. I would say that over 70% of the people who filled out that survey said their food costs were up 20% to 30%, and food prices can be higher regionally across the country. When food inflation is this high, it definitely makes it very hard for everyone to pay their bills, in particular people who are on fixed incomes, like seniors. It has been reported that 1.5 million people went to a food bank in just one month.

Before I came here to debate this motion today, I had the honour of sitting for a while on the finance committee, where a chief economist from a bank said that he expects insolvencies to increase. The CIBC has said that one in five mortgages it has in its portfolio is in a position where the borrower's monthly payment is not high enough to cover even the interest portion of the loan. People are struggling, and now is not the time to increase any taxes.

What I would like to talk about for most of my time today is the excise tax increase. To go back a bit regarding this tax increase, in 2017, the Liberals put in place an escalator tax on the alcohol excise tax. “Escalator” is just a fancy bureaucratic word for automatic, so it is an automatic tax increase that does not go into budgets and is not debated every year. At the time, Conservatives, industries and stakeholders asked the government not to do it. They were very concerned that it might trigger trade challenges. In fact, it did with Australia. During that time, Australia said that it was unfair, and over the course of a few years, an agreement was made with Australia and was announced on the Canadian side.

I should mention that previously, some wineries with domestically grown grapes that were made into wine were exempt from paying the excise tax. This was done many years ago to build up and assist this value-added industry and agriculture. The agreement made was that these wineries, and we later learned cideries as well, had to start paying this excise tax. That was the agreement the Canadian government announced. However, back in Australia, they were announcing they won the trade challenge, so it was interesting how the communications came out. What has happened with that? The Canadian government has had to come up with different formulas to fix that situation with domestic wineries.

In addition to that, the excise tax is increasing every year, and it is tied to the CPI, which means it is tied to inflation. Therefore, when inflation is higher, this tax increase is higher, which then perpetuates inflation even more. As of April 1, there will be the highest tax increase ever, at 6.3%, and because inflation has been high this year, we are already tracking to have a high tax increase as we go into next year.

Just dealing with this year, this is really going to affect the producers. It is not only the manufacturers, which could be the wineries, breweries, cideries and distilleries, but this tax increase then trickles down to the retailers who will be selling these products. It trickles down to the restaurant owners, who are still having a really tough time coming out of the pandemic, and, of course, ultimately to consumers.

For disclosure, I worked for 27 years in the British Columbia beer and wine industry, so I worked on all sides of the industry. I remember at different times, when, for example, the provincial government was changing some of its formulas around taxation, so winery or brewery operators would have to make a very difficult decision on how long they would absorb that increase.

To really simplify things, as an example, people's wine might be on the shelf at $19.99 a bottle. Now they have to make the choice. Do they put it up to $20.19? It is such an odd number. Therefore, they make the decision to keep it at that price for a while and then realize they cannot and they have to eventually pass this on. They will make a decision. They will take the hit for a while, but ultimately it has to be passed on. Those are the tough decisions that business owners, especially small business owners, make every day.

In Kelowna—Lake Country, there are 27 wineries, 21 breweries, and eight cideries and distilleries combined. These are farm-to-glass industries. These are value-added industries. All of these will be affected. This is just another cost that will be added on, which does not have to be because there is no benefit to those organizations. It is strictly a tax, and we should not be increasing any taxes at this time.

We know that small businesses represent most of the businesses in Canada. They represent most of the businesses in my community.

As I was talking about the trickle-down effects of this, Restaurants Canada shows that more than 50% of the licensed restaurants in Canada are losing money or barely breaking even. Again, as these cost increases are being passed on, it will affect them.

The CFIB reported that the average small business owner took on $150,000 in new debt. Most business owners have not paid off this debt. Of course, with rising interest rates, their debt is costing more. Therefore, for any of them who work in this industry, this will just be affecting them even more.

Beer Canada wrote on behalf of eight brewery worker unions. I will read a quote from it. It states, “Canada is experiencing the highest cost of living increases in a generation. This is squeezing family budgets and making workers in the brewing sector nervous about their jobs.”

Wine Growers Canada wrote to the Minister of Finance and said that with the addition of federal/provincial ad valorem taxes in the pricing chain, the next rise in excise duty would increase wine prices by at least 10¢ per litre, with long-term impacts on restaurants, hotels, bars, retailers, farmers and wine growers.

