Debates of June 18th, 2024

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech. As well, I listened intently to the last two NDP-Liberal MPs who asked questions The funny thing is that they complained that, when the Conservatives attain government, we would cut their great programs, such as the green slush fund from which, of that billion dollars, almost $400 million went to conflicted directors' own companies.

I am wondering if the member could expound on the other great Liberal programs that have resulted in this kind of corruption, which the Conservatives would end when we assume power.

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, we are going to cut the number of Liberal seats in this House when we form government. That is the first thing we will cut, and, of course, we are going to axe the tax. We are going to cut the tax on gas, groceries and home heating, and, indeed, we will cut out the corruption. My friend, who is a great hockey player, highlighted just one piece of a plethora of corruption that we have seen under the government. There is the WE scandal and the green slush fund that is growing in scandal every single day, which he and other members are doing a great job of highlighting. We are also going to cut out the Infrastructure Bank, which has built exactly zero projects. It is a $30-billion program. It has built zero projects, yet it has shovelled millions of dollars to Liberal-connected insiders. This is the kind of corruption we are going to cut under a common-sense Conservative government once the member for Carleton becomes Prime Minister.

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the finance critic for the Conservative-Reform party says that they are going to cut the Infrastructure Bank. He is just reaffirming a policy that we know. My question for him is this: Is the member aware of the many projects that are taking place in his home province? One of the examples would be the investments in irrigation, which is helping farmers diversify. Liberals have continuously been there to advocate for farmers, and the farmers would actually be fairly disappointed in the Conservatives' not recognizing the importance of irrigation in the province of Manitoba.

Why does the Conservative Party oppose that particular program?

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

Madam Speaker, that is a bit rich, coming from the most anti-Alberta government in Canadian history. We thought Trudeau 1 was bad, but under the current Prime Minister, we have never seen such brazen attacks on the hard-working people from my province, the greatest province in this country, Alberta, as those that have come from the Prime Minister. The attacks do not stop, whether they are on our province, on our energy sector, on our farmers, or on everyday hard-working Canadians.

I do not think there is any Canadian today who can trust that whatever the government is doing is in the best interest of Canadians. We recently saw that with the carbon tax scam, where the environment minister, who is probably one of the most anti-Alberta ministers I have ever seen, hid a report that proved to Canadians that there is a $30-billion carbon tax loss to the economy and to workers. The government did everything it could to hide that report, so I do not know anyone who can trust that the government is doing anything in the best interest of Canada or Canadians.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked about the cost of living and touched on the issue of housing. At the moment, there is a trend on both the Liberal and Conservative sides. There is a coalition trying to interfere in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction when it comes to housing.

Both the Leader of the Opposition's bill and the latest budget from the party opposite attempt to get tough with cities so they will propose housing solutions. These magic wands will not work. Instead, the money earmarked for housing could be transferred unconditionally to Quebec, because housing comes under Quebec's jurisdiction. What does my colleague think?

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

Madam Speaker, let me just correct the record first. The only coalition is the carbon tax coalition of the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc. There is no way we would be complicit in any way like the Bloc has been in making sure that housing costs have doubled. That is not something we were complicit in. I will say that our common-sense plan to fix the housing crisis in this country will do just that. We will bring up the supply by incentivizing municipalities to build and stop the gatekeeping—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Joliette has the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑69 is a budget implementation omnibus bill that creates or amends 67 different acts. The government promised never to use this type of thing, but for the past several years, it has continued to do so.

Bill C‑69 enacts, among other things, the consumer-driven banking act, which establishes that it is the federal government alone that regulates this sector and that the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada acts as the regulator.

We asked the government to take this division out of Bill C‑69 and correct some of its shortcomings over the summer so it could come back this fall with a framework that does not give Bay Street an unfair advantage over other financial institutions, that respects the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, and that will be administered by a competent body. However, the government just voted against our request. The government is not working well. It is not listening, it is being partisan, and it is undermining Quebec. That is why we will be voting against this bill.

