Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 61 - 75 of 79
View Earl Dreeshen Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, today is Canada's Agriculture Day. It is my honour to table in the House a petition from my constituents of Red Deer—Mountain View, as well as from other residents of Alberta, on such an important day for farmers.
The petition calls on the Liberal government to exempt all direct and indirect input costs incurred by farmers as a result of the carbon tax. This ill-conceived tax costs Canadian farmers tens of thousands of dollars each year and puts them at a competitive disadvantage internationally. Even worse, the Liberal government's carbon tax will nearly triple by 2030.
The petition also calls on the government to immediately cancel implementation of the clean fuel standard. Studies estimate that the so-called clean fuel standard will represent a total cost to the Canadian economy of $7 billion to $15 billion. Canadians cannot afford another tax on top of an ill-conceived tax.
View Marwan Tabbara Profile
Ind. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, many Canadians already found it difficult to make ends meet and this pandemic has only made things worse. To reduce the cost of living, the government asked telecommunications providers to lower their already high prices by 25% over three years.
Can the minister explain how the government will make sure those prices really do come down?
View François-Philippe Champagne Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, we understand the concerns of Canadians and families when it comes to their cellphone bills. That is why our government is taking action to make services more affordable in keeping with our commitment to bring down prices by 25%. The latest affordability tracker is now public so people can see for themselves where prices are going.
The good news is that the tracker shows that prices for most plans have decreased between 10% and 18% in Canada.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2021-01-28 11:47 [p.3690]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the virtual Parliament to speak to the agreement that was signed between Canada and the United Kingdom, what they are calling a “trade continuity agreement”, and the legislation that would implement that here in Canada.
It has been a bit of a rocky road to get here, and there are a number of problems with the way this has unfolded and that do bear description here in the House. However, I want to start by talking a bit about the nature of trade.
This is another agreement in the vein of corporate globalized trade that we in the NDP recognize has not been good for workers. Canada has signed a number of these free trade agreements, whether the original NAFTA or CETA or the TPP, and various reforms at the WTO. All of these have coincided with a period when a lot of well-paying jobs that fed families and provided the kinds of benefits that Canadians expect as part of a good quality of living, whether that is a decent pension, health benefits or other things that come with a good job, left the country. It is not a coincidence that this happened as these agreements were signed which made it easier for big corporations and some of the biggest economic players to move their capital and operations around to find places with the lowest standards for how they treat their workers and the planet. All of that was done in a context where the taxes these folks pay were continually being reduced as well. Therefore, what was saw was a period when working Canadians lost a lot of their good employment that provided them with a good livelihood, while the people at the top were able to move their assets around and keep more and more of the economic pie for themselves.
It has not worked out well for everyday Canadian workers, and it is why we do not like the model. That does not mean we do not like trade.
The NDP is very well aware of all of the opportunities that exist for Canadian businesses, including some of our small businesses, when trade is done right, for them to be able to expand their reach. We just want to see agreements that allow those opportunities to translate not into gross profits for a few Canadians at the top, but into more good-quality jobs for Canadian workers who will produce the things that get traded with other countries. However, if it just means that all of the value-added work goes somewhere else, that is not in the ultimate interests of Canadians, and there is a fair bit of evidence to suggest that that has been the trend over the last 30 years or so.
Why am I talking about that? Trade between Canada and the United King is as old as Canada, and at least with Europeans. We have had a long-standing trade relationship; it is an important one. A lot of the similarities and affinities between Canada and the United Kingdom provide for creating a real gold-standard trade agreement. If we listen even to the conservatives in the United Kingdom, they talk more about climate change and have put more emphasis on putting climate change at the forefront of their new trade agenda than even the Liberals here have done. There is a real opportunity to work with them and others in the United Kingdom to create a gold-standard deal that takes seriously the impacts of globalized trade for climate change and seeks to control and reduce those impacts.
We have an opportunity to create a gold-standard deal that takes seriously the rights of workers and human rights and seeks to actually incorporate those into the deal, not in a side letter that is not enforceable but actually into the core of the deal, to ensure that workers will be fairly treated and that if there is additional wealth created by an increase of trade between our two countries, it will find its way to workers and not just to the people at the top.
