Bill C-59

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

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

Part 1 implements certain measures in respect of the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations by
(a) limiting the deductibility of net interest and financing expenses by certain corporations and trusts, consistent with certain Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Group of Twenty Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project recommendations;
(b) implementing hybrid mismatch rules consistent with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Group of Twenty Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project recommendations regarding cross-border tax avoidance structures that exploit differences in the income tax laws of two or more countries to produce “deduction/non-inclusion mismatches”;
(c) allowing expenditures incurred in the exploration and development of all lithium to qualify as Canadian exploration expenses and Canadian development expenses;
(d) ensuring that only genuine intergenerational business transfers are excluded from the anti-surplus stripping rule in section 84.1 of the Income Tax Act ;
(e) denying the dividend received deduction for dividends received by Canadian financial institutions on certain shares that are held as mark-to-market property;
(f) increasing the rate of the rural supplement for Climate Action Incentive payments (CAIP) from 10% to 20% for the 2023 and subsequent taxation years as well as referencing the 2016 census data for the purposes of the CAIP rural supplement eligibility for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years;
(g) providing a refundable investment tax credit to qualifying businesses for eligible carbon capture, utilization and storage equipment;
(h) providing a refundable investment tax credit to qualifying businesses for eligible clean technology equipment;
(i) introducing, under certain circumstances, labour requirements in relation to the new refundable investment tax credits for eligible carbon capture, utilization and storage equipment as well as eligible clean technology equipment;
(j) removing the requirement that credit unions derive no more than 10% of their revenue from sources other than certain specified sources;
(k) permitting a qualifying family member to acquire rights as successor of a holder of a Registered Disability Savings Plan following the death of that plan’s last remaining holder who was also a qualifying family member;
(l) implementing consequential changes of a technical nature to facilitate the operation of the existing rules for First Home Savings Accounts;
(m) introducing a tax of 2% on the net value of equity repurchases by certain Canadian corporations, trusts and partnerships whose equity is listed on a designated stock exchange;
(n) exempting certain fees from the refundable tax applicable to contributions under retirement compensation arrangements;
(o) introducing a technical amendment to the provision that authorizes the sharing of taxpayer information for the purposes of the Canadian Dental Care Plan;
(p) implementing a number of amendments to the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) as well as introducing a new penalty applicable to transactions subject to the GAAR and extending the normal reassessment period for the GAAR by three years in certain circumstances;
(q) facilitating the creation of employee ownership trusts;
(r) introducing specific anti-avoidance rules in relation to corporations referred to as substantive CCPCs; and
(s) extending the phase-out by three years, and expanding the eligible activities, in relation to the reduced tax rates for certain zero-emission technology manufacturers.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, 2001 .
Part 2 enacts the Digital Services Tax Act and its regulations. That Act provides for the implementation of an annual tax of 3% on certain types of digital services revenue earned by businesses that meet certain revenue thresholds. It sets out rules for the purposes of establishing liability for the tax and also sets out applicable reporting and filing requirements. To promote compliance with its provisions, that Act includes modern administration and enforcement provisions generally aligned with those found in other taxation statutes. Finally, this Part also makes related and consequential amendments to other texts to ensure proper implementation of the tax and cohesive and efficient administration by the Canada Revenue Agency.
Part 3 implements certain Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) measures by
(a) ensuring that an interest in a corporation that does not have its capital divided into shares is treated as a financial instrument for GST/HST purposes;
(b) ensuring that interest and dividend income from a closely related partnership is not included in the determination of whether a person is a de minimis financial institution for GST/HST purposes;
(c) ensuring that an election related to supplies made within a closely related group of persons that includes a financial institution may not be revoked on a retroactive basis without the permission of the Minister of National Revenue;
(d) making technical amendments to an election that allows electing members of a closely related group to treat certain supplies made between them as having been made for nil consideration;
(e) ensuring that certain supplies between the members of a closely related group are not inadvertently taxed under the imported taxable supply rules that apply to financial institutions;
(f) raising the income threshold for the requirement to file an information return by certain financial institutions;
(g) allowing up to seven years to assess the net tax adjustments owing by certain financial institutions in respect of the imported taxable supply rules;
(h) expanding the GST/HST exemption for services rendered to individuals by certain health care practitioners to include professional services rendered by psychotherapists and counselling therapists;
(i) providing relief in relation to the GST/HST treatment of payment card clearing services;
(j) allowing the joint venture election to be made in respect of the operation of a pipeline, rail terminal or truck terminal that is used for the transportation of oil, natural gas or related products;
(k) raising the input tax credit (ITC) documentation thresholds from $30 to $100 and from $150 to $500 and allowing billing agents to be treated as intermediaries for the purposes of the ITC information rules; and
(l) extending the 100% GST rebate in respect of new purpose-built rental housing to certain cooperative housing corporations.
It also implements an excise tax measure by creating a joint election mechanism to specify who is eligible to claim a rebate of excise tax for goods purchased by provinces for their own use.
Part 4 implements certain excise measures by
(a) allowing vaping product licensees to import packaged vaping products for stamping by the licensee and entry into the Canadian duty-paid market as of January 1, 2024;
(b) permitting all cannabis licensees to elect to remit excise duties on a quarterly rather than a monthly basis, starting from the quarter that began on April 1, 2023;
(c) amending the marking requirements for vaping products to ensure that the volume of the vaping substance is marked on the package;
(d) requiring that a person importing vaping products must be at least 18 years old; and
(e) introducing administrative penalties for certain infractions related to the vaping taxation framework.
Part 5 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Subdivision A of Division 1 of Part 5 amends Subdivision A of Division 16 of Part 6 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1 to clarify the scope of certain non-financial activities in which federal ‚financial institutions may engage and to remove certain discrepancies between the English and French versions of that Act.
Subdivision B of Division 1 of Part 5 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act , the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to, among other things, permit federal financial institutions governed by those Acts to hold certain meetings by virtual means without having to obtain a court order and to permit voting during those meetings by virtual means.
Division 2 of Part 5 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things, provide a leave of absence of three days in the event of a pregnancy loss and modify certain provisions related to bereavement leave.
Division 3 of Part 5 enacts the Canada Water Agency Act . That Act establishes the Canada Water Agency, whose role is to assist the Minister of the Environment in exercising or performing that Minister’s powers, duties and functions in relation to fresh water. The Division also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 4 of Part 5 amends the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the making of regulations respecting fees or charges to be paid by tobacco and vaping product manufacturers for the purpose of recovering the costs incurred by His Majesty in right of Canada in relation to the carrying out of the purpose of that Act;
(b) provide for related administration and enforcement measures; and
(c) require information relating to the fees or charges to be made available to the public.
Division 5 of Part 5 amends the Canadian Payments Act to, among other things, provide that additional persons are entitled to be members of the Canadian Payments Association and clarify the composition of that Association’s Stakeholder Advisory Council.
Division 6 of Part 5 amends the Competition Act to, among other things,
(a) modernize the merger review regime, including by modifying certain notification rules, clarifying that Act’s application to labour markets, allowing the Competition Tribunal to consider the effect of changes in market share and the likelihood of coordination between competitors following a merger, extending the limitation period for mergers that were not the subject of a notification to the Commissioner of Competition and placing a temporary restraint on the completion of certain mergers until the Tribunal has disposed of any application for an interim order;
(b) improve the effectiveness of the provisions that address anti-competitive conduct, including by allowing the Commissioner to review the effects of past agreements and arrangements, ensuring that an order related to a refusal to deal may address a refusal to supply a means of diagnosis or repair and ensuring that representations of a product’s benefits for protecting or restoring the environment must be supported by adequate and proper tests and that representations of a business or business activity for protecting or restoring the environment must be supported by adequate and proper substantiation;
(c) strengthen the enforcement framework, including by creating new remedial orders, such as administrative monetary penalties, with respect to those collaborations that harm competition, by creating a civilly enforceable procedure to address non-compliance with certain provisions of that Act and by broadening the classes of persons who may bring private cases before the Tribunal and providing for the availability of monetary payments as a remedy in those cases; and
(d) provide for new procedures, such as the certification of agreements or arrangements related to protecting the environment and a remedial process for reprisal actions.
The Division also amends the Competition Tribunal Act to prevent the Competition Tribunal from awarding costs against His Majesty in right of Canada, except in specified circumstances.
Finally, the Division makes a consequential amendment to one other Act.
Division 7 of Part 5 amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act to exclude from their application prescribed public post-secondary educational institutions.
Subdivision A of Division 8 of Part 5 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that, if a person or entity referred to in section 5 of that Act has reasonable grounds to suspect possible sanctions evasion, the relevant information is reported to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada;
(b) add reporting requirements for persons and entities providing certain services in respect of private automatic banking machines;
(c) require declarations respecting money laundering, the financing of terrorist activities and sanctions evasion to be made in relation to the importation and exportation of goods; and
(d) authorize the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada to disclose designated information to the Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, subject to certain conditions.
It also amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1 in relation to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and makes consequential amendments to other Acts and a regulation.
Subdivision B of Division 8 of Part 5 amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) in certain circumstances, provide that a court may infer the knowledge or belief or recklessness required in relation to the offence of laundering proceeds of crime and specify that it is not necessary for the prosecutor to prove that the accused knew, believed they knew or was reckless as to the specific nature of the designated offence;
(b) remove, in the context of the special warrants and restraint order in relation to proceeds of crime, the requirement for the Attorney General to give an undertaking, as well as permit a judge to attach conditions to a special warrant for search and seizure of property that is proceeds of crime; and
(c) modify certain provisions relating to the production order for financial data to include elements specific to accounts associated with digital assets.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Seized Property Management Act and the Forfeited Property Sharing Regulations .
Division 9 of Part 5 retroactively amends section 42 of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to specify the payments about which information must be published on a Government of Canada website, as well as the information that must be published.
Division 10 of Part 5 amends the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act to increase the number of directors in the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, as well as to provide for consultation with the portion of the National Joint Council of the Public Service of Canada that represents employees when certain candidates are included on the list for proposed appointment as directors.
Division 11 of Part 5 enacts the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Act , which establishes the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, confers on the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities various responsibilities relating to public infrastructure and confers on the Minister of Housing various responsibilities relating to housing and the reduction and prevention of homelessness. The Division also makes consequential amendments to other Acts and repeals the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund Act .
Division 12 of Part 5 amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things, create a benefit of 15 weeks for claimants who are carrying out responsibilities related to
(a) the placement with the claimant of one or more children for the purpose of adoption; or
(b) the arrival of one or more new-born children of the claimant into the claimant’s care, in the case where the person who will be giving or gave birth to the child or children is not, or is not intended to be, a parent of the child or children.
The Division also amends the Canada Labour Code to create a leave of absence of up to 16 weeks for an employee to carry out such responsibilities.