I am going to talk more about the open banking system, beginning with some context. As things stand, all financial services are based out of financial institutions that people do business with directly. These institutions are legally and financially responsible in the event of fraud or data theft, so they are fiercely protective of our personal data. Under an open banking system, financial institutions will have to share our data with platforms that will enable us to access all our accounts with one click. It would be a minor revolution. Ultimately, we can envision a system in which financial institutions essentially just create financial products, with client relations being handled by tech companies that do not themselves provide financial products, but act as intermediaries and data aggregators. That calls for a framework.

People want the flexibility an open banking system offers. That is why financial technology or fintech companies have already started coming on line despite the legal limbo. They are not well regulated, so they find other ways to evolve. Users themselves provide their credentials. The app goes into a user's account, extracts data from the screen and stores it. 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.

We know that the level of risk varies. An aggregator that scans public data to show us mortgage rates at all financial institutions in one click is low risk. When it collects our personal data to give us a detailed picture of our financial situation, that carries more risk for the protection of sensitive personal information, namely financial information. 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. Let us also not forget that a series of orders quickly placed with the help of an AI system could completely destabilize all financial institutions. What about the principle of needing to know the customer? That principle is the foundation of our anti-money laundering 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. Prudential regulations have to adapt. What we need is a clear framework with clear obligations and responsibilities.

The financial sector is a shared jurisdiction. The federal government has authority over banks and federally incorporated financial institutions. Financial institutions that are not banks, namely credit unions and trust companies, fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Financial intermediaries, such as investment dealers and financial advisers, fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Tech companies in the financial sector are not currently regulated, but they are likely similar to financial intermediaries.

There are different models in all this. There is the Interac approach. The Interac system, which enables exchanges between institutions and allows us, for example, to use our debit card everywhere, was developed by the financial companies themselves. These companies agreed on a common technology and standards to ensure that transactions are secure. Companies that adopt and comply with the common standards can join the system and offer Interac. This is the approach taken by the United Kingdom. In Canada, it is the approach that was favoured by the Advisory Committee on Open Banking in 2021.

The advantage of this approach, which is the simplest and most flexible, is that each government retains full regulatory power and adopting the open banking system does not result in any transfer of power. The disadvantage is that it is a form of self-regulation. The standard adopted may very well be aimed primarily at developing the sector rather than protecting citizens. Personal information, financial risks and fees come to mind. The banks, which initially advocated self-regulation, realized that squeezing out the legislator would not work and that co-operation would be a more realistic option.

Another approach, the one that we advocate and prefer, is the securities approach. Securities fall mainly under provincial jurisdiction, but Ottawa has laws governing federally incorporated companies. The Supreme Court of Canada has also recognized federal jurisdiction over systemic risk in the financial sector. In Quebec, the Autorité des marchés financiers is the regulator. To ensure that businesses could raise capital across Canada and that registrations in one province would be recognized everywhere, governments decided to coordinate. That is why Quebec's corporations legislation is very similar to the federal corporations legislation and to the corporation laws of all the other provinces. The same is true for all legislation governing the various aspects of securities. Quebec retains its legislative powers. The Quebec act may be stricter in some respects. For example, Quebec is the only province that requires a French version for all corporations registered with the Autorité des marchés financiers. However, this version must comply with the common standard adopted by all governments.

For years now, the federal government has wanted to centralize securities regulation in a single commission and concentrate the entire financial sector in Toronto, to the detriment of Montreal in particular. Quebec and the Quebec business community have always opposed this. In 2021, my party successfully amended the budget implementation bill to close the federal office responsible for creating a single securities commission. It was a really nice moment in a committee meeting over Zoom. I remember it clearly. The model of co-operation between governments, which has survived repeated attacks by the federal government, is still going and is working well. As I was saying, the securities model is the approach that my party and I favour for the open banking system.

However, in Bill C‑69, Ottawa is opting for unilateralism and centralization. As I was saying earlier, Bill C‑69 enacts the consumer-driven banking act, which would make the federal government the sole regulator of this sector, with the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada serving as the regulator. That is a problem, too. The agency does not have the qualifications to do that at all. Since fintechs are not under federal jurisdiction, Ottawa has opted to regulate them indirectly by regulating how banks can transact with them.

