Brigitte Sansoucy

[Tobacco Act, November 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, again, as in many cases, the provinces provided the impetus by passing legislation well before the federal government did anything.

The federal government can absolutely play a leadership role by working with the provinces because it is important to ensure that the information gets out there. Provincial legislation can easily be adapted and passed by other provinces. The federal government can play a leadership role to ensure good communication.

However, we must ensure that our federal legislation harmonizes with provincial legislation and that it respects provincial jurisdictions. The provinces that have already legislated on the matter were the precursors. The federal government has to make its own contribution by showing leadership and ensuring good communication.

At some point, we have all spoken with organizations that are having a hard time, that do not have the resources to ensure that information flows freely across Canada and that smoking cessation groups are mobilized. It is up to the federal government to show leadership in that area.

As I said in my speech, the fact that people in our society still smoke costs us millions of dollars each year. We know how much addiction treatment centres need support. Organizations that work to spread awareness in order to prevent addiction, like Satellite and Horizon Soleil in my riding, need our support. We must continue to act on this issue.

[Tobacco Act, November 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has no complaints about Bill S-5 and supports it at second reading. The purpose of the bill is to create a new legislative framework for regulating vaping products and implement plain and standardized packaging.

We have long called for effective, concrete anti-tobacco measures to discourage young people from starting to smoke. The NDP is clearly a leader on this front. We have long called for plain packaging and a regulatory framework for vaping products.

In 2009, the former health critic, the member for Winnipeg North, introduced a bill to close loopholes in the Tobacco Act by tightening requirements for the labelling, packaging, and sale of flavoured tobacco products. In the last election campaign, we promised to introduce anti-smoking measures, increase funding for anti-smoking strategies, implement plain packaging, and ban all flavoured tobaccos.

We also talked about the need to initiate a federal review to strengthen Canada's tobacco control legislation and strategy, which expires in 2018. It is clear that our demands were heard because it is now illegal to use flavourings and additives in tobacco products, even though the Conservatives did not weigh in on the tobacco issue during the 2015 election campaign. We also hope that the government will support this bill, and that we will be able to work together to implement it and improve the health of Canadians.

According to the Canadian Community Health Survey published in March 2017, over 5 million Canadians aged 12 and older smoke either daily or occasionally. Over 18% of Quebec residents smoke, exceeding the national average. In response to the 2015 report of the Standing Committee on Health, this bill would effectively combat smoking and vaping, particularly among youth. This would have a positive impact on Canadians' health, especially lung health.

Smoking is the leading cause of disease and premature death in Canada. The annual health care cost per smoker in Canada is over $3,000, which adds up to $17 billion a year. If passed, this bill could save money by reducing smoking rates in Canada. Studies show that people with a psychiatric disorder are two to four times more likely to smoke than the general population. More than 80% of those with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder are smokers.

There is no doubt that tobacco causes serious illnesses and a number of problems that can lead to death. One Canadian dies from tobacco-related illness every 14 minutes. That is unacceptable. This is why we are supporting this bill and why we are urging the other parties to do the same. Anti-smoking groups rightly point out that the longer we wait to pass a bill like this one, the more people will start to smoke and the more people will die from the consequences of tobacco use.

This bill would rename the Tobacco Act as the “tobacco and vaping products act”. Vaping is a more recent problem, and we must regulate the use of these products. Vaping products are indeed less harmful than cigarettes. According to a study by Public Health England, e-cigarettes are estimated to be 95% less harmful than tobacco and could help smokers stop smoking. E-cigarettes are the most well-known and most popular vaping product. They first appeared in Canada in 2007.

Although there are regulations in place, it is difficult to restrict access to e-cigarettes. There is no evidence as of yet indicating that e-cigarettes encourage young people and non-smokers to start consuming nicotine. However, we still lack information on these and other vaping products, since they are new to the market. These products and their different flavours may seem enticing, especially to young people.

The 2015 Canadian tobacco, alcohol and drugs survey found that nearly 15% of Canadians aged 15 and older have already tried e-cigarettes, an increase over the percentage reported in 2013.