[Matthew Boswell, Commissioner of Competition, Competition Bureau Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.

My name is Matthew Boswell and I am the commissioner of competition. With me is my colleague Anthony Durocher, who is the deputy director of the competition promotion branch.

We are pleased to be here today to discuss Bill C‑352. As a result of several pieces of legislation, competition policy in Canada is undergoing a generational upgrade. We are grateful to the members of this committee and other people who have particularly stressed the need to strengthen competition in the Canadian economy.

As you undoubtedly know, most of the important points in Bill C‑352 have been incorporated into past and future legislation: Bills C‑19, C‑56and C‑59. Those amendments give effect to a large number of recommendations by the bureau and better harmonize our competition framework with the best international practices.

Just as competition in the marketplace forces firms to offer products and services that better meet consumer needs, competition in the marketplace for ideas leads to better public policies. In my view, the sponsors of Bill C-352 and other private members' bills introduced this session deserve credit for prompting substantial improvements to the Competition Act. These improvements include, among other things, a significant revamp of our abuse of dominance provisions, including stronger penalties, the addition of rebuttable structural presumptions in merger reviews and stronger remedies for anti-competitive mergers, the possibility for formal market studies to be initiated by the commissioner, and insulating the commissioner of competition from adverse cost awards at the Competition Tribunal.

By my count, there are only a few outstanding elements of Bill C-352 that have not been taken forward already in other legislation. In the grand scheme of competition law modernization that has taken place, the remaining issues are not of pressing concern, but certainly, some of them could further enhance the Competition Act. We would be happy to discuss those few elements.

There are also some aspects of the bill that would, in my view, represent a step backward, given prior reforms, such as the reintroduction of a cap on cartel fines. We would be happy, of course, to discuss those as well.

