Debates of Feb. 1st, 2024

Polish Heritage Month

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, witam i dziękuję. I am delighted to wrap up this beautiful discussion that we have had here on my private member's motion, Motion No. 75. The diverse voices of my colleagues, spanning various political affiliations and regions of our country, have resonated with unwavering support, declaring May as Polish heritage month and designating May 3 as Polish constitution day in Canada.

The unanimous backing from members across the spectrum is a testament to the profound contributions of our Polish-Canadian communities.

I want to thank my colleagues, the members of Parliament who have spoken today, the members for Yellowhead, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Edmonton Strathcona, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Berthier—Maskinongé and Windsor West, the member we just heard from. I want to thank all those who participated as well in the first hour of debate for their thoughtful expression.

I express my heartfelt gratitude to the Polonia in Canada, whose roots trace back to the arrival of the first Polish immigrant in 1752. Over 272 years, this community has evolved into its present-day Polish diaspora of 1.1 million. Nicolaus Copernicus, the eminent Polish mathematician, doctor of medicine, theologian and astronomer, once said, “To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge.”

What we do know is true is the profound impact of the Polish-Canadian community on Canada's social, economic and political landscape. Its contribution in arts, music, entrepreneurship and academia have enriched our society immeasurably.

This motion owes its existence to the dedicated leaders within the Polish community who have tirelessly supported me and fellow members here in sharing their stories of Canadians of Polish descent. I extend my appreciation to those watching. We know some are with us here in the chamber today, whether in person or through our parliamentary channel.

While I cannot name everyone, I want to express a big thanks to His Excellency, Ambassador Witold Dzielski and his officials; to the Canadian Polish Congress and its president, John Tomczak, and vice-president, Dominik Roszak; as well as to the entire executive team of the Canadian Polish Congress.

I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of the various Polish Congress branch presidents and their boards, our Canada-Poland parliamentary friendship group and our chair, who was born in Poland and represents his community of Windsor—Tecumseh in the House. I know he will be working hard for our first flag raising here, when we get to commemorate May as Polish heritage month.

I had the privilege of joining my Polish community friends this past weekend at the Polish combatants' hall for the annual new year oplatek, or wafer reception. It was a moment to break bread, reflect on the past year and celebrate the achievements of the Polonia in Canada. This year marks the 90th anniversary of the Canadian Polish Congress, and we took the opportunity to express our gratitude to Canadian-Polish veterans who bravely fought for the peace, freedoms and democracy that we enjoy today.

I feel like I have been adopted by the Polish community. Like the Speaker, we come from Portuguese descent. That is maybe like John Tavares, with Portuguese and Polish coming together, but it has been a true honour. At that function, I received the Ignacy Jan Paderewski Polish medal of recognition. It is with pride that I wear it here today. I am very thankful for this recognition.

I extend my heartfelt thanks to Polish Canadians for Poland's steadfast support for Ukraine during these challenging times, my wife being of Ukrainian descent. The Polish spirit, determination and tireless efforts exemplify their commitment to enriching Canada with Polish culture, a strong work ethic, deep faith and unparalleled resilience.

When we think about what we are recognizing today, we are celebrating Polish heritage month and May 3 constitution day, from coast to coast to coast. I look forward to raising that Polish flag here on this Hill in Parliament, along with the Canadian flag.

Dziękuję bardzo. Niech żyje Polska. Niech żyje Kanada.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It being 6:23 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired. Accordingly, the question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will ask for a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 7, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

It being 6:24 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(7), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-365, an act respecting the implementation of a consumer-led banking system for Canadians, under Private Members' Business.

Consumer-Led Banking Act

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

moved that Bill C-365, an act respecting the implementation of a consumer-led banking system for Canadians, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, when I was a young boy, growing up, like many Canadians, I fondly remember playing the game Monopoly. I loved owning all the utilities, collecting Park Place and Boardwalk, then putting hotels on them and bankrupting all my brothers, sisters and family members. It was really great.

The game, of course, was developed in the early 1900s by Lizzie Magie. She wanted it to be an educational tool. It was meant to show the negative aspect of property held in the hands of a very few. One hundred years later, Canadians see that Canada has a monopoly problem. Canadians pay the highest cellphone bills on the whole planet. When it comes to groceries, we only have three Canadian grocery chains and two American chains that are driving prices up. When it comes to a lot of industries, like the Internet, we have a monopoly in the sky overhead. We have satellite, which is the only accessible Internet a lot of our six million rural Canadians can get from Elon Musk's Starlink.

Then we look at the main one, which is banking. We only have five Canadian banks that control 87% of all the mortgages. Excuse me, but it was five. Two weeks ago, the finance minister approved the merger of HSBC and RBC. The number one bank bought the number seven bank, which means that five banks now control 90% of all the mortgages in Canada.

Talking about how bad it is with monopolies, we can go back to 1776. Adam Smith talked about monopolies in The Wealth of Nations. He talked about the invisible hand and the many buyers and sellers who negotiate and dictate prices. If we remove that invisible hand, and if we take away sellers and keep it to a very few, then prices go up and wages go down. We are seeing that across Canada. Canada is the country that has the most monopolies per industry sector.

Oligopoly was a word created in 1930, and it means “few sellers”. It actually comes from the word “oligarch”. When we talk about an oligopoly, that is what we are talking about in the banking sector. When we have few sellers, prices go up, services go down, wages go down, start-ups go down and innovation goes down.

We only have a month to look back at what happened, with RBC announcing it was going to buy HSBC, and to see exactly what happened from that. Before the announcement, HSBC had interest rates of 6.4% versus RBC at 7.15%. After the announcement, those rates went up 6.55%. That meant if someone had a mortgage of $500,000 in Vancouver, they just paid $750 more a year. Monopolies benefit only the very few. The shareholders and the owners are the only ones who benefit, while Canadians lose. We certainly have that problem.

When it comes to the banking sector, we do have major problems because of this oligopoly. One-third of Canadians are upset with their financial institutions. Canadians pay some of the highest banking fees in the world. Because of economic conditions, J.D. Power stated that 50% of banking customers are “financially vulnerable or stressed”. That is an increase of 6% from only a year ago.

