SoVote

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

Feb/1/24 10:06:46 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by Canadians calling on the government to take all necessary measures at its disposal to overturn an unjust decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that struck down a just law passed by the Harper government. The law would apply consecutive parole ineligibility periods to criminals convicted of multiple murders, taking into account each life lost. The petitioners call for the government, among other things, to invoke the notwithstanding clause to override this decision.

83 words

Context: House Hansard - 273 - Feb/1/24

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Feb/1/24 10:34:25 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been witnessing flooding, extreme weather and droughts, and experts have been clear that what is raising costs on food is far more the climate crisis than carbon pricing. Over a decade ago, when the Leader of the Opposition was a minister, the Harper government cut the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which collected information on the costs of the climate crisis. He says he wants to cut taxes, but we know he wants to cut child care and the school food programs. He wants to cut the experts who would—

99 words

Context: House Hansard - 273 - Feb/1/24

Mr. Jake Stewart (Miramichi—Grand Lake, CPC)

Feb/1/24 2:06:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today I reflect on the Hon. Dr. Noël Kinsella, 42nd Speaker of the Senate, who passed away last December. Dr. Kinsella was a human rights advocate, scholar and parliamentarian. With his passing, New Brunswick has lost one of its greatest sons. Dr. Kinsella was renowned for his brilliance, decency and fairness. He spent 41 years as a faculty member at my alma mater, St. Thomas University. Prime Minister Mulroney nominated Dr. Kinsella for the Senate in 1990. He was selected by Prime Minister Harper to serve as Speaker of the Senate in 2006, a role he held until his retirement in 2014. While he is well known for his work, the love he and his wife shared was remarkable. Our hearts are with Ann. Noël Kinsella has earned his rest. He was a champion of human rights and principled public policy, a staunch adherent to parliamentary procedure and the rule of law and a man whose quiet dignity spoke volumes.

166 words

Context: House Hansard - 273 - Feb/1/24

Hon. Pascale St-Onge (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)

Feb/1/24 3:05:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. Quebeckers and Canadians are deeply attached to our culture. We like watching our films and television shows because we are so proud of who we are and of our stories. That is why I was so pleased to announce yesterday that we are boosting Telefilm Canada's budget by $50 million so it can keep producing quality content here in Canada. We know the Conservatives will make cuts to culture and our public broadcaster, just as they did under the Harper government. Here on this side of the House, we will continue to support the industry because it provides 180,000 jobs and it is very important.