During our time today, or perhaps in a future appearance before this committee, it might also be productive to discuss what I often refer to as the elephant in the room in Canada. That is regulatory barriers to competition in this country.

The Competition Act is a foundational tool to protect and promote greater competition in Canada, but it is not the only tool. To build on the incredible progress made in modernizing the Competition Act, all of us in the public sector, at all levels of government, need to examine what more can be done to address the regulations and policies that hold back competition in Canada, often unintentionally. We know that Canada’s competitive intensity has decreased over the last two decades. It will take a whole-of-government approach to turn the tide, with the federal government working alongside municipal, provincial and territorial governments.

Increased competitiveness is key to tackling affordability challenges, improving consumer choice and fostering stronger, more inclusive growth over the long term and, importantly, addressing Canada’s pressing need for more productivity.

Competition policy in Canada is clearly having a moment. We need to seize that moment. There has never been a stronger consensus that Canada needs more competition. Now is the time for governments across Canada to work together to make competition a national economic priority.

In conclusion, the competition bureau is determined to apply the law in a transparent and evidence-based way. We have been unwavering in our efforts to implement the new and improved tools that Parliament has given us, and we will stay on this course.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to appear before you today.

It will be our pleasure to answer your questions.

Thank you. We look forward to your questions.

[Dr. Pierre Larouche, Professor, Law and Innovation, Faculty of Law, Université de Montréal, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for this invitation to appear before your committee.

Allow me to introduce myself briefly. I am a full professor of law and innovation in the law faculty at the Université de Montréal. I have 30 years' experience in competition law and economic governance, partly in private practice, but mainly as a professor of competition law in Europe. I taught in Europe for 15 years. At the College of Europe, I taught a number of European Commission officials who work on major competition cases. I taught American competition law during a sabbatical year at Northwestern University. For the last seven years I have been at the Université de Montréal, where I continue to work in this field. I am back in touch with Canadian law.

It is a pleasure to speak to you this morning. I would like to start with a slightly theoretical comment on all of this. There are a lot of good intentions behind the proposed amendments to the Competition Act, such as Bill C‑56, which has been passed, and Bill C‑59, which is under consideration. However, if we compare Canadian law to the law of other member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD, it stands out in two regards: first, the act is very long and very complex; second, the institutional framework is deficient. As a result, Canadian competition law is weak and difficult to enforce. The defendants, the corporations, will be easily able to defend themselves, and they will generally succeed in avoiding enforcement.

Since the act is long and complex, it is my opinion that we have to stop adding details to it. Instead, we need to go back to broad principles, take clear broad policy positions, and give the commissioner and the competition bureau more room to do their work.

Regarding the institutional framework in Canada, the bureau should have decision-making powers the way it is done everywhere in Europe, even in the United Kingdom, and, in part, for the powers of the American authorities. I think that if we look at what has happened recently in Canadian law, especially with the merger between Rogers and Shaw, the tribunal was the main problem. It should have acted only as an appeal body or, even better, should do judicial review on the basis of a decision of the bureau.

I am now going to talk about the two more specific questions that concern you today regarding Bill C‑352, which Mr. Singh referred to earlier. Increasing penalties under section 45 is a good idea in itself, but again, this shows how complex the Canadian law is, forcing a choice between sections 45 and 90. Obviously, the penalties need to be high under section 45, but that is criminal law and it is not as easy. An appropriate penalty, as mentioned here, would be 10% of worldwide revenues. Ideally, if we look at the practice of the European Commission and the American authorities, the level of the penalty should be about the same as the level of the corporation's profit for it to really hurt; it is generally about 5% to 6% of revenues. By adopting a maximum penalty of 10%, Canada is in the right league, and that means that the penalties should easily amount to hundreds of millions of dollars.

However, regarding the second proposal, the market share thresholds for controlling concentrations, I think that is a reference point that is a bit outdated. It is preferable to have a good general test and let the bureau do its work. Market shares may cause errors in both directions. First, there may be the exceptional case of a merger with high market shares where it would still be possible to prove that it is good for consumers. Second, and most importantly, there are also mergers with lower market shares that may be harmful to consumers, for example where the two merging parties are close competitors in the market.

These are factors that are definitely part of the contemporary analysis of competition law and that cannot be addressed in terms of market share thresholds, which obviously create the illusion that the only problem arises out of horizontal mergers, when vertical mergers, or conglomerate mergers, can be just as problematic.

Those are my introductory comments.

Thank you again for hearing me today.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

I would first point out that the changes in both Bill C-56 and Bill C-59 were amendments specifically brought in by the NDP to address higher penalties and anti-competitive behaviour. Those amendments were successful, and we're happy that we were able to push for those things.

The same approach to anti-competitive behaviour is not being mirrored by the approach to price-fixing. It is not the same approach. Even when you cited Bill C-19, it doesn't have the same rigour when approaching anti-competitive behaviour as when approaching price-fixing.

Specifically, when I talk about price-fixing, we're talking about the situation when corporations collude, work together or have a conspiracy to set prices higher together. Specifically what I'm referring to is the bread price-fixing. That matter, the bread price-fixing, has not been addressed. It is one of the most egregious recent examples of large corporations ripping off Canadians. That specific matter has yet to be addressed. What I'm calling for are clear penalties that address that matter. That is the area where we suggested amendments that the Liberals turned down.

The Liberals have not shown a willingness to go after what has been the most egregious recent example of corporations working together to rip off Canadians, which is when they colluded to rip off Canadians with the price of bread. That's what I'm going after, and that has not specifically been addressed.

We are setting a guideline for penalties to address the matter. The $50 million fine, which was the highest fine on one of the most egregious cases, was far too low. It was barely a slap on the wrist. The guidelines that we're providing would give judges serious remedies to put in place a penalty as severe as 10% of the revenue of the corporation, which, in the case of a company like Loblaws, would be $6 billion. That's what I'm talking about when I talk about remedies.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Great. Thank you, Chair, and thank you to Mr. Singh for appearing before the committee.

I want to cover the overlap between what the government has presented and this bill. Obviously, we passed major competition reforms with Bill C-56. It empowers regulators to hold the companies accountable, and it does stand up for Canadians. We gave more power to the Competition Bureau to conduct more effective investigations. We made it easier to block mergers that are not in the best interest of Canadians and took action against collaborators that stifle competition and reduce consumer choice.

