Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023

Sponsor

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.

Part 1 implements certain measures in respect of the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations by
(a) enabling the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to use electronic certification of tax and information returns and requiring taxpayers to file electronically in certain circumstances;
(b) doubling the maximum deduction for tradespeople’s tools from $500 to $1,000;
(c) providing that any gain on the disposition of a right to acquire Canadian housing property within a one-year period of its acquisition is treated as business income;
(d) excluding from a taxpayer’s income certain benefits for Canadian Forces members, veterans and their spouses or common-law partners;
(e) exempting from taxation any income earned by the Band Class Settlement Trust in accordance with section 24.05 of the Settlement Agreement entered into on January 18, 2023 relating to the attendance of day scholars at residential schools;
(f) providing an additional payment of the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) credit equal to double the amount of the regular January 2023 payment;
(g) providing for automatic, quarterly advance payments of the Canada Workers Benefit;
(h) allowing divorced and separated spouses to open joint Registered Educational Savings Plans and increasing educational assistance amounts under those plans;
(i) extending, by ‚three years, the ability of a qualifying family member to be the plan holder of an individual’s Registered Disability Savings Plan and expanding the definition of “qualifying family member” to include a sister or a brother of the individual;
(j) allowing defined contribution registered pension plans to correct contribution errors and requiring that the contributions or refunds are reported to the CRA for the purpose of correcting the RRSP deduction limit;
(k) modifying reporting requirements in respect of reportable transactions, introducing reporting requirements for notifiable transactions and providing reporting requirements with respect to uncertain tax treatments, as well as extending the reassessment periods applicable to those transactions and creating or modifying penalties for non-compliance with those requirements;
(l) allowing the CRA to share taxpayer information for the purposes of the Canadian Dental Care Plan;
(m) expanding the definition of “dividend rental arrangement” to include “specified hedging transactions” carried out in whole or in part by registered securities dealers;
(n) implementing the Model Reporting Rules for Digital Platforms developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development;
(o) requiring annual reporting by financial institutions of the fair market value of registered retirement savings plans and registered retirement income funds;
(p) expanding the permissible borrowing by defined benefit pension plans; and
(q) implementing a number of technical amendments to correct mistakes or inconsistencies and to better align the law with its intended policy objectives.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to the Excise Tax Act , the Tax Rebate Discounting Act , the Air Travellers Security Charge Act , the Excise Act, 2001 , Part 1 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and the Electronic Filing and Provision of Information (GST/HST) Regulations .
Part 2 implements certain measures in respect of the Excise Tax Act and a related text by
(a) clarifying that the international transportation of money benefits from Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) relief and other special rules in the same manner as a service of internationally transporting other kinds of freight;
(b) permitting a pension entity, in specific circumstances, to claim the pension entity rebate or an input tax credit, or to make the pension entity rebate election, after the end of the two-year limitation period;
(c) specifying that cryptoasset mining is generally not considered a supply for GST/HST purposes; and
(d) ensuring that payment card clearing services are excluded from the definition “financial service” under the GST/HST legislation.
Part 3 amends the Excise Act , the Excise Act, 2001 and the Air Travellers Security Charge Act in order to implement two measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Excise Act and the Excise Act, 2001 in order to temporarily cap the inflation adjustment for excise duties on beer, spirits and wine at two per cent, for one year only, as of April 1, 2023.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Air Travellers Security Charge Act to increase the air travellers security charge that is applicable to air travel that includes a chargeable emplanement after April 2024 and for which any payment is made after April 2024.
Part 4 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Bank Act to strengthen the regime for dealing with complaints against banks and authorized foreign banks by, among other things, providing for the designation of a not-for-profit body corporate to be the sole external complaints body. It also makes consequential amendments to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act and related amendments to the Financial Consumer Protection Framework Regulations .
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 to, among other things, provide for variable life benefits under a defined contribution provision of a pension plan and amends the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act to, among other things, provide for variable life payments under pooled registered pension plans. It also makes a consequential amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act .
Division 3 of Part 4 contains measures that are related to money laundering and to digital assets and other measures.
