Debates of May 8th, 2024

Report Stage

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member should know about free things from government, because he gets free dental care, and so do his children. I do not see him giving that back. I have not heard of a Conservative giving back their free dental care yet.

By the way, dental care, of course, is not free; it is paid for, but we believe on this side of the House that, collectively, by pooling our resources, we can make sure that every person can get access to primary health care. It is the foundation of our Canadian health care system, so I think that is a wise expenditure of money.

More to the point, I have already gone through a couple of examples where Bill C-59 would return money to taxpayers. It would take 5% of the GST off new homebuilding, which is returning money to our home builders. It would take 5% off the GST for counselling services, returning money so that people can maybe afford to get the mental health support they need.

What I would ask my hon. colleague is this: Why does he not support the bill, which would return money to important parts of our economy, instead of holding us up and costing taxpayers $450,000 tonight to have this absolutely avoidable and nonsensical debate?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was not expecting such a lively debate tonight. I thank the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway for his speech, and I congratulate him on the six amendments that he was able to get passed in committee. He touched on them briefly. I would like him to tell us more about that, but I will ask my question.

There have been a lot of changes and improvements to the Competition Act, some of which were requested by the commissioner of competition. When it comes to the Competition Act, we know that Canada had a long way to go. Bill C-56 improved the act, and Bill C-59 and its amendments are improving it even more.

Does the member think that the system is now robust enough that consumers can expect healthy competition at all times, or is there still more work to do in that regard?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am sure there is more work to be done, but my hon. colleague gives me an opportunity to talk a little bit more about the amendments that the NDP, with help from my colleague from Joliette, was able to get.

We adopted an amendment that would ensure that sellers bear the burden of proving that their discounts are genuine. Fake discounts are a common deceptive marketing practice. In some cases, businesses promote a price as a discount when in fact the advertised price is just the ordinary price of the product. They do this on things like Black Friday. We have changed that to reverse the burden.

Another one is strengthening the right to repair provision, something that my hon. colleague from Windsor West has been working on for years. It would force companies to disclose to consumers information that they need to get diagnosis or repair of their products anywhere they want, as opposed to tying them to the seller of the product. This is a very important consumer rights measure that breaks up monopolies and promotes competition in the marketplace. It is something that I would think Conservatives would like, actually. They certainly claim that they like it, but they are holding up a bill here that would make our marketplace more competitive, protect consumers and strengthen the Competition Tribunal's ability to make sure that we have an open, thriving, and competitive marketplace. That is not common sense.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this place as the representative for the great riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill and discuss important issues of the day.

However, I must say that, this evening, I have a bit of a challenge in discussing this motion. It is a disgusting motion that we are discussing, actually, because it has been put forward to delete the short title of a very important bill, Bill C-59. Just to be clear, the long title of the bill is “An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023”. The long title is a mouthful; therefore, as is the normal course of business, the bill has a shorter title. The short title is simply the “Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023”. The motion put forward by the Conservatives tonight, requiring debate for five and a half hours, is to delete that short title. Just so that everyone is clear, because I know this is a very important motion for the Conservative Party, we are talking about deleting the title “Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023”, not the long title.

Why would we be discussing this motion this evening? That is a question I have asked myself. There is no good answer; the answer really lies in the work that the official opposition party is doing, which we have seen them do over the past year, at least. That is to ensure that there is not productive conversation or debate and that we do not get things done in this place.

Earlier this evening, a member opposite made a comment implying that I do not speak to the constituents in my riding, but that is what I try to do most of. In fact, I think that all of us here should take the responsibility of being the representatives of our constituencies very seriously. Certainly, spending five hours here tonight to debate this motion to delete six words from a bill is not time well-spent. In fact, I could be using this time to speak to constituents. We could be saving money. As the member for Vancouver Kingsway has so aptly pointed out several times, this exercise is costing taxpayers, including my constituents, a lot of valuable money that need not be spent.

