So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 320 - May/29/24

May/29/24 5:08:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, Canadian history is replete with examples where Canadians of different origin have had their loyalties questioned because of nothing more than their nationality. This includes Italian Canadians, Hungarian Canadians and of course the infamous example of the internment of Japanese Canadians, who had their loyalties questioned simply because of where their heritage came from. As my hon. colleague pointed out, part 4 of this bill seeks to establish for the first time a registry of foreign influence. I know my hon. colleague is a strong proponent of free speech and making sure we have political freedom in this country. Does he think clause 113, which defines the criteria upon which the need to register is set forth, strikes the appropriate balance to make sure that we are truly catching those who are working at the behest of a foreign state or, for their own benefit, for a foreign state, as opposed to Canadians who are simply expressing their views that might or might not correspond with those of a different country?

174 words

Context: House Hansard - 320 - May/29/24

May/29/24 4:16:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the second petition points out that remote work is a vital accommodation to help disabled individuals, especially those with mobility impairments, to stay in the workforce. The petitioners note that research shows that disabled individuals in the United States were 3.5% more likely to be employed than prepandemic, because of the increased availability of remote work. They point out that for people living with autism or ADHD, remote work makes it more likely they can participate and contribute their skills and talents. The petitioners call on the government to introduce legislation to give employees the right to access remote work if their positions reasonably allow that.

109 words

May/29/24 4:16:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to introduce today. The first petition notes that Canadians are facing a cost of living crisis, with three in four people reporting that inflation is affecting their ability to meet day-to-day expenses, such as housing, food, transportation and clothing. They note that the workers' share of GDP has been eroding in Canada by falling real wages and the growing gap between labour productivity and compensation. The petitioners call on this government to act immediately to close tax loopholes in offshore tax havens and implement an excess profits tax and use those revenues to address that cost of living crisis.

107 words

May/21/24 2:57:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are hungry and hurting. Liberals have failed to lower food prices while Conservatives promote corporate greed. Over the last three years, grocery prices increased 21% while portions shrank. In 2023 alone, grocery giants made a record $6 billion in profit, all while Canadian families were tightening their belts and missing meals. That is why today New Democrats are forcing Liberals to take a stand. Will Liberals support our motion to make CEOs pay what they owe or continue to put profits over people like the Conservatives do?

90 words

May/21/24 10:22:02 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague hit the nail on the head: The Liberals have gone cap in hand to the grocery sector and asked them to act. That is not what is required in these situations. What is required is strong governmental action. They did it with the banks. They brought in a windfall profits tax on the banks. There is no reason they should not do it in the grocery sector. At the end of the day, the NDP is interested in making sure that Canadians can afford to have nutritious food for everybody and their family. It is not happening now, and it is unacceptable in a G7 country and in one as wealthy as Canada.

118 words

May/21/24 10:20:21 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, no. The only lack here is a lack of listening by my fellow colleague, because I did mention Metro several times in my speech, so I do not know what he is talking about. What is interesting when we talk about greed is that the one difference between New Democrats and Conservatives is this: When we are in power, we are not going to give the corporate sector $60 billion in gifts as the last Conservative government did. With respect to government greed and taxation, maybe my hon. colleague needs to explain to all the seniors who are currently going to dentists in this country why Conservatives would take away dental care from seniors and pharmacare from diabetics. I do not call that greed; I call it a lack of compassion and poor public policy.

137 words

May/21/24 10:18:12 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is a huge difference between making a demand of an industry and making a request. The Liberal government has requested that the grocery industry make changes in this country. It has asked that it do that. This industry has proved itself to be gouging Canadians and making record profits. The NDP is talking about compelling it to pay more. I just want to say that the Liberals and the NDP campaigned in the 2021 federal election on devoting a billion dollars to a national school nutrition program. The government has been in power now for an additional three and a half years. It took three and a half years for the government to bring in this program that the NDP has been pushing for; in that time period, millions of Canadian children have gone hungry. This should have been one of the first measures brought in by the government, not one that it waited to bring in until near the end of its term and that may not even be in place until 2025.