I would also hope that our good relationship with the United Kingdom will allow for an agreement that recognizes and takes seriously the rights and role of indigenous people in Canada, so that we do not run roughshod over those in the way that an agreement is concluded.
However, we do not have that here with this agreement. What we have, after knowing this was coming for a long, long time, is effectively a carbon copy of CETA, which was agreement in the corporate model that I just described and that we do not agree with. We did not agree with it at the time because we knew that an agreement like CETA and its intellectual property provisions was going to put upward costs on the price of pharmaceutical drugs in Canada when we already pay among the highest price for prescription drugs in the western world.
Why would we conclude an agreement that makes those drugs more expensive? Why then would we carbon copy that agreement when we have an opportunity to do something different with our largest trading partner in the European Union, representing about 40% of our trade with Europe? That does not make sense to New Democrats, who have been elected to Parliament on a mission to reduce the price of prescription drugs for Canadians.
It does not make sense when we think about the integrity of our democratic institutions. These same corporate trade deals have also put serious limits and inhibitions on democratically elected governments to regulate in the public interest. That was also a part of the reasons for our initial opposition to CETA, the investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. Now, I recognize that those would not coming into force immediately upon the passage of this legislation, but I find it shocking, frankly, that they are even in there at all, because we have not heard the British government talk about the need for investor-state dispute settlement clauses.
Those are the clauses that have allowed foreign corporations to sue the Canadian government for hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 30 years. Those are the same clauses the Deputy Prime Minister herself said in the House last June were one of the biggest achievements she was most proud of from the CUSMA negotiations. In her words, "the investor-state dispute resolution system, which in the past allowed foreign companies to sue Canada, will be gone.”
Here they are again, not because our trading partner was asking for them. How did they even get into the agreement? If Britain does not want them and Canada does not want them, why are they there and why is possible for them come into effect, which is the default incidentally, after three years if another decision is not taken in the meantime?
We object to these being present at all, and I am interested to know who at the table was concerned to put them in there, given that our government was trying to take credit for having signed an agreement with the United States and Mexico that finally got rid of them, which we thought was a good thing.
The other thing CETA did that we oppose was further attack the supply-managed sectors in Canada. We heard comments earlier that I agree with completely. The way we procure our food and supply our food is not as if it were commodity like any other, and so we want to make sure that our agricultural producers are compensated fairly for what they produce and that we can support those local producers and that our food supply chain is secure.
All of these agreements tend toward a more globalized food supply chain. If the pandemic has taught us anything, it is that when it comes to the things that really matter and that we cannot do without, we should not be depending on international supply chains. Supply management in Canada is a great tool to ensure that our local producers are paid fairly for the work they do, can stay in business and that Canadian consumers can get the products they need to eat at a fair price reliably.
Those were things we did not like about CETA. We had lots of time, and, frankly, when it came to signing CETA in the first place, it was a mystery to us in the NDP that the government rushed ahead with it. The Conservatives had negotiated this deal, the Liberals came to power, and in the meantime Britain decided to hold a referendum on whether to remain in the European Union. New Democrats thought it might be significant to the nature of trade between Europe and Canada whether the United Kingdom was a part of Europe or not, considering that it represented about 40% of our trade with Europe.
It still strikes me as totally ridiculous that the government decided to go ahead and pen a deal with Europe when we did not know if the United Kingdom was leaving the European Union, which we subsequently found out it was, and that 40% of trade with Europe was not going to be captured by that deal. It does raise problems. We will see what happens as we try to negotiate a successor agreement and what that will mean for the supply-managed sector. New Democrats are very concerned that there are further concessions in the offing. We will believe it when we see that that it is not really on the table for the Liberals, because we have seen them break that promise before.