The banks will not share people's financial information. If people want the freedom to deal with another bank or institution, the banks feel that they own that information and will not share it with whom people want it shared. Canadians are nickel-and-dimed by the big banks for basic financial services, which Brits, Australians and Americans get for free.

The answer to our monopoly and oligopoly problem is right in front of us. A robust, open banking framework or consumer-led banking would allow the industry to overhaul its outdated systems and to modernize payment infrastructure, and would allow a platform for fintechs to fill the gaps left by Canada's oligopoly with one simple method. The banks would have to share one's financial data with one's consent.

Consumer-led banking makes the banks have to use an API, application program interface, so that companies could bank with people, and Canadians would get financial freedom. It is just common sense. It is freedom to decide who to bank with, which apps people want to use, how long their data is going to be used for and for what purposes.

It would mean that hundreds of financial institution applications and even new banks would be able to ply for Canadians' business, and Canadians would have the freedom of choice to decide who gets their banking business.

However, consumer-led banking, open banking, has already been delayed by this Liberal government for six years. My bill, Bill C-365, would end this six-year delay, and there is not a moment to lose. Other countries get it. South Korea implemented this in 2019, India in 2011, Australia in 2020, Japan in 2017, New Zealand in 2018 and the U.K. in 2018. Through consumer-led banking, we have seen countries other than Canada empower their consumers by allowing them, through security access, to share their own financial data. Other countries have reaped the rewards that Canada has lost out on.

In the U.K., with consumer-led banking implemented, with only 14% market share, consumers pay zero dollars for monthly transactional fees or for overdraft fees. Consumers in the U.K. pay zero dollars to their bank in general. The savings per year for the people in the U.K. is 12 billion pounds, and for small businesses, it is eight billion pounds. There have been over 250 companies created and over 4,000 jobs.

The reality, much like the industrial policy that Canada has lost out on, is that the most competitive and forward-looking leaders are based in other countries. Canada has some really great financial tech companies ready to lead the world, but if this is not implemented, they are going to leave Canada. This government has stalled, and the industry is losing patience, but let us walk through what has happened with this.

The government announced in 2018 that consumer-led and open banking would be in place by 2023. It is way past 2023.

The government hired an expert panel. Does that sound familiar? It hired an expert panel to weigh in back in the summer of 2021, which had a comprehensive recommendation of how to set up the system, including an 18-month implementation schedule.

The government hired a new expert to then come up with the framework in 2021. The expert reported back to the government in early 2023, but the report was never made public. In fact, it sits on the finance minister's desk. The minister sat on this report for six months and stalled this legislation, and now promises that it will be implemented. Strangely enough, after my private member's bill, Bill C-365, to get the government to implement consumer-led banking, it was tabled. However, this patient fintech industry is losing its patience, and we risk losing these companies, potentially worth hundreds of billions of dollars to this economy, at time when we need it the most.

For Canadians out there who are asking what “fintech” is, it stands for financial technology companies, and more Canadians have used a fintech app than they might even know. If a person cannot qualify for a loan because they do not have a Canadian credit history, they can share their monthly rent payments information with Borrowell's Rent Advantage to build their credit store. QuickBooks uses a person's transaction data to automate their bookkeeping, and there are one million small businesses using this app. Wealthica tracks a person's investment accounts at different banks while Wealthsimple is a Canadian online investment management service. Shakepay allows people to pay friends, buy Bitcoin and send money. KOHO is a no-fee spending and savings account with the perks of a credit card. Wise allows people to send cross-border currency quickly and efficiently.

The fintech industry in Canada is worth $9.4 billion with 169 investments in 2021 worth $1.75 billion, but it is despite this government, not because of it. Companies exist, but is almost in a black market.

Nine million Canadians have been simply giving away their online banking usernames and passwords, or what we call “screen scraping”, because the banks will not pass that information on. Screen scraping is illegal in most countries. Can members imagine having to share their safe word with another company because the banks just will not share their information? It is incredibly dangerous. As part of the U.K.'s open-banking reforms, the U.K. scrapped it, banned it and made it so that it could not happen. However, for nine million Canadians, it is happening each and every day.

Consumers need laws that force the banks to allow them to, on request, transfer their data from a bank to a financial tech organization, or to move it from bank to bank in order to give them financial freedom. It defines how the consent should be obtained, as well as the cybersecurity requirements that banks and apps must meet. Perhaps most importantly, open banking also helps customers hold their banks or fintechs liable if and when they are unreliable with their data.

Canada's reluctance to embrace open banking has recklessly allowed Canadians' private data to be at risk or compromised. Competition would help fix fraud. It makes companies sharper and makes them invest in better technologies. Currently, with fraud increasing, there has been a decrease in satisfaction with how banks handle fraud-related problem resolution. With competition, we would solve that.

The financial institutions that rank the highest in J.D. Power are those that effectively communicate about fees, fraud and savings; provide tools and information about budgeting and debt reduction; and address security and fraud problems in a timely manner. members can imagine that competition would also fix fraud. It is the lack of competition that is making Canadians have to put their data at risk, and this is compromising Canadians and Canadian businesses.

Let us be clear. Canadians want this. It is not just the cost savings, but the service. When we look at what Canadians want out of their banks, they want to be able to have the tools they want, when they want them. They want a bank that looks after their needs, and one that gets back to them. A lot of these fintechs are open during the weekends. We have seen other industries explode when they have competition. We see the service go up. We see wages go up. We make sure that we create good jobs that stay in Canada at a time when we need them.

Here are some comments we received when I put this bill forward. We have had a lot of good, positive feedback from fintechs that are desperately trying to get this legislation through. They have been asking for it for six years.

We have Sherri-Lee Mathers, an automation-obsessed accounting technologist, which are her words, in craft brewing technology. She writes, “Open Banking will bring improved Data-driven insights, and cashflow planning so desperately needed by Canadian Small Businesses. Especially, as they weather the challenges in the financial climate especially those industries that are still trying to recover from the pandemic!!...I SAY YES to OPEN BANKING!