177 words

Context: House Hansard - 313 - May/10/24

May/21/24 10:06:33 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented on Monday, May 6, 2024, be concurred in. I would like to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the magnificent member for Victoria. Report 19, “Excess Profit Tax on Large Grocery Companies”, was put forward by my predecessor, the former NDP finance critic, Daniel Blaikie, who said the following: Given that the Canadian grocery sector made more than $6 billion in profit in 2023 and that millions of Canadians have reported food insecurity in the last year, the Standing Committee on Finance call on the government to immediately take action by implementing an excess profit tax on large grocery companies that would put money back in the people's pocket with a GST rebate and establish a National School Food Program, and that this motion be reported to the House. The Canadian grocery sector's $6 billion in profits last year set a new record. Grocery prices are now rising at the fastest rate in more than 40 years. At the same time, Canadians are going hungry, food insecurity is rising dramatically and demand for food banks is exceeding donations. There can be no doubt that corporate greed is resulting in higher grocery bills for Canadians. According to Statistics Canada, food retail profits have more than doubled since prepandemic norms, and profits continue to grow. The Competition Bureau has found that the profit margins of grocery giants are increasing and that this trend predates the supply chain disruptions faced during the pandemic and the current inflationary period. Loblaws has almost doubled its profit margin in the last five years, and Metro has the biggest profit margin of any grocer in Canada. Loblaws has even admitted to participating in an industry-wide price-fixing scam, yet there have been no meaningful consequences for these corporate criminals who ripped off Canadians for bread. While New Democrats have fought for years to make grocery giants and other corporate giants play by the rules, pay what they owe, and put the money back in people's pockets, both the Liberals and the Conservatives have refused to tackle corporate greed. In fact, the Liberals have gifted $26 million to Loblaws and Costco for new appliances. The Conservatives brought in $60 billion in corporate tax giveaways when they were last in power, and both the Liberals and the Conservatives failed to get tough on corporate criminals as their successive governments presided over an industry-wide bread price-fixing scam from 2001 to 2015. Due to this failure of leadership, Canadians have now taken matters into their own hands by boycotting big grocery chains. Instead of sitting on the sidelines while Canadians go hungry, it is time for the federal government to act. In 2022, the Liberal government agreed to bring in a one-time 15% windfall profits tax on banks and insurance firms, known as the Canada recovery dividend. There is absolutely no reason this measure should not be extended to grocery giants. Forcing grocery giants to pay tax on excess profits would disincentivize price gouging and encourage lower prices. It would help recoup the tax dollars that both Liberals and Conservatives have gifted to grocery giants. It would lower food costs for Canadians through a grocery rebate and an expanded national school food program. The finance committee report before us today is not the first time a committee has recommended an excess profits tax on grocery multinationals in this Parliament. On June 13, 2023, the Standing Committee on Agriculture presented a report to the House, which recommended the following: ...if the Competition Bureau finds evidence in its upcoming market study that large grocery chains are generating excess profits on food items, the Government of Canada should consider introducing a windfall profits tax on large, price-setting corporations to disincentivize excess hikes in their profit margins for these items. On June 27, 2023, the Competition Bureau released its retail grocery market study report, which found exactly that. The report noted that the Canadian grocery industry is concentrated, and the problem is getting worse. When the Competition Act was introduced in 1986, there were at least eight large grocery chains in Canada, and each was owned by a different company. Today, most sales are happening in stores owned by five grocery giants: Loblaws, Sobeys, Metro, Costco and Walmart. Grocery prices are increasing at the fastest rate in decades, and the profits of Canada's three largest grocers, Loblaws, Metro and Sobeys, have risen significantly in recent years. The food gross margins of grocery giants are increasing, and this trend predates the supply chain disruptions faced during the pandemic and the current inflationary period. Even small changes in margins can be meaningful. Every percentage point increase in gross margins at grocery stores adds over $1 billion to Canadians' food bills each year. The fact that Canada's largest grocers have been able to increase these margins is a sign that there is room for more competition in Canada's grocery industry. Those were the conclusions of the Competition Bureau. The Competition Bureau's findings contradict previous committee testimony from grocery giants, who claimed they are not increasing profit margins on food items but instead are simply passing on higher costs from suppliers. This should come as no surprise. Canadians have every right to be skeptical of the claims made by grocery giants, as well as their commitment to corporate ethics, based on their previous conduct. We must never forget that in December 2017, Weston Foods and Loblaw Companies Limited confessed that they participated in what they described as an “industry-wide price-fixing arrangement” to inflate retail and wholesale bread prices for Canadians. The Competition Bureau has since executed search warrants against Canada Bread, Weston Foods, Loblaws, Metro, Sobeys, Walmart Canada, Giant Tiger, Overwaitea Food Group Limited, and Maple Leaf Foods Inc. Despite this years-long investigation, there have been no meaningful consequences for the perpetrators of this criminal price-fixing scam. Loblaws received immunity from prosecution and offered customers $25 gift cards as compensation. Canada Bread also received leniency in sentencing after pleading guilty to four counts of price-fixing. Given that we still do not have clear answers on this scheme or any real consequences for these corporate misdeeds that stole bread money out of people's pockets, Canadians have understandably run out of patience. It is time for their elected leaders to step up, and that is what New Democrats are doing today. An excess profits tax would not only discourage price gouging; it would also provide significant revenue to address growing rates of food insecurity and child hunger across Canada. Today, nearly one in four Canadian children does not get enough to eat, and more than one-third of food bank users are children. According to Children First Canada, there has been a 29% increase in food insecurity in children in the last year alone. However, Canada remains the only G7 country that does not have some form of a national school food program or national standards. This is a critical gap felt strongly in a time of skyrocketing food prices. After years of NDP pressure, including a bill I introduced in this House almost five years ago, the Liberals finally agreed to bring in a national school food program in budget 2024. This urgently needed program will be in place as early as the 2024-25 school year and help 400,000 children access the food they need to grow up healthy. By the way, that is nowhere near what is needed. There are over two million Canadians attending school from grades 1 to 6 in this country, and every one of them deserves a hot, nutritious meal every day they attend school. This is an important first step. While there are over two million children in grades 1 to 6 alone in Canada, and 2.6 million in grades 1 to 8, clearly the scale of this program is far from sufficient to reach all Canadian children. Revenues from an excess profits tax on grocery giants could be strategically used to provide more nutritious meals to more Canadian children. Based on the latest data from Statistics Canada's Canadian income survey, 8.7 million Canadians lived in food-insecure households in 2023. As a targeted income support, a grocery rebate would also be an important tool for addressing household food insecurity. It would recognize that inadequate income and high prices lie at the root of the challenges faced by Canadians who are unable to afford the food they need. In light of the record profits made by the Canadian grocery sector, coupled with the alarming rise in food insecurity among millions of Canadians, I call on all members of the House to support the concurrence motion before us. Corporate greed cannot be allowed to drive up grocery bills while Canadians go hungry. It is time for the federal government to act decisively for Canadians and ensure fairness for all.