115 words

Context: House Hansard - 273 - Feb/1/24

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Feb/1/24 3:17:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the points I was raising just before question period. The Conservatives never talk about the rebates that are given to families and businesses in Canada, nor do they talk about the fact that 100% of the revenue collected from the price on pollution is given back to families and businesses. There are also costs associated with climate change. Climate change is costing all three levels of government exorbitant amounts and it is also affecting the cost of insurance coverage for individuals and households in Canada. Let us also not forget that 77 jurisdictions around the world have some type of price on pollution or carbon. Canada is not the only one. Finally, the reality is that it is possible to address climate change and to make life more affordable. The Conservatives do not think that is possible, but we think that it is very important to do both of those things. I want to bring it back to Kings—Hants, my riding in Nova Scotia, and I want to talk about affordability and environmental action at the same time. We introduced a heat pump program in 2022. It was called, simply, the oil to heat pump program, and it is to help individuals who were on home heating oil to make a transition. There are one million Canadian households that still use heating oil in this country, and 286,000 of them are in Atlantic Canada, but they are spread all across this country. The evidence would suggest that the majority of people who still use heating oil are people who are lower income and who do not have the ability to transition off that fuel source. That is exactly why the government introduced a $10,000 program to help people be able to make that transition. When I went out in my riding this past summer, I talked to seniors. They would tell me that this is a great program, but the project cost is about $15,000 or $16,000. By the time they would put the heat pump into their home, get the electricity and upgrade things in their house, it would cost a bit more than the $10,000. They told me that they could really not afford that and that they did not have the money to make the transition. Because of the leadership of members of Parliament on this side, and because the government listened, we introduced a program that is going to help provide up to $20,000 to households that are below the provincial median income in Nova Scotia. This will also be in New Brunswick, if New Brunswick wants to sign on with Premier Higgs, and certainly in Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador. I know conversations are happening with the Government of Manitoba and the Government of British Columbia. This is a program that would be open across the country, where three-quarters, or $15,000, of the money would be paid by the Government of Canada, and $5,000 would be coming in from the provinces. I remember having a conversation with the member for South Shore—St. Margarets a few weeks before Christmas, and I compared it to this. Our affordability plan is that we paused the carbon price on home heating oil for three years to help people utilize the program I just talked about to be able to make a transition. I said to the member for South Shore—St. Margarets that his party's affordability plan is to take 17¢ off a litre of home heating oil. Make no mistake, that is extremely important in today's context, but what we are offering is not only that 17¢ a litre right now but also a long-term savings where people can save up to thousands of dollars a year by being able to move over to a heat pump, which is more affordable than home heating oil. It is not slogans; it is solutions. That is what we are focused on. That is good for the environment and good for affordability, and what I am focused on is affordability for my constituents. Of course, the Conservatives are opposed to that. How about the fact that we have increased the rural rebate? I represent the type of riding in Atlantic Canada where my constituents do not have the same public transit options available to other Canadians, particularly those in more urban areas. I was very pleased to see the government make changes that help ensure greater equity under this system to ensure that, as we return the proceeds of the carbon price, which of course eight out of 10 families receive more money back, we are being mindful of how rural families are impacted. That is something this government has done. Liberal members of Parliament have been able to adjust policies because we have asked important and intelligent questions. We have not just stood up and said that we want to get rid of carbon pricing altogether in the country. We achieved more, in terms of the adjustments, than the Conservatives had in eight years, just as they denigrated the policy. Conservatives do not just oppose carbon pricing. They oppose all forms of what this government is doing on climate change, and I will give a few examples. This is on Bill C-49, and I will give the Conservatives their due in that, in a world of communications, we have to be slick in how we communicate to the public. Not everyone watches the House of Commons, of course, so they have the line “technology, not taxes”, which is the idea that we will look to focusing on renewable energy, I presume, or different types of technology to help drive down emissions. This is great. I believe in that too. I think the price signal is important, and they actually support one another. However, we then have an example in Atlantic Canada. Bill C-49 would amend the Atlantic accord, which is the agreement between Nova Scotia and the federal government, and between Newfoundland and Labrador and the federal government. The reason it is a joint partnership is that it was tied to the oil and gas development that happened in the 1980s. This is extremely important to Atlantic Canada, and we take the Atlantic accord seriously. I remember when the legislation was introduced before Christmas, and it is just as simple as allowing those accord provisions to extend to the regulation of offshore wind, which plays into green hydrogen, and we all know that is a technology that could help bring down emissions. It is also really good for jobs. I thought this was going to get unanimous approval. I did not think there would be any issue. However, the Conservatives gave us a gift because they stepped up and basically went against their own slogan. They do not even support the type of technology that can help bring down emissions and drive really good jobs to Atlantic Canada. My job is not only to talk about why that is important to the region I represent, but also to highlight and parse out what it is that the Conservatives do not like about this bill. I sat at the natural resources committee for two hours this week, and the Minister for Natural Resources appeared, but two hours later, I still had not heard a credible idea from the Conservatives about why they are against the bill. This is part of a continuing trend because, under the Harper government, members will remember that the member for Cumberland—Colchester at the time, Bill Casey, left the Conservative caucus. Why did he leave the Conservative caucus? It was because Harper was trying to impact and denigrate the Atlantic accords. Let us not forget that the last Conservative prime minister—