The Conservative Party purports to care about fiscal matters and represent common sense. It is quite astounding to me that Conservatives would put forward this motion to debate this evening, especially when we have a piece of legislation in front of us that actually has a lot of important content that we could be discussing or debating.

Knowing that there is a lot of leeway given on what we can discuss, even given a motion as silly and wasteful as the one in front of us, I will comment on a few of the measures in this very important bill that the Conservative Party has continually filibustered on and tried to block, as it has done with most things our government has been doing.

In fact, I would refer to something that happened just a couple of weeks ago. As the chair of the women's caucus, I was actually very discouraged to see the chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women removed.

I do not sit on that committee, but I spoke to every member. To a person, they felt that the work being done by the chairperson and by the committee involved collaborating very well to get important things done for the women of Canada. They felt that the chairperson was removed simply because she was allowing constructive work to be done in this place.

Members of that committee are all saddened by the fact that this member has been removed from her position. The reason I mention that in relation to this very important motion that was put forward to remove the short title of the bill is that this is another example of how the opposition party is trying to block, delay and stall any good work being done in this place.

Let us look a little at what the bill contains and what is being held up by this wasteful motion that the Conservative Party has put forward. We have heard a lot about how Canadians are struggling. In my riding, when I speak to my constituents, I hear how people want relief, particularly on the cost of food. I sit on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I was part of the study that looked at addressing stability in food prices, given their recent increase. A lot of the recommendations that came up from witnesses were regarding the need for increased and improved competition in Canada.

Bill C-59, which we can still refer to by its short-form title, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023, has many measures that are being blocked now to do just that: to modernize our Competition Act, to give it more teeth and to ensure that it can fight against the practices that have been occurring and have increased food prices in Canada.

Another thing in this important bill is support for adoptive parents, including surrogates, with a 15-week shareable employment insurance adoption benefit. To many families, this is a very important measure. My husband and I are adoptive parents. I know that, when someone brings a child into their home, especially an older child, having that time to spend where one can just be with that child and not worry about other things is very important. While I am not a child psychologist, I read a lot about adoption before we adopted two of our children, and it makes quite a difference. This is a very important measure that many parents and families would benefit from.

For me, as someone who has experienced this, I feel it is reprehensible for the party opposite to be wasting our time tonight talking about removing the short title of a bill in order to obstruct and to delay it. There are parents like me out there who would very much like those 15 weeks to spend with their adoptive children.

There has also been a lot of talk about affordability and the effect of the pollution pricing regime on Canadians. I have heard, because I have some constituents who live in a semi-rural area, that there are not always the same options. Therefore, the rebate that is being given back to Canadians, which gives back more money to 80% of our families, is being adjusted to ensure that Canadians living in rural areas receive more. They would get a 20% top-up on the rebate that is given to other families.

Members of the party opposite often speak about rural ridings, people living in rural areas and the importance of agriculture, and I share their views. Therefore, how, in good conscience, can they talk about this?

I will conclude by saying that there are a lot of important things we could be—

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

We have to go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated some aspects of the speech by the member opposite, but I found it really rich when she talked about the importance of passing the legislation for the 15 weeks of benefits for adoptive parents. That is precisely what the Liberals took from the private member's bill of my colleague, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, which they chose not to use. They voted against it and then decided to put it in their own bill. Had they simply passed the bill when it was brought forward, it would already be law; families could already be benefiting.

Does the member perhaps regret the decision she made on that bill not too long ago?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is very important for us to put in place, and we have the opportunity to do that now.

This was already being worked on. It was part of the employment insurance revisions, and we knew it was coming forward. However, I would return the question and ask why you are not supporting it now.

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

I am not supporting anything, nor am I against anything.

The hon. member for Joliette.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, in Bill C-59, there is a $17.8-billion tax credit that will help oil companies reduce their use of natural gas by financing the installation of small nuclear power plants to extract bitumen from the tar sands. The gas would then be exported to Asia, including from the LNG terminal in British Columbia.

