Debates of May 9th, 2024

Report Stage

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I know it is late at night. People are tired, and perhaps they do not have as much restraint as they normally do. I will ask all members to let us take it on in. There are only about 28 minutes left in this debate, so let us try to keep it together.

The hon. member from Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be lying if I said that I do not have a bit of FOMO for not being invited to the party in the back room.

In any event, I found it very interesting when the member said that the Liberals took all the Conservatives' great ideas and put them into the fall economic statement, yet she still will not vote for it. What is going on here? Does she not like the initiatives that she claims the Liberals took from the Conservatives?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is not the great ideas the Liberals took from the Conservatives, but the huge, overspending deficits and the ballooning taxes that are going to hurt and punish Canadians, and are going to increase the misery that the Liberals have already caused.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker I will say, right off the bat, that it is troubling to hear the dismissal of the dental care program, the importance of the school food program and the infrastructure investments that we have seen, and much of that is the result of the push by the NDP.

My question to the member is this. Her party claims to defend working people and to want fairness for working people. We know that working people are paying more than their fair share when it comes to taxes, but who is not paying their fair share are the rich. I am wonder why the Conservatives are not coming out in support of the increase in the capital gains tax, recognizing it is a way of getting the richest in our country to pay more than what they are paying now, which is not quite their fair share. That would be revenue that could be reinvested in the needs that Canadians have across the country.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would say if the member really cares about the working class, she would quit propping up the Liberal government to increase the carbon tax on people, increase their CPP and EI premiums, increase the cost of groceries and all the things that are being propped up by the NDP's support of the Liberal government.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for my colleague. Did she ever think that Canada would pay more in debt-servicing than it does in health care transfers to the provinces? That is something I never thought I would see, $54.1 billion in debt repayment, which is more than what we are going to give to the provinces for health care. What do you have to say about that, and what do you think your constituents would say about that?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am certain that question was through the Chair to the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, health care is super important to Canadians. Our health care system is ailing. We do not have enough doctors as it is. What drives me crazy is not just that we are going to pay $56 billion of interest on the debt, but also the fact that we have turned down $59 billion for LNG from Germany, $59 billion of revenue from Japan for LNG, another $60 billion from the Netherlands for LNG. Those are all things the Liberal government has turned down. That money could help pay off the debt and help our health care system.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask this. The member opposite was blaming the insurance premium going up on, I believe, her staffer or somebody at her house. I wonder if it was from a car accident or repairs or if it was from a flood to a house or whatnot. How can the government be responsible for insurance premiums? I would really like to know how the budget was responsible for the insurance premium hike of $1,000.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, I can be very concise, because the insurance company told my staffer that the reason for the $1,000 increase in premiums was inflation and car theft. The Liberal government, with Bill C-75, made car theft go up 100% across the country, and it is driving inflation by pouring deficits on the inflationary fire.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, last November, the government introduced Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act of 2023. Among other measures, Bill C-59 proposed significant amendments to our Competition Act. I am proud to share that the Standing Committee on Finance has recently completed its review of the bill and has made several amendments to further strengthen existing proposals.

For many years, Canada's markets have been described as overly concentrated and not competitive enough. In fact, the landmark Competition Bureau study last year, based on Statistics Canada data and analysis from a University of Toronto professor, made critical findings in this respect, showing that competitive intensity has been on the decline over the past two decades, which is reflected in a number of important indicators. These trends have been exacerbated by the inflationary pressures our country is facing following a global pandemic and increasing geopolitical uncertainty.

Bill C-59 was introduced to help build a stronger domestic economy through more competition and contestable markets to bring lower prices, more choice and better product quality for consumers across all sectors. The proposed amendments to the Competition Act in Bill C-59 arose out of a comprehensive public consultation conducted from November 2022 to March 2023.

Having heard from stakeholders, the government introduced Bill C-56, the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, which was ultimately passed by this Parliament in December 2023.

Completing its response to the consultation, the government then presented a more extensive set of reforms by way of Bill C-59. The measures in this bill include strengthening provisions with respect to merger review, enhancing protections for consumers, workers and the environment, and broadening opportunities for private enforcement.