If this bill is passed, the ban on tobacco sales to persons under the age of 18 will also be extended to vaping products, and it will also be illegal to promote vaping products by referencing specific flavour descriptions or ingredients that suggest health benefits, because this would be considered false advertising.

It will also be illegal to promote vaping products to young people using tobacco brands or information-based advertising. Labels on these products must carry warnings regarding their nicotine content and the health problems they can cause.

These measures are less restrictive than those applied to tobacco, since these products are considered less harmful for now. However, the United States Food and Drug Administration has grouped vaping products and tobacco products together under one regulation. It is vital that vaping products do not become a new source of nicotine addiction, that they are used only to reduce the harmful effects of smoking, and that young people's access to them is restricted. That is why this bill creates a regulatory framework for these products.

Linda Bauld, a British cancer prevention research expert, said that free stop smoking services are the most effective way to quit, but she recognized that e-cigarettes may help many people stop smoking.

The only downside to this bill is the fact that vaping product manufacturers will be able to promote their products everywhere, which is bound to attract young teens. Some provinces and territories, including Quebec, have different, stricter rules about this. In Quebec, vaping products can be advertised only in newspapers and magazines aimed at adults, not children. Bill S-5 will have to harmonize with provincial laws on that score.

Vaping products may help reduce tobacco consumption, but it is important to remember that using them does not break the smoking habit. Maison Alcôve, a well-known addiction treatment centre in Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, made it clear that the only way a smoker will stop smoking is by breaking those habits, those daily rituals. Smoking an e-cigarette is still smoking. Using vaping products to reduce tobacco consumption has limitations we need to consider.

If this bill passes, manufacturers would be required to submit to the Minister of Health information on sales and the ingredients in the vaping products, to ensure follow-up. The 2015 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health regarding vaping contained 14 recommendations, including one to create a legislative framework for vaping products. This bill follows on those recommendations.

Bill S-5 would also require plain packaging for tobacco products, a requirement Australia enacted in 2012, followed by France and the U.K. in 2016. The NDP wants us to adopt the strictest packaging system in the world in order to combat the effects of tobacco on the health of Canadians. This measure is also being considered by many countries such as South Africa, Sweden, and Singapore. It is one of the measures we promised to implement during the 2015 election campaign.

Plain packaging is an effective way to reduce tobacco use, dissuade young people from smoking in the first place, and limit exposure to second-hand smoke, which can have an adverse effect on non-smokers. Plain packaging would also help standardize the appearance and format of all tobacco products and get rid of logos and trademarks. The colours on the packaging would be neutral and health warnings would always be included. Plain packaging has been proven to make health warnings more effective.

Canadians will therefore be better informed of the health risks of tobacco and will be more aware that it is a dangerous product.

Just look at the impact that plain packaging had in Australia and you can see that this measure is essential to reducing tobacco use. Australia experienced the largest-ever decline after plain packaging was introduced. According to David Hammond, from the University of Waterloo, plain packaging resulted in more than 100,000 fewer Australian smokers. If plain packaging were to have the same impact in Canada, that would translate to 190,000 fewer smokers. These figures were taken from 100 different scientific studies. Scientific evidence shows that plain packaging would help significantly lower the number of smokers.

Fourteen studies on the impact of plain packaging in Australia were published in a British Medical Journal supplement. All of these studies found that plain packaging makes cigarettes less attractive to young people, and it did not lead to increased use of tobacco or contraband tobacco. Instead, the initiative pushed smokers to try to stop. Plain packaging makes tobacco less appealing.

According to research carried out in the Australian state of Victoria, smokers perceive plain-packaged cigarettes to be lower in quality and therefore less satisfying. As a result, they are more likely to consider quitting. Tobacco packages are currently designed to be appealing and eye-catching to make consumers forget that tobacco is a deadly and addictive product. I agree with Rob Cunningham, a senior policy analyst for the Canadian Cancer Society, who said that it is wrong for an addictive, deadly product like tobacco to be marketed in packages that are designed to be attractive. This is clearly not normal.

