So V ote

Oct/27/23 12:24:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-52 Bill C-32

Mr. Speaker, it is with great enthusiasm that I rise today to speak to Bill C‑52. From the outset I want to say that the Bloc Québécois will support this bill to have the chance to study it closer in committee and improve it. We know that the bill is trying to resolve various problems that have arisen at our airports since air traffic has resumed. Obviously that is a good thing, because there has been no shortage of problems at our airports since the end of COVID-19. This leads me to the first point of my speech, about airport and airline service standards. I believe that the intention here is good. We all remember, for those who managed to get a federal passport to travel, what a mess there was at Canada's airports in the summer of 2022. As members will recall, the government refused to propose a plan to lift the health measures. Why? Rather than provide predictability to our citizens, our industries and our businesses, the government chose to contribute to polarizing this issue, like the Conservative Party. Each side did that in its own way. Consequently, when the government lifted the public health restrictions for travelling abroad, people rushed to our airports. That resulted in all the chaos we witnessed, when hundreds of flights were delayed or cancelled and passengers were stuck sleeping on the floor at airports. There were also extremely long wait times at customs, which, incidentally, is a federal responsibility. That is also not to mention the horrendous lineups for boarding. The Bloc Québécois's intuition before those problems occurred was right. We warned the government that its passenger bill of rights was by no means a panacea, and sadly, the unfortunate things that happened proved that to be true. It became very clear that certain airlines preferred to make more money by overbooking their flights. They knew that they would be unable to keep their commitments. However, they also knew that it would not be too much of a problem because the complaints would not go anywhere, given the interminable delays at the Canadian Transportation Agency. Because there is no serious punitive mechanism for these airlines, some of them chose to act unscrupulously, and that is shameful. The second key moment in this saga happened last winter. Members may recall that a snowstorm left many flights grounded. We agree that no one can be blamed for a snowstorm, not even the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. We are not holding the government responsible for rain or good weather—especially not good weather, of course. The fact remains, however, that although events beyond our control can affect air transportation services, airlines have a responsibility to their customers that they cannot shirk. They have to provide food to people left waiting for hours, or even hotel rooms and return flights if their customers are stuck in Mexico, for example. Unfortunately, some airlines failed to live up to their responsibilities that time, too. Further to that point, I want to talk about Cirium and FlightAware, the firms that compiled data for La Presse. They determined that there were more than 2,400 delays and cancellations during the holiday season last year, that is, between December 19, 2022, and January 4, 2023. Their figures show that over 55% of Air Canada's 1,000 flights were delayed. For Sunwing, the figure was two-thirds. Every airline had issues. It was during this period that Sunwing suspended several return flights from Mexico, stranding travellers there for days. People criticized the company's incompetence, and Sunwing was forced to apologize to its customers. We talk a lot about airlines, but we cannot forget about Via Rail. This rail company was also singled out for blame. Passengers were trapped on board a train for hours. In one case, it was an entire day. That is unacceptable. Following this second unacceptable event, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities took up the issue. My esteemed colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, whom I commend, proposed several improvements to the passenger bill of rights. These improvement include the following: shifting the burden of proof to the airlines; changing the grounds on which a carrier is not required to provide compensation; improving the complaints process to reduce delays, finally; making the Canadian Transportation Agency's decisions public to establish a type of jurisprudence, so that anyone forced to go to court several years after the incident will know exactly what the agency is basing its arguments on; and increasing fines for airlines. These proposals were included in the government's Bill C‑32. Just one thing was left out, namely the need to ensure that airlines treat people with respect and dignity. I believe that is the objective of the service standards, that is, to ensure that airlines treat people like people, for example, and as I said earlier, by providing them with food when the plane is grounded for several hours, as well as a hotel room instead of the floor to sleep. This is a step in the right direction, and we welcome it. The only concern that I have about this measure is that it does not force the government to set standards for the services it offers itself. We know that some airport delays are caused by the federal government. I spoke about it a few moments ago. The endless wait times at customs and security because Ottawa is not providing sufficient funding are not the responsibility of airlines or airport authorities. The federal government needs to lead