Subdivision A of Division 3 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things,
(a) require persons or entities referred to in section 5 of that Act to report to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada information that is related to a disclosure made under the Special Economic Measures Act or the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) ;
(b) strengthen the registration framework for persons or entities referred in paragraphs 5(h) and (h.1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act , which are often referred to as money services businesses;
(c) create two new offences relating to persons or entities who engage in activities for which they are not registered under that Act and the structuring of financial transactions undertaken to avoid reporting obligations under that Act, as well as a new offence relating to reprisals by employers against employees who fulfill obligations under that Act;
(d) facilitate the sharing, between the Minister of Finance, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, of information that relates to their respective mandates; and
(e) authorize the Minister of Finance to issue directives to persons and entities referred in section 5 of that Act in respect of risks relating to the financing of threats to the security of Canada.
Subdivision A also amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1 in relation to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act .
Subdivision B of Division 3 amends the Criminal Code to provide for a new warrant authorizing a peace officer or other person named in the warrant to search for and seize digital assets, including virtual currency, as well as to expand the list of offences on the basis of which an examination of information obtained by the Minister of National Revenue under various tax statutes may be authorized. The subdivision also makes related amendments to other Acts.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Customs Tariff to extend the expiry date of the General Preferential Tariff and Least Developed Country Tariff to December 31, 2034 and to create a new General Preferential Tariff Plus tariff treatment that will expire on the same date. The Division also aligns direct shipment requirements for tariff treatments under that Act with those that apply to free trade agreements.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Customs Tariff to remove Belarus and Russia from the List of Countries entitled to Most-Favoured-Nation tariff treatment.
Division 6 of Part 4 allows the Bank of Canada to apply, despite sections 27 and 27.1 of the Bank of Canada Act , any of its ascertained surplus to its retained earnings until its retained earnings are equal to zero or the ascertained surplus applied to its retained earnings is equal to the losses it incurred from the purchase of securities as part of the Government of Canada Bond Purchase Program.
Division 7 of Part 4 enacts the Canada Innovation Corporation Act . That Act continues the Canada Innovation Corporation, which was established under another Act, as a parent Crown corporation, sets out the Corporation’s purpose to maximize business investment in research and development across all sectors of the economy and in all regions of Canada to promote innovation-driven economic growth and includes transitional provisions. The Division also makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to authorize additional payments to the provinces and territories.
Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to renew the authority to make Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing payments for another five-year period beginning on April 1, 2024 and makes a technical change to improve the accuracy of the programs. It also makes a technical change to the calculation of fiscal stabilization payments. Finally, it provides for the publication of the details of all amounts authorized to be paid under that Act.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Special Economic Measures Act , the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) to strengthen Canada’s ability to take economic measures against certain persons.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the Privileges and Immunities (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) Act to, among other things, enable the Paris Protocol to be implemented in Canada.
Division 12 of Part 4 amends the Service Fees Act to, among other things, clarify the definition “fee”, exempt certain fees from the application of that Act, make certain exceptions in that Act applicable only with the approval of the President of the Treasury Board, make certain changes to the annual adjustment provisions and provide authority for the President of the Treasury Board to amend the regulations made under section 22 of that Act by taking into account the factors established by regulations.
It also amends section 25.1 of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act to provide for the application of sections 16 to 18 of the Service Fees Act to low-materiality fees, within the meaning of the Service Fees Act , that are fixed under section 24 or 25 of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act .
Division 13 of Part 4 amends the Canada Pension Plan to allow the Minister of National Revenue to make available information to the Minister of Employment and Social Development that is necessary for the purpose of policy analysis, research or evaluation related to the administration of that Act.
Division 14 of Part 4 amends the Department of Employment and Social Development Act to grant the Minister of Employment and Social Development the authority to collect and use Social Insurance Numbers for the purposes of administering or enforcing any Act, program or activity in respect of which the administration or enforcement is the responsibility of the Minister.
Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Canada Labour Code in respect of leave related to the death or disappearance of a child to, among other things, increase the maximum length of that leave from 104 weeks to 156 weeks and to repeal paragraph 206.5(4)(b) of that Act.
Division 16 of Part 4 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to provide that a claim for refugee protection made by a person inside Canada must be made in person and, with regard to a claim made by the person other than at a port of entry, that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration may specify the documents and information to be provided and the form and manner in which they are to be provided.
Division 17 of Part 4 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to clarify that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration may give instructions in respect of an application to sponsor a person who applies for a visa as a Convention refugee, within the meaning of that Act, or as a person in similar circumstances.
Division 18 of Part 4 amends the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants may seek an order authorizing it to administer the property of any licensee of the College who is not able to perform their activities as an immigration and citizenship consultant;
(b) extend immunity against proceedings for damages to directors, employees and agents and mandataries of the College, among others;
(c) authorize the College to enter into information-sharing agreements or arrangements with any entity, including federal or provincial government institutions; and
(d) expand the areas in respect of which the Governor in Council may authorize the College to make by-laws.