1511 words

Context: House Hansard - 313 - May/10/24

May/10/24 11:27:15 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a recent report reveals alarming rates of poverty and food insecurity in Nova Scotia, the highest in the country. However, the Liberals, as did the Conservatives before them, are choosing to reward grocery CEOs with corporate handouts instead of cracking down on their greed. This is driving up food costs. While the Conservatives vote against nutritious meals for kids at school, the Liberals are letting food conglomerates gouge Canadians at the till. Why is the Liberal government allowing the CEOs' greed to go unchecked at the cost of Canadians going hungry?

93 words

May/10/24 10:32:44 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the minister, the member for Ajax. I had the privilege of leading the team that negotiated with him, who led his team, which resulted in this historic agreement on pharmacare. The New Democrats, and, I believe, the minister, believe that every Canadian should have access to the medicine they need regardless of their ability to pay through our public health care system. This would be a historic first step toward that. I want to ask the minister a question about diabetes, because that is a very important part of the class of drugs that would be covered. He and I both heard stories about parents who have to wake their children up, their five-year-old daughter or their seven-year-old son, every hour and a half at night to test their blood sugar levels because they do not have access to continuous glucose monitors or insulin pumps. A very important part of the deal that we have negotiated would cover that, making sure that everybody has access to the test strips, monitors, pumps and syringes they need to keep themselves healthy. Could the minister tell us what impact the Conservatives' delaying access to that medication is having on the families across this country that are worried about their family members who require these instruments to stay alive?

227 words

May/9/24 6:54:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will just say that last night we spent five and a half hours in the chamber debating a Conservative amendment to delete the short title of a bill, yet we hear the Conservatives stand up and say they have not done anything to slow down the House of Commons. I also was in the finance committee when I watched them delay by forcing recorded votes on clause-by-clause for the fall economic statement, so they have absolutely tried to delay the bill before us. My question to my hon. colleague is this: What does he think is the impact of slowing the bill down and delaying its provisions, in terms of the impact on Canadians and maybe on the businesses that are counting on the bill's to be passed to give them the relief they need?