by example and set service standards for itself. That is what we are asking it to do today. Once again, what we are seeing in this bill is that the government is setting standards for airports and airlines. That is good, but the government, the royalty that does not negotiate with its subjects, remains above all that, and the problem remains unsolved. The government should have implemented such measures here at the same time in order to set the example. My second point about this bill has to do with something entirely different and that is the management of airport noise out of respect for the neighbouring community. The bill forces airport operators to establish a noise management committee, which will be responsible for dealing with complaints from the public and giving notice to the public with respect to noise alterations. The committee is made up of one representative from the airport operator, one representative from Nav Canada, one representative from the municipal or local government and one air carrier representative. Under the bill, the committee will meet at least four times a year and allow public participation. In practical terms, it is hard to say whether the committee will really improve neighbourliness between airports and residents, but it is safe to say that having this committee will facilitate both the process and communication on this issue. As we know, there are numerous problems that arise between airports and neighbouring residents, and they are often brought to the attention of the MPs who represent these citizens. As I was saying, the committee will not solve everything, but it can facilitate communication. That is why we welcome this party's intention. However, we are aware that this remains a serious and deep-rooted problem. Citizens are reaching out to us, especially to our colleagues who represent ridings with airports near densely populated areas. People are saying they cannot stand hearing airplane noise all day long. We need to continue to do more, but this is a good first step. Another aspect that we welcome is the establishment of greenhouse gas reduction targets for airports and ports. They will not be exempt. As members know, the bill requires municipalities to develop and adopt a five-year plan on climate change adaptation measures. We are talking about the current and anticipated impacts of climate change on airport operations for airport authorities and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, this is about targets and adaptation in relation to the previous plan. Governments will also have to publish their plans. This part of the bill aims to force port and airport authorities to come up with a plan to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. Given the importance of this infrastructure, we welcome the proposal in this area, as well. However, we did find some problems in several areas of this bill and in many other bills introduced by the government. What is the problem? Airport obligations are determined by regulations. In other words, they will be determined by the government, who will not have to be accountable to the House, to us legislators. Today, as we debate Bill C‑52, it is impossible for us to determine the effort that will be required from airport authorities. In other words, Bill C‑52 gives the government the power to say that it will impose rules later, that it will determine them alone and it will not be accountable to anyone. This can likely be explained by haste. They probably want to go too fast and for us not to take the time to do things properly. I will come back to that a bit later in my speech. This looks good on paper, but since the devil is in the details and those will not be decided until later by regulation, we will remain skeptical about the scope of this measure. As I was saying, this is not the first time the government announces good intentions on the environment, when we know its true nature, namely to continue giving subsidies to the oil companies, authorize Bay du Nord, fund at great cost the expansion of Trans Mountain, and so on. We are not fools. Let us come back to Bill C‑52. Another part of the bill deals with the collection of information and the handling of complaints regarding airport accessibility for people with disabilities. That is obviously very important. Here again, the intention is highly commendable and it is consistent with the objective of the Accessible Canada Act, which is to eliminate barriers for people with disabilities by 2040. We all saw stories in the news about people with disabilities who were unable to receive the services and support they needed. What is more, quite often, they were not treated with the respect that every person deserves. Every incident like that is one too many and unacceptable. It is imperative that things change, that action is taken. Let us hope that Bill C‑52 helps to improve the situation and that such incidents never happen again. As I was saying, the problem is that the bill does not indicate what the government intends to do to improve the situation. However, it does indicate that the government will be able to create regulations in that regard. The bill targets a problem that must be resolved to comply with other laws, but it gives the government power to adopt regulations and does not make the government accountable to the House, which is unacceptable. Again, I will offer some criticism about this approach. Passing legislation that only allows the minister to make the rules bypasses the spirit of the legislative role of Parliament. It does not allow us, the elected members, to properly defend the interests of