Tanya Hilts is a CPB whose business name is Rev Up Your Business with Tanya: The Cloud-Savvy Bookkeeper & Efficiency Evangelist! These are great names. They are obviously entrepreneurs. Tanya writes, “Thank you...for your support....This is a game-changer for Canadian businesses, offering unparalleled transparency and control over financial data.”

Almost everyone I have met with supports this initiative and wants to make sure we get this right, get it through and get it going.

The other part right now is that start-ups in Canada are at a 20-year low. We have 100,000 fewer start-ups from entrepreneurs in Canada than we did 20 years ago, and this is at a time when we are seeing massive layoffs in the Canadian economy. We had announcements even in the last couple of weeks of thousands of jobs that are coming to an end and workers being laid off. We need this industry to grow. We need it to prosper. We certainly need it to excel with the right framework from the government, but we need that to happen right now.

The solution to Canada's monopoly problem is a Canadian consumer-led banking initiative and legislation that we want before the House within six months of this bill passing. In the United Kingdom, consumer-led banking has saved individuals 12 billion pounds per year and businesses over 6 billion pounds per year, with improved access to financial services, lower fees and greater control of their financial data.

Canadians know what a monopoly is, but they hardly know what a free market is. I talked about the board game Monopoly, and there is another board game called Anti-Monopoly, which is supposed to talk about the free-market system. It was supposed to teach our kids and families about a free market and what it is.

After 100 years of monopolies in Canada, it is time we open the free market. Today, Bill C-365 is calling for the government to reaffirm a promise to enact consumer-led banking and introduce legislation within six months so Canadians can have a free market in the banking sector and, with it, financial freedom and better prices, because Canadians and the Canadian fintech industry deserve more.

As the Conservative Party, we want to bring home savings and freedom to consumers. Let us bring home open banking to Canadians and the Canadian public.

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

Madam Speaker, as I am sure the member is aware, in the fall economic statement, which is the debate that was going on, but Conservatives do not want to pass the legislation and are filibustering it, it talks about setting and establishing the framework for a lot of the things, and I would suggest possibly more, that he is talking about now. It talks about how the budget 2024 legislation will incorporate it.

I wonder if the member would make a commitment to not only support it, but also encourage his colleagues across the way to try to get it passed relatively quickly.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is so simple, and I think I speak on behalf of all Canadians. I have five words: We do not believe them. They have had six years since they promised to implement this legislation. They said it would be done by 2023; it is 2024. All these companies have been promised one thing, but they did not get the answers.

A report for this exact open-banking legislation is sitting on the desk of the finance minister. It was after the fact that this private member's bill hit the floor that the government even mentioned in the fall economic statement. It is time to get this implemented. Let us get it done.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I thank my colleague for Bill C‑365, which is very interesting. I look forward to talking about it in my speech.

Many of these fintech companies are provincially regulated tech start-ups. In fact, the largest financial institution in Quebec, Desjardins, is a co‑operative operating under the provincial jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec and is not subject to federal legislation.

I would like to know whether my colleague has considered the need to align with Quebec's wish to consult and legislate in this area, and whether he is open to the idea of amending Bill C‑365 to prevent a situation where some banks are regulated under an open banking system and Desjardins, in Quebec, remains unregulated or not yet regulated. I wonder whether my colleague has thought about that aspect.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is a new addition to our industry committee; I look forward to working with him.

We see this across a lot of different spectra right now. This bill is asking for legislation. The legislation has to come forward. It is much the same as we are seeing with Bill C-27, and we have a much better privacy bill in Quebec, so I will agree with that. It is much the same as we saw today when we were talking about the problems with Manulife and Loblaw, and the fact that some of the legislation is provincial that is allowing Manulife to sole-source pharmaceuticals.

Yes, I agree with the member. We always need to look at the provinces, and we are looking at that with some of that legislation. However, let us get the legislation forward and passed, so we can all talk about it in the House of Commons and then get it passed for Quebec and all Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, can the member give a clear indication of how much consultation he did within the industry before tabling the legislation?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, I probably did a lot more than the government, because we have not seen a report; it is sitting on a desk. We do not even know what it has done for consultation.

I am just going to reiterate what the government has done, how long it has taken and why we are trying to get this through. The government announced, in 2018, that this would be in place by 2023. It hired an expert panel to weigh in, which reported back in the summer of 2021. The government then hired a new expert to come up with a framework in 2021, and the expert reported back. He was still being paid by the government, on the payroll, in early 2023. The report is sitting on a desk, and nothing has happened.

I have probably talked to just as many people in six months as the government did during its consultation, but I can say that all of them, every one of them, wants this legislation. Let us get this legislation in front of Parliament, and let us get it through.

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

Madam Speaker, I think, in terms of a secure and stable financial sector, that is what Canadians want to see. It was not that long ago when Stephen Harper was the prime minister and we had a banking industry that came out of the 90s that was fairly healthy because of decisions that Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin put into place to protect our banking industry.

I say that because it is important for us to recognize that, as a party, we have gone the extra mile, whether it is consultations or ensuring that the best interests of Canadians were put first in protecting a vital industry that has to be there, healthy and strong and pushing for consumer protections and choice first and foremost.

Remember the first few years of Stephen Harper? We had banks that were going bankrupt around the world. The world was looking at Canada, asking how it is that Canada was doing so well in terms of not having banks going bankrupt. It was being attributed to the work that Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin did during the 90s.

In order to be able to do the things that we did back then, it required a great deal of effort and work. That is what we have seen since we were elected back in 2015. We have very much seen a proactive government taking a look at how to build and continue to strengthen Canada's middle class. That means we have to take into consideration what is happening in our financial industry.

The banks play a critical role. That is why we have seen budgetary measures dealing with the banking industry. Canadians should not be surprised. The member himself makes reference to the fact that we have been talking about it from 2016.

That does not surprise me. Of course we are going to be talking about many different aspects of the banking industry because we understand the importance of it, even when the pandemic hit Canada. It was a worldwide pandemic. We took a look at how we could pressure the banking industry, the financial industry, to ensure that small businesses and Canadians' interests were going to be best served.

We used tax dollars and government policy to ensure that small businesses and families were going to be protected during that pandemic, ultimately, I would suggest, saving many businesses from going bankrupt and ensuring that families had the disposable income when it came time to pay mortgages or even put food on the table.