Specifically, Bill C‑69 provides that banks and other federally regulated financial institutions will be covered by the new act. They will be required to co-operate with fintech companies, but they may do so only in accordance with federal rules and standards. Institutions that are not federally regulated will be ignored. They can opt in voluntarily with approval from their province, which would then have to waive the right to apply its own laws to the portion of their activities that comes under the open banking system. For now, Bill C‑69 does not affect insurers, because of the sensitive nature of the medical data they hold, or intermediaries such as brokers, but the framework will likely expand to cover them in the future.

The specific rules and standards that will apply to the sector, particularly in terms of consumer protection and financial liability, will be set out in another bill that is due out in the fall, but the decision to make it exclusively federal is being made now, in Bill C‑69.

In practical terms, the Quebec Consumer Protection Act and the Quebec act respecting the protection of personal information could cease to apply to financial institutions for any activities related to open financial services. That is no small thing.

We are getting ready to pass this bill at third reading in the House, but the impact of an exclusively federal open banking system on the prudential obligations of Quebec financial institutions, as set out by the Autorité des marchés financiers, is still unclear.

In addition to forcing Quebec to transfer legislative power to Ottawa, Bill C-69 puts Quebec's institutions at a disadvantage with respect to federal institutions. While banks will have only one set of regulations to follow, under this bill, an institution like Desjardins would be caught between two governments: the Government of Quebec, for its general operations, and the federal government, for its technological interactions with customers. That is ridiculous.

The fact that Quebec institutions will be subject to two uncoordinated regulatory bodies could be downright dysfunctional and give banks an egregious advantage over co-ops and trust companies. That is unacceptable.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have to move on to Private Members' Business. The hon. member will have eight minutes and 30 seconds remaining when the House resumes consideration of this bill.

The House resumed from May 23 consideration of Bill S‑224, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Criminal Code

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, when the Bloc Québécois leader's office informed me that I would be delivering a speech in the House about Bill S‑224, I thought it was a joke, but it is not. Apparently I really have to do this.

Bill S‑224 is quite simple. It contains a single clause. The committee worked hard on this. We heard from witnesses, and we ended up deciding to delete the clause in question as well as the title of the bill. As such, what we are left with now is just the bill number, S‑224.

What can I say about that number? It does bring back some memories. Originally, the purpose of this bill was to better protect sex workers from human trafficking.

The challenge—indeed, the obstacle—we almost always face when attempting to define a concept is that what we do not say has a much greater influence on what we mean than what we do say. We tried to amend the definition, and witnesses told us that, far from helping, the bill was actually detrimental. The bill would likely have equated “sex work” with “human trafficking”.

I will quote Ms. Lam, executive director of the Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform. On June 12, 2023, she said, “If Bill S‑224 passes, anyone who helps sex workers stay safe...will be charged with human trafficking. People will be too afraid to be associated with sex work, making sex workers more isolated and vulnerable.” That short quote pretty much sums up the problem we faced.

The Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment that would have allowed us to develop a definition more respectful of the comments and notes we received from various witnesses in committee. We were trying to come up with a definition for a person who exploits another person. Unfortunately, our amendment was rejected in committee, and we are left with this empty shell as a result.

I could go on at length about the virtues of the legislative definition and protecting sex workers, but those listening to me will tell me that I am wasting their time. Therefore, with the Speaker's permission, I will stop there, but I will say that we must not abandon Bill S‑224. I think that protecting sex workers is important. Human trafficking is something we absolutely must ban and fight as best we can, but, once again, we will have to work a little harder to ensure that we define these concepts properly and that we do not harm rather than help.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I stand in the House today in full support of Bill S-224 in its original form.

I want to commend my colleague, the member for Oshawa, for his hard work and tireless advocacy on behalf of human trafficking victims. I consider him to be a friend and a mentor, in addition to being my neighbour. I have seen the hard work he has put into fighting for victims of crime and trying to get all parties on board with a common-sense idea to hold offenders who commit the crime of human trafficking to a higher standard than we hold the victims.