Members can see that this is going to dramatically affect a lot of these industries.

I wrote to the finance minister recently. I will just quote part of what I wrote to her. I said, “Producers will be left with the choice of absorbing this cost increase and adding it to their debt loads or passing on this cost to both consumers and our restaurant and hospitality businesses, fuelling inflation more.” I have not heard back from her.

I will also say that when I was first elected back in 2019, this was one of the first topics that I started advocating on, because I had so many small business owners in my riding coming to me, saying that this affected them every year, That was before we had this record high inflation.

With that, I am standing with small business owners in my riding and across Canada, and we need to stop all tax increases.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, there is certainly a popular discussion right now around the alcohol escalator tax. We are receiving a lot of feedback from constituents as well. I continue to bring them forward to the government.

I am wondering what would be the most important thing that the member is looking for in the budget ahead. Certainly we are facing many issues. We are looking for environmental leadership. We are looking for reconciliation in health care. What would be the biggest thing the member would be looking for next week?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I spoke to this in my speech. We need to cut taxes. We need to have no tax increases and we also need to look at ways that we can cut taxes for small businesses, for families. That has to be a priority. We should not be increasing any taxes at this time. That should not be in the budget.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we would like a recorded vote.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until later this day, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Medical Assistance in Dying

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today and present a petition from hundreds of Canadians who have expressed their concerns with the comments from Louis Roy of the Quebec College of Physicians, who has suggested that babies from birth to the age of one year old could be euthanized if they display severe disformity or syndromes.

This proposal for legalizing the killing of infants is deeply disturbing, not only to these petitioners but to the majority of Canadians. We have to, as the House, recognize that infanticide is always wrong.

Their encouragement to the House of Commons is to reject any notion to that extent.

Taxation

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and table a petition signed by a number of Canadians who are concerned and agree with me on the need to repeal the automatic excise escalator on alcohol. They are concerned, as I am, that this tax is an automatic tax that impedes our industry from competing in world markets and that it is the wrong approach to excise.

The timing is particularly bad with the record tax increase that is scheduled to take effect next weekend. They are concerned that we are going to render some fairly basic pleasures unaffordable by working Canadians.

Climate Change

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a huge honour to table a petition today that has been gathered by youth in my riding in the town of Qualicum Beach, climate activists who cite that children born in 2020 will face on average two to seven times more extreme weather events than their grandparents.

In a 2021 report in the Lancet, 83% of children worldwide reported that they thought people had failed to take care of the planet. They note that those most affected by climate change are the youngest generation as they will live to see the worst effects of this crisis; that youth discussion has proven critical to successful climate action and policy creation, however, dozens of climate-related decisions are made without input from youth.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to require all members of Parliament, regardless of party lines, to consult with a secondary or elementary school leadership, student council or environmental youth group of their riding, such as under-18 youth representatives, before Parliament holds second reading of any bill that directly affects Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions; and that the purpose of the consultation will be to listen to the viewpoints of those directly affected by the specified bill, but who do not already have representation in Parliament.

I thank those youth for this very important petition.

Genetically Modified Foods

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, constituents in my riding have submitted this petition on an extremely important issue relating to genetically modified organisms and genetically modified foods.

The petitioners point out that these food products are not labelled as genetically modified. Consumers do want to know. Over 80% of Canadians have said that they would like mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods so they know what they are buying.

There is concern, as the World Health Organizations's International Agency for Research on Cancer has pointed out the herbicide more commonly used because of genetically modified so-called “roundup ready” products, that glyphosate, a probable human carcinogen, is not labelled.

The petitioners ask the Government of Canada establish mandatory labelling on all genetically modified foods.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians who are deeply concerned the Government of Pakistan has failed, and continues to fail, to afford protection and legitimate rights to persecuted Christians. A good number of those persecuted Christians have found refuge in Canada, having escaped persecution in Pakistan via Thailand, from where they are able to apply for refugee status. Of course, we welcome them into Canada.

The petitioners call on the government to create a special status for Pakistani asylum seekers, who continue to suffer mistreatment in Thailand, in order to streamline and quicken the process for claiming refugee status through the IRCC.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from March 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Telecommunications Act

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-26, an act about cybersecurity. In the 21st century, cybersecurity is national security, and it is our responsibility to protect Canadians from growing cyber-threats. We have to take the necessary steps to protect Canadians and our telecommunications infrastructure. Canadians must have confidence in the integrity, authenticity and security of the products and services they use every day.