the constituents we represent. At some point I would like to officially make this request to the Chair, who is the defender of our rights and privileges in the House. I would like to know whether it is acceptable for the government to operate in this way this often, having everything go through regulations instead of through laws that can be studied thoroughly by us, the legislators. In my opinion, the government is assuming rights that are also those of the House by proceeding in this way. Obviously, when there is a majority vote then it is the House that it is giving these rights to the government. This raises a rather fundamental question. The government is proceeding in this way to go quickly and to hide what will be unpopular. That is an issue that deserves a lot of reflection. In its current form, Bill C-52 creates a great deal of uncertainty for the industry, which is being told that the government has plans without being informed of how it intends to go about implementing them. Will the industry receive clear information on what will be implemented in the regulations? Will it be able to have a constructive and positive dialogue within the acceptable time frame allowed by the government? The industry has to rely on the government's good faith. This leads to a concentration of powers, which is worrisome, because when power is concentrated in the hands of the minister, this runs contrary to the spirit of the separation of powers necessary for a healthy democracy. I really wanted to take a moment to point this out. I think it is necessary because we would prefer that the government do its job and legislate through laws rather than regulations. We believe it is necessary, even when one has very noble intentions such as making our airports more accessible and inclusive. On this point, there is another part of this bill that I want to commend. The bill provides that airport authorities will henceforth be required to produce a report on diversity among their directors and members of senior management. Once again, the details will be defined by regulation. Based on what Statistics Canada wrote in its report on diversity among directors and senior management, inequities persist among men, women and visible minorities. As we know, the last two groups are under-represented and there are still wage gaps, even when the main reasons for gaps, such as occupation, education, and the number of weeks or number of hours worked, are accounted for in the Statistics Canada study. We have a duty to address these inequities and we will continue to do so. We applaud the fact that Bill C‑52 includes a part on this subject. However, it does not say what is actually going to be done. It announces an intention in that the matter will be defined by regulation, once again. In conclusion, there are many, many elements of the bill that I would have liked to discuss, including criticisms about part 3 of the bill and the changes to port fees. Part 3 of the bill amends the Canada Marine Act and provisions regarding the fixing of port fees. A bunch of different taxes are mentioned, like tolls, dues and rates for things like harbour access, berthage and wharfage, not including payments made under a lease or licence agreement. There is a list of principles that port administrations have to observe when fixing fees. Part 3 of the bill also established a framework for complaints regarding these fees. We have some concerns about these principles, which could benefit from discussions in committee, improvements or clarifications. Proposed paragraph (a), for instance, states that “the fees must be fixed in accordance with an explicit methodology—that includes any conditions affecting the fees—that the authority has established and published”. We wonder if this principle is really necessary and what the reasoning is. There is also paragraph (c), which states that “the fees must not be fixed at levels that, based on reasonable and prudent projections, would generate revenues exceeding the authority’s existing and future financial requirements”. Our concern with this principle is that the wording could hinder development and investments in port infrastructure. The bill also enables the Canadian Transportation Agency to make regulations to establish fees to administer the provisions of the bill on fees. The bill does not specify who will be charged these fees because, once again, it will all be determined by regulation. That is how this party governs. It drafts a bill and asks us to vote in favour of it, but everything is determined by regulation so that the government is not accountable to the House. Is it because the members of this party are ill-intentioned and trying to pass things that we do not know about or is it because they are just incompetent? One has to wonder, but this way of doing things is shameful either way. Obviously, in committee, we will ensure that the principles outlined in the bill do not undermine the competitiveness of Quebec and Canadian ports. We will also take the time to study these principles and their effects. For example, again in relation to this same part, we are not convinced that the complaints process is the best, and we are wondering about the reasoning behind the principles that will determine port fees. I am sure my colleagues will address those aspects in more detail in the speeches that follow. I want to close by emphasizing that, as usual, the Bloc Québécois will take the time to study the bill in committee to improve it, with our main focus being that this future law must improve the day-to-day lives of Quebeckers. That is what we are always working to accomplish.