The other thing that bears mentioning when it comes to CETA is the following quote from a report called “Taking Stock of CETA: Early Impacts of the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement”. It states:
Between September 2017 and May 2019, total Canadian exports to the EU, measured monthly, were essentially flat. Meanwhile, over the same period, total imports from the EU increased by over a third (33.8 per cent). This imbalance has resulted in a doubling of the monthly Canadian trade deficit with the EU, from –1.51 billion dollars in September 2017 to –3.43 billion dollars in May 2019.
In recent decades, the United Kingdom is the only major European country with which Canada has consistently run a trade surplus. But since September 2017, the Canadian merchandise trade surplus with the U.K. has shrunk significantly (falling by two-thirds), with exports declining by 32 per cent while imports rose 14 per cent.
That is an assessment of the deal on whether it is working for Canada. The government did not bother to negotiate a different agreement. It is asking for a carbon copy of an agreement that has seen Canada's trade deficit with Europe increase. Even the empirical evidence on the deal so far suggests that this has not been a wondrous deal for Canada.
I have a lot of sympathy for Canadian businesses that want certainty in an uncertain time. I think the government really let them down in terms of the process, but it did not just let them down in November and December when it failed to get this legislation before the House and passed before December 31. The government let them down a long time ago, when it walked away from the negotiating table and was not even trying to negotiate the kind of gold-standard deal that I spoke about earlier, or any kind of different deal at all.
Here we find ourselves, past the deadline. These businesses have already gone through that jarring uncertainty and what it means for their business models, so I understand their disappointment. I think the government ought to have behaved in a way to try to provide a lot more certainty about what was coming, but I think it is a disappointment that, in addition, all we are getting is the same as we had in CETA with all of the problems that were there, and with all the evidence that shows that this has not been a deal that is working out very well for Canada.
I would say perhaps one of the only redeeming aspects of this entire farce of a process around negotiating our post-Brexit trade relationship with the United Kingdom is that it afforded an opportunity for certain committees of the House to reaffirm our commitment to the Good Friday Agreement, which Canada played an important role in brokering. New Democrats, my colleague from Saint John—Rothesay at the foreign affairs committee and I, presented a motion at the international trade committee and the foreign affairs committee that passed, I am glad to say unanimously, affirming Canada's support for [Technical difficulty—Editor] wants to be part of a trade relationship with the United Kingdom that in no way jeopardizes the Good Friday Agreement and, in fact, seeks to reinforce that peace, which was hard won in the nineties.
That is maybe one of the only silver linings to what otherwise was a terrible process. There was no real meaningful consultation with businesses, with unions or with Canadian civil society on what this trade relationship ought to look like. I stress this again, because the government likes to talk as if the deadline snuck up on us or as if we did not know it was coming. We have known for years that Britain was leaving the EU, and it was incumbent upon the government of the day to do the work so that whenever that deadline came there was actually something in place, yet there was no meaningful public consultation process on this.
The trade committee, on its own initiative, held some hearings in Parliament but, of course, like many things due to the pandemic, these were severely interrupted. It does not explain why there was not some effort by the government, in the years leading up to that, to try to engage people meaningfully on the question of the Canada-U.K. trade agreement or to try to involve Parliament, for that matter.
I would like to add that while we are talking about the abomination of process that is this deal, it bears mentioning that the government will talk about this as a transitional deal. I think that is misleading.
I get that our partner in the United Kingdom and the Canadian government perhaps committed in good faith, and it is in the agreement for all to read that they are going to start negotiating toward a successor deal within a year. I think there is some expectation that within three years the deal will be concluded. A couple of things will get more difficult after that three-year time horizon if a successor deal has not been concluded.
The fact remains that a transitional deal implies a temporary deal. The fact that it is a transitional deal, and the fact that it is essentially a carbon copy of CETA, are the reasons the government is saying that we should not be too concerned that there has not been a great process around it all: “Do not worry, we are going to negotiate another deal and it is really just like what we had.”
However, there were problems with what we had. The NDP is not satisfied with CETA. The NDP does not agree that CETA is the be-all and end-all of a trade agreement anyway, and I can tell members that a lot of Canadian workers across the country feel the same way. That fact notwithstanding, when we talk about a transitional deal it implies a temporary deal, and there is nothing temporary about this deal.