We should not underestimate just how critical these reforms are for modernizing our laws and promoting competitive markets. The commissioner of competition has stated on multiple occasions that the amendments in Bill C-56 and Bill C-59 are “generational.” I would therefore like to highlight some important reforms that have been proposed.

To begin with, anti-competitive collaborations between competitors would be under increased scrutiny as the bureau would be able to examine and, if necessary, seek penalties against coordinated conduct that lessens competition. Up until now, at worst the participants would be told to stop what they are doing. The expansion of private enforcement and the ability of the Competition Tribunal to issue monetary payment orders in cases initiated by private parties are also significant changes to our existing enforcement approach. By relaxing the requirements to bring a case and providing an incentive to bring matters directly to the Competition Tribunal, there would be greater accountability throughout the marketplace and more action on cases that the Competition Bureau may not be able to take.

More competition is always beneficial to consumers, but the bill also takes some direct approaches to protect consumers. These include strengthening provisions on deceptive marketing, such as applying requirements more broadly so vendors must present the full cost of a product or service up front without holding back mandatory fees, known as “drip pricing.” The law is further being refined to make it easier to ensure that advertised rebates are authentic when compared to a vendor's past prices. Businesses making environmental claims about their products would be required to have undertaken adequate and proper testing before advertising their benefits. Together, these changes would ensure that consumers have accurate and complete information about products and services in order to make informed purchasing decisions.

I would also like to highlight barriers to repair, which have been an issue of great importance in recent years. Where manufacturers refuse to provide the means of diagnosis or repair in a way that harms competition, remedial orders would be available to require them to furnish what is necessary. This could help a wider variety of service providers offer more options to consumers when choosing where to repair their products.

On top of everything I have mentioned so far, anti-reprisal provisions would also ensure that the system can function. These are included to ensure that workers and small businesses are protected from potential retaliation when they work with the authorities to address anti-competitive behaviour and violations of the act by other parties.

These reforms, along with various administrative changes, aimed at facilitating efficient enforcement of the act, are crucial to ensuring that Canadian markets remain competitive and in line with international practices.

It has been acknowledged by all members of the House that our competition framework requires reform. My colleagues have engaged in thoughtful discussion on ways to modernize the existing marketplace framework. Nothing exemplifies this better than the enthusiasm shown by members of all parties to strengthen these provisions of Bill C-59 once it reaches the Standing Committee on Finance, especially in light of recommendations made by the commissioner of competition.

The amendments adopted in committee notably relate to merger review, deceptive marketing, and refusal to repair. The committee members were quite interested in enhancing protections for consumers and the environment, and these are the ones that I would like to draw attention to now.

First, clarifications were made to ensure that in the Competition Act's various provisions on drip pricing, the only amounts that could be excluded from the upfront price are those imposed by law directly on the purchaser of the product, such as sales tax. Next, with the committee's amendment, sellers advertising reduced prices would now be required to be able to prove that regular price is authentic in order to publicize their discounts.

On the topic of doubtful environmental claims, or so-called greenwashing, the law would also require that those who make environmental claims about their businesses or business activities, not only specific products, must have adequate and proper substantiation in hand to support such claims. On refusal to repair, the committee added some helpful clarifications to ensure that the scope of provision was broad enough.

In sum, amidst the period of inflation and growing affordability concerns, it is crucial that our markets remain resilient and open to competition. Bill C-59 would reform Canada's competitive landscape, encourage greater innovation, and improve affordability for Canadians.

Therefore, I would like to urge my colleagues from all sides of the House to work together to expeditiously pass this crucial piece of legislation.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked about the importance of increasing competition, and I do agree with that.

However, it does not seem consistent with the actions of the government that approved the Shaw merger with Rogers and the acquisition of the HSBC bank by RBC. These things are definitely not increasing competition.

Could the member explain how that is consistent with the Liberal government's direction?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.

Whenever any banks or any major telecoms merge, the scrutiny is very strict. There is always a review under the Competition Act. Banking regulators and public opinions are even brought into the question. It is only after thorough commitments and signs from such parties do they actually agree in these cases. Many have been rejected or have been pushed back before. In this case, they are being cautious.

Currently, in the competition world, our grocery sector is the one that everyone is monitoring very strongly and carefully. In that case, I think we will see the addition of more competition rather than any mergers or reductions.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, there are parts of the fall economic statement that I did appreciate, but other parts did not go far enough, including addressing corporate greed.