1321 words

Context: House Hansard - 273 - Feb/1/24

Mr. Kody Blois

Feb/1/24 3:24:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, thank you for trying to keep the decorum. I think members are probably cheering so loudly in the back benches, but that is good. We will get them calmed down in here for interpretation. Let us remember, the last Conservative prime minister in this country said that Atlantic Canadians had a “culture of defeat”. That was Stephen Harper. I have not heard that from the member for Carleton, but he was part of that government. However, as we try to drive economic opportunities in Atlantic Canada, the Conservative Party suggests that it knows better than the duly elected Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia and the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. These provinces want to agree to these provisions. They want to move quickly. We are in a global race. To listen to the way in which the Conservative Party suggests it knows better than the governments of my region is unbelievable. I do not have words for it. However, I am going to make sure that Atlantic Canadians know, and we are going to make sure that Nova Scotians know. The last bit I will say is that the Conservatives do not believe in the price signal for carbon pricing, which could actually help drive economic models. They talk about technology, not taxes, but how do we get it? How do we incentivize companies to want to invest in the technologies that are going to drive emissions down? We hear the member for Carleton talking about that all the time. The member for South Shore—St. Margarets made it very clear at the natural resources committee that he does not believe there is a role for public funding in these types of technologies. He was talking about projects such as EverWind, which could mean billions of dollars to Nova Scotia. He was running that project down, and it was disappointing to hear. I think it symbolizes where the Conservative Party is at right now in this conversation. Conservatives are against clean fuel regulations. I can appreciate that the oil and gas emissions cap has particular sensitivities in western Canada, and perhaps in Newfoundland and Labrador. I have stood in the House and said that I believe in the Canadian oil and gas sector, but I have also said that we need to make sure that we can find ways to use things such as nuclear technology and green hydrogen to help bring down the emission intensity of the barrel of Canadian oil. In a world where we become more constrained on demand, Canadian oil is not only competitive on price but is also competitive on carbon intensity. Again, that is what this cap could help do, by working with industry, and Conservatives oppose it. I also want to talk about how the environmental policies of the government could actually lead to positive outcomes for farmers and foresters, particularly through offset protocols. This is something that I will say in the House, which is that I would like to give a nudge to the ministry at Environment and Climate Change Canada. I think they have done some good work, but I would like to see more on offset protocols around farming practices and forestry. How can we change the conversation that the carbon price? Notwithstanding that the Conservatives are not helping on that, but about the economic ability, how do we turn that into the environmental policies of the government and create huge economic opportunities for our farmers to support the good, sustainable practices they are doing and also make sure our forestry sector is supported? I would like to see a little more on that. We also have to give some context to what is happening around the world. The European Union, the United Kingdom, and the Biden administration in the U.S. are all talking about carbon pricing adjustments at their borders. They are talking about putting carbon pricing as part of our economic trading model. I have to ask my Conservative colleagues a question: If we are going to cut carbon pricing altogether in this country, what could that mean for our industries that are then otherwise going to face tariff barriers at those potential borders as we start to line this up? Canada has a tremendous opportunity. Our industries are sustainable. They are world class, and they are innovative. With the existing carbon price right now, we could have a global advantage, as that is the way in which the world is potentially heading. We should be focused on that. Why would the Conservatives want to mess with that? Why would they talk about eliminating it altogether? If Conservatives have good, thoughtful ideas on adjustments, they should be bringing those forward, but I am not hearing a whole lot.

797 words

Context: House Hansard - 273 - Feb/1/24

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Feb/1/24 4:10:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think it is really important to highlight the hypocrisy from the Conservatives on this issue, especially with the fact that they were the ones who brought in the GST, some of the most regressive commercial taxation on citizens we have ever seen. Then, under Stephen Harper, they doubled down with the HST. Unbelievably, they had to borrow money to buy off a couple of provinces to implement the HST, which we are now paying interest on because we are in debt. All this debt and all this cost is back on the consumers from the Conservatives. I am wondering if the Conservatives at least have some remorse and regret for Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper, who brought in some of the worst taxation processes for consumers we have ever seen in this country.