This deal has already been signed. The government has done the deed and the legislation, I gather from the debate today, is going to pass. New Democrats will be voting against it, but it is going to pass, and in a timely way. We all know, after what we just went through with Donald Trump, the pandemic and everything else, that three years is a long time in politics. A lot can change, and good intentions sometimes do not bear the fruit that people thought they would.
If, in three year's time, Canada and the U.K. do not conclude a successor agreement, this is what we are stuck with, and we will have been stuck with it after no meaningful engagement with the Canadian public or the Canadian Parliament except for this debate and whatever process will ensue at committee, which is something we are being asked to hurry up with and rush. The government has created a context where there is a legitimate need to act with some swiftness, because Canadian businesses have not had an opportunity to plan for an alternative, even though I think an alternative could have served Canadians better.
There is no sunset clause in the deal. There is no sunset clause in the legislation before us. In other words, there is nothing that compels Canada and the U.K. in any strong sense to conclude a successor agreement that might realize the potential for that gold standard in trade rather than repeating the same old corporate model that has not been serving Canadians well over the last 30 years. To me, that is a real disappointment, and I caution Canadians that this is not just some kind of transitional thing that is going away any time soon. It will only go away any time soon if it becomes a priority of our government and the government of the U.K., and political circumstances allow them to conclude a deal.
If we think back to where we were three years ago, nobody would have predicted what has happened in the interim. It would be a shame if this is the deal that Canada gets stuck with to define our trading relationship with the United Kingdom, because I think we can do a heck of a lot better.
I think we can do better when it comes to not having any provisions at all, like the investor-state dispute settlement provisions that cost Canadian taxpayers money and limit the ability of their democratically elected governments to regulate in the public interest.
I think it would be a shame if we did not get an agreement with the U.K. that takes climate change seriously and tries to mitigate the effects of globalized trade.
I think it would be a shame if we did not get an agreement with the U.K. that recognizes, in some kind of meaningful and enforceable way, the rights of indigenous people in Canada.
I think it would be a shame if we did not get an agreement that took upward pressure on prescription drug costs seriously. At the very least, if the Liberals are going to continue to sign deals like this, they could get a national pharmacare plan in place and help to do something that would bring those pharmaceutical drug prices down for Canadians, both their out-of-pocket costs and the incredible costs on provincial government ledgers for those pharmacare programs that do not benefit from the purchasing power of the entire country.
I hope we are going to get there, and that is certainly where our emphasis is going to be, but in the meantime, it is hard to say yes to a deal that is unimaginative and part of a broken international trade culture.
View Gerald Soroka Profile
CPC (AB)
View Gerald Soroka Profile
2020-12-01 15:03 [p.2772]
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal clean fuel standard will increase the cost of fuel by 4¢ per litre. This increase in cost will have disproportionate effects on Canadians living in rural areas, like so many of my constituents. Rural Canadians do not have the same transportation options as those in urban centres.
Will the government make concessions for rural residents to even the playing field or will it continue gouging rural Canadians?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Mr. Speaker, using cleaner fuels in our buildings, vehicles and industries is one of the biggest steps we can take to reduce emissions in this country. The clean fuel standard will cut pollution by up to 30 million tonnes in 2030, which is equivalent to taking seven million cars off the roads. It is going to create enormous opportunities for farmers and companies producing renewable fuels, hydrogen and biofuels. It will encourage investments in energy efficiency that will help Canadians save money. It will assist with the faster deployment of electric vehicles. It is something that will drive innovation in this country, business opportunity and environmental sustainability.
View John Williamson Profile
CPC (NB)
Madam Speaker, I would like to get a few comments from the parliamentary secretary on pricing. This government appears to be making affordable energy seem costly, and thereby give the illusion that its policy is somehow affordable.
Let us talk about the Atlantic loop. We all know the hydro coming online in Labrador is going to be very expensive compared with the alternatives. The government has proposed sharing that very expensive power with the rest of Atlantic Canada.