This bill would put an end to this practice by introducing plain packaging requirements. This measure has received the support of many organizations and associations, such as the Canadian Coalition for Action on Tobacco, a group with many members who specialize in the issue of tobacco use and tobacco-related diseases. The coalition's representatives provided a committee with a document demonstrating that plain packaging has the support of more than 340 organizations across the country. A coalition of over 200 Quebec organizations, including the City of Montreal and the Quebec division of the Canadian Cancer Society, has also expressed support for plain and standardized packaging. This shows that this measure is universally supported.

Some people might be concerned about the problem of counterfeiting plain packaging. We can look to Australia for an example, where neither the Australian border services agency nor the tobacco industry identified any counterfeiting problems since plain packaging was introduced. Investigations even found the opposite, that is, fewer instances of counterfeit packaging of foreign brands. As for the concerns of convenience store owners, once again using Australia as an example, studies found that Australian retailers quickly adapted to the new measures regarding plain packaging and that cigarette pack retrieval times did not really increase at all.

The bill also contains other provisions. Indeed, the Non-smokers' Health Act, which seeks to protect those in federally-regulated workplaces, will be amended to ensure that vaping products are subject to the same prohibitions as tobacco products.

Bill S-5 also harmonizes compliance and enforcement authorities with those found in other modern statutes, including the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. These authorities would apply to both vaping and tobacco products. This would allow inspectors to use telewarrants and enter private property in carrying out an inspection, while accompanied by any person qualified to conduct the inspection. They could also require manufacturers to keep records, and stop or move any means of transportation for the purpose of inspection.

The Senate adopted 10 amendments to Bill S-5. Eight of them are largely technical. One amendment requires the Minister of Health to undertake a review of the operations of the act and to table a report in both houses of Parliament.

The final amendment would make menthol and cloves prohibited additives in all tobacco products.

I want to emphasize the fact that disadvantaged and marginalized populations are the easiest targets and, unfortunately, they tend to consume more tobacco than the general population. They are also more likely to suffer from tobacco-related diseases. For example, 40% of first nations people smoke, and 37% of people who are divorced or separated smoke. We can no longer allow these groups to be targeted. That is why we have to focus our anti-smoking programs and services on them. We have to implement strategic measures to improve social conditions and reduce the social and environmental factors that promote tobacco use. The end goal is to reduce the gap in health status between general and disadvantaged populations caused by serious tobacco-related diseases.

Canada needs to get with the times and look to laws passed in Australia, France, England, and other countries that have implemented plain packaging, prohibited the use of terms with positive connotations that encourage people to use tobacco, and regulated the use of e-cigarettes and vaping products.

Youth are also affected by this. Young people usually start smoking during adolescence. They are an easy target because they are easily influenced and find the packaging appealing.

This bill will make it possible to minimize tobacco use and nicotine addictions among young people. As a result, it will also reduce the percentage of smokers.

In 2014, at the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention, the World Health Organization urged its member countries to pay particular attention to young people and vulnerable groups when it comes to tobacco.

The main goal of this bill is to protect young people by discouraging them from smoking and by giving adults access to tobacco substitutes, such as vaping products. Passing this bill would be a major step forward in reducing tobacco use and would improve the health of Canadians.

It would be very unfortunate if this bill were not passed because we really need regulations and measures like the ones set out in Bill S-5 to successfully reduce tobacco use. However, we also need to make young people aware that they can choose not to use tobacco. We need to get them to think about what they are taking into their bodies and make sure that they know how to say no.

Parents also need to be educated about this, so that they stop trivializing smoking and realize that, yes, smoking is dangerous.

An organization in my riding called Satellite and one in Acton Vale called Horizon soleil are tyring to educate younger kids about these issues beginning in elementary school. Education will have a stronger impact and must go hand in hand with passing Bill S-5 in order to effectively reduce the number of smokers in Canada.