141 words

May/9/24 5:26:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is exactly it. If the war on drugs were working in the United States, it would be leading the world in sobriety and recovery, and it is not. We can fight over policy and ideology, but facts count. Which provinces in this country have the worst record, the highest number of deaths and the worst trends for overdose addictions? They are Alberta and Saskatchewan, where they take a criminalized approach. Those are the facts. We know that, after decades and decades of evidence, criminalizing people with health issues does not work. It is time to dispense with that policy, not only because it is wrong and it wastes money, but also because it destroys lives.

118 words

May/9/24 5:24:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for raising that issue because I was quite shocked when I heard those words in the House. I cannot be any stronger than I was in my initial remarks when I said that it is categorically untrue. The aspersion and the insinuation that Moms Stop The Harm is anything but a grassroots independent group of people who have come together, united in their sharing of the horrible experience of losing a child to addiction, is frankly, disgraceful. It is not worthy of anybody in the House to say that. Any money that is given to that group simply helps it to spread its message, and its message is that they know that their children often used alone after accessing street-level toxic drugs and that is why they died. That is why Moms Stop The Harm is advocating for sensible, evidence-based drug policy in this country, which means that people, as one of the pillars, must be able get access to a safe, regulated supply. I would ask this question of my Conservative friends: What is the alternative to safe supply? A dangerous supply—

192 words

May/9/24 5:22:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yes, I do. My hon. colleague's words were kind. It was a privilege for me as well to serve with her on the health committee. I do not ever agree that anybody should be held until treatment is available, but I think what we share is that nobody should have to be held until treatment. The short answer to her question is, absolutely, every community in this country should have detoxification facilities so that when a person is ready and willing to seek help, they could go immediately and access the help they need. Then there should be myriad treatment options available to them, because no one system works for everybody. Sometimes it is a 12-step program. Sometimes is an abstinence-based program, and sometimes it is not. There should be programs for women and for indigenous people, and programs depending on the substance, whether it is opioids, cannabis or alcohol. All of those options should be available, and right now in this country they are not, unless someone has money. There is a two-tiered system in this country for access to treatment. It is wrong and we should change it.