Could the member talk about her government's plan to ensure ratepayers throughout Atlantic Canada, and in my home province of New Brunswick in particular, do not get socked with high prices because of the government's policy and being forced to buy power through the Atlantic loop?
View Yvonne Jones Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Yvonne Jones Profile
2020-11-26 10:29 [p.2485]
Madam Speaker, substituting power under the Atlantic loop does not necessarily mean using power that is already available through Muskrat Falls, which he quotes as higher-priced power. It includes the opportunity to develop additional power sources, whether in Labrador, other parts of Atlantic Canada or central Canada. Those are the things that will be considered. The Atlantic loop is about replacing [Technical difficulty—Editor] affordability of that power to citizens.
View Salma Zahid Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Salma Zahid Profile
2020-03-11 15:08 [p.1937]
Mr. Speaker, now more than ever Canadians rely on cellphones for their work, school, finances and health care, making access to high-quality and affordable service absolutely essential. However, cellphone and wireless bills are still putting too much strain on too many Canadian households.
Could the Prime Minister please update Canadians on the latest steps this Liberal government has taken to reduce cellphone prices?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2020-03-11 15:08 [p.1937]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Scarborough Centre for her continued advocacy on affordability for the middle class and her incredibly hard work.
In the last election we made a clear commitment to Canadians that we would lower their cellphone bills. Last week, we announced a clear plan to ensure that the three national cellphone providers offer plans 25% cheaper. This is one of the many ways we are making life more affordable for Canada's middle class and those working hard to join it.
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, something our Parliament should be addressing is the fact that an emerging catalyst for inequality is access to fast, affordable and reliable Internet. As we have seen 4G technology revolutionize our economy with things like streaming services and apps like Uber, we have seen the disruptive impact this has had on the economy in a positive way, but that is only going to accelerate as we see 5G technology roll out over the next five years. When we already have an issue in this country between urban and rural divide, rich and poor, and we have to deal with the issue of reconciliation, we should be looking for ways to unite us through technology and through fast, affordable access to the Internet.
The reality is there are over a million Canadians who do not have any type of access and there are many more people in Canada who pay a lot more. It becomes an affordability and equality issue. Right now, most people in Canada pay five times more than an American does for data. We pay 10 times more than a European does.
When the Liberals talk about reducing cellphone bills by a certain percentage that is not even close to that without any sort of plan outside of maybe asking the telcos nicely and hope that they do this, it is really not addressing the issue of a catalyst for inequality in any sort of meaningful way. I am hoping that in this Parliament, the government will be open to working with the opposition on concrete, innovative ways to get access for everyone.
If over 100 years ago, or whatever the time period was, we built a railway across the Rocky Mountains and across the Canadian Shield, then surely we can figure out how to do things like lay infrastructure so that first nations communities are not separated from Canada and rural Canadians have the same access as urban Canadians do. We want urban and rural Canadians, everybody, to have access to a vital service that is the underpinning of our economy and of the economy of the future.
What I mean by working collaboratively is there are things the government needs to be stating its intent on. I would first point out it needs to signal whether it is going to uphold the ruling on MVNOs that allows for more competition in this space. That is something many Canadians are advocating for in order to ensure there is competitiveness so there is a market pressure downward on this type of access.
It would be interesting if the government signalled some sort of intent to look at new ways to auction spectrum. If we look at this building as having a value to the government, I am not sure we would just sell it off as is without any sort of requirement on how it is being used given how important it is to the Canadian people. We have to start looking at spectrum from the same perspective, that this is an asset that will become an underpinning of the Canadian economy in a much more integrated way and ask whether there are ways we can use this to better incent competition and better incent that fast, reliable and affordable access in Canada.
I do not want to hear these prepared talking points that do one of two things, such as, the Liberals are going to reduce cellphone bills by 25%. How? How are they going to do that, just by asking nicely? The second thing I do not want to hear about is a digital charter that has no teeth and no plan to implement.