This bill reflects the values of Canadians and is in line with our closest allies, including our Five Eyes partners. That is why we are investing in cybersecurity, ensuring respect for the privacy of Canadians and supporting responsible innovation. We will continue to protect Canadians from cyber-threats in an increasingly digital world. As said in our international cybersecurity overview, a free, open and secure cyberspace is critical to Canada’s economy, social activity, democracy and national security.

Canada faces cybersecurity risks from both state and non-state actors. Protecting Canada’s and Canadians’ cyber-infrastructure from malicious actors is a serious challenge and a never-ending task. Canada works with allies and partners to improve cybersecurity at home and to counter threats from abroad. This includes identifying cyber-threats or vulnerabilities and developing capabilities to respond to a range of cyber-incidents.

A few years back, we put forward the national cybersecurity strategy, a vision for security and prosperity in the digital age. As mentioned there, virtually everything Canadians do is touched by technology in some way. We are heavily interconnected and networked, a fact that not only enhances our quality of life but also creates vulnerabilities. From commercial supply chains to the critical infrastructure that underpins our economy and our society, the risks in the cyberworld have multiplied, accelerated and grown increasingly malicious.

Major corporations, industries and our international allies and partners are engaged in the global cyber-challenge, but many others are not and that represents a significant risk. The strategy's core goals were reflected in budget 2018, where $500 million was invested in cybersecurity. Part of the funding was for the new Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, which is Canada’s technical authority on cybersecurity. It is part of the Communications Security Establishment, and it is the single, unified source of expert advice, guidance, services and support on cybersecurity for Canadians and Canadian organizations.

It regularly publishes the “National Cyber Threat Assessment”, and I would like to quote from their latest one for 2023-24. It states:

Canadians use the Internet for financial transactions, to connect with friends and family, attend medical appointments and work. As Canadians spend more time and do more on the Internet, the opportunities grow for cyber threat activity to impact their daily lives. There’s been a rise in the amount of personal, business and financial data available online, making it a target for cyber threat actors. This trend towards connecting important systems to the Internet increases the threat of service disruption from cyber threat activity. Meanwhile, nation states and cybercriminals are continuing to develop their cyber capabilities. State-sponsored and financially motivated cyber threat activity is increasingly likely to affect Canadians.

In the latest assessment, they chose to focus on five cyber-threat narratives that they judge are the most dynamic and impactful.

First, ransomware is a persistent threat to Canadian organizations. Cybercrime continues to be the cyber-threat activity most likely to affect Canadians and Canadian organizations. Due to its impact on an organization’s ability to function, ransomware is almost certainly the most disruptive form of cybercrime facing Canadians. Cybercriminals deploying ransomware have evolved in a growing and sophisticated cybercrime ecosystem and will continue to adapt to maximize profits.

Second, critical infrastructure is increasingly at risk from cyber-threat activity. Cybercriminals exploit critical infrastructure because downtime can be harmful to industrial processes and the customers they serve. State-sponsored actors target critical infrastructure to collect information through espionage, to pre-position themselves in case of future hostilities and as a form of power projection and intimidation.

Third, state-sponsored cyber-threat activity is impacting Canadians. State-sponsored cyber-threat activity against Canada is a constant, ongoing threat that is often a subset of larger, global campaigns undertaken by these states. State actors can target diaspora populations and activists in Canada, Canadian organizations and their intellectual property for espionage, and even Canadian individuals and organizations for financial gain.

Fourth, cyber-threat actors are attempting to influence Canadians, degrading trust in online spaces. Cyber-threat actors' use of misinformation, disinformation and malinformation, collectively referred to as MDM, has evolved over the past two years. Machine learning-enabled technologies are making fake content easier to manufacture and harder to detect. Further, nation-states are increasingly willing and able to use MDM to advance their geopolitical interests.

Fifth, disruptive technologies bring new opportunities and new threats. Digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies and decentralized finance, are both targets and tools for cyber-threat actors to enable malicious cyber-threat activity. Machine learning has become commonplace in consumer services and data analysis, but cyber-threat actors can deceive and exploit this technology. Quantum computing has the potential to threaten our current systems of maintaining trust and confidentiality online. Encrypted information stolen by threat actors today can be held and decrypted when quantum computers become available.