Unfortunately, the bill has been attacked by the Liberal government with not only an amendment that hollows it out and guts it, but also an amendment that goes so far as to actually delete all of the contents of the legislation, making it meaningless and also making the bill ineffective in challenging the status quo. Unfortunately, it is on brand for the Liberal Party of Canada to disrespect victims of crime, to maintain a status quo of chaos and disorder, and to not stand up for those who are suffering from the way the justice system currently operates.

The Liberal Party of Canada does not support victims of human trafficking, just as they do not support victims of all crimes. It is not a government interested in serving the interests of law-abiding citizens, but is more concerned with being easy on criminals. Undermining Bill S-224 is completely on brand because we know how little they care about victims of crime.

I can go over the record. Liberal bail policies, for example, have turned courthouses into turnstile houses. Police officers work very hard in our communities to make arrests, to enforce the law and to keep our communities safe, only to see those who they arrest released back into the community to commit the same crimes over and over again. Catch-and-release bail policies have contributed to a spike in all sorts of crimes across Canada, from auto theft to violent crime, and are contributing to a system of chaos and disorder.

We have also seen the Liberal government's approach to enforcing drug laws. Certainly, members would recall that in British Columbia we saw the results of a sadistic experiment to legalize hard drugs, further promoting chaos and disorder. We also have a problem of judge shortages. We have seen that the government is not interested in appointing enough judges to ensure that we have a functional justice system. Long delays have caused cases of violent crime to be thrown out of the courts.

I ask anyone hearing my words to just imagine being a law-abiding citizen, who does everything that they have been asked to do, such as going to school, getting a job, paying taxes and contributing to this country, and a crime is committed against them or their family. The system that they pay into does not have their back. In fact, it is so ineffective that the person who committed the crime against them never has to face consequences for his or her actions.

That is the system of chaos and disorder that we have under the Liberal government because, again, it does not have the backs of law-abiding citizens. Instead, it is concerned with being easy on criminals. This system of chaos and disorder is the status quo under the current Prime Minister. The reality is that by opposing Bill S-224, by putting forward an amendment that renders it absolutely meaningless, the Liberal government is clinging to the status quo. It is clinging to the chaos and disorder that it has caused.

The crime of human trafficking is a particularly heartbreaking one. It exploits the most vulnerable people in our communities. For those of us from Ontario, it hits close to home. From 2012 to 2022, two-thirds of the human trafficking cases reported across Canada occurred in Ontario. The 401 Highway corridor has become a hub for trafficking crimes. It is fair for Canadians to expect some action from the government to address these concerns. We have heard from police officers who are frustrated with the status quo and who have said quite openly that it makes it harder for them to do their jobs.

I would like to quote a member of the Durham Regional Police Service, who I am fortunate enough to say serves my home community of Durham. Constable Jeff Tucker said, “There is a lack of understanding for the victims. The victims are retraumatized every time they have to testify over and over again.... The criminal justice system provides more rights to the accused than the victims.... Victims are not protected by the system, only criminals.”

This is a very serious problem, and it is not hard to see why police officers would be disappointed with the status quo we have. Currently, under the law, only 8% of human trafficking offenders are convicted, and Bill S-224, in its original form, sought to solve this problem.

The justice system is broken, to put it bluntly, and it is not hard to figure out who is responsible. The Liberal Prime Minister, in power for nine years, is responsible. Despite all his efforts to claim no responsibility for his own actions, he has broken the justice system, and a course correction is necessary.

I would like to use my time to share the perspective of the mother of a human trafficking victim. Lynda Harlos has been a champion for Bill S-224 in its original form. Lynda is an advocate in the fight against human trafficking and is the founder of the organization Parent With A Purpose, where she is a sex trafficking and abuse prevention educator, and she shares her story of being the mother of a sex trafficking survivor.