Just yesterday, I summoned to the indigenous and northern affairs committee, the CEO of The North West Company and asked him about his salary. His annual salary is $3.91 million. I asked him what the salary of a cashier in his stores are. The salary of the cashiers, in Iqaluit, where the cost of living is much higher, is $37,000 a year.

I wonder if the member could tell the House what the Conservatives are claiming causes inflation, which are things like carbon tax. Could the member maybe correct the record about what is causing the price increases in Canada?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, no more is it a testament than in places like Nunavut and Iqaluit, where one is seeing this discrepancy between the person actually selling the groceries and feeding a family, and the elite at the top. That is why we put measures, including the capital gains changes, where a lot of corporate executives were able to discount some of the tax rates that would normally be applicable if they paid that in a salary format as opposed to stock options. These are some of the ways that the playing field becomes level.

However, there is more work to do. That is absolutely right. The right to organize is something we have guaranteed in the House as well. The Liberals have committed to that. This government has committed to that. We have reversed measures the Conservative government had imposed prior, and that will strengthen the right to organize and get better wages for those members.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question. I find the last intervention about grocery prices to be very fascinating because the reality is that in Canada, 42% of the retail grocery sector is controlled by Loblaw, whereas the largest sector in the United States is Walmart, with 11%.

However, the Conservatives will never be heard talking about the massive profits that are being made by oil giants or by the grocery retailers. I am wondering what the member's comments on that would be.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it would be very difficult for them to say because the chief adviser in their Conservative caucus was considered, currently, before or after, by a side company, a sister company, I do not know exactly, but she is paid as a formal lobbyist for that very dominating grocer in the House. It becomes difficult for them to challenge when they are paid and supported by that particular organization.

I will leave it at that.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see that, even at this late hour, we still have people here intending and trying to learn from the incompetence that the present government is showing.

With the holiday season upon us once again, oh, we need to hang on a sec; I wrote this speech back in December, and the holiday season was upon us at that point in time. However, it shows the incompetence we see from the government that it has taken six months to get to this stage. It is interesting that when we look at things where things are being tabled, I guess we consider the holidays. In some ways, I am not being wrong when I say the holidays, because we do have Victoria Day coming up within a week, or as they say here in Ontario, May Two-Four day. It is a holiday that is coming, so I guess I am not being incorrect in that statement.

Now, Canadians all across the country are feeling the financial pinch, and many of them are trying to save money in any way they can. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Liberal government, which continues to increase spending and taxes on the backs of middle-class people, as outlined in the fall economic statement. After nine years under the Prime Minister, Canadians are struggling while the government just keeps getting richer. We see this struggle in many different areas. Food bank usage is up across the country, with a record two million visits occurring in a single month, and that is projected to be increasing by another million.

First of all, I would like to thank the Salvation Army, which does a tremendous job in helping our Canadians with raising food for the food banks, helping to feed Canadians and stepping forward and stepping up. I know the Salvation Army was here this past week. I would also like to thank all Canadians who step up and contribute to these food drives and assist Canadians, because what we need is showing where Canadians are working for Canadians.

Unfortunately, as I said, we cannot say where the government can continue to increase spending and taxes on the backs of these middle-class people, and this is outlined in the Liberals' fall economic statement. After nine years of the government, we have seen that the cost of groceries continues to go up, and over 50% of Canadians are $200 or less away from going broke. The situation is alarming, and one would expect that a responsible government would introduce measures to address this, but no. Instead, the Prime Minister has announced more than $20 billion in new inflationary spending in the fall economic statement, and this will continue to keep inflation and interest rates higher than Canadians can afford.

Sadly, this does not come as a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to the government's dismal history when it comes to managing the finances of this country. I will read from an article from The Globe and Mail, which says, “Every time the Liberals update the country on the state of its finances, it is accompanied by pages of prose [141 pages, to be exact, in this situation] trumpeting the government’s devotion to fiscal restraint. And yet, every time, spending somehow ratchets higher.” One need only glance at the projected deficits to see that this is true.