Simply put, cyber-threats pose a growing risk to all Canadians and institutions. We are confronting this threat head-on. Our government regularly engages with domestic and international cybersecurity partners to protect Canada’s critical infrastructure and the systems that underpin essential services. We are working closely with critical infrastructure stakeholders and partners to ensure that they are better prepared to face cyber-based threats.

Our cybersecurity framework continues to detect, deter and disrupt state and non-state actors attempting to take advantage of the Canadian cyber-landscape. Our government is, and will always be, ready to respond to any malicious cyber-acts that threaten Canadian interests.

To conclude, the purpose of this act is to help protect critical cyber systems in order to support the continuity and security of vital services and vital systems by ensuring that, first, any cybersecurity risks with respect to critical cyber systems are identified and managed; second, critical cyber systems are protected from being compromised; third, any cybersecurity incidents affecting, or having the potential to affect, critical cyber systems are detected; and finally, the impacts of cybersecurity incidents affecting critical cyber systems are minimized.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of cybersecurity, I would like to hear what my colleague thinks of the allegations made in the Journal de Montréal two or three weeks ago about a woman of Chinese descent who was elected as a Brossard city councillor. We know that she was the director of two Chinese community centres, one in Montreal and one in Brossard, that are suspected of having become Chinese police stations.

It is suspected that this woman got elected to Brossard's city council because people from the Chinese government sent WeChat messages to members of Brossard's Chinese community, telling them to vote for her. This woman is believed to be a Chinese operative. There is a link to the Chinese government, which is using digital platforms to influence our municipal and even provincial and federal elections.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that. Does this not prove that it is more urgent than ever to launch an independent public inquiry into Chinese interference in this country?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. colleague mentioned the growing importance of protecting Canadians and Canada from state-sponsored activities with respect to cybersecurity. State actors are very active in exploiting advanced technologies to create disruption and to erode trust in our systems and institutions, so that is one of the major objectives of our government in proposing this bill.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government seems to be granting itself some pretty broad powers in the bill, especially to the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Industry. Maybe my colleague can explain, and assure Canadians, how these powers would not be unjustly applied to ordinary Canadians who have done absolutely nothing wrong.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with our system of checks and balances, like here in the House, the government is held to account by the opposition benches, which is one of the ways the government's powers and the ministers' powers are monitored and controlled.

There is a broader aspect to this. This legislation deals with evolving technologies, which are very difficult to even define in the legislation. The legislation cannot be changed or amended frequently, which is why the legislation provides more opportunities for the government or the ministers of the day to pass on regulations so that they can immediately identify those and take remedial measures.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been reported that small and medium-sized businesses could face immense financial pressure from increased red tape and reporting measures. The Business Council of Canada, in an open letter, indicated that businesses were concerned with the added red tape and the impact it would have on small and medium-sized businesses.

We realize, at least on this side of the House, that small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of the economy. Is this the time to be adding more financial pressures to these businesses? Can the member think of alternative ways of being able to satisfy that?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that small businesses are the backbone of Canada and the Canadian economy, with the majority of Canadians working in small and medium-sized businesses.

Related to this bill is the fact that this issue affects small-sized businesses disproportionately more, because they do not have enough resources to protect themselves from cyber-threats. In fact, as I mentioned in my speech, the new Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, which is part of the Communications Security Establishment, is there to provide expert advice, guidance, and service and support on cyber-threats and cybersecurity to Canadian organizations.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and join the debate this morning in the House of Commons. I will be sharing my time with the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

Bill C-26 is a bill that addresses an important and growing topic. Cybersecurity is very important, very timely. I am glad that, in calling this bill today, the government sees this as a priority. I struggle with trying to figure out the priorities of the government from time to time. There were other bills it had declared as absolute must-pass bills before Christmas that it is not calling. However, it is good to be talking about this instead of Bill C-21, Bill C-11 or some of the other bills that the Liberals have lots of problems with on their own benches.