2904 words

Nov/18/22 1:30:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I am shocked and outraged. As soon as the member finished her speech, the President of the Privy Council and Minister of Emergency Preparedness rose to announce that he was going to limit debate on Bill C-32. That is really shameful and offensive. Why does the government always want to limit debate in the House, particularly when we know that this bill will be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, when we are beginning a pre-study on it right now with a sunset clause, and when we are going to do the clause-by-clause study in a few days—

114 words

Nov/18/22 1:13:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. I would like to talk to him about the rhetoric coming from the party in power. In the spring budget, the government said that the supply chain issue needed to be addressed, but no measure was proposed. In the fall economic statement, it is the same thing. It talks about supply chains, but no concrete measure is proposed to deal with the issue. The government is doing the same thing again with the issue of inflation. The word “inflation” comes up 108 times in the economic statement, but there is no new measure other than the ones that we already voted on in the House this fall or that were announced in the spring budget. Would the hon. member agree that there is a disparity between the rhetoric and the actions that are actually taken?

146 words

Nov/18/22 10:41:23 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech. He just went over the whole inflation problem. The word “inflation” appears in the fall economic update 108 times. We know that in contrast to the previous budget, there are no new measures. It is just a rehash. It uses different rhetoric to justify the same measures. The government is rightly concerned that a recession could hit this winter. As far as the recession is concerned, the Bloc Québécois is asking for employment insurance to be reformed as soon as possible so it is ready to go. The government was supposed to have it in place for last summer, but the system still has not been reformed. We would not want to have to create a CERB 2.0 to limit the damage and make up for a failing EI system. Why was this reform not included in Bill C‑32?

158 words

Nov/18/22 10:27:55 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. In his speech and during questions and comments, the student loan measure was mentioned. The Bloc Québécois supports this measure because we see that it will help students in the rest of Canada. However, I would like to remind my colleague that Quebec is not part of that program because it already has its own loans and bursaries program that works well. An agreement with Ottawa gives Quebec the right to automatically withdraw with full compensation, which we are pleased about. With regard to the dental insurance set out in Bill C-31, however, it is important to note that Quebec already has its own dental insurance program for children aged 10 and under. We thought that the programs would be harmonized with, for example, funding to extend coverage to children up to the age of 12, especially since Quebec's program is a real program that works well. However, there is absolutely nothing about that or about a right to withdraw with compensation. To make matters worse, the government has imposed a super gag order to prevent the bill from being examined in committee. That means no amendments can be proposed. What does my colleague think about that?

213 words

All Topics

Nov/18/22 10:10:29 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, I thank and congratulate my colleague for his speech. In the fall economic statement, the Minister of Finance reneges on a commitment she made in last spring's budget, which was to limit credit card fees for merchants. In the spring budget, she told us that she would introduce legislation and the issue would be dealt with this fall. However, now it has turned into a commitment to talk to the credit card companies, and if they do not self-regulate, she will introduce legislation later to force them to act. In my hon. colleague's opinion, is that enough?

102 words

All Topics

Nov/17/22 5:22:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, the interpreter says there is feedback. The member might want to remove his earpiece and move it away from the microphone.

23 words

All Topics

Nov/17/22 1:11:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nunavut for her question and for all the work she is doing to defend her nation, which certainly needs a voice like hers in the House. Since 2015, the government has been saying that it will reform EI. Consultations were held across the country and went on interminably, but we all know what is needed. What we do not want is the current Axworthy system, which does not work. We want a system that protects workers properly. Currently, six in 10 workers who lose their jobs do not qualify for EI. In particular, all the non-standard forms of employment must be included. The issue of self-employed workers is also a problem, along with the waiting period, the seasonal gap and everything else.