136 words

Context: House Hansard - 273 - Feb/1/24

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/1/24 4:13:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about today's Conservative Party. Today's Conservative Party is not the same political party that was there during the time of Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell and Joe Clark. It is totally different. In fact, to do a fair comparison of today's Conservative Party, we really need to look south. We need to look at it in terms of the whole MAGA movement that is taking place in the United States and how that movement of sorts is coming into Canada and being ushered in by today's Conservative Party. Canadians need to be aware of that because it is having a real tangible impact on public policy. The best example one can likely talk about is the price on pollution, or the carbon tax versus the carbon rebate. The amount of misinformation that the Conservative Party today is circulating through all forms of communication, in particular through social media, would shame most people, especially leaders of the Progressive Conservative Party from the past. I do not say that lightly at all. If I may, let me read a couple of quotes that I was provided. One is from Joe Clark, former prime minister of Canada and former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. He is reflecting on today's Conservative Party. He says, “I think it's a party that does not respect the progressive traditions of the Progressive Conservative Party and, consequently, does not reflect the country.... My party is over.” Let us go to Brian Mulroney, again, a former Progressive Conservative prime minister. He said, “I led a Progressive Conservative government. We were very progressive in areas...”. He went on to name a few, and continued, “...we were more conservative” in other areas. He even referenced that he might have at times been more conservative than Stephen Harper. Then he says, “That's the way it should be for a progressive conservative government, but they amputated the progressive part of the name, which is okay, but you shouldn't amputate the part of our heritage and I think that they work better together when both are prominent and Canadians feel more comfortable with it.” He spoke of that progressive side. That is not just hearing it from me as a Liberal. We are talking about former prime ministers of the Progressive Conservative Party who are saying that today's Conservative Party is not a progressive party at all; that the Conservatives have abandoned that aspect of their heritage. The first woman prime minister of Canada was a Progressive Conservative prime minister, Kim Campbell. What does Kim Campbell say about today's Conservative Party? She said, “Well, I've never joined the Conservative Party of Canada. I think Joe Clark expressed it that he didn't leave the party, the party left him. It is not the Progressive Conservative Party, and...our party was the party of the Acid Rain Treaty, the Montreal Protocol.... I'm sorry, I have no time for climate deniers and anybody who is trying to pussyfoot around it.” Today's Conservative Party should not be in any way looked at from the heritage of the Progressive Conservative Party because it has completely gone to the extreme far right. It is, for all intents and purposes, a MAGA Conservative Party here in Canada and that is the style and the approach that the Conservatives are taking. Earlier this week, they came out with their “four priorities”. They have already indicated what their four priorities are going to be in the next election. What is going to be their campaign election platform? It is no surprise that number one is to get rid of the price on pollution. An hon. member: Axe the tax. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, as the member says, to “axe the tax”, as they thump their chest and feel so good about that, the only political party, one of the reasons why they have lost so much respect from Progressive Conservatives. It is a great bumper sticker. They like that bumper sticker. That is the reason why they want to use it. Let me remind people who might be following the debate and the Conservatives who are here listening. They have heard me say, in the past, that in 2021, under the leadership of Erin O'Toole, every one of them campaigned on an election platform that said they favoured a price on pollution. That was only two years ago and they were in favour of a carbon tax, every one of them. How things have changed. There is a special group of 19 Conservatives today who campaigned, as candidates, back in 2008, when Stephen Harper was there. As far as Stephen Harper's campaign literature is concerned, let me read directly from “The True North Strong and Free: Stephen Harper's plan for Canadians”. This is what he says: “A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will implement our Turning the Corner action plan to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions in absolute terms by 20 per cent over 2006”. It goes on. He supported a price on pollution. There are 19 members here today who campaigned on a price on pollution going as far back as 2008. Interestingly enough, the leader of the Conservative Party today was one of those 19 people. It is hard to imagine what Canadians would think. A word that would come to my mind would be “hypocrisy”. A simple answer would be that they have completely abandoned any sense of a progressive nature to their party. That is the reason why, when they talk about their four priorities, every Canadian needs to be aware of, especially, priority number three. Their priority number three is to cut government expenditures. My constituents and, in fact, Canadians from every region of our nation, love our health care system. They love our child care program and the rolling out of the dental care program. These are all programs that Canadians want to see. One cannot trust the Conservatives with regard to them. They will cut, if history has shown. Even, at times, Progressive Conservatives have cut those programs. Can we imagine what a true Conservative far-right party would actually do? They talk about common sense. Common sense to them is cut, cut, cut. Be aware of a hidden Conservative agenda. That is what I would suggest. The misinformation that they provide to Canadians continues to grow. Again, let us talk about the price on pollution. They will stand up and say, “Do we know what? We are concerned about the impact it is having on the price of