Cybersecurity is something that affects all Canadians. It is, no doubt, an exceptionally important issue that the government needs to address. Cybersecurity, as the previous speaker said, is national security. It is critical to the safety and security of all of our infrastructure. It underpins every aspect of our lives. We have seen how infrastructure can be vulnerable to cyber-attacks. Throughout the world, we have seen how energy infrastructure is vulnerable, like cyber-attacks that affect the ability to operate pipelines. We have seen how cyber-attacks can jeopardize the functioning of an electrical grid.

At the local level, we have experienced how weather events that bring down power infrastructure can devastate a community and can actually endanger people's health and safety. One can only imagine what a nationwide or pervasive cyber-attack that managed to cripple a national electrical grid would do to people's ability to live their lives in safety and comfort.

Cyberwarfare is emerging as a critical component of every country's national defence system, both offensively and defensively. The battlefield success of any military force has always depended on communication. We know now just how dependent military forces are on the security of their cyber-communication. We see this unfolding in Ukraine, resulting from the horrific, criminal invasion of that country by Putin. We see the vital role that communication plays with respect to the ability of a country to defend itself from a foreign adversary, in terms of cybersecurity.

I might point out that there is a study on this going on at the national defence committee. We have heard expert testimony about how important cybersecurity is to the Canadian Armed Forces. We look forward to getting that report eventually put together and tabled, with recommendations to the government here in the House of Commons in Canada.

We know that critical sectors of the Canadian economy and our public services are highly vulnerable to cyber-attack. Organized crime and foreign governments do target information contained within health care systems and within our financial system. The potential for a ransom attack, large and small, is a threat to Canadians. Imagine a hostile regime or a criminal enterprise hacking a public health care system and holding an entire province or an entire country hostage with the threat to destroy or leak or hopelessly corrupt the health data of millions of citizens. Sadly, criminal organizations and hostile governments seek to do this and are busy creating the technology to enable them to do exactly this.

The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics conducted three different studies while I was chair of that committee that were tied to cybersecurity in various ways. We talked about and learned about the important ways in which cybersecurity and privacy protection intersect and sometimes conflict. We saw how this government contracted with the company Clearview AI, a company whose business is to scrape billions of images from the Internet, identify these images and sell the identified images back to governments and, in the case of Canada, to the RCMP.

We heard chilling testimony at that committee about the capabilities of sophisticated investigative tools, spyware, used by hostile regimes and by organized crime but also by our own government, which used sophisticated investigative tools to access Canadians' cellphones without their knowledge or consent. In Canada, this was limited. It was surprising to learn that this happened, but it happened under judicial warrant and in limited situations by the RCMP. However, the RCMP did not notify or consult the Privacy Commissioner, which is required under Treasury Board rules. This conflict between protecting Canadians by enforcing our laws and protecting Canadians' privacy is difficult for governments, and when government institutions like the RCMP disregard Treasury Board edicts or ignore the Privacy Commissioner or the Privacy Act, especially when they set aside or ignore a ruling from the Privacy Commissioner, it is quite concerning.

This bill is important. It is worthy of support, unlike the government's somewhat related bill, Bill C-27, the so-called digital charter. However, this bill, make no mistake, has significant new powers for the government. It amends the Telecommunications Act to give extraordinary powers to the minister over industry. It is part of a pattern we are seeing with this government, where it introduces bills that grant significant powers to the minister and to the bureaucrats who will ultimately create regulations.

Parliament is really not going to see this fleshed out unless there is significant work done at committee to improve transparency around this bill and to add more clarity around what this bill would actually do and how these powers will be granted. There have been many concerns raised in the business community about how this bill may chase investment, jobs and capital from Canada. The prospect of extraordinary fines, without this bill being fleshed out very well, creates enormous liability for companies, which may choose not to invest in Canada, not fully understanding the ramifications of this bill.

There is always the capture. We have seen this time and time again with the government. It seems to write up a bill for maybe three or four big companies or industries, only a small number of players in Canada, and yet the bill will capture other enterprises, small businesses that do not have armies of lobbyists to engage the government and get regulations that will give them loopholes, or lawyers to litigate a conflict that may arise as a result of it. I am always concerned about the small businesses and the way they may be captured, either deliberately or not, by a bill like this.

I will conclude by saying that I support the objective. I agree with the concern that the bill tries to address. I am very concerned about a number of areas that are ambiguous within the bill. I hope that it is studied vigorously at committee and that strong recommendations are brought back from committee and incorporated into whatever the bill might finally look like when it comes back for third reading.