I have discussed this bill with some of the stakeholder organizations in my riding, including the ones I just mentioned, Satellite and Horizon soleil, which start educating children in elementary school, as well as their teachers and parents, regarding the harmful effects of using tobacco and the importance of not using it as teenagers, and especially not in elementary school. We really need to have a strict law, because young people are drawn to these products, with their colourful packages and different flavours. We need to make sure they do not ever start smoking. We all know people in our lives who want to stop using tobacco. We know how hard it is. We need to focus on prevention so that they do not start using tobacco.

As I was saying in my speech, I have spoken with stakeholders and the director of Maison l'alcôve, a very reputable addiction prevention centre in my riding. They were saying how hard it is to address this problem because it is a matter of breaking daily habits.

My NDP colleagues and I would like this bill to be passed.

[Public Services and Procurement, November 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this week we learned that the backlog caused by the Phoenix pay system is getting worse.

The Liberal government announced that, because of this fiasco, it will not be able to honour the new collective agreement implementation dates for over 100,000 public servants. Many of them have already been affected by Phoenix, and now their new collective agreement will be delayed. That is unacceptable.

Will the government at least promise to pay these employees damages and interest retroactively?

[Tobacco Act, November 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. We all know of her interest in health-related issues. I was therefore very surprised to learn that the Conservatives made no mention of tobacco and smoking in their 2015 election platform. I would therefore like to know whether the official opposition thinks it is necessary to strengthen the federal tobacco control strategy, which expires in March. We need to address this issue immediately. If so, what does my colleague believe we should do to strengthen that strategy?

[Tobacco Act, November 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we know that more independent research needs to be done on the health effects of e-cigarettes and related devices, as well as on the impact the introduction of these nicotine products is having on young people and on other tobacco control efforts.

I would like to know whether the Government of Canada will commit to allocate funding to these independent research projects.

[Federally Funded Health Research, November 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, close to eight million Canadians do not have drug coverage, because Canada is one of the few industrialized nations that offers universal health care without offering medicare.

Without medication, there can be no treatment. Health care without drugs is inconceivable. Of course, the NDP supports the motion even though it may seem redundant. In fact, a report of the Standing Committee on Health released on September 25, 2017, showed that a universal pharmacare program is the best tool for reducing the cost of medications in Canada and therefore increasing their accessibility.

Other studies and reports, such as that of the parliamentary budget officer, came to the same conclusion as the Standing Committee on Health. The parliamentary budget officer's report on the federal cost of a national pharmacare program, which was released on September 28, reveals that a national pharmacare program would actually save Canadians $4.2 billion a year.

Professor Marc-André Gagnon, an expert in public policy at Carleton University here in Ottawa, estimates that the government could cut its spending by half. There would be savings of more than $1 billion from the elimination of administrative costs associated with private insurers. Do members know that 100 or so generic drugs in Canada cost 54% more than in the United Kingdom, France, or the United States? Why is it so expensive to get care in Canada? I will tell you why.

The cost of newly approved medications is set by a federal body, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. This board examines the price of medications in other countries and uses the median price to set the Canadian price. However, the countries used for comparison purposes are those with the highest prices in the world, so we end up with unnecessarily high prices. According to a report issued by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, total drug expenditures in Canada grew by 185% in 2015. Although Canadians are spending more money on treatment than people in other countries, only a very low percentage of that money goes to fund health research.

The percentage of revenue from the sale of drugs that goes to research is three times higher in other countries than in Canada. This money is therefore not even being put back into research and finding ways to improve health. Nevertheless, the pharmaceutical industry leaders promised to increase spending on research and development in exchange for the patent reform of the 1980s. They pressured the government for new rights to patents and a longer period of protection, and they got it. However, in return, those same industry leaders did not to keep their promises. This tells us one important thing. The artificially inflated prescription drug prices have not led to increased investments in research and development.