inflation on groceries.” They howl from their seats on that issue. They try to give the false impression that it is 6% or 7% or more. Earlier today, there was one member who said 20%, as a direct result on inflation. I do not know where the member gets her math from. At the end of the day, they are trying to create this impression to Canadians that the price on pollution is causing inflation. That is just not true, and the sad thing is that they know it, but it does not prevent them from saying it. It is not just me saying this. The Bank of Canada is recognized around the world as a politically independent agency that has monetary control in good part in terms of the things that are taking place here in Canada. What does the Bank of Canada say in regards to the carbon tax and the impact it has on inflation? Well, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the man who runs it, says that the “contribution that's making to inflation one year to the next is relatively small. If you want me to put a number on it, it's in the range of 0.15 per cent, so quite small.” Well, we know that the leader of the Conservative Party was saying that he did not like the Governor of the Bank of Canada and that he was going to fire him. At least at one point he was saying that, but I think he might have reversed, and the member for Abbotsford is paying the price for saying that it was a stupid thing for the leader to say that, because now he sits in the far back. However, if members do not want to believe the Bank of Canada, Statistics Canada does a lot of work. We all look at Stats Canada results. Private industry, governments, non-profits rely very heavily on Stats Canada. Stats Canada suggests that “carbon taxes increased the average cost of food by about 0.33 per cent relative to what they would be in the absence of carbon taxes.” That is the entire effect. “Other necessities such as clothing and footwear are approximately 0.2 per cent more expensive due to the carbon tax.” Members do not have to believe me. Look at what the Bank of Canada is saying. Look at what Stats Canada is saying. Contrast that to the disinformation, the intentional misleading information that is funnelled out of the Conservative Party of Canada today. It is disgraceful. That is what I mean by the far right. However, it does not end there. We get member after member stand up and clearly mislead not only their constituents but Canadians as a whole when they say that they are going to axe the carbon tax. However, what they do not mention is the carbon rebate. Over 80% of the constituents I represent, when we take a look at the carbon tax and what they pay into it and compare that to the carbon rebate, or the money they get back, actually get more money in their pocket than is taken out. Again, members do not have to believe me. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, an independent office, is the one who is saying that. Yet, we get the Conservative Party time and time again saying that they are going to cut the carbon tax, that it is more costly for Canadians, and it is just absolutely misleading information. It does not matter to them, because they have their agenda, and we had a sample of that earlier this week when they talked about those four priorities. They want a bumper sticker that says “axe the tax”, and that is what it is all about. They do not care about good, solid public policy. They tell us to look at other countries. I can talk about France, England, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Mexico and many states in the United States, which all have a price on pollution. Even Ukraine has a price on pollution. Canada is a trading nation— An hon. member: No, it doesn't. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Yes, it does have a price on pollution. An hon. member: At 80¢ a tonne? Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, this is the problem. Maybe there are those in the Conservative Party who do not really look at the notes provided to them by their party. When they do some independent research, they will find that a lot of the stuff they are given is misinformation. However, they purport it to be true. Let us look at Ukraine. The Conservative Party today, for the first time, is going to be voting against a trade agreement on the floor of the House of Commons. Why is that? Even the New Democrats are voting in favour of the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. I believe the Green Party and the Bloc Party are also doing so. It is only the Conservative Party. They come up with this red herring that they are voting against it because it has the words “carbon tax”, or it is dealing with a price on pollution, and they do not want that in a trade agreement. Well, duh. Ukraine has had a price on pollution since 2011. Can we imagine this? The President of Ukraine came to Canada, at a time of war in Europe, to sign off on an agreement that is beneficial to Ukraine, Canada and, ultimately, many others, and the Conservatives have chosen to vote against it. It brings us back to the question of why. I believe the price on pollution is a bit of a red herring for them on this, and it has a lot more to do with their current leader wanting to imitate Donald Trump. The Conservative leader and his MAGA politics are very real. As we get closer to an election, Canadians are going to become much more aware of the Conservative agenda, even the hidden aspects of it. We recognize the importance of trade. Earlier, when making comments, a Conservative member talked about how foreign investment is down. How can Conservatives justify giving false information on foreign investment? If we look at last year, with respect to dollars of investment on a per capita basis, no other country in the world received more foreign investment than Canada did. However, Conservatives go around giving a false impression and have no problem doing it. I can provide proof of the comments I have made on the record in the last 19 or so minutes, but Conservative members will still stand up and say the absolute opposite. For me, it creates a number of ethical issues that I will not necessarily get to talk about. What blew my mind earlier today in question period was when the Minister of Housing said that Jenni Byrne, who is the campaign manager and former girlfriend of the Leader of the Conservative Party, is now an active lobbyist for Loblaws. I hope Conservatives will ask me a question on that. I would be happy to expand on the bizarreness of that issue.