If there were something lacking in Bill C-56, I think that was largely covered by Bill C-59, whose amendments have resulted in a more modern and effective competition law. Among other things, they help prevent harmful mergers and anti-competitive collaborations, and they hold the large firms accountable.

I want to talk about your testimony in response to Mr. Badawey's questioning. You talked about how, perhaps, what your bill brings is more of a focus on price-fixing and on penalties, but then I look at Bill C-19, which is from 2022 and says:

Division 15 of Part 5 amends the Competition Act to enhance the Commissioner of Competition's investigative powers, criminalize wage fixing and related agreements, increase maximum fines and administrative monetary penalties, clarify that incomplete price disclosure is a false or misleading representation, expand the definition of anti-competitive conduct, allow private access to the Competition Tribunal to remedy an abuse of dominance and improve the effectiveness of the merger notification requirements and other provisions.

When I look at all these bills in combination, it largely seems that what Bill C-352 is proposing is already covered.

What are your comments on that?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I understand the need to reduce the threshold to 30% from 35% and do a study. On the 60% threshold, I think this is an aspect of the legislation that will probably never have any teeth.

I have one last question for you, Mr. Singh. My time is running out—you know what it is like not to be part of the official opposition.

I would like to talk about Glentel. As you know, Bell and Rogers have formed a joint venture, and it is soon going to have a monopoly on the sale of cellphone plans in Loblaws grocery stores. Your bill tackles market structure, but it seems to me that even after Bills C‑56 and C‑59, there are still behaviours that seem anti-competitive but are still allowed.

What is your opinion about this business model? What do you think about the idea of two competitors forming a joint venture and holding the monopoly in a big grocery chain?

Do you think these are anti-competitive practices? Do you think we should go even further than what Bills C-56 and C-59 have already done?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Singh.

Again, I mentioned what Bill C-56 and Bill C-59 contained. You mentioned those two points. Are there any other missing elements in those two bills?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Singh, for being here today.

I'm not going to attempt to put the focus on the politics of the life that we live here in Ottawa, nor the parties that we represent. I want to put the focus on people and fairness.

When the government introduced Bill C-56 and Bill C-59, that's in fact what we did: We put the emphasis on people and on fairness with respect to competition reform. To some extent I think that's what you're trying to do here, too, and I appreciate that.

With that said, through those bills we have established strengthened market studies and the power to compel. We've clamped down on anti-competitive behaviour and cross-industry collaboration. We've removed the efficiencies defence, strengthened the right to repair, strengthened anti-greenwashing provisions, strengthened merger review and cracked down on unfair pricing practices—including drip pricing—as well as strengthening monetary penalties.

I've read your PMB, and I appreciate the intent, but also appreciate what we've accomplished through Bill C-56 and Bill C-59.

What I really want to do is get a bit more granular, Mr. Singh, and drill down on the business part of it, not the politics of it.

You mentioned some of the missing elements of those bills. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you said they were missing strengthened penalties. Therefore, my first question is: What more strengthened penalties do you want to have, over and above what are identified in both of those bills? My second question is whether certain mergers should be banned if they reach a certain level.

Can we get a bit more granular on that? Quite frankly, my intent is to take something away from this discussion and accomplish what you, we, the committee—I would only assume all of us—want to accomplish with respect to being fair, and again, attaching it to the people whom we represent.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

We will await your thoughts on that. Thank you.

Many of the provisions of your bill have already been applied, since they are part of bills that were passed earlier, such as Bills C‑56 and C‑59. However, part of it would still add a lot of constraints on competition authorities.

Essentially, with the legislative changes that have been made so far, not only must the competition bureau look for efficiency gains before authorizing a transaction, but it must now also be possible to prove that consumers have benefitted from the efficiency gains. Your bill then adds a constraint associated with market structure, not the consequence of a merger. If the combined market share resulting from a merger exceeds 60%, it will be prohibited, and if it is between 30% and 60%, there will be an investigation, if I understand correctly.

What would happen, for example, in cases where there is what is called a natural monopoly, in remote regions? There are grocery chains in very remote regions that have trouble staying open, and if they do not merge in order to take over the market, they will go bankrupt and people will no longer have food.

Do you know that the inflexibility of your bill would prevent people from eating, in some regions? Have you thought about that?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Chair, and thanks to Mr. Singh for being here today.

It's kind of ironic hearing the Conservatives talk about saving $400 per year when they won't support saving families money on child care, dental care, pharmacare or feeding hungry kids, or a Canada disability benefit, or, or, or. The list goes on, including the Canada child benefit, and many more.

Mr. Singh, I know you are saying that you forced us to do certain things. Obviously I will have to disagree on that, because the Government of Canada has put forward multiple rounds of revisions to the Competition Act—BillC-19, Bill C-56, and Bill C-59—and I think the collaborative efforts of working together with the NDP on some of those changes have been very productive. I think we should all take that approach when doing our parliamentary work, because what we're really here for is to serve Canadians.

We know competition in the market. More competition means more options and better prices. We've been saying that since day one. I think we may beg to differ on some aspects, but that's the government's standpoint.

Mr. Singh, I want to take a step back. I'm interested in your approach to competition reform—and here I know you're a former defence attorney and a defender of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Would you say that you appreciate the principles of natural justice that are protected under the charter?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am extremely happy to be here. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present my thoughts on my bill.

I know competition is not a topic that a lot of Canadians think is relevant in their lives, but I believe this is fundamentally important for Canadians. I think of two examples for why this is such an important bill: food, and cellphone and Internet fees.

When we talk about food in our country right now, we're up against a really serious situation, as you know, Mr. Chair. Canadians are faced with record food bank usage. One out of four Canadians are skipping meals because the cost of food is so expensive. Canadians know that when they go into a grocery store and they're paying the highest fees ever for their groceries, on the other end of that, they have corporate CEOs who are making record profits for their corporations. They're being gouged and ripped off. That has to stop.

We know this is not something that Canadians are unfamiliar with. Back in 2018, the large corporate grocery stores and bread producers worked together to rip off Canadians with the bread price-fixing scheme. We know the cost of that was significant. Canadians were ripped off to the tune of $5 billion, but the biggest fine that was levied for one of the major players of this bread price-fixing scheme, Canada Bread Company, got a fine of $50 million.