View Ali Ehsassi Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ali Ehsassi Profile
2020-02-06 18:43 [p.1070]
Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to the comments from the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill regarding the affordability of telecommunication services for Canadians. I want her to know that we obviously agree with her assessment that there is an emerging catalyst for inequality and that we take affordability and standing up for consumers very seriously. We very much look forward to collaborating with her.
I can also say that I am not going to be responding by simply bringing up the digital charter. It is fair to say that we have done many things over the course of the past four years, and I would be very happy to recite those.
Our government has taken significant actions with both the regulator and industry to improve affordability, competition and consumer interests in telecommunications. Progress has been made.
Through these efforts, we have seen several developments. First, we have seen the introduction of lower-cost, data-only wireless plans. Second, we have experienced the creation of a new, discounted prepaid brand by a national carrier. Third, we have also seen $10-per-month Internet services for eligible low-income families.
We have applied competitive measures in spectrum auctions to ensure that regional and smaller wireless carriers have access to the spectrum they need to deploy high-quality networks. With this spectrum, regional carriers have been able to upgrade their networks and offer their customers the latest technologies and smart phones.
This has created a more competitive telecommunications market with increased options for Canadians. Regional wireless carriers can now offer compelling plans for consumers, often at lower prices than national carriers. National carriers have felt the pressure of regional competition, responding with new promotions. These are steps in the right direction.
Consumer interests have also been strengthened. This includes changes to the wireless code of conduct, pursuant to which carriers are now required to unlock mobile devices free of charge, and all mobile devices must now be sold unlocked. This change reduces barriers to switching providers when consumers find a better deal.
Another change is the right for the account holder, the person actually paying the bill, to be notified of data overcharges and approve of them, instead of the user. Other steps resulted in the creation of an Internet code of conduct to provide Internet consumers with the same protection they have for wireless and TV services. This measure came into effect last week.
Finally, as a commitment to Canadians, we have been clear that we are going to work to reduce cellphone costs by 25%.
In sum, much has been accomplished to date, but much more remains to be done.
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, I do not think there is any Canadian who would say that there has been any material change to make their access more affordable and more reliable. I am flanked by colleagues right now who represent that swath of rural Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and this is something that is worth fighting for.
I want to put the government on notice that in this Parliament, this issue is going to be a big priority for our caucus on this side of the aisle. It is unfair, to both individual Canadians and to businesses, to not be addressing this issue as a pressing, urgent matter. The 25% is a talking point that has no plan behind it. That is not going to cut it.
What I would like the parliamentary secretary to do right now is make a commitment that perhaps by the end of this Parliament, all Canadians, including the farthest-to-reach Canadians, will have fast, affordable Internet access.
View Ali Ehsassi Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ali Ehsassi Profile
2020-02-06 18:48 [p.1071]
Madam Speaker, let me assure the hon. member that there is no need to put us on notice. We are very much focused on the issue that she is speaking to today.
I will reiterate that the government has acted to improve the affordability of wireless and Internet services for Canadians. Progress has been made, but there remains more to be done.
Because of the policy direction given in 2019, the CRTC must now take into consideration affordability, competition, consumer interests and innovation in all its decisions. This will apply to the current CRTC review of mobile wireless services, which is looking at competition in the retail market, the wholesale regulatory framework, as well as the future of mobile wireless services in Canada.
In short—
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Mr. Speaker, it is becoming more expensive for average Canadians to pay their bills. Costs are going up across the country, and in Alberta in particular, families are struggling. Car insurance rates have gotten more expensive, electricity bills are higher and just this week parents are learning that they will have to pay out of their own pockets for their kids to ride the school bus.
On top of all this, Canadians are still paying some of the highest fees for cellphones and Internet bills in the world because the government refuses to do what is right and put the needs of people ahead of the demands of the telecom industry.
No matter where people live in Canada, they should be able to stay connected without breaking the bank. Wishing, hoping and claiming that industries regulate themselves just will not work. Canadians need a price cap on their cellphone and Internet bills.
Results: 61 - 75 of 79 | Page: 5 of 6

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data