196 words

May/9/24 5:09:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise with a great deal of empathy and sadness about the issue under debate here, because what we are talking about is an issue that brings and reflects great pain in every family in every corner of the country. The thing about addiction is that no family is untouched. It does not respect income. It does not respect culture. It does not respect class. It does not respect geography. It hits every family. I do not believe there is a family in this country that is untouched by addiction. Everybody has a mother, father, brother, sister, cousin, aunt, uncle, child, friend or neighbour who has suffered from substance abuse disorder. Therefore I think this is one of those policies that is particularly unfortunate when it is politicized, when people seek to make partisan gain and when we do not seek to find common ground by getting established facts before us so we can make the best policy for this country moving forward. I have heard a lot of words from the Conservatives, because the motion today is theirs, and they have used the word “extreme” a lot. I will tell them what I think is an extreme policy: the war on drugs. The funny thing about it, though, is that we have a century of evidence, a hundred years of the war on drugs, the criminalized approach to addiction. If it has proven anything, it has proven that we cannot jail our way out of addiction. It has proven that it does not work. If the war on drugs did work, North America would be relatively addiction-free today. We have wasted billions of dollars in North America over the last hundred years, and we have hurt millions of addicts and their families. The result is that addiction is as big a part of our society today as it ever was. It is said in recovery circles that the definition of “insanity” is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. What do the Conservatives bring to the debate today, a day when 20 families will lose a family member, and they will lose a family member tomorrow and the day after? The Conservatives think the answer here is “Let us recriminalize addiction.” If we get right to the bottom of it, the problem is actually relatively easy to state. People are dying from illicit substances. They are dying from the use of drugs, primarily fentanyl and sometimes carfentanil, and the reason they are dying is that there is a toxic, poisoned street supply that is provided by organized criminals in Canada and abroad who do not care one bit about the quality, the dosage or the purity of their product or about who buys it. Also, because the drugs happen to be supplied largely by organized crime, the price is astronomically increased, meaning that a person who is dependent on these drugs and who is suffering from late-stage addiction has to engage in break and enters, or in some cases in selling their bodies, in order to get the amount of money they need every day to satisfy their habit. The answer to this is obviously that we need to make sure that people who have a chronic compulsion to use these drugs because of their health issue and addiction have access to a regulated supply of the substances they need that is in known dosage, known titration and known purity. There are 35 problems with addiction. Making sure that people have access to a safe, regulated supply will solve only two of them. The other 33 problems will still be there. The first problem that will be solved is that a person would not have to buy their drugs from a street criminal in an alley in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver at two in the morning and not know what they are getting. A story that happens every day in Vancouver is that a person uses a substance that has been contaminated because it has been made in an illegal pill mill by people who have no concern about whether half of the pill had half of the fentanyl in it. If someone splits the pill in half and accidentally takes the half that has two-thirds of the fentanyl in it, they will overdose. Thus, the first problem that would be solved is that people would no longer have to go to organized crime to get their drugs. In my view, they should be able to go to a pharmacy, which is a place in our society where dangerous regulated drugs are sold. They should be able to go to a professional dispenser, which is a pharmacist, and they should be able at least to access the drugs that they need with their own money through the pharmacy, if they are going to get them at all. In my view, that is a more sensible way to dispense a dangerous drug than to leave it to organized crime. The second problem that safe supply solves is that if it were sold at a reasonable price, the person probably would not have to break into garages or cars, sell their body or shoplift in order to make the $200 a day that the average person in Vancouver often needs in order to get drugs in the illicit market. Every other problem would still exist, the plurality of health problems. I agree with the Conservatives in part. I think we all agree, and I believe strongly in investing in treatment. However, this brings me to a very important point that I think marks a cleavage in the House between us and the Conservatives. We believe that substance use disorder is a health issue, not a criminal issue. It is not an issue of morality. It is not an issue of character. It does not mean that a person who uses drugs is a bad person; it means they have a complex biopsychosocial condition that requires treatment. One thing I will agree with the Conservatives about is that we have not created the health architecture in this country that actually mirrors that belief. I believe that there should be treatment on demand for anybody who is ready to get treatment through our public health care system. I challenge my Conservative colleagues: If and when they are in government at some point, I want them to invest billions of dollars into our public health care system so when a person seeks treatment, they can walk into a facility and get it right then. We know that if someone does not access treatment right away, they probably will not do it at all. I want to just say quickly a few words about Moms Stop the Harm because I was actually horrified to hear some of the Conservatives disparage Moms Stop the Harm. It is a group of mothers who lost children to drug overdose. There was an aspersion cast, suggesting that it was somehow falsely created as a Liberal-NDP front group. Not only is that 100%, demonstrably, completely, categorically false, but what a disgusting insult it is to parents in this country who have mobilized because they lost a child to drug addiction. The Conservatives owe an apology to Moms Stop the Harm and to every parent in this country who has lost a child to drug addiction. I have never said this before in the House. I lost my father in 1983 on December 6. I was 20 years old when my 15-year-old sister found him dead in the bathroom from a methadone overdose. I lost a parent, and my family has been wracked with addiction and substance use issues. We should never play politics with any parent or other family member who is advocating policy they think is better and who has suffered the death of a loved one. I would like to move “That the motion be amended by replacing the words ‘the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister took office’ with ‘2015’, and replacing all the words after ‘call on the Prime Minister to:’ with the following: (a) declare the toxic drug crisis a national public health emergency; (b) take steps to hold pharmaceutical companies responsible for their role in contributing to Canada's toxic drug crisis; (c) provide additional funding to help provinces provide supports for treatment and recovery programs, targeting provinces where drug toxicity deaths are increases fastest, such as Saskatchewan and Alberta; and (d) work with cities including Toronto and Montreal to ensure that they have all the tools they need to tackle this crisis and to protect public safety.” Let us put politics aside and try to create drug policy in this country that would save lives.

1479 words

May/8/24 7:46:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am sure there is more work to be done, but my hon. colleague gives me an opportunity to talk a little bit more about the amendments that the NDP, with help from my colleague from Joliette, was able to get. We adopted an amendment that would ensure that sellers bear the burden of proving that their discounts are genuine. Fake discounts are a common deceptive marketing practice. In some cases, businesses promote a price as a discount when in fact the advertised price is just the ordinary price of the product. They do this on things like Black Friday. We have changed that to reverse the burden. Another one is strengthening the right to repair provision, something that my hon. colleague from Windsor West has been working on for years. It would force companies to disclose to consumers information that they need to get diagnosis or repair of their products anywhere they want, as opposed to tying them to the seller of the product. This is a very important consumer rights measure that breaks up monopolies and promotes competition in the marketplace. It is something that I would think Conservatives would like, actually. They certainly claim that they like it, but they are holding up a bill here that would make our marketplace more competitive, protect consumers and strengthen the Competition Tribunal's ability to make sure that we have an open, thriving, and competitive marketplace. That is not common sense.