Does the member believe that this is an environmental plan to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a member of the environment committee and someone who cares deeply about our environment, I believe we need to take every measure we can to reduce greenhouse gases right now. We are in a crisis. Unlike the Conservatives, who keep talking about technology as the only thing that is going to solve our problem, we have a very robust and multi-faceted approach to reducing emissions.

Given the urgency of the crisis, I feel that these tax credits that will help people do what they would not otherwise do are necessary to help us meet our goals.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was going to be critical of the Liberal government because—

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

I apologize. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot is rising on a point of order.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as an Albertan, I would suggest that the fact that the member's jersey is promoting his hockey team is—

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

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals have continued the infamous Harper Conservative tax treaties. It cost us over $30 billion each and every year. The Conservatives splurged. The Liberals should have reined that in, but they have chosen not to. This means, of course, that many other things the government could be doing are not getting done.

I want to ask the member to comment on how there is more Conservative splurging tonight. They are trying to delete six words in the bill that are not substantive at all. The cost to taxpayers tonight will be nearly $100,000 for each word. Conservatives seem to spend like drunken sailors when they have the ability. Tonight they are holding Parliament up, and it is costing us $70,000 an hour for this debate on six words.

What does the member think her constituents would think of the Conservative waste of half a million dollars tonight?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hypocrisy we are seeing right now is, unfortunately, not surprising. I do not see any common sense at all in spending this much time debating a motion that wants to remove six words from the title of a very important bill. As I said earlier, there are important things we could be debating.

I know that many constituents in my riding are questioning what exactly this Reform-Conservative-Diagolon party actually stands for and whether its members have any right to be here.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this chamber.

Before I start my remarks on the bill, I seek the Speaker's indulgence for just a moment.

I was notified earlier today that a dear friend and former colleague of mine, Matthew Vaccari, had passed away. He succumbed to cancer. He leaves behind two children and his wife, Heather. Matt and I worked very closely together at Canada Life. I know a number of people at that organization who are very upset and sad and, of course, his family. Matt was a wonderful human being, someone who was full of energy and who always had a positive attitude. It is with a heavy heart that I extend my condolences to his family for their loss and to all the people who worked with him and who knew Matt. He was a wonderful human being.

It is a pleasure to speak to any financial legislation that the government brings forward. I know that there is a lot of debate tonight about the short title and some words, but the truth is that we are talking about a bill that would increase energy costs for Canadians.

In Bill C-59, the EIFEL restrictions would impose an additional cost on public utilities in this country. We had witness testimony at the finance committee from a public utility in Nova Scotia that said that the bill would directly increase the energy costs of ratepayers in Nova Scotia. I understand that it may be inconvenient for the government, or for other parties who support the government, that Conservatives are doing their due diligence, taking their time and looking at ways to slow this legislation down because it would increase the cost of energy for Canadians at a time when they can least afford it.

Wisdom has been chasing the Liberal government for a long time, but it has just not caught up with it yet. How is it possible that, in an affordability crisis, the government thinks it makes sense to introduce tax legislation that would directly increase the cost of energy for certain Canadians in this country, in particular Nova Scotia? There is no debate about it. There is no—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as members would know, many interruptions have taken place this evening, saying that members needed to be relevant. The member started off talking about the amendment, and then he went right into the bill itself. I am just suggesting that if the Conservatives want us to be relevant to the actual amendment, then so should the Conservatives.

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

If I may, the hon. member is being relevant because he is explaining why the stalling is necessary. That is how I understand it, and I do listen to what is being said.

The hon. member for Simcoe North.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, you are tough but fair, and I appreciate you, wholeheartedly, for your very wonderful ruling. I will continue.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would just note that occasionally we get passionate in debate, but Conservatives did not call a point of order on the previous member who spoke, the member from Cohasset, Massachusetts.

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

I really do not think that is an appropriate point of order. I would like the hon. member to be a little more prudent in the way he accuses colleagues of where they are or are not.

The hon. member for Simcoe North.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be from Simcoe North.