131 words

Nov/17/22 1:09:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, if that was the government's goal, it has been achieved. I thank the hon. member for Calgary Shepard for his question in French. I commend him. At this uncertain time, what we are asking the government to do is to focus on its core duties, such as EI and health care funding. It needs to stop introducing new programs, projects and policies that intrude on areas of provincial jurisdiction. The government is not even doing well at handling its own affairs, such as issuing passports, controlling the borders and funding health care, yet it wants to get involved in areas that do not concern it. We see it happening again in this budget. As the Parliamentary Budget Officer said, there is a lot of money going to unspecified programs. He also noted that, over the long term, the concern is how the finances of the provinces will be affected, because Ottawa is not funding health care as it should.

162 words

Nov/17/22 1:08:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, for seven years now, since 2015, the government has been saying it is looking into what it can do to reform EI. The hon. parliamentary secretary tells us that the minister just said that she will take care of it and is still looking into it. Last year, she told us that she would present her reform this summer. Two seasons later, we are still waiting. The government says that we are in an inflation crisis and that we may be heading into a recession. The Bloc is saying that the government needs to hurry up and ensure that EI is reformed before a potential recession hits, so that we have an automatic stabilizer and a social safety net in place. We do not want to end up with another CERB. The Liberal minister promised us she would amend EI, but a Liberal promise is only worth something to those who want to believe the Liberals. We no longer believe them.

163 words

Nov/17/22 1:00:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, seniors are the ones most likely to have to make tough choices at the grocery store or the pharmacy, not to mention housing, yet this government is deliberately choosing not to give people aged 65 to 74 the old age security increase even though they need it now more than ever. That is not an inconsequential choice. Hypocritically, the government is trying to raise the retirement age. It has sneakily decided to force the less fortunate to work until they turn 75. The Liberals are well aware that inflation makes it impossible for people to make do with what the state provides. What we are witnessing is the creation of a two-tier retirement system. Got money? Enjoy retirement at 65. No private pension plan? Work until age 75. The government is choosing to increase inequality, and it is targeting women first and foremost. This is Liberal-style feminism. The Sheriff of Nottingham could not have done better himself. While there is a serious risk of a recession in 2023, the Government of Canada is abandoning the comprehensive EI reform it promised last summer. There will be no EI reform. We know that the system has been essentially dismantled over the years and six out of 10 workers who lose their jobs are currently not eligible for EI. That is the situation seven years after the government promised reform. Time is of the essence. Clearly, Liberal promises are only binding on those who choose to believe in them. On a more serious note, we must absolutely avoid being forced to improvise a new CERB to offset the system's shortcomings if a recession hits. As was saw during the pandemic, improvised programs cost more and are not as effective. Employment insurance is an excellent economic stabilizer in the event of a recession. However, the government's financial forecasts show that it does not anticipate many more claims, and that is a problem. In fact, the government predicts a surplus of $25 billion in the EI fund by 2028, and that amount will be paid into the consolidated fund rather than being used to improve the plan's coverage. That is unacceptable. As for the 26 weeks of EI sickness benefits, that is a measure that was already in a bill passed a year and a half ago, even before the last election. All that is missing is a decree by the government to implement it, but the sick are still waiting. The House had even ordered the government to extend sickness leave to 52 weeks, and they are not even implementing the 26 weeks. To summarize, this government is pointing to the problem of a rising cost of living, but is happy just talking about it. It is warning of difficult times ahead this winter without providing a way to get through them. It makes some grim economic predictions without ever considering any of the opposition's proposals as to how to prepare ourselves. They repeat what has already been done in the past, what they already announced in last April's budget, but do nothing else. Let us consider the supply chains, whose vulnerabilities became apparent during the pandemic. Last spring's budget mentioned the problem 114 times. The statement two weeks ago mentioned it 45 more times, but neither provided any measures to resolve the problem. There is nothing in Bill C‑32, either. As we know, all too often, the government buries harmful measures in its mammoth budget implementation bills, hoping that they will go unnoticed. This time, the bill contains no surprises, unless they are well hidden and have not been found yet. Bill C‑32 even contains a number of interesting measures that were announced in the last budget. For instance, there is an anti-flipping tax on residential properties to limit real estate speculation, and a multi-generational home renovation tax credit for those who renovate their homes to accommodate an aging or disabled parent. The Bloc has been calling for such a measure since 2015. We welcome it. There is also a first-time homebuyer tax credit to cover a portion of the closing costs involved in buying a home, such as notary fees and the transfer tax. There is also a temporary surtax and a permanent increase to the tax rate for banks and financial institutions, as well as the elimination of interest on student loans outside Quebec. Quebec has its own system, so it will receive its share. In addition, a tax measure that supports oil extraction has been eliminated. No more flow-through shares. It is just one drop in the ocean of subsidies, but it is a start. There is a tax measure to promote mining development for the critical minerals that are essential to the energy transition, as well as an amendment to the excise tax to prevent cannabis producers from having to pay it on their unsold stock, which is causing them major cash flow problems. As we know, the government gave licences to its friends. Now that they are having problems, the government is proposing a solution. Other than that, Bill C-32 consists of minor legislative amendments. For instance, there is an adjustment to the Income Tax Act to reflect the new accounting standards for financial institutions. There are a lot of very technical pages about that. There is also an amendment to the Income Tax Act to plug some of the loopholes that financial planners were trying to use to help their clients avoid taxes. We welcome that clarification. There are always people who try their luck. Obviously, the government must do much more to combat fraud, tax evasion and tax avoidance. Finally, I am certain that my next point will be of great interest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), who is currently standing in the House chatting with another colleague and not listening to a word I say. I salute him. It is the implementation of a Canada-United States agreement on the salaries of government employees who go to the moon, like Tintin in Destination Moon. To sum up, Bill C‑32 sidesteps the big challenges facing our society, but there is nothing bad in it. It proposes a few good measures and does some legislative housekeeping.