Let us go back in time to touch on budget 2023, where the finance minister said that the deficits for the next four years would be as follows: $35 billion, $26.9 billion, $15.7 billion and, finally, $14 billion in 2027-28. Let us keep in mind that those projections were made over a year ago, and not much has changed with respect to Canada's fiscal landscape since then. Now, let us take a look at the new deficit projections from the fall economic statement. It states that we will have a $38.4 billion deficit in 2024-25, then $38.3 billion, then $27.1 billion and, finally, $23.8 billion in 2027-28. This is an average of about $9 billion more per year. In what world is that considered fiscally responsible or showing restraint, as the Liberals would like us to believe? How is that possible?

In fact, with the BIA, which we are debating right now, we now have a better idea of what the national debt numbers will be. Remember that the national debt, back in 2015, when the Liberal government came into power, was just over $600 billion. In 2023, the government showed it to be $1.1 trillion. That 0.1 is $100 billion. When we put it in that perspective and look at this, people need to finally wake up to what those costs are. According to the statement in the fall economic statement, it will be $1.2 trillion.

As for this budget that came forward just now, the 2024 budget, which was supposed to be there to help generation Z and the millennials, when one looks at what that projects the national debt will be for 2025-26, is projecting it to be $1.5 trillion. That is a $200-billion to $300-billion increase. How is that helping generation Z and millennials? That is adding $300 billion-plus onto the debt, which they are going to have to pay at some time. How is it going to happen?

As for what this government is doing, it is upping the credit limit, and it is increasing it to $2 trillion, more than we have, and continuing. How is that teaching gen Z and millennials, or even anybody, how to save money? How can they afford to survive? We are not teaching them a thing, and this from a government that campaigned back in 2015 on having just two $10-billion deficits. That is simple math. It is not hard to figure out, but when it was $600 billion, assuming that they had two $10-billion deficits, our deficit should only be $620 billion. Those numbers do not seem to add up.

Furthermore, while the annual government revenue projections are to be $6 billion higher because of their inability to control Canada's debt, interest costs have skyrocketed and will have doubled in the last two years. Here are the budget projections for interest charges on the federal debt of budget 2023: $46 billion for 2024-25, $46.6 billion for 2025-26, $48.3 billion for 2026-27 and $50.3 billion in 2027-28.

Let us compare those interest figures with the new updated projections from the fall economic statement, where we have $52.4 billion in 2024-25, $53.3 billion and then $55.1 billion, ending with $58.4 billion in 2027-28. Interest costs are now the highest they have been in a decade, and the Liberals have no plan whatsoever to remedy this. This eats up and consumes the $6 billion in increased revenue I previously mentioned. That is net-zero increases.

To put this into perspective, the Prime Minister has allowed the interest costs for the federal government to run so high that the amount is now double what it spent on national defence, and it will be more than the federal government spends on health care next year, which is evident in our 2024 budget, where the interest rates that are being paid are higher than the total amount we would spend on health care.

This means that, instead of taxpayer money going toward our doctors and nurses, it will be spent on servicing a debt that should never have been this high in the first place. The government cannot be trusted to do what is in the best interests of Canadians, and it is time for a new Conservative government that truly understands what responsible fiscal management means.

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

Persons with Disabilities

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today I had the pleasure to go to the first-ever National Air Accessibility Summit and hear from advocates and organizations on how we can better serve people with disabilities on our airlines.

The summit is a historic step towards improving accessibility for persons with disabilities in this country. Attendees heard first-hand experiences of navigating air services with different accessibility needs and barriers that exist in the current system, and ideas on how to solve them. What matters is whether the government was listening.

The government failed to listen to disability advocates and organizations, like its own advisory council, while it was developing the Canada disability benefit. In the consultation on that, the Liberals heard about the barriers that the disability tax credit posed and about how many low-income people with disabilities were unable to access it. They were told about the problem of potential provincial clawbacks and so much more. However, they acted on none of it. The current government does a great job of announcing that there are problems, but if the Canada disability benefit is any sign, it is not listening to the answers.

In February I asked the Prime Minister when he would get serious about holding airline CEOs to account to protect Canadians. While the Liberals will point to the summit today, there was nothing binding and we have seen nothing on the accountability for the corporations that were perpetrating human rights abuses. The Liberal government repeatedly makes bold announcements but does little. In fact today, the Minister of Transport said that he would leave it to the guys to solve this problem, instead of legislating it here in the House.