As I was mentioning, at a time when Canadians are facing an affordability crisis, the government's stated policy objective is to make energy more expensive. We are the only country on the planet that has increased the cost of energy through direct carbon tax increases and now also through an indirect increase by imposing additional taxes on public utilities, which is commonly referred to as the EIFEL restrictions. Therefore, it is with great pleasure that I speak to this bill tonight, especially on the short title.

I think we can think of many better titles for this bill, including “the Government of Canada wants people to pay more”, “the Government of Canada does not think people pay enough for energy” or “the Government of Canada is just out of ideas”. Those would be far better titles for the bill.

There were some competition provisions in this bill, which also raised some concern. The government has made very significant and substantive changes to competition policy in the last three budget bills. Each time, interestingly enough, it says that these provisions are monumental and that it has made these great changes to the competition policy that have never been seen before, but only a few months later, it brings in some more changes. I say that because it has had a lot of time to think about what it would do with competition policy.

The government proposed a number of substantive changes, and I have to give my NDP colleague credit, who is now the new member of the finance committee. He sliced up and diced up the government's competition provisions in this bill like never before. In fact, the government should be embarrassed that the competition provisions it put forward in Bill C-59 were completely redrafted by its coalition partner. It had multiple months and years to think about the provisions it wanted to change. When it finally said that it had the best changes, it got absolutely railroaded by its supply and confidence partner. That should be embarrassing for the government.

That is why we are here debating this bill and debating the title. If members want another title for the bill, as this is a government that is out of ideas, how about, “we think people can pay just a little more”. That is what the bill should be called because energy bills are going up for people in Nova Scotia with this bill.

In addition, the number of drafting errors in this bill are significant. There was a provision called the dividend deduction rules. As soon as the budget bill was tabled, some smart individual did not think that the government understood how it was going to affect individual life insurance policyholders and that maybe somebody should call it and give it a lesson. It took eight months for it to explain how a particular life insurance product worked when participating in whole life insurance. It eventually brought in a significant amendment to fix it. This bill was delayed because of all the drafting errors in it and because the government did not even understand how these significant changes would affect the cost to Canadians.

These are the reasons for which we are trying to delay the bill. The government does not have a sweet clue about what some of these amendments do.

Now the government is saying that it has to pass the bill because the market is asking for the investment tax credits. Guess what? We can pass the bill tonight if the government wants to, and no one can use the investment tax credits because the CRA and Natural Resources Canada still have not put out the guidance required for companies to take advantage of the investment tax credits. If the government was so serious about getting this bill passed, it would have had all of its homework done, but it does not. Maybe the dog ate it. I do not know what the excuse is, but the Liberal government is not ready. It is out of ideas. It chose to delay this bill until now. It was the government that had drafting errors in the bill. It decided to make energy more expensive in the bill.

The government tried to indirectly make life insurance products more expensive in this bill, but then it realized that five million Canadians would have to pay more for their life insurance products because they were trying to find revenue somewhere and tax the big banks more and tax financial institutions more, not realizing that those costs for that product are passed directly to consumers.

I was very pleased to speak against the short title of this bill, if that means we can keep energy costs lower for some Canadians for just a little longer. I welcome the wonderful questions from the member for Winnipeg North, as I know he always has a zinger.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to disappoint the member, but I am sure that he could imagine how this might seem, to people following the debate, as though the Conservatives are acting like fish out of water, flipping and flopping all over the place.

The member said that they want to hold up the bill and that they do not want the bill to pass. He seems prepared to admit that the Conservative Party just does not want the bill to pass, which is why they are holding it up, yet the person who moved the motion that he was actually debating said that the government cannot pass this legislation.

Does he not see the inconsistency in the discussions that Conservatives, or the reformers across the way, are having with their collective Conservative mind?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what happens in the Liberal caucus, but we have a lot of individual members here who have individual aspirations, individual reasons for how they vote and individual reasons for why they feel compelled to speak.

The reason I am speaking tonight is that the energy bills of the people of Nova Scotia are going to go up as soon as this bill passes. I think it is irresponsible to do anything but try to prevent that from happening just a little longer.