What has the government done with respect to this specific issue that the member has raised?

It was not that long ago that we had the fall economic statement.

Because of the efforts of the Department of Finance and other departments, we were able to deal with the many different stakeholders. The member made reference to one area in particular but what about the consumer? What about the average Canadian? What about small businesses? What about the larger corporations or the family farms? I think we had a responsibility to do a thorough consultation. The idea is great, but it takes a lot of work to put it together.

It was coming together quite well. I was glad that many Canadians, our banking industry and consumer groups were very pleased with the fall economic statement. That is the statement they are voting against, I will remind the member. Some of my colleagues are a little more optimistic than I am but I suspect that they are going to vote against it.

However, within that statement is that commitment, based on the discussions, the consultations and the work with the many different stakeholders, including consumers. It is coming together, because at the end of the day we recognize that we need to modernize. That is not an option. It is one thing to have the idea today. We have had that idea for years, and we have been working on it.

When I opened up my first bank account, it would have been in the late seventies, and at that time one just walked into a bank. Mine was the Bank of Nova Scotia on Albert Street. It did not take too much to be able to open up a chequing account back then. People would be quite surprised to see how easy it was back then. Today, when we try to open up a bank account, there are many challenges. Many challenges that my constituents have are because of issues like ID and so forth. One has to have a bank account.

E-transfers are something that is relatively new. We have to look at ways of ensuring that privacy issues are dealt with. These databanks and the amount of information that our financial institutions have on the average Canadian are extreme. If we put in an application for a loan or even if we put in an application for a bank account, we can imagine the type of information that is gathered from banks or credit unions, and we will find that they likely know a lot more about us than we might think they do.

As a government, we have to ensure that the right to protect that information is also in place. We have to ensure that those financial transactions are not leading to financial exploitation of consumers. We are very much concerned with that. That is actually one of the motivating factors for the government to take action in terms of the budget that is going to be coming up in 2024, just a couple of months away, possibly.

I look forward to seeing that budget and the budget implementation bill that will follow it. I think, at the end of the day, that Canadians can feel confident, because it is not only traditionally that other prime ministers, whether it is Paul Martin or Jean Chrétien, have been there to protect our financial industry, along with consumers. We have seen that this government has not only continued that tradition but is now looking at a way we can assist by having what I call, though others would call it different things, “consumer-friendly” legislation that is going to ensure that Canadians are not being financially exploited because of fees for services and so forth.

The member talked a lot about banks. I think we underestimate just how important our credit unions are. Our credit unions are a lifeline to so many and provide such a wonderful service, including providing competition, and we need to look at ways we can enhance and support these credit unions in whatever way we can. I would like to give a shout-out to all those individuals who are involved at grassroots credit unions for the fine work they do in ensuring that we have even more competition in our financial institutions.

Yes, they do deserve a round of applause.

I can tell members that I believe that, as a governing political party, we have been there in the past, and that has been demonstrated. Other governments around the world were envious of Canada and the work we did during the nineties to protect the banking industry and to protect Canadians by doing that. We are carrying that tradition on today by ensuring that we continue to modernize, protect consumers and protect the industry.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will start by thanking the member for Bay of Quinte for introducing the bill. It is a very interesting bill.

As surprising as it may be, this is the first time we have the opportunity to debate open finance in the House. Even the Standing Committee on Finance has never addressed this issue. So far, the discussion has been largely left to the experts and industry representatives. The Department of Finance, the Office of Superintendent of Financial Institutions, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, all those fine people, are currently examining the issue. As I said earlier, the same goes for the Autorité des marchés financiers, or the AMF, and Quebec's department of finance. In fact, back home in Quebec, we have Desjardins and other co-operatives.

It is also important to remember that the technology companies that would interface with customers in an open financial system are not banks. Essentially, they do not fall under federal jurisdiction, just as not all financial institutions fall under federal jurisdiction.

I have been closely following the work of the Advisory Committee on Open Banking, which is referenced extensively in the preamble of the bill. This work is very enlightening. The committee heard from a wide range of stakeholders, including banks, credit unions, insurance companies, trusts, brokers, technology companies, and the list goes on. My colleague talked about that. However, no consumer advocacy groups, privacy advocates or provincial regulators, such as Quebec's AMF, were consulted. It was therefore time to broaden the conversation. For that reason alone, the bill makes a huge contribution to the debate, and I thank my colleague once again for introducing it.

Implementing an open financial system constitutes a huge change with many implications. In the long term, we can envisage a system in which financial institutions would essentially be able to manufacture financial products. Customer relations would be handled by technology companies that would not offer the financial products themselves but would act as intermediaries and data aggregators. That is quite a change. The bill's preamble lists the benefits of such an open financial system. I will not repeat them here, as I think they have been clearly outlined. I would even say that it is inevitable that we will move toward an open system. It is going to happen.

Since this is the first time we are discussing this subject, I will use my time today to broaden the debate a bit, because there are also challenges and risks. It is our job as legislators to talk about all that, since we are working toward the common good.

Our financial system's greatest asset is its stability and the confidence that comes with that stability. It is stable because it is subject to very strict legal obligations. Ultimately, if something goes wrong, for example if there is fraud, data theft, failure to report a suspicious transaction that would enable the tracking of money laundering, and so on, then the financial institution is the one that is legally and financially responsible. These financial institutions are subject to strict prudential obligations so as to ensure they have the means of dealing with the risks in question.

Since the financial institutions are ultimately responsible, they currently guard their members' and customers' personal, financial or banking information very jealously. Again, the financial system's greatest asset is its stability. However, this is also where it becomes a weakness, because it can lead to compartmentalization and a lack of flexibility. The world has changed with all the new financial products online. The development of information technologies has given rise to the data economy, which requires the data to circulate more freely in order to grow. It is unclear whether our financial architecture is currently adapted to this new environment. That is the purpose of the bill.

A financial institution cannot be asked to be responsible for the use of data it no longer has custody of. Regulations and prudential standards will have to be adapted. It is far from certain that a technology company, on the other hand, has the wherewithal to take on the financial risks I mentioned earlier. For example, a financial start-up can be born and die in no time at all. That has been the case with several cryptocurrency companies. Caution is needed. That does not mean we should stand idle and fail to move towards a more open banking system.