In the scheme of things, when the collective benefit they accrued was $5 billion that they ripped off Canadians, a $50 million fine is a slap on the wrist. That has to stop.

We know that protecting consumers and fighting back against corporate greed will lower the cost of food and the cost of living for Canadians.

The other area where we know this is significant is when it comes to cellphone and Internet fees. We pay amongst the highest cellphone and Internet fees in the world. It's no surprise that as a result of merger after merger, there is a massive concentration. Just three cellphone and Internet providers make up the majority of cellphone and Internet services in our country. They are Rogers, Bell and Telus.

We recently saw a merger, which only makes things worse. The merger between Rogers and Shaw is only going to mean higher costs for consumers and fewer options. Again, this is going to make life more unaffordable. It's another example of corporate greed.

That merger should have never happened. My bill would allow for measures to ensure that doesn't happen in the future or it makes it a lot more difficult.

We know the cost of living is up and we know that corporate greed is driving it up. My bill hopes to prevent that from continuing. Stopping large corporations from ripping off consumers will lower prices for Canadians.

I believe the role of government is to strengthen and protect consumer's rights and protect consumers against exploitation. That's what I hope to do with my bill.

I want to break down some specifics to hopefully lay the foundation for your questions.

Since the introduction of my bill, we have been able to force the government to make significant changes to their existing bills to protect consumers. I want to go over those changes that have been made. These are changes to Bill C-56 and Bill C-59.

New Democrats put forward amendments to specifically increase penalties for anti-competitive behaviour and to make it easier for the Competition Bureau to go after these large corporations when they rip off Canadians.

We also specifically changed definitions to include price gouging as an offence.

We also ensured that the Competition Bureau is able to initiate investigations so it can actually identify when problems are happening, compel documents and go after corporate greed.

There have been changes now, because of what we forced the government to do, that would make it harder for mergers such as the Rogers-Shaw merger.

There are three things that are outstanding—or fundamentally two main areas.

One is the bread price-fixing that I spoke about. That remains something that is not covered in the way that it should be by the Liberal government. They've refused to put in place strengthened penalties.

If corporations are doing the crime, then they have to pay the fine. What we want to see happen is that, in the cases of large corporations working together to rip off Canadians, there should be severe and significant fines. That's something that's missing in this bill.

We think there should be certain mergers that, if they hurt Canadians, should be banned outright. Not an assessment of whether this will hurt or not hurt, or whether they should go ahead or not. If they reach a certain level, they should be banned outright. That's a change this government was unwilling to do.

I would point out that I believe the government can be a force for good for Canadians. It can fight corporate greed and make life affordable.

For decades, the Liberals and Conservatives have ignored corporate greed. They have purposely ignored strengthening the rights of consumers and ignored the tools that the Competition Bureau needs to take on corporate greed. I hope to change that with this bill. We have done some significant changes with amendments and this will finish the job.

Opposition Motion—Summer Tax Break

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, it will be my absolute pleasure to be sharing my time with the member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne.

As always, it is a pleasure for me to speak on behalf of residents of my riding of Davenport to today's opposition motion by the Conservatives. I am going to read the motion, just because, in my own imagination, I always think that of course there are people who might want to look at this at a future date and they are going to want to know what the opposition motion is about. The motion states:

That, in order to help Canadians afford a simple summer vacation and save typical Canadian families $670 this summer, the House call on the NDP-Liberal government to immediately axe the carbon tax, the federal fuel tax, and the GST on gasoline and diesel until Labour Day.

First of all, there is no NDP-Liberal government, so we should probably just state that up front. There is a supply and confidence agreement between the Liberal government and the NDP.

I would also say that I do not agree with the premise of this motion. It is not the carbon pricing that is stopping Canadians from affording a summer vacation. The only provinces that are actually subject to carbon pricing are those provinces that do not have a current plan in place to reduce their carbon emissions. For example, my home province of Ontario, and it was just mentioned by one of my NDP colleagues here, did have a carbon-pricing mechanism before the current provincial government was elected in 2016. It was a cap-and-trade system with Quebec and California. When the provincial Conservative government in Ontario got into office, it cancelled that system and, unfortunately, not only was there a cost to cancelling it, but the province actually lost, and I remember this very clearly, $3 billion in annual revenue. On top of that, the government did not replace it with another system to reduce carbon emissions.

It is known that climate change is happening. Every country in the world needs to do its part to reduce emissions, to meet its Paris Agreement targets and to move to a low-carbon future.

The Conservatives like to make bold and, sadly, unfounded assertions that carbon pricing is worsening food-security challenges in this country, but there is no evidence that this is happening. In fact, time and again, the data suggest that the impact of carbon pricing on inflation is the equivalent of a rounding error. We hear that time and time again in the finance committee. This fact is also supported by the Bank of Canada and many others. Carbon pricing has no real, discernible impact on any increases of food costs in this country. We have seen experts appear at the agriculture committee suggesting the same, saying that they can find no straight line between carbon pricing and food costs.

Therefore, what do we know? During a high inflationary period worldwide, compared to G7 countries, many that do not have carbon pricing, Canada has the second-lowest food inflation rate.

What else is the data telling us? It is telling us about the impacts of climate change on food costs. Let us take, for example, the impact on grapes or cherries, like those in Okanagan Valley, British Columbia. Increased forest fires taint the crops, rendering the products of those farmers unsellable. Blueberry farms in Nova Scotia, like the one in the riding of the member for Cumberland—Colchester, who unfortunately spoke against carbon pricing yesterday, are losing large amounts of crops to huge fluctuations in precipitation that lead to either drought conditions or extreme wet weather. Let us also talk about the impacts of flooding on animal agriculture, like what we saw during the atmospheric river flooding in the Lower Mainland of B.C. We saw cows up to their udders in flood water; we saw many barns destroyed; and, unfortunately and very sadly, we saw many animals perish.

We also have seen the climate impacts on invasive species on our crops. We have seen that climate change helps the spread of new pests that threaten both crops and animals. We are also seeing the climate change impacts on the warming of the oceans, and that this warming poses a serious threat to the billion-dollar east coast lobster fishery.

I could go on and on with a lot of examples, but these are the costs that we have to be very focused on. These are the real costs of climate change, and they are happening in real time, year after year.