The government needs to increase funding for health research in Canada and act on the recommendations of the Naylor report. An expert committee, led by David Naylor, published a report on April 10, 2017, recommending that the federal government invest $1.3 billion in research and reform how research activities are overseen. In countries that have a universal pharmacare program, the price of both patented and generic drugs is negotiated with the pharmaceutical companies. Buying drugs in such large quantities gives these countries a lot of bargaining power. Depending on the plan, they negotiate the bulk price, establish budgets, hold competitive bidding processes for companies, consider bundling several drugs, and so on.

Most drug expenditures in Canada come from thousands of private plans wherein people have absolutely no power to negotiate lower prices for drugs. Workers and employers are the ones who pay for the drugs, not the insurance companies. A universal pharmacare program would give the federal, provincial, and territorial governments more power to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies, which means that it would also cut costs. Drug reimbursements would increase and the process would be simplified.

Private plans cover millions of people in different ways. This has consequences because, in 2015, more than one in five Canadian households were not taking their prescribed drugs because they cost too much. All doctors are aware of the health problems that arise when patients do not take their medications because they are too expensive. For example, a one-year supply of a cholesterol-lowering drug costs less than $15 in New Zealand and more than $140 in Canada. That is not acceptable.

With a public, universal pharmacare program, prescription drug prices would drop. With a public, universal pharmacare program, the process would be simplified because there would no longer be so many private players proposing countless plans and sometimes preventing the consumer from making an informed choice. A universal pharmacare program would create a list of insured drugs based on patient health. A single list based on sound evidence would help ensure that drugs are used properly, while taking into account their therapeutic value for patients.

It is estimated that 80% of new drugs offer no added therapeutic benefit compared to less expensive drugs already on the market. This statistic is backed by a brief that was submitted to the Standing Committee on Health. Universal pharmacare would have many benefits for the provinces and territories. Take Quebec for example. If we had an entirely publicly funded universal pharmacare program, the Quebec government alone would save an estimated $1 billion a year. Currently, Quebec residents are required to join their employer's private plan or their spouse's employer's plan. The problem is that, for some types of employees, the cost of these private pharmacare programs represents a significant proportion of their salary.

On top of the potential savings to Quebec, a universal pharmacare program would relieve employers of a huge cost, enabling them to be more competitive and offer higher salaries and added benefits. A new agreement that came into effect on October 1, 2017, between the Government of Quebec and generic drug companies will result in $1.5 billion in savings over five years. That is the first step to reducing the price of drugs in Quebec. However, implementing a universal pharmacare program would allow Quebec and the other provinces and territories to save even more and offer additional benefits.

Access to essential drugs is a human right recognized by the World Health Organization. That is why we absolutely must find a way to lower the cost of prescription drugs so that all Canadians can get the treatment they need without going bankrupt. A universal system would be fairer for Canadians. It would provide free drugs to the least fortunate. In Ontario, barely 40% of employer-sponsored insurance plans provide 100% coverage for drugs. A universal pharmacare program would eliminate discrimination related to access to medication. In some provinces and territories, only people on social assistance, seniors, and people with certain illnesses are covered by the public system. In other provinces and territories, coverage is based on income.

According to the Canadian Labour Congress, coverage under Quebec's private prescription drug plans depends on a certain number of factors that have nothing to do with medical needs, such as a person's age, income, employment status, place of work, and even where they get their medication. A national pharmacare program would reduce inequality in terms of access to drugs. Comprehensive, evidence-based, national pharmacare standards would ensure that all Canadians have equal access to prescription drug coverage.

In closing, an Angus Reid poll showed that over 90% of Canadians support the creation of a universal pharmacare program. Canadians want it, and the government would save billions of dollars, so what is the government waiting for?

[Transportation Modernization Act, October 31st, 2017]

Madam Speaker, when I meet with my constituents from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, I tell them how honoured I am to rise in the House to vote on their behalf. The question that I would like to ask my colleague is this: how can I properly fulfill that role when I am being asked to vote on an omnibus bill like Bill C-49, which seeks to amend 13 pieces of legislation.