People want the flexibility this kind of system offers. People want aggregators that put all their information in one place, facilitate transactions and give individuals an accurate picture of their financial situation. When money is tight at the end of the month, these applications and services are valuable, and there is demand for them.

People do not understand why they are not being allowed to do this with the technology available today. After all, our personal information belongs to us.

That is why fintech companies have already started coming on line despite the legal limbo. They are responding to an obvious demand. At this point, because they are not officially part of a financial system that makes sense, they exist in a grey area and find alternative ways to evolve.

Users currently provide their personal information themselves. When the app gets into an account, it extracts data from the screen and stores personal and confidential information. Financial institutions' secure networks get regular visits from actors outside the financial sector, and that makes them vulnerable. The more advanced these strategies get, the greater the risk to our banking system.

I was saying that the status quo is not sustainable. It would be pointless for legislators to bury their heads in the sand as though it were 1990.

In some cases, it must be said, the risks are minimal. An aggregator that scans public data to show us mortgage rates in one click is convenient and low risk. However, an aggregator that collects our personal data to give us a detailed picture of our financial situation is also convenient but riskier. Financial information is very sensitive, so it is vital to protect it. Furthermore, if the app can be used to perform transactions, which implies that it places orders, that opens up a whole new level of risk, the risk of fraud.

What about the principle of needing to know the customer? That principle is the foundation of our anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing laws. How can a financial institution apply this principle when it is communicating via an app?

Lastly, an important part of risk is the financial capacity to take on risk. Without that, the consumer could lose everything. Fintechs currently operate in a grey area, which is a problem. A clear framework is needed, with clear obligations and responsibilities, as well as oversight mechanisms and institutions to enforce compliance.

The advisory committee recognized all of these difficulties, but it felt that it was important to move quickly so that Canada would not be lagging behind and so as not to hamper the sector's development, a bit like what my Conservative colleague mentioned earlier. He also said that the companies continue to operate in a grey area, which is what is happening right now and is not serving anyone well. That is why the advisory committee recommended giving clear direction.

However, the committee also recommended minimal regulations so that things can move faster. Then, industry stakeholders can determine for themselves how to operationalize and resolve technical issues. In short, the committee is recommending a sort of self-regulation.

It recognized that the financial strength of technology companies is an issue, but it did not propose any institutional mechanism for dealing with it. There will not be any equivalent for deposit insurance, at least not in the beginning, when the new legislation comes into force, as the committee suggests. At best, the committee mentions that people should get their own insurance.

The committee also recognized the constitutional issue, but it proposed circumventing it. It proposes integrating the federal financial institutions. As for the others, for example, the large credit unions, they can join if they want to, but as second-class institutions, which is something we do not want to happen. As Quebeckers, whose main financial institution is a co-operative and not a bank, we understand that a two-tier financial system leaves much to be desired. Barring a constitutional amendment, the federal government cannot regulate these other institutions. Also, in order for the financial system to truly be open, the governments will have to coordinate.

I like Bill C‑365. It requires the government to introduce legislation in a timely manner. However, I am not so sure about the second clause. Setting a deadline for introducing legislation without ensuring that we are ready and that any potential problems have been resolved seems a bit hasty and rash to me.

In implementing such an open system, I would like us to follow the example of Emperor Augustus who said to make haste slowly. Let us get to work right away, because the status quo is no longer tenable, but let us take the time to get it right, because the risks are high. Specifically, let us do it right by properly consulting the Quebec government when it comes to regulating co-operatives.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am, as always, proud to rise on behalf of the amazing people in North Island—Powell River.

Today, we are here talking about a private member's bill from the member for Bay of Quinte, Bill C-365. This is a very interesting bill. It is about consumer-led banking systems and Canadians. Happily, I have had some constituents come and visit me about this very issue, from the Coastal Community credit union in my riding. They talked about some of the really significant issues, especially for people living in rural and remote communities.

People may not have access to a bank at all in their community, or it may be a long distance to go to a bank. They may also be in a situation in which they have only one banking institution in their community and they want to go to a different one but cannot, because sharing that information can be incredibly complex. This is really key in this issue. It is making sure that people's personal banking information is accessible, so that if they find another bank that is going to meet the needs they have, they will be able to get that information sent in a way that is more transparent for themselves and for the banking system.

This PMB asks the Minister of Finance to table a plan for the implementation of open banking within 30 days of this act's coming into force. I think it is really important for us to all understand that in 2018, which is a while ago, the finance minister did create an advisory committee to look into this. In 2021 it delivered a report that included a plan for implementing consumer-led banking in Canada as early as 2023. Here we are in 2024, and it is still not happening. Again, it really is about making this more accessible.

I have heard from some of my constituents, and this is a particularly concerning area for me, who have apps that allow them to take multiple banks they are using and look at the information in a way that is comparable. The problem with these apps, of course, is that individuals are sharing all their banking information and all of their passwords and hoping that the app does not take that information or get hacked by somebody who might use it in a very negative way. This is very concerning, and it is something my constituents have been very concerned about.

This is the other part of this bill: If the minister cannot produce a bill within the associated timeline, within the first six months of the act's coming into force, the minister must table a report. That is so there is transparency and we understand what the holdup is and what the problem is.

We need to see these things done. When it comes down to it, I think what we have to assess very clearly is that competition is the key here. I have to thank my friend, the member for Windsor West, who has been doing a lot of work on competition. On our cellphones, some of the highest rates on the whole planet are here. Why is that? It is partially because we do not have appropriate competition. It is the same thing that we are seeing in our grocery stores. The gouging that is happening in our grocery stores correlates very clearly with the fact that big, wealthy CEOs are making huge profits and getting huge bonuses, and their shareholders are walking away with a lot of money.

At the same time as that is happening, everyday Canadians are struggling to feed their families. People who work in those grocery stores are often not being paid well enough to afford the food in the store they work in. I think Canadians know instinctively that it is just not a fair system anymore. What we are seeing in our system is more and more gouging. We are seeing it with the oil and gas industry, which is seeing record profits like it has not seen in years at the same time as people are trying to figure out how they are going to fill up their tanks.