Where is the leader of the party opposite to be found in actually addressing these issues with real solutions? He is nowhere. We all remember last year when, being the leader of the party opposite, he had to cancel the axe the tax rallies in Yukon and Okanagan Valley because of wildfires. Yet, he has absolutely nothing to say about climate change, nothing to say to farmers and the next generation of farmers about how the Canadian government will take their concerns seriously and support them to be more resilient in the face of a changing climate.

Actually, there is something else that members opposite are not being honest about. Taking away the price on pollution would also remove the Canada carbon rebate and hurt people with that key income support, which is helping them to put food on the table. The Canada carbon rebate benefits lower-income Canadians the most. These are Canadians who tend to suffer most from food insecurity.

Germaine Romberg in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan is on a fixed income and depends on the Canada carbon rebate payments to make ends meet to pay for rent and for other necessities. The $300 she got every four months last year on top of her disability payments made a world of difference for her monthly bills. She is not alone; this story has played out with Canadians across the country.

A study published late last year in the Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, called “Canadian food inflation: International dynamics and local agency”, looked at the difference between the amount Canadians pay and the amount they get back in the Canada carbon rebate. The author concluded that:

Removing the tax may actually make some Canadians, particularly lower-income and rural Canadians, worse off than they are under the carbon tax...The impacts of the carbon tax on food prices are suggested to be small. If they are smaller than the difference between CAI payments and carbon tax paid, many Canadian households will suffer a net loss due to the repeal of the tax.

This is the same thing that the Government of Canada has been saying all along: Eight out of 10 Canadians get more back than they pay.

There are tens of thousands of Canadians out there like Germaine in Saskatoon, who, if they lost their rebate payments, would have their ability to purchase food severely diminished. We know that Conservatives, sadly, would deprive people of these rebate payments if they ever got into power.

I am going to repeat something that one of my colleagues said this morning, because I really believe it is important to be repeated. It reads:

Carbon pricing continues to be the most efficient, simple and cost-effective way to meet our targets. It is a measure that encourages the whole population, every household and every business, to find ways to cut pollution, whether and however they would like. It sends a powerful message forward of confidence to businesses to invest in cleaner technologies to be more energy efficient in the future.

Carbon pricing does not raise the cost of living. In provinces where the federal fuel charge applies, as I mentioned earlier, it represents only a tiny fraction of inflation and increase in the price of groceries, which is less than half a percent. However, there is a 10% supplement for people living in rural and remote communities. We proposed increasing it to 20%, but the Conservatives, sadly, have been delaying Bill C-59 for months now. I am hoping that they will stop delaying this, but for provinces under the federal pricing system with a Canada carbon rebate, 80% of Canadian households receive a refund greater than what they pay. In fact, if carbon pricing were abolished today, not only would clean energy investment and job creation grind to a halt, but our low- and middle-income families would have less money in their pockets.

I am urging all members of this House to vote “no” to the opposition day motion, because, unfortunately, the Conservative opposition party has no plan to address climate change, and no plan to actually help Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the opposition for putting forth another opposition day on one of Canada's most successful tools to reduce our carbon pollution. Carbon pricing works, and that has never been clearer.

Before I go on, I would like to say I fully support the Speaker's idea to have the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands take the first question so we can talk about how we fight climate change, not whether we fight climate change. The Conservatives seem hell-bent on letting our planet burn.

Carbon pricing works at the business level, and carbon pricing works at the personal household level as well. In fact, it increases the success of all other emissions reductions policies because it builds in a powerful incentive for energy efficiency right across the Canadian economy. We might call carbon pricing the sixth player on the ice in Canada's emissions reductions plan. ECCC's modelling shows that carbon pricing alone accounts for around one-third of the emissions reductions expected in Canada between 2005 and 2030. Other independent experts have calculated it to be even more effective in cutting Canada's carbon pollution.

The Conservatives do not need to listen to experts, whom they have said are so-called experts, but they should heed the advice of William Nordhaus, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, who just recently said that Canada is getting it right on carbon pricing, that we are getting it right on carbon reductions, that our pollution is going down as a result and that our economy continues to be very strong. Let me summarize quickly how our department calculates emissions reductions.

We use a program called EC-PRO. It is a computable general equilibrium model that allows us to perform complex statistical calculations. We begin by preparing a reference scenario that includes all current federal, provincial and territorial emissions reductions policies and calculates the total emissions expected by 2030. Then we prepare a second hypothetical scenario that excludes carbon pricing altogether. We also exclude all provincial carbon pricing policies, including those from Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec, which are not covered by the federal system. Finally, the difference is used to estimate the effect of carbon pricing on emissions. This results in a difference of 78 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent, which represents about a third of the total reductions that Canada plans to make between 2005 and 2030. This is according to our commitments under the Paris Agreement, which we reaffirmed when we formed government in 2015.

Our modelling also shows that the effect of carbon pricing is very rapid. It is one of the least expensive, least intrusive and quickest ways to reduce carbon emissions. By 2023, just the fourth year of this plan, our emissions would have been around 24 million tonnes higher without Canada's national minimum carbon price. It has the same effect as taking more than seven million internal combustion passenger cars off the road.

I will remind my colleague from the Conservative Party, who earlier asked a member about the calculations he used for the $670 savings the Conservative Party is boasting about and asked if he was going to drive his electric car, that electric cars do not require fuel. It seems to be lost on the Conservatives that they are an innovation that do not require the input of fossil fuels.

In short, putting a price on pollution works, and our data proves it. It is not just our data. It is also the data of 300 independent economists from across this country, renowned people who work at universities and whom the Conservatives continue to call so-called experts. If they have any experts, Conservative experts, who would like to come forward with some data, economic analysis or anything that indicates carbon pricing is having a negative impact on the real affordability challenges that Canadians are experiencing, I am here for it. I asked them for it back in December and have not seen anything since.

Carbon pricing continues to be the most efficient, simple and cost-effective way to meet our targets. It is a measure that encourages the whole population, every household and every business, to find ways to cut pollution, whether and however they would like to. It sends a powerful message forward of confidence to businesses to invest in cleaner technologies and be more energy efficient in the future.

It is truly mind-boggling to see all of the misinformation out there being spread especially by the Conservative Party of Canada. Carbon pricing does not raise the cost of living. Economists from across this country, people who are experts on these types of analyses, indicate that, yet the Conservative Party chooses to continue to toe that line, which is based on absolutely no factual data.