2338 words

Context: House Hansard - 273 - Feb/1/24

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Feb/1/24 4:37:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, earlier in the debate, the Conservatives raised the issue of the GST and HST, which is something they created through Brian Mulroney and then Stephen Harper. Then they dished it off by saying that we cannot go back 15 years or 20 years, but every bill we pay still has the GST and HST on it. In fact, the history of this country is bringing in the GST with the Conservatives and the Liberals to actually reduce corporate taxes for the oil and gas industries, the telcos and the pharmaceutical companies and shift that tax burden to the general public, the consumers, with prices at the pump, at the grocery store and other places. The reality is that we have actually reduced the GST at certain points in time and taken it off feminine products and other things. In the Liberals' past behaviours and practices, they so-called fought among themselves with cutting the corporate taxes a lot faster and deeper. Will they amend these behaviours, reduce the GST and the HST, take the burden off consumers and put it where it belongs, on the richest corporations that abuse Canadians?

192 words

Context: House Hansard - 273 - Feb/1/24

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/1/24 6:44:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think, in terms of a secure and stable financial sector, that is what Canadians want to see. It was not that long ago when Stephen Harper was the prime minister and we had a banking industry that came out of the 90s that was fairly healthy because of decisions that Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin put into place to protect our banking industry. I say that because it is important for us to recognize that, as a party, we have gone the extra mile, whether it is consultations or ensuring that the best interests of Canadians were put first in protecting a vital industry that has to be there, healthy and strong and pushing for consumer protections and choice first and foremost. Remember the first few years of Stephen Harper? We had banks that were going bankrupt around the world. The world was looking at Canada, asking how it is that Canada was doing so well in terms of not having banks going bankrupt. It was being attributed to the work that Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin did during the 90s. In order to be able to do the things that we did back then, it required a great deal of effort and work. That is what we have seen since we were elected back in 2015. We have very much seen a proactive government taking a look at how to build and continue to strengthen Canada's middle class. That means we have to take into consideration what is happening in our financial industry. The banks play a critical role. That is why we have seen budgetary measures dealing with the banking industry. Canadians should not be surprised. The member himself makes reference to the fact that we have been talking about it from 2016. That does not surprise me. Of course we are going to be talking about many different aspects of the banking industry because we understand the importance of it, even when the pandemic hit Canada. It was a worldwide pandemic. We took a look at how we could pressure the banking industry, the financial industry, to ensure that small businesses and Canadians' interests were going to be best served. We used tax dollars and government policy to ensure that small businesses and families were going to be protected during that pandemic, ultimately, I would suggest, saving many businesses from going bankrupt and ensuring that families had the disposable income when it came time to pay mortgages or even put food on the table. What has the government done with respect to this specific issue that the member has raised? It was not that long ago that we had the fall economic statement. Because of the efforts of the Department of Finance and other departments, we were able to deal with the many different stakeholders. The member made reference to one area in