I come from a rural riding. Some of our communities are extremely isolated, and it is not just putting gas into cars. It is putting fuel into boats to get to the places we need to get to for grocery shopping and for the basic necessities of life.

I really appreciate and see a lot more people in my riding buying electric cars. There are plug-ins, and I have seen them working in places like Wasa, which is a very small community but already has a plug-in station. People are using that, which is fantastic, but we still have a long way to go.

When people are suffering, we know that competition is at the very core of the issue. This is something that we actually start to take steps on, moving forward, to address the issue. When I think about competition, I have to think about basic human rights and the fact that some people are unable to afford the basic things. However, I have to say that, at this point, without a cellphone, a person might be able to get away with it if they are retired and in their 80s, but for most people today, it really leaves them unable to access things.

I work with a lot of seniors in my riding who are still figuring out how to use computers, and they are certainly not interested in any way in going to the public library to do their taxes. Therefore, we do things to help and support them. However, young people today know how to use everything. They know that, if they want to sign up for anything, make an appointment with a doctor or any of those basic things, they must have access. If it is too expensive, and if we have less and less competition, then the consumer pays, and that is a big problem in Canada.

Whether it be banking, grocery shopping or buying gas, it is all about the fact that we have let the ultrawealthy, with wealth that most Canadians can never even consider, walk away with lots of cash in their pockets as we are struggling. That is why the NDP continues to do the work that it does to make sure that there is more fairness.

Yesterday, I was left with a lot of fear and anger in my heart. I think that, when things happen to our country, as parliamentarians, we should always stand up in this place and talk about them. What is making me afraid and very angry is the fact that, in Alberta, the premier is now putting forward legislation to say that children who want to identify as who they are in school have to get permission from their parents. I think that is a horrifying reality of attacking the basic human rights of people.

If we look at our system in Canada, there are no things known legally as “parents' rights”. There are parents' responsibilities, and there certainly are children's rights. I hate to see any step in this country that will put children in a place where they are not safe. We know from statistics that children who come from the queer community are not always safe at home. They cannot always be honest with the people they love about who they are. If we do not give them a place where they can identify as they want to identify, we risk their very lives. I think all Canadians have to stand up against this.

In closing, last year, I read a beautiful Canadian book titled Falling Back in Love with Being Human, by Kai Cheng Thom. She is an amazing, powerful trans writer who does a beautiful job of articulating the power and fierceness of the trans community, as well as amazing beauty, strength and solidarity. I hope that, as we face this challenge, we remember that not only are these children and young people vulnerable, but they are also powerful and strong, and they are going to be pushing back really hard. As they push back, we must do our duty and make sure that they are not damaged. I hope all people in the House consider the safety of children.

I will conclude by reading Kai Cheng Thom, who wrote: “To build a better future, we need to learn how to transform in response to one another. We can't build a better world by getting rid of people; we can only build a better world by bringing them in.”

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by thanking my good friend, the member for Bay of Quinte, for bringing this private member's bill forward that is going to help Canadians.

The fast and furious finance minister speeds through the streets of Alberta but is as slow as a snail when it comes to legislation that actually matters. I thank my good friend from the Bay of Quinte for waking up the Liberals and hopefully waking up the finance minister to pass this legislation to help many Canadians and hopefully get our economy back on track.

Canada has a problem. Our country is getting poorer and so are our people. Since September 2022, the GDP per person has been declining. In fact, the real GDP per person was lower in the third quarter of 2023 than it was in the second quarter of 2018. That means five years of Canadians' wealth has been completely wiped out and the economy is less productive. Why is this important to the debate this evening? Because, fundamentally, getting GDP per person back on track relies on getting Liberal red tape and regulations out of the way and making the economy more competitive.

Philip Cross, the former chief economic analyst of Statistics Canada, has raised concerns about Canada's lagging productivity growth, pointing out that Canada's GDP per person growth rate is the worst since the Great Depression. In the past decade, productivity has only grown 4.3%, as opposed to the U.S., which saw a 47.4% growth rate. In fact, according to the OECD, Canada is last among developed countries for GDP per person growth, a statistic that the Liberal government even included in budget 2022.

William Robson, CEO of the C.D. Howe Institute said just this past December that business investment in Canada has not been this bad since the Great Depression. He pointed out that since 2015, capital per worker has been dropping while our population continues to climb, a situation that will lead to an even less productive and less wealthy economy.

Compared to the U.S., from 2014 to 2021, the Fraser Institute found that business investment per worker in Canada declined by 20%, while in the same period, U.S. investment per worker increased almost 15%. This context is important to this debate because it once again highlights the desperate need Canada has for more competition in all sectors of the economy.

According to the competition commissioner, Canada's already concentrated industries, such as banking, airlines, railways, telecommunications and groceries are only getting more concentrated. He noted that the barriers to entry are too high and too expensive. The red tape, the gatekeepers and Liberal anti-competition, anti-innovation, anti-modernization policies have shut down companies from around the world coming to Canada and from the private sector restarting growth in the economy.

Ninety-three per cent of all banking assets in Canada are controlled by the six biggest banks: RBC, TD, BMO, Scotiabank, CIBC and National Bank, as well as HSBC, which is being bought out by RBC. This has resulted in cookie-cutter services being offered at virtually the same price at all major financial institutions. Businesses and people want financial services that are tailor-made to their needs and that are accessible, easy to use and affordable.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business recently published a study that shows that overall satisfaction by businesses in banks varies by size. Smaller businesses tend to trust credit unions and smaller financial institutions more as there is better customer services and more connection to their own communities, while medium and bigger businesses rely on larger financial institutions for access to larger amounts of financing. The options that these businesses have in finding the right institutions with the best services are shrinking.

Compared to the U.S., Canada has 34 domestic banks versus roughly 4,844 domestic American banks. That means there are roughly 121,000 Canadians for every bank, compared to just 66,000 Americans for every bank in the U.S.. In the U.S., there are almost 4,800 credit unions, while in Canada there are only 200.