In provinces where the federal fuel charge applies, it represents a tiny fraction of inflation and of the increase in the price of groceries. As my colleague from the NDP pointed out, Trevor Tombe, from the University of Calgary in Alberta, said that it adds to the price of groceries a very negligible amount. We are talking about pennies on a full cart of groceries.

I would also just point out that there is a 10% supplement for people living in rural and remote areas, who do not have access to things like active transportation or public transportation. They might be more reliant on propane or natural gas, as other forms of heating are less available in rural Canada. We proposed increasing it by 20%, but the Conservatives have been delaying Bill C-59 for months now, withholding that money from Canadians.

For provinces under the federal pricing system, with the Canada carbon rebate, 80% of Canadian households receive a refund that is greater than what they pay. In fact, if carbon pricing were abolished, not only would clean energy investment, innovation and job creation all grind to a halt, but our low- and middle-income families would have less money in their pockets.

I would like to expand on another piece of false information that is being driven by the Conservative Party of Canada, with respect to how carbon pricing has an impact on our economy: No, carbon pricing does not hurt businesses, and it does not hurt the economy.

In other countries similar to Canada, cold ones that also get warm in the summer, we see that pricing systems like ours offer the stability to build more prosperous economies. Sweden, which put a price on carbon over 30 years ago, has managed to cut its emissions by a third and double its economy.

The same is true for us, such as in British Columbia, which has had its own system for more than a decade. Many members of the Conservative Party of Canada served in the B.C. legislature under the Liberal Party when it was instituted. They seem to have forgotten that it has been lowering their per capita emissions and per GDP emissions in the great province of British Columbia for decades now. They have also seen, over the exact same time, rapid economic growth and innovation. Congratulations to British Columbia. On that piece of policy, the federal government is proud to follow in its footsteps.

We also must consider the demand for clean innovation, which is growing worldwide. We have seen investments in Canada. In fact, foreign direct investment in Canada is at an all-time high, and that is because people want to invest here. It is a great time to invest in Canada. We have the green energy and the great ideas that the world really depends on when it comes to innovation and a green revolution. That is why they are coming here to do business.

Because carbon pricing attracts investment in clean energy technologies and low-carbon industry here in Canada, it allows Canadian companies to take the lead. If we abolished it, we would lose our position in the global race toward carbon neutrality and we would sacrifice all of the jobs that come with it. It would do serious harm to Canadian companies that are exporting to other countries with carbon markets that will impose carbon adjustment mechanisms at their border. That includes the entire European Union, for example. It also includes the U.K., and other countries plan to do so soon.

Canada has already made so much progress. As a result of the suite of climate change-fighting, emissions-reducing policies implemented since 2015, Canada is set to exceed our 2026 interim climate objective of a 20% reduction in emissions from 2005 levels. There goes another Conservative talking point up in smoke.

It is amusing when opposition members accuse us of missing climate targets, when they do everything in their power to kneecap the policies that are, in fact, getting us to achieving our targets. The most recent projections, published last December, suggest that Canada should achieve a 36% reduction by 2030. We are getting there. The latest national inventory report confirmed that emissions are consistent with our forecast and remain below prepandemic levels.

Canada's emissions, with the exception of the pandemic, have never been so low in 25 years. This is a great achievement, something that the entire House of Commons ought to be proud of and ought to be looking for ways to make even better. Electricity and heat production in the public sector has become less polluting due, in part, to further reductions in the use of coal and coke in those applications. Fugitive emissions from oil and gas extraction have also decreased.

The numbers are very clear. Carbon pricing works, and it will make it possible to achieve one-third of Canada's emissions reduction targets by 2030. It also helps ease the cost of living for families that need it the most. It is good for business and it is good for the economy. The revenue-neutral nature of our carbon pricing system is less costly than offering subsidies or adopting regulatory measures.

With respect to the Conservative motion today suggesting that we drop all levies and tax on fuel over the course of the summer, the suggestion that it would save a family $670 is obviously false. They would have to drive over 25,000 kilometres in those few months. It also really ignores the fact that Canadians who really need it receive an HST refund four times a year. They receive a rebate.

I remember, when I was growing up, that my mom really looked forward to that. There was usually a trip to Swiss Chalet when my mom received the HST rebate. It was really, really helpful for our family. At that time, I think it was about $90 four times a year, and it is more now.

However, more than that, the Canada carbon rebate is really supporting families, particularly those on the lower and modest income scale, not because they receive a bit more, as with the HST refund, but because everybody receives that incentive. Everybody receives the same amount. A family of four in Alberta receives the same as another family of four. The Conservatives have shamelessly called this some kind of a trick. It is not a trick; it is a rebate, a refund. The Canada carbon rebate is just like the Canada child benefit and just like all of the services and the programs we have implemented to lower poverty in the last eight years. The Canada carbon rebate really works and, like I said, it is less costly and less intrusive than offering subsidies or adopting strict regulatory measures. We absolutely must maintain it.

I do not need to remind members of the urgent need for action. It is, unfortunately, wildfire season once again. Our country is very vulnerable to climate change. I read this statistic just recently, and it is absolutely alarming. Canada is 0.5% of the global population, about 41 million people on a planet of more than eight billion people. However, over 40%, I think it was 45%, of families displaced from their homes as a result of wildfires in 2023 were Canadian. Canada is extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. We warm faster and we dry faster. When it is dry, as is forecasted for this summer, we get more wildfires, and more intense wildfires, and that means more Canadians will be driven from their homes.

Every day, Canadians see the costly impacts of climate change, from droughts to wildfires and floods. Climate change costs average Canadian households about $720 a year. The costs of climate change are not spoken about enough in this House of Commons. Climate change is one of the leading causes of grocery inflation. People go to the grocery store and say, “Hey, why is lettuce $3.50? Why are tomatoes all of a sudden $1.99 or $2.99?” It is because of climate change. It is because those crops are grown in places that are vulnerable to climate change and the extreme weather that has an impact on drought and on all sorts of important measures. It really speaks to the need for a more fulsome food strategy in Canada, and I support that as well.

For families that are having a difficult time paying for groceries, the Canada carbon rebate really supports them, and it is important to note that it supports lower- and modest-income families even more. The next rebate is coming on July 15 and, for many families, it will be more than the average because if they did not submit their taxes by April 15, that rebate will be quite a lot higher than it was going to be alternatively. July 15 is the next installment for the Canada carbon rebate. Whether families live in Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, as your family does, Mr. Speaker, P.E.I., Newfoundland, New Brunswick or Ontario, they all will receive the Canada carbon rebate on July 15.