244 words

May/8/24 7:44:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, the member should know about free things from government, because he gets free dental care, and so do his children. I do not see him giving that back. I have not heard of a Conservative giving back their free dental care yet. By the way, dental care, of course, is not free; it is paid for, but we believe on this side of the House that, collectively, by pooling our resources, we can make sure that every person can get access to primary health care. It is the foundation of our Canadian health care system, so I think that is a wise expenditure of money. More to the point, I have already gone through a couple of examples where Bill C-59 would return money to taxpayers. It would take 5% of the GST off new homebuilding, which is returning money to our home builders. It would take 5% off the GST for counselling services, returning money so that people can maybe afford to get the mental health support they need. What I would ask my hon. colleague is this: Why does he not support the bill, which would return money to important parts of our economy, instead of holding us up and costing taxpayers $450,000 tonight to have this absolutely avoidable and nonsensical debate?

218 words

May/8/24 7:33:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, for anybody who may be watching tonight, I think a brief explanation of what their tax dollars are going to is in order. Tonight, beginning at about 6:30 p.m., due to the Conservatives' motion, we are spending five and a half hours of debate, an entire evening sitting in the Canadians' House of Commons, to debate a Conservative motion on Bill C-59, which is a bill to enact provisions that were announced in the fall economic statement in 2023. In this long bill with hundreds of provisions in it, the Conservatives' motion and contribution to Canadian democracy is to strip the short title of the bill. I think we have already heard that this has necessitated a late sitting of the House, which is probably going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and hold up all sorts of legislation that is of prime importance to Canadians. Now, one thing that I think we all agree on is that Canadians across this country, millions of them, are in fact enduring pain, hardship, worry, insecurity and need. Bill C-59, while not perfect and certainly with a fair number of problems and omissions, does contain a number of important measures that would address those needs in a myriad of ways. While the New Democrats are working constructively as an opposition party to move that legislation forward so that Canadians can get the relief they need, the Conservatives are holding it up. When the Conservatives claim to care about the needs of Canadians who are struggling with economic uncertainty, they are going to have to explain to Canadians why they are holding up the very measures that are contained in the legislation before the House that would help ameliorate those needs. I also want to say a few things about the business community in this country. On the finance committee, along with my colleagues, I sat through testimony for 20 hours, hearing Canadian stakeholders comment on the provisions of this bill. When they did so, there were two very clear statements that were made to us repeatedly by Canadian businesses. Number one, they wanted this bill passed quickly. Number two, they wanted certainty. As I will talk about in a moment, this bill contains a number of measures that would provide important tax incentives and tax credits to stimulate business activity, and businesses across this country are waiting for this. They are actually holding their investments. They are holding up creating jobs. They are holding up purchasing machinery and equipment, as well as research in technology, until this bill passes. What is the Conservatives' reaction to this? They hold the bill up. If that is the Conservatives' concept of common sense, I do not think I share the same definition. I want to talk about some of the important things in this bill. One of the things in this bill is a measure to implement the NDP's dental care plan. It would introduce an amendment to the provision that authorizes the sharing of taxpayer information for the purposes of administering the Canadian dental care plan. We all know that, as of May 1, about a week ago, the first one million seniors who successfully applied to the CDCP started to access the dental care they need. Over two million seniors have already applied, with children under 18 and people living with disabilities, with a disability tax certificate, able to apply in a little over three weeks. I want to stop for a moment, because I heard the Conservatives talk about Canadians who are suffering. Let us think of a senior right now who is at home suffering with dental pain, someone who does not have dentures that fit properly or maybe does not have dentures at all. They are unable to eat an apple. They have pain in their mouth. They have a choice to make: they continue living in pain, or they scramble together some form of money and try to go to a dentist, and pay out of pocket. The Conservatives say they care about people who are suffering economically, yet they are holding up legislation that would help get the CDCP in place so seniors can go to the dentist and have their needs paid for. Imagine a single mother with a couple of kids at home, and a five-year-old or a seven-year-old has dental pain and they do not have enough money to go to the dentist. Like every parent in this room, we know what we would do. We would do whatever we could. We would sell something, take an extra shift or borrow money to get our child to the dentist. That is what Canadians are doing. What will the Canadian dental care plan do? It will provide that dental care at no cost to