particular but what about the consumer? What about the average Canadian? What about small businesses? What about the larger corporations or the family farms? I think we had a responsibility to do a thorough consultation. The idea is great, but it takes a lot of work to put it together. It was coming together quite well. I was glad that many Canadians, our banking industry and consumer groups were very pleased with the fall economic statement. That is the statement they are voting against, I will remind the member. Some of my colleagues are a little more optimistic than I am but I suspect that they are going to vote against it. However, within that statement is that commitment, based on the discussions, the consultations and the work with the many different stakeholders, including consumers. It is coming together, because at the end of the day we recognize that we need to modernize. That is not an option. It is one thing to have the idea today. We have had that idea for years, and we have been working on it. When I opened up my first bank account, it would have been in the late seventies, and at that time one just walked into a bank. Mine was the Bank of Nova Scotia on Albert Street. It did not take too much to be able to open up a chequing account back then. People would be quite surprised to see how easy it was back then. Today, when we try to open up a bank account, there are many challenges. Many challenges that my constituents have are because of issues like ID and so forth. One has to have a bank account. E-transfers are something that is relatively new. We have to look at ways of ensuring that privacy issues are dealt with. These databanks and the amount of information that our financial institutions have on the average Canadian are extreme. If we put in an application for a loan or even if we put in an application for a bank account, we can imagine the type of information that is gathered from banks or credit unions, and we will find that they likely know a lot more about us than we might think they do. As a government, we have to ensure that the right to protect that information is also in place. We have to ensure that those financial transactions are not leading to financial exploitation of consumers. We are very much concerned with that. That is actually one of the motivating factors for the government to take action in terms of the budget that is going to be coming up in 2024, just a couple of months away, possibly. I look forward to seeing that budget and the budget implementation bill that will follow it. I think, at the end of the day, that Canadians can feel confident, because it is not only traditionally that other prime ministers, whether it is Paul Martin or Jean Chrétien, have been there to protect our financial industry, along with consumers. We have seen that this government has not only continued that tradition but is now looking at a way we can assist by having what I call, though others would call it different things, “consumer-friendly” legislation that is going to ensure that Canadians are not being financially exploited because of fees for services and so forth. The member talked a lot about banks. I think we underestimate just how important our credit unions are. Our credit unions are a lifeline to so many and provide such a wonderful service, including providing competition, and we need to look at ways we can enhance and support these credit unions in whatever way we can. I would like to give a shout-out to all those individuals who are involved at grassroots credit unions for the fine work they do in ensuring that we have even more competition in our financial institutions. Yes, they do deserve a round of applause. I can tell members that I believe that, as a governing political party, we have been there in the past, and that has been demonstrated. Other governments around the world were envious of Canada and the work we did during the nineties to protect the banking industry and to protect Canadians by doing that. We are carrying that tradition on today by ensuring that we continue to modernize, protect consumers and protect the industry.

1232 words