1066 words

All Topics

Nov/17/22 12:57:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, as we know, Bill C‑32 contains 25 tax measures and about 10 non-tax measures. There are two kinds: minor legislative amendments and measures announced in the budget in the spring of 2022, last spring, that had not been included in the first implementation bill passed last June. This means that this bill does not contain any measures to address the new economic reality of a high cost of living and a possible recession. As with the economic statement presented two weeks ago, there is nothing new, it is a rehash. The government thinks its measures are like shepherd's pie, better served as leftovers. This is a bill with no point or certainty. It does not deserve to be applauded, but contains nothing to justify opposing it. Given current inflation and the risk of recession, the Bloc Québécois had asked the government to focus on its fundamental responsibilities toward vulnerable individuals, namely to increase health transfers, adequately support those aged 65 and over, and urgently reform employment insurance. Since the government chose to reject those proposals, we denounce this missed opportunity to help Quebeckers deal with the difficult times they are already experiencing or that are expected in the coming months. The Bloc Québécois had asked the government to agree to the unanimous request by Quebec and the other provinces to immediately, sustainably, and unconditionally increase health transfers. The health care system is stretched thin. While emergency physicians warn us that our hospitals have reached their breaking point, the federal government is failing to act. The government clearly prefers its strategy of prolonging the health funding crisis in the hope of breaking the consensus among the provinces to convince them to agree to dilute their funding requests. That is exactly what the Liberal health minister said in the Quebec National Assembly: It is called predatory federalism. We know too well that the fixed incomes of seniors do not allow them to cope with what are currently such pronounced increases in the cost of living. Seniors are those who are most likely to have to make difficult choices, such as groceries, medication or housing. Madam Speaker, I am told that I must share my time with me esteemed colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

387 words

All Topics