Lynda writes, “In the current global landscape, the question is not if a child will be targeted for exploitation, but when. We must ask ourselves this: are our protocols robust enough to prevent them from becoming victims and, if they do, to ensure justice is served? Every night, I lay my head on my pillow, tormented by the knowledge that my naivety led to my daughter's trafficking. Can you, as policymakers and leaders, rest easy without feeling shame and guilt, knowing that justice remains out of reach for her due to a lack of 'proof' for her suffering? Was she expected to photograph the moment she was being waterboarded for not complying with a client's demands? Should she have documented her trafficker threatening her son's life as retribution for her refusal to allow further abuse? In a household of three women, two have endured repeated sexual assault, yet these incidents remain unreported. Why? Because we are painfully aware that current laws will revictimize us without delivering justice. My daughter would willingly face revictimization if there were any hope that justice would prevail. While local organizations excel at addressing victims' basic needs, they fall short in securing justice. The solution is straightforward: punish those who exploit our children and the perpetrators who buy from them, not the victims. It is imperative that we strengthen our legal frameworks to protect and deliver justice for the most vulnerable among us.”

I thank Lynda for her work and for her advocacy. I thank all of the people who stood up in support of victims of violent crime, including the member for Oshawa, who has been a tireless advocate.

Members of the House have an important decision to make. Will they support Bill S-224 in its original form, or will they allow a Liberal amendment to continue promoting chaos and disorder across our country? It should be a no-brainer. It should be very obvious that change is needed and that the course correction of this country is in the hands of its leaders to listen to the people of Canada. I leave that on the conscience of all members of the House, and I am thankful for the chance to speak in support of victims' rights.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 2.

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

We request a recorded vote, Madam Speaker.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 19, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:30 p.m. so we can get to Government Orders.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the third time and passed.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, after that 15-minute break to discuss Bill S-224, I am going to return to my speech on Bill C-69. I want to focus on the division that creates the federal framework for the open banking system and centralizes powers.

As I said before the break, under this bill, banks under federal jurisdiction would have only one set of regulations to follow, whereas an institution under provincial jurisdiction, like Desjardins, would be caught between two governments: the Government of Quebec, for its general operations, and the federal government, for its technological interactions with customers. The fact that these institutions will be subject to two uncoordinated regulatory bodies could be downright dysfunctional and give banks an egregious advantage over co-ops, trust companies, credit unions, Alberta Treasury Branch Financial, and so on. Why always favour Bay Street? This is unacceptable.

Bill C‑69 places Quebec in a dilemma in which there are no good options. If we refuse to join the federal framework, our institutions will stay trapped in the 20th century while their federal competitors step into the technological 21st century. Maybe we could let our financial institutions opt in to the federal framework, but then Quebec would have to waive the right to apply its own laws to their activities that come under the open banking system, which is unacceptable, especially with the Civil Code, consumer protection laws and so forth.

Then there is the worst-case scenario. In order to survive against its federal competitors, an institution like Desjardins could choose to stop being a Quebec institution within the meaning of Quebec's Cooperatives Act and become a federal institution under Canadian co-operative bank legislation. Trust companies would face the same choice. Since the open banking system could eventually be expanded to cover insurance, all of our insurance companies could switch over to federal regulation. That is what is at issue in Bill C‑69.

If this worst-case scenario comes to pass, the entire financial sector and all of its activities will be completely outside Quebec's jurisdiction. That is a serious threat to Montreal's status as a financial hub. In short, by using its power over banks to regulate all companies that interact with them, Ottawa is trying to force Quebec and the provinces out of the financial sector, which it failed to do when it was trying to regulate securities.

Rather than taking the unilateral, centralist route, Ottawa should have chosen co-operation. It could have called a federal-provincial finance ministers' working meeting on open banking. It could have encouraged them to release a joint statement at the end of this meeting in which the governments announce their intention of developing a common regulatory approach with a clear deadline, such as 2025, and possibly setting up a federal-provincial office. It could have sent a clear message to all financial institutions, not just banks, telling them to agree on a common technology, such as a secure data transfer protocol, because open banking is coming. It could have worked on common regulations on accreditation rules for fintech companies, security standards, clarification of financial liability, and consumer and data protection.