Competition in any sector is vital to lowering the cost of the goods we buy and the services we use as consumers. More importantly, it also leads to innovation and modernization that will allow Canada's industries to compete globally. That is why consumer-led banking is key to the success of innovation in Canada's financial sector and for bringing home affordable banking solutions for all Canadians.

There are examples globally of this modernization actually working to bring home lower bank fees, better services and more economic growth. The prime example is the model of the U.K., where since 2017, the growth of consumer-led banking has been exceptional and, in fact, has saved businesses and individuals over 18 billion pounds, thanks to lower or no banking fees whatsoever.

The British government brought in consumer-led banking as a market-based fix for an overly uncompetitive financial sector, and between 2018 and 2023, the number of fintechs in the consumer-led banking space jumped from four to 295. There are more than seven million users of consumer-led banking in the U.K. and, as of 2022, they had made 68.2 million payments using this technology. For those users, banking and transaction fees are zero. This modernization has added billions of pounds to the U.K. economy, created thousands of jobs and created real competition in the financial sector.

Globally, the consumer-led banking market has grown to $128 billion as the U.K., most of the EU, Norway, India, Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, Brazil and Mexico bring consumer-led banking online. The U.S., Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, New Zealand, Japan and Taiwan are joining Canada in reviewing or setting up a consumer-led banking system. The success that the U.K. has had with this modernization, and the fact that major economies and trading partners with Canada are bringing consumer-led banking online, should be an indication that Canada needs to get the ball rolling.

However, more importantly than that, we see the benefits that consumer-led banking can have for people and businesses: the savings, the access to financial services and the freedom of choice. Fintechs in Canada are already building up the customer base, the technology and the services that will be important to making a modern banking system work. Questrade, Wealthsimple, Neo Financial, EQ Bank, Borrowell, Intuit and others are already building the components to offer competition, choice, and low-fee, tailor-made banking options to all Canadians.

In fact, credit unions are wanting to partner with fintechs to offer better services and products to their customers, but fintechs and credit unions need the government to get out of the way and let consumer-led banking go ahead. There are more companies that want to come to Canada, like KOHO, which just applied to the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy to be considered a schedule 1 domestic bank and have access to the Canadian market.

After the Liberal-NDP government rammed through the RBC-HSBC merger without actually thinking of the Canadians who would be impacted by the decision, it is good to see that there are still fintechs and financial companies out there that want to do business in Canada. As common-sense Conservatives look to the future without the Liberal government and the fast and furious finance minister, our side is working with Canadians and businesses to develop real solutions that will bring home competition and productivity growth.

We need to focus on these common-sense solutions for Canadians and all newcomers. It benefits not only the people living here but also the many who will come here looking for a better future. When they come here, they get hit with Liberal-NDP high inflation, high taxes and a high cost of living. At least we can do this for them so they will have the freedom to move around their data and have more competition, which would lead to better products in the future.

It is clear; the common-sense Conservative team is going to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Let us bring it home.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It being 7:24 p.m., the time provided for the 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.

Natural Resources

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight in Adjournment Proceedings to pursue a question that I asked in question period back in October 2023.

On October 6, I asked about the delays on the Trans Mountain pipeline and the decision of our Crown corporation, us, our government and all Canadians to violate a sacred commitment that we had made to the first nations at the Stk’emlúpsemc te Secwépemc Nation. It often goes by the initials SSN. It is near Kamloops, and the people have a sacred area of their territory that they call “Pípsell”. I know this area well because I worked with that first nation when it conducted its own independent environmental assessment of a proposed open mine called the Ajax mine that was to be raised. The reason the first nation turned down the Ajax mine was that it would violate the sacred nature of the Pípsell, and it must be protected.

When that same first nation negotiated with our Crown corporation, Trans Mountain expansion, TMX, about bringing a pipeline through its territory, the members of the first nation agreed but on a strong condition that if, and only if, the Pípsell was protected. TMX operators said they had engineers. They could do microtunnelling. They could drill around the Pípsell. They would not disturb the Pípsell. That was just up until this fall when TMX discovered its engineering was not so good.

TMX operators discovered they could not do microtunnelling. They went back to the Canada Energy Regulator and said that they could not keep their word to the first nation; they would have to drill right through the Pípsell. The first nation went to the Canada Energy Regulator and made the case that it should not be allowed. The Canada Energy Regulator said that it was so sad, but if it did not violate its commitments to the first nation, in other words, if it did not violate the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that free, prior and informed consent means something, then the cost of the pipeline would go up again, and there would be further delays again and that the pipeline must be built. Why? It is now an article of faith for the Liberal government that the pipeline must be built. It does not need evidence, and there is not evidence in favour of building that pipeline. There has never been a cost-benefit analysis on building that pipeline, and I know because I went through the National Energy Board hearings at the initial process.

It gets worse because the Canada Energy Regulator gave TMX permission to proceed. As I pointed out in my question in October 2023, the Canada Energy Regulator did not give reasons for its decision, so the first nation was unable to put together a case to go to court to get an injunction against the construction, and TMX operators decided to start building on the very day that was the statutory holiday in Canada to mark reconciliation: the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.

The answer I got from the parliamentary secretary at the time was that the decision was made by an independent regulator. I knew that. I did not ask the Government of Canada why it made the decision to ignore the sacred nature of the commitment. I asked why the government did not tell TMX, which we own, to stop construction until its operators gave the first nation the legal reasons on which they could base an appeal.

It has continued to get bad. Predictably, the pipeline is delayed again. The costs are now $35 billion. When will we stop the madness, and cancel the pipeline?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages]

Madam Speaker, reconciliation with indigenous communities is a priority for our government. As part of our commitment to advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples across Canada, Natural Resources Canada is developing a national benefits-sharing framework to ensure that indigenous communities benefit directly from major resource development projects. All Canadians deserve to share in Canada's economic prosperity.

The opportunity before us for a clean economy offers us new ways to move forward with economic reconciliation. Economic reconciliation, whether in engaging with our indigenous partners, creating good jobs in indigenous communities or ensuring that indigenous communities share in the prosperity of major projects, is a key aspect of the federal government's work to build a strong and sustainable economy.