The bill may contain one or two worthwhile measures, but I cannot properly represent the people of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot by voting in favour of an omnibus bill that amends 13 pieces of legislation. How can my colleague justify asking members to vote on an omnibus bill that changes so many aspects of our society?

[Transportation Modernization Act, October 30th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

What worries me the most about Bill C-49 is that it does not make Canadians' interests a priority, whether it is customers, consumers, or even the people who work for these companies.

It seems as though this bill is going to serve the interests of large corporations and foreign investors. The government is ignoring the fact that some of the measures, such as the one calling for audio-video recorders in locomotives, will be in violation of workers' rights. The government is ignoring the fact that consumers will be the ones to suffer the consequences of this bill.

Our role in the House of Commons is to vote in favour of legislation that contributes to the common good and that serves the interests of our constituents. We need to pass legislation that respects charters of rights and freedoms.

When we were debating this bill, all of the members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities were telling us that the experts were unanimous on some issues but that the amendments put forward to address those experts' concerns were still not adopted by the committee at report stage. We must ensure that the bill that we pass respects the rights of workers and consumers.

[Transportation Modernization Act, October 30th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Yes, the whole issue of regional airport development is crucial. It is of concern to me, as well, as there is a small airport in my riding that would like to expand. However, as I said, these small airports cannot be asked to bear the burden of security costs. It is important that we have very clear public funding mechanisms in place to support the work these airports do.

We are living in an age when transportation is vital. In Acton Vale, a town in my riding, there is a transport logistics company that is demonstrating how companies must increasingly embrace multimodal transportation, the idea of transporting goods by a combination of truck, ship, and plane.

Transportation is too big an issue to cram into an omnibus bill that seeks to amend 13 vastly different acts at once. We need to focus on these elements. We need a true bill of rights for air passengers. The bill contains some important provisions about grain transportation, but they are eclipsed by the many provisions that put far too much power in the hands of the transport minister.

This bill needs to be split up so we can study all of its aspects in depth, because the transportation issue is far too big.

[Transportation Modernization Act, October 30th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, as it often happens, the Liberal government's bills first and foremost protect big businesses, at the expense of the rights of workers and consumers. By amending 13 acts, the omnibus Bill C-49 is no exception. There is certainly no doubt that the Liberal members are going to support this bill, but I would still like to remind the House why the New Democrats want to oppose it.

After two years of waiting, the minister wants us to rush through a bill that is deeply flawed and primarily favours the interests of foreign investors, while violating the rights of workers and consumers. I will explain all the reasons why the New Democrats oppose Bill C-49.

First, in 2012, the NDP tabled Bill C-459, which clearly outlined the measures to be taken to create a proper passengers' bill of rights. This bill set out concrete measures, for example, providing for appropriate compensation for passengers who were denied boarding. That could have amounted to $600 for flights of 3,500 km or more. However, the Liberals voted against the amendment that proposed to include this bill of rights in Bill C-49, without even trying to study it.

Why did the Minister of Transport reject our amendment? He could have taken a page from our proposal, which included concrete measures to protect air travellers. It is even harder to understand when we consider the findings of a study showing that 0.4% of EU-regulated flights are cancelled, which is four times lower than the cancellation rate of flights under current Canadian regulations. It seems clear that the Liberals are giving in to pressure from the airlines and turning a blind eye to the studies on the issue.

Bill C-49 would also require railway companies to install voice and video recorders in the locomotive cabs. This seems to make sense for dealing with accidents, but it must not prompt the railways to use this information for surveillance or disciplinary purposes. That is why we are calling for the use of these voice and video recordings to be reserved exclusively for the Transportation Safety Board.

The provisions of Bill C-49 are not clear enough and do not spell out how the train conductors' private information will be used by the railways. For example, the minister could decide by regulation that a train conductor's hourly productivity is something to take in consideration in a safety review. Following that reasoning, Via Rail Canada could use this data to manage employee performance, for example, during a stop at the Saint-Hyacinthe station.