We asked the government to take out the division on open banking that centralizes the sector exclusively at the federal level, to take a few months to coordinate with the various players and the provinces and then to come back in the fall with a framework that respects jurisdictions and does not put provincially regulated institutions at a disadvantage. This government rejected our proposal, so now we are going to have to build this new system on a very bad foundation.

Another concern is that, in Bill C‑69, the government delegates the administration of the framework to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, an agency that mainly promotes financial literacy and does not have any of the required expertise. In committee, FCAC representatives acknowledged that they did not have expertise in sharing financial data in a way that minimizes the obvious cybersecurity risks. They also told us they do not currently have a plan for developing the expertise needed to oversee the security aspect of open banking.

We also asked several questions that the FCAC representatives said they were unable to answer. For example, since fintech companies are not banks, they are not federally regulated.

Did the government obtain the consent of the provinces, particularly Quebec, which has its own civil laws, before introducing this bill? They are unable to answer.

During the briefing on the notice of ways and means preceding the bill, it was my understanding that provincially regulated financial institutions could opt in to the federal framework provided that the province consents and declines to regulate those activities involving the open banking system. Is that the case? They do not know. They are unable to answer.

Which provincial laws will have to take a back seat to federal laws? They cannot answer this, either.

Who will be tasked with certifying the technology companies? Will it be Ottawa or the Autorité des marchés financiers? They are unable to answer.

Will Quebec's Consumer Protection Act apply to the activities of the open banking system? They are unable to answer. In the event of fraud or damages, will it be possible to launch a lawsuit or class action under the Civil Code or the Consumer Protection Act against a fintech company? Once again, they are unable to answer that question.

Will the sharing of financial liability between the financial institution and the technology company necessitate changes to the financial institutions' prudential standards? Will the Autorité des marchés financiers need to change its rules to comply with the federal framework? Again, they are unable to answer.

None of this is surprising. The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada is not well placed to administer this framework. It learned it would be receiving this role the day before the budget was tabled. When it comes to behaving like amateurs and making things up on the fly, this government takes the cake.

To avoid a disaster or some risky backpedalling, we asked the government to remove this division from Bill C-69. We suggested reworking it this summer and coming back with a good bill this fall. The government refused.

We are opposing this bad bill that sets this entire sector up on a terrible foundation. It is unacceptable.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciated a number of the comments the member made. I can understand why, through technological changes and advancements in web design, consumers rely more and more on Internet banking.

The member gave the impression that the reason he is voting against the budget bill is that specific issue. Is my interpretation right, or are there other aspects to the legislation the member opposes?

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

Madam Speaker, that is a big problem for us with this bill.

The bill is 660 pages long and amends or creates 67 laws. Some of it is good, and some is not so good.

One example of something good is that it changes the rules so that companies that declare their profits in tax havens are taxed more effectively. That is a step forward. That is good. We applaud that.

The $11 billion being given to the gas industry to make hydrogen is a subsidy, a program tailor-made for the gas industry. It is not a plan to fight climate change. Therefore, we oppose it.

I spent all my allotted time talking about open banking for a reason. It is a big deal. It is a big deal for Quebec, for Montreal's status as a financial hub, and for our financial institutions, like Desjardins. It is unacceptable. Once again, I condemn the government's failure to listen. As soon as there is a chance to favour Bay Street over its competitors in the financial sector, the government seems to kowtow to the big Bay Street banks. That is unacceptable. That needs to change.

The framework will not be put in place until next fall. Why not take the summer to coordinate and build on a solid foundation rather than on such a shaky, poorly managed framework?

It is a disaster waiting to happen.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, honestly, I have lost count of how many attempts this government has made to impoverish people, to make them feel insignificant. It is interfering in our most fundamental jurisdictions, in the areas that are the most important to us. In 2021, I realized just how important securities are to Quebec and how symbolic they are. I would like my colleague to expand on that.

When it comes to finance, the government and even the opposition present themselves as champions of the economy, but they forget that there is so much room for improvement. I am referring here to the securities framework, but also to capital gains. We made some intelligent proposals, but once again, we have not heard anything from the government. I would also like my colleague to comment on that.