It reminds me of the previous Conservative government. It is the very same one that the Prime Minister campaigned against as not being transparent enough, yet he now seems to want to do nothing more than emulate it. Just like the Conservatives before him, the Prime Minister continues to have open arms and deep pockets for corporations and CEOs not following rules.

However, when it comes to people with disabilities who need support, following the law is not something that the government cares about. This is not right. Like I said to the Prime Minister in the past, the government's lack of action on holding airline CEOs to account is a failure. I ask again, when will the Prime Minister get serious about holding CEOs to account to protect persons with disabilities in this country?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business and to the Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians have the right to travel, and this is especially important to the more than eight million Canadians who have a disability and expect a barrier-free travel experience.

We know that barriers in the transportation system often result in unacceptable impacts for passengers with disabilities, including to their health, independence and dignity. That is why we convened a national air accessibility summit today, to bring together partners from the community of persons with disabilities, the air transportation sector, government and its agencies to engage on this important issue. The summit led to productive and engaging discussions to find solutions for a more consistent and seamless travel experience for all Canadians.

We have also put in place safeguards for the rights of passengers with disabilities, including regulations. The Canadian Transportation Agency created the accessible transportation for persons with disabilities regulations. These regulations guide transportation service providers like airlines on how to communicate with passengers with disabilities, offer assistance, ensure that planes, ferries, trains and buses are accessible, and train workers to assist travellers with disabilities. The Canadian Transportation Agency has the mandate to ensure that airlines follow these rules and treat passengers with disabilities fairly.

Recently, the agency fined Air Canada $97,500 for violating parts of these regulations. Also, if a passenger with a disability experiences physical or psychological harm due to an airline breaking the rules on purpose or through negligence, the agency can order compensation for their pain and suffering.

While regulations set the basics for making travel accessible, we know that airlines need to go beyond just following the rules.

Air Canada also announced new measures to improve its services for passengers with disabilities. This includes the formation of an advisory group of persons with disabilities to provide lived experience to improve its services and training. It is also accelerating the timeline of its accessibility plan required under the Accessible Canada Act. This is in addition to measures it took in November of last year.

Transport Canada and other stakeholders recently partnered with the International Air Transport Association to create guidelines for safely and efficiently transporting mobility aids by airline staff and contractors.

The Government of Canada also introduced Bill C-52, the enhancing transparency and accountability in the transportation system act, which includes a proposal for collecting and publishing accessibility complaints data. This addresses a need to get better complaint data regarding accessible transportation for passengers with disabilities. In fact, this was a recurring topic of discussion at the summit today. We know this will also allow the Government of Canada to gain insights into systemic issues and act appropriately to provide necessary accountability for air carriers.

The Government of Canada remains steadfast in its commitment to forging a barrier-free Canada and holding airlines accountable for providing services to passengers with disabilities.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the member talk about regulations and that a few fines have been put forward, but it is not consistent. Enforcement is not happening. We heard that today, and I want the government to get better.

I also want to talk about the airports capital assistance program. One of the other things we learned is that the airports capital assistance program ranks accessibility of airports as the last priority on its list, actually below sprinklers. The result of accessibility being the last priority for the government is that there has been no funding for small airports in over 20 years.

My ask of the government today is this: Will the government immediately move accessibility up to the number one priority for the airports capital assistance program? It should move it up to priority one. It does not cost anything and it is a human rights need.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me first say it is unacceptable that anyone, regardless of their abilities, should experience the treatment that we have seen in some cases in the media recently. Today, at the national air accessibility summit, we convened a diverse group of participants from across Canada, including representatives from the community of persons with disabilities and the air travel sector, to ensure that all service providers in the air travel ecosystem uphold their responsibilities to help make travel a seamless experience for all.

Rest assured that we are also taking steps, like the introduction of Bill C-52 and new proposed provisions for accessibility related data to address these issues, and to reduce barriers and the risk of such incidents from happening again. We will continue to work tirelessly to create a more inclusive and barrier-free Canada for all.

Mr. Speaker, I wish you a good evening on this late night and a good week in your constituency.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member. I wish all members who are present and who are participating online the same thing.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until later today at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:10 a.m.)