Canadians, freeing up their funds. At a time when Canadians are suffering, what could be of more direct assistance than to have the federal government champion a national dental care plan, which, by the way, the Conservatives do not support and will take away? Funnily enough, every one of them on that side has their dental care needs taken care of by taxpayer dollars. They get to go to the dentist, and their kids get to go to the dentist, paid for by taxpayer dollars, but they do not think that senior, that five-year-old and that single mother have the same right. I will tell members this. To the NDP, dental care is primary health care, and everybody gets to go to the dentist regardless of their ability to pay. That is what this bill will help facilitate, and it is what the Conservatives are stalling. Is that the Conservative common sense? I cannot wait to go to the doorsteps in the next election and put that definition of common sense to my constituents. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Don Davies: Madam Speaker, I hear laughing on the Conservative side. Bring it on. Come to Vancouver Kingsway. I will debate Conservatives anywhere, any time, on any doorstep. We will ask the people in my riding whether they think that getting dental care free for everybody in the riding, regardless of their income, is a good move for them, and the Conservatives can make their case why it is not. I will live and die by the results of that discussion. There are 6,500 oral health professionals who have signed up to participate and are ready to provide for these patients. Later this month, according to the fall economic statement, it will establish the oral health access fund, which will further reduce barriers that prevent Canadians from accessing oral health care. We all know that in rural and remote areas, people cannot get access to the same health care we can get in urban centres, so what did the NDP do? We insisted that there be a $250 million oral health access fund, available in every corner of this country for stakeholders to apply to, to come up with innovative programs like mobile dental clinics, or allowing hygienists to go into old folks' homes, or maybe even outfitting a train car to travel to rural areas to provide necessary dental care to people in their communities. These are the kinds of innovative programs that are just waiting and that the Conservatives are holding up. That does not sound like common sense to me. This bill does a lot of other things. It takes the GST off counselling services. I have heard Conservatives talk about their concern for people's mental health during COVID. We all know that counsellors across this country have to charge GST, and this bill would take that GST off counselling services, making it a bit more affordable for people. The Conservatives are holding that up. That is not good for Canadians' mental health. This bill has measures to support affordable housing construction. It would remove the GST on new rental home construction. Conservatives talk about axing the tax. This bill does axe the tax. It takes the GST off new rental home construction. What are the Conservatives doing? They are delaying it. It seems that they only want to axe certain taxes, but they do not want to take the GST off new home construction. If we talk to any builder in this country, they will tell us that this does not make any sense at all. Not only is it not common sense; it is wrong. There are measures to support workers in this bill by introducing labour requirements to ensure that Canadian workers benefit from Canada's clean economy investment tax credits. They would require job sites to pay union wages and provide apprenticeship training by requiring a minimum of 10% apprentice positions on every job site to get a tax credit. That is not only good for working families, but also to get more young people into the trades. The leader of the Conservatives claims to care about working people. This is a direct, explicit provision that will help working families and help create more trades. What are the Conservatives doing? They are stalling it tonight. Is that common sense? Not at all. I want to talk briefly about some of the amendments we made that would help protect consumers and strengthen the Competition Tribunal's ability to prevent unhealthy mergers in this country, which is bad for our economy. The NDP got six different amendments passed to this bill, things that would allow for more honesty in pricing, putting the onus on sellers who claim false prices to prove why those prices are accurate. They would help the Competition Tribunal police mergers by making an assumption that any merger that results in a market share of over 30% will presumptively be bad for competition and reversing the onus. These are amendments that were asked for by the Competition Tribunal itself. The NDP used Parliament to get those things done. What have the Conservatives done? I think we know tonight. They are stalling, and that is not common sense.

1688 words

C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023

May/8/24 7:27:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to work with my hon. colleague from Joliette on the finance committee. At the committee hearings on Bill C-59, the opposition members worked together to strengthen many provisions of the bill, as the member pointed out in his speech. I think at least six or seven different amendments were made to strengthen consumer protection and empower the Competition Tribunal's ability to police mergers. In particular, I want to congratulate my colleague, as we had similar motion to strengthen the greenwashing provisions in the Competition Tribunal and in consumer legislation. His motion was the one that was passed. Could he elaborate a little on why he thinks that is an important amendment to the legislation?

122 words