The Government of Canada is making its contribution. In budget 2022, Natural Resources Canada received $103.4 million to advance economic reconciliation in the natural resources sector, including $3.4 million to develop a national benefits-sharing framework. The Government of Canada is committed to renewing its relationship with indigenous peoples based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.

As we know, the world is facing the impact of climate change and we must invest in solutions to reduce emissions and foster prosperity. That is why we are investing in clean and renewable energy to reduce emissions and create jobs, including with our indigenous partners.

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

Madam Speaker, to say that was an inadequate response would be a massive understatement.

The parliamentary secretary just told us we have to reduce emissions while defending building a $35-billion pipeline that will increase emissions. It is a climate disaster. He completely ignored, as the government did before, that the pipeline violating the Pípsell is the equivalent, as I said on October 6, of a decision to destroy the Garden of Eden, if we knew where it was, for people from the Judeo-Christian tradition.

This is the origin story of the peoples of this territory, and there are not enough beads and trinkets to throw into the mix to make up for the violation and the absolute obscenity of doing it on the statutory holiday for reconciliation.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada has invested millions of dollars in partnership with first nations, Métis and Inuit communities.

I will give some examples. There is the Old Crow solar project in Yukon with the first nations of Vuntut Gwitchin.

There is also the Burchill Wind Farm in New Brunswick, with the Tobique First Nation.

The Oneida Energy Storage project, with the Six Nations in Ontario, is another example.

There is the Bekevar Wind project and the Awasis Solar Project with the Cowessess First Nation in Saskatchewan.

These are examples of investments we have made with first nations. I could name many more, but these projects are just some of the ways we are partnering with indigenous leaders to deliver energy security, clean power and emissions reductions.

Carbon Pricing

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe in Canada. It is nice to stand up here and talk about how I believe that Canada is greater than the sum of its parts.

One of its parts, my home province of Alberta, is such an important part of our Confederation. It provides so much food, not just to Canada but to the world. It provides energy, not just to Canada but to the world. Sometimes I feel like my province is forgotten in some of the discussions we have here.

One of the areas that is very near and dear to my heart but also very near and dear to the economy, not just of Alberta but to the entire country, is water. Right now, Alberta is looking at planning for a period of drought and trying to figure out how we provide that food and energy, contribute to Canada's economy, global food security and global energy security, and also deal with the potential of a very large water shortage.

This should be an important part of Canada's environmental plan, yet the federal government has been not relatively silent but very silent on this very important issue. It is February. This is going to be a problem come summer. The time for the government to have a plan to deal with this and to partner with my province is now. There should not be any partisan politics to this. The federal government should be actively seeking to help my province and come up with a way to support and plan for what is clearly going to be a large problem that affects the entire country.

Now, in February, before we deal with the outcome of this issue, my question to the government is simple. What is it doing to assist the Province of Alberta, farmers, residents and industry in dealing with this drought situation?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages]

Madam Speaker, it is really a pleasure to take part in the debate here tonight.

Late last fall, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance presented the 2023 fall economic statement. With the fall economic statement, we are taking further action to support the middle class and to build more homes faster. I am proud to say that our economic plan to build a stronger economy is working for everyone, with more great jobs for Canadians that they can count on, and the plan is working. I will give a few facts.

Inflation is 3.4%, down from its peak of 8.1%, and wage growth has outpaced inflation for 11 months in a row. Also, the private sector economists now expect Canada to avoid the recession that many had predicted, and both the IMF and the OECD predict that Canada will have the strongest growth in the G7 in 2025. As well, Canada maintains both the lowest deficit-to-GDP and net debt-to-GDP rations in the G7. These are some facts.

Nevertheless, rapidly rising interest rates are having an impact everywhere in Canada, including here. Canadians are having a hard time making ends meet.

That is why our government is adopting better targeted measures to stabilize prices, make life more affordable and protect people with mortgages to pay.

Let me give a few examples. We are moving forward with the new Canadian mortgage charter, which details the relief that Canadians can expect from banks in these difficult times. Also, we see our government is moving forward with meaningful actions to make life in Canada more affordable.

With respect to the environment, we understand that climate change is a threat not only to Canadians' health and safety, but also to financial security and economic well-being. That is why we have to stay the course with the price on pollution, which experts say is one of the best ways to fight climate change.

However, we understand that it continues to be difficult for some low-income families to make ends meet, and that is why we made the decision to temporarily pause the application of the federal fuel charge on deliveries of heating oil. We do this, not because it is a source of home heating, but because heating oil is the most expensive form of home heating, and because home heating oil is more expensive, it means lower-income Canadians face particular hardship incurring these costs.

It is important to understand that many low-income earners and rural residents are currently trapped in a vicious cycle where they have to pay for the most expensive form of home heating, the cost of which actually prevents them from investing in cleaner, more affordable forms of home heating.

As we confirmed in this fall's economic statement, we are now looking to provide financial assistance to help Canadians switch from heating oil to better heating systems. Heat pumps are a cleaner heating option that offers long-term savings on energy bills. Reducing the use of highly polluting heating sources will help combat climate change, which will particularly benefit women, indigenous peoples and those living in targeted communities.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I did not get an answer to my question. This is the parliamentary secretary with responsibility for energy. Canadian energy production could be severely impacted by water restrictions and the drought in Alberta, so my colleague opposite should be able to provide some response to this.

It is not just energy, though. Average Albertans may be facing water restrictions several short months from now, and one of the most critical agricultural areas in the country may be facing severe water restrictions, so I will ask my colleague again whether the government is at least willing, as we do not have a lot of runway with only a bit of time, to immediately partner with the provincial government, farmers, energy producers and average Albertans to come up with a plan to help Alberta get through this time successfully. This would be not just for the benefit of Alberta, but for all of Canada.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are reverse Robin Hoods, as was said earlier today. They are trying to take hundreds of dollars in rebates away from Canadians. While Conservatives debate whether climate change is real or debate fighting pollution, we know that there have been disastrous impacts on Canadians, and this cannot be ignored.

That said, as the economic statement makes clear, our government is committed to making life more affordable in this country and helping Canadians make the transition to greener heating.

I would like to thank everyone who participated in today's debate. We will continue to work with farmers across the country, including in Alberta.