The employees are refusing to give up their right to privacy. The government is not listening to the testimony of people like Roland Hackl, vice-president of the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference. According to him, the bill, as currently drafted, goes against the employees' rights as Canadians, and he is right. Bill C-49 might be in contravention of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it would authorize the government or employers to gather private information without providing adequate protections. What is more, according to the findings of a Transport Canada working group, voice and video recordings are not part of proactive safety management.

The NDP therefore proposed a series of amendments to ensure that only the Transportation Safety Board could have access to the recordings in the event of an accident. Our amendments would also guarantee that the minister and the railways would not be able to use the voice and video recordings. Obviously, the Liberals in committee once again summarily dismissed these proposals.

I would like to talk about the change in the agreement between the airlines included in Bill C-49. Currently, the competition commissioner may make an application to the Competition Tribunal to propose the rejection of a merger of airline companies that stifles competition. The Competition Tribunal therefore has the authority to cancel a merger or a part thereof. However, under Bill C-49, the Minister of Transport will now have the final say in the matter.

As soon as the minister approves the agreement, the Competition Tribunal can do nothing to stop it. The NDP is opposed to clause 14 of the bill because it gives the minister the power to supervise and authorize joint ventures between airlines.

Imagine if Air Canada submitted a proposal to merge with United Airlines. Even if the commissioner found that the agreement would reduce competition among airlines and could raise ticket prices, the minister could still approve the merger if he or she deemed it to be in the “public interest”. I challenge the minister to provide a precise definition of that term. In Bill C-49, it is so vague that the minister could include reasons that are not in Canadians' interest but in the interest of shareholders of major airlines. The Liberal government is trying to erode our consumer watchdog's authority.

Bill C-49 would also amend the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act, the CATSA act.

Instead of designating new airports and helping regional airports grow, the government is passing the cost of security screening on to them.

Why did the government not propose a fairer model in which CATSA is responsible for funding screening and security services?

The government has been withdrawing funding from this area for a long time. Statistics Canada data shows that the former government collected $636 million from the public but that it allocated only $550 million of that amount to air security. The Liberal government is no better, since it has continued to underfund CATSA. Clause 69 of the bill provides for the addition of subsection 30.1(1) to the act, under which any airport can enter into an agreement with CATSA to provide new screening and security services.

Everything is fine up to that point. However, it is up to the airport to pay for these new services, which means that passengers will be the ones to foot the bill. In contrast, the NDP proposed that public funding be put in place for the development of regional airports. Our amendment would have also prevented designated airports, such as those in Montreal and Toronto, from being forced to absorb the cost of enhancing security services.

Indirectly, our amendment also sought to ensure that the cost of enhancing security is not passed on to passengers via ticket prices. All of our proposals in that regard were also rejected. Unfortunately, that is not surprising. That is how the government has been withdrawing funding from regional airports and screening and security services in large airports.

The government wants users to cover the cost of its own policy of underfunding. Bill C-49 also creates a loophole in the Coasting Trade Act in clauses 70 to 72. We are asking that these clauses be deleted from the bill. Canadian shipowners and sailors' jobs—and I should point out that my son is a sailor—must be protected from unfair competition from ships registered in the European Union.

Why would that competition be unfair?

Simply because labour on EU-registered ships is not subject to the same requirements as labour on Canadian ships. Under the provisions of Bill C-49, crew costs for European ships authorized to navigate in Canadian waters are 30% of Canadian crew costs. What is even more appalling is that there is no reciprocity whatsoever. In fact, the minister could decide to allow the repositioning of empty containers by ships registered abroad, while Canadian ships will not have reciprocal access to the EU market.

We would also like to see clauses 73 and 74 deleted from Bill C-49, as those clauses authorize the Canada Infrastructure Bank to provide loans to port authorities.

Lastly, with regard to Bill C-49, I want to point out that we fully support improving the rights of air travellers and protections for grain shippers. Many grain farmers have acknowledged that Bill C-49 is a step in the right direction.

Grain farmers have, however, proposed measures that go even further.

I will close by saying that we strongly oppose Bill C-49.