Over the same period of time that we have seen all of these changes, household revenues could decrease by as much as $1,900 just because of climate change. Climate change is having a really negative impact. There was actually an op-ed in the National Post by a former Conservative MP talking about how climate change might actually be good for Canada. What a cynical, pessimistic, horribly misguided viewpoint that would be. Climate change is costly, and Canadians are more vulnerable than average citizens around the world.

That is not to mention the physical and mental health problems it causes. Not that long ago, only about a year ago, the skies in Ottawa were completely turned orange from wildfire smoke, and members in this House had a difficult time breathing. How quickly those Conservatives forget.

The recently announced 2024 federal budget was named “Fairness for Every Generation”. Generational fairness means that we cannot saddle our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren with cleaning up our climate mess. Indeed, it is our obligation to make changes to our emissions behaviour so that we leave the planet better than we found it, like a good campsite. We are currently in the century of climate impact, and we cannot kick this can down the road: never again. Previous generations have been talking about climate change, global warming and other impacts on our natural environment, on our country and on our economy. I will not be one of those who ignore it in favour of other priorities, like higher oil and gas profits, as the Conservatives seem so committed to do.

Carbon pricing gives us a much better chance of success than virtually any other policy. It is also important to recognize that our carbon-pricing protocol is just one measure in a suite of protocols.

As I said, Canadians are on the front lines of the climate crisis. Climate change manifests itself in our lives on a daily basis, whether it is with respect to air quality or, in the unfortunate scenario that many Canadians have experienced in the last year, an evacuation order. It has already forced us, and will continue to force us, to adapt and change the way we manage our businesses, organize our lives and interact with nature.

Warmer temperatures come with more intense and frequent weather events everywhere on earth, but especially here at home. On a global level, it has been estimated that between 2000 and 2019, extreme weather events have caused damages averaging around $143 billion. That is $16 million per hour throughout the entire year for the last 20 years. Climate change is a real threat to our economy, to our livelihoods and to our very lives.

Here at home, Canadians have experienced first-hand the severe weather events, such as hurricanes, storms, flooding, extreme heat and wildfires, which are now common, severe and more disastrous than ever. That is why I was actually very disappointed to hear the previous speaker on this from Nova Scotia talking as if climate change and extreme weather were not connected. They indeed are. We need not look any further than to some of our great Canadian paleoclimatologists and amazing economists. People research this, and members of this House ought to lean in on some of that economic and paleoclimatic data for insight.

These kinds of weather events have had major impacts on property and infrastructure. They cause environmental damage. They threaten our very lives, and our food and water security. The impact of extreme weather events on Canadian communities is not limited to one given place. We see those changes across our country and severe weather from coast to coast to coast.

When we are looking at the financial impacts of extreme weather, six out of 10 of the costliest years on record in Canada were in the last decade. Indeed, 2023 was the hottest year on record, and 2024 is slated to be even hotter. January of this year had the highest temperature ever recorded in a January on record. February was the hottest February ever on record. March was the hottest March ever on record. It is staring us right in the face. The climate crisis is not an optional thing that we must act on; it is 100% mandatory. Future generations are depending on us.

If the Conservatives want to continue to use their slogans and their misguided approach with absolutely no data, to further inflame the conversation around the affordability crisis without offering any solutions, I would just ask that over the course of the summer they travel to a university or ask a climate scientist for a little bit of insight so they can come back to this House in September with some data to back up their claims on either one of these two things: They are suggesting that carbon pricing is ineffective in reducing our emissions, or they are suggesting that the Canada carbon rebate is not supporting affordability right across this country.

Both are true. They are facts. It is hard to argue with facts when economists point to them and say, “Hey, what you just said is actually not controversial; the math works out. We did the math, and we agree. That is actually supporting Canadians.”

Speaking of poverty reduction, I came to this House because I was concerned that poverty in Canada was legislated. I am a strong believer that we can just decide as a country to implement some policies to reduce poverty. I also know that poverty and climate change are linked. Climate change actually impacts poorer, more modest-income Canadians more significantly. When we have a heat wave in this country, seniors without air conditioning suffer more than wealthy people with a swimming pool in their backyard, who can take a dip and cool down.

Communities that are mostly paved, without a lot of canopy, are a lot hotter than communities with a nice canopy and lots of trees. Having grown up in a co-op with lots of nice trees, a co-op that had the forethought 40 years ago to plant a bunch, I knew that. We could hang out in the park in our little co-op and play softball. When it got hot, we could hang out underneath a tree. That is not the same in every community. A lot of those lower-income apartment buildings have a lot of concrete and not a lot of trees. Climate change impacts more modest-income Canadians worse.

Just to close up, the motion in question here is to reduce gas prices over the course of this summer so that Canadians could save money, according to the Conservatives. However, what they are ignoring, as they always do, is the Canada carbon rebate. The Canada carbon rebate will send, in Alberta, $450 quarterly, four times a year, so $900 over the next six months or so, to Canadians. That is actually more than the amount the Conservatives are saying folks will save.

The Conservatives want to axe the Canada carbon rebate. They want to take that money away from lower- and middle-income families and make sure that oil and gas companies can profit. I will say it once again: Who needs an oil and gas lobby when we have the Conservative Party of Canada?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 144 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the House of Commons order of reference adopted on Wednesday, May 22, 2024 and Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C-69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.

Before we begin, I'd like to ask all members and other persons participating to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.

Only use a black, approved earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you're not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose.

Thank you all for your co-operation.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to Standing Order 15.1. In accordance with the committee's routine motion concerning connection tests for witnesses, I'm informed that all witnesses have completed the tests required for the connection tests in advance.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For members in the room, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your understanding in this regard.

As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses from the department on parts 1 to 4 of Bill C-69.

Members, before we get to our officials, you received an email from our clerk at 12:16 p.m. yesterday. It was regarding approval of the budget to study the FES bill, Bill C-59, and the ATIP request. I'm just looking around for approval.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare clauses 323 to 341 carried.

The House has agreed to the entirety of Bill 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, at third reading stage.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

The House resumed from May 27 consideration of the motion that Bill 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, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.