The Division also makes related amendments to the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to clarify that any person who is the subject of a notice of violation issued under either of those Acts has the right to request a review of the notice or the administrative monetary penalty set out in the notice.
Division 19 of Part 4 amends the Citizenship Act to, among other things,
(a) grant the Minister responsible for the administration and enforcement of that Act the power to collect biometric information from persons who make an application under that Act — and to use, verify, retain and disclose that information — in accordance with the regulations;
(b) authorize that Minister to administer and enforce that Act using electronic means, including by using an automated system; and
(c) grant that Minister the power to make regulations requiring persons who make an application or who provide documents, information or evidence under that Act to do so using electronic means.
Division 20 of Part 4 amends the Yukon Act to authorize the Minister of Northern Affairs to take any measures on certain public real property that the Minister considers necessary to prevent, counteract, mitigate or remedy any adverse effect on persons, property or the environment.
Subdivision A of Division 21 of Part 4 amends the Marine Liability Act to, among other things,
(a) increase the maximum liability for certain claims involving a ship of less than 300 gross tonnage;
(b) establish the maximum liability for claims involving air cushion vehicles;
(c) remove all references to the Hamburg Rules;
(d) extend the application of the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001 to non-seagoing vessels;
(e) provide for public notice requirements relating to the constitution of limitation funds under that Act;
(f) clarify that the owner of a ship is liable for economic loss related to fishing, hunting, trapping or harvesting suffered by an Indigenous group, community or people or suffered by a member of such a group, community or people; and
(g) expand the compensation regime of the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund to include certain future losses.
Subdivision B of Division 21 amends the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 to, among other things,
(a) expand the application of Part 1 of that Act in relation to certain pleasure craft;
(b) expand the exemption powers of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans;
(c) allow the owner of a Canadian vessel to enter into an arrangement with a qualified person under which that person is the authorized representative of the vessel;
(d) give the Marine Technical Review Board jurisdiction to make decisions on applications for exemptions from interim orders;
(e) authorize the Governor in Council to incorporate by reference in certain regulations material that the Minister of Transport produces;
(f) broaden the Governor in Council’s power respecting fees, charges, costs or expenses to be paid in relation to the administration and enforcement of matters under that Act for which the Minister of Transport is responsible;
(g) increase the maximum amount of fines for certain offences;
(h) provide authority, in certain circumstances, for the Chief Registrar to refuse to issue a certificate of registry and for the Minister of Transport to refuse to issue a pleasure craft licence;
(i) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting emergency services;
(j) authorize the Minister of Transport to, among other things,
(i) direct a master or crew member to cease operations,
(ii) authorize the Deputy Minister of Transport to make interim orders in response to risks to marine safety or to the marine environment, and
(iii) direct a port authority or a person in charge of a port authority or place to authorize vessels to proceed to a place selected by the Minister; and
(k) permit designating as violations the contravention of certain provisions of Parts 5 and 10 of that Act and the regulations made under those Parts.
The Subdivision also makes a related amendment to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act .
Subdivision C of Division 21 amends the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act to, among other things, establish the Vessel Remediation Fund in the accounts of Canada and provide the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with certain powers in relation to the detention of vessels.
Division 22 of Part 4 amends the Canada Transportation Act to, among other things,
(a) allow the Governor in Council to require air carriers to publish information respecting their performance on their Internet site;
(b) permit the sharing of information to ensure the proper functioning of the national transportation system or to increase its efficiency, while ensuring the confidentiality of that information;
(c) allow the Minister of Transport to require certain persons to provide certain information to the Minister if the Minister is of the opinion that there exists an unusual and significant disruption to the effective continued operation of the national transportation system;
(d) establish a new zone in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, in which any interswitching that occurs is subject to the rate determined by the Canadian Transportation Agency, for a period of 18 months; and
(e) broaden the scope of the administrative monetary penalties scheme.
Division 23 of Part 4 amends the Canada Transportation Act to, among other things,
(a) broaden the authority of the Canadian Transportation Agency to set fees and charges to recover its costs;
(b) replace the current process for resolving air travel complaints with a more streamlined process designed to result in more timely decisions;
(c) impose a greater burden of proof on air carriers where it is presumed that compensation is payable to a complainant unless the air carrier proves the contrary;
(d) require air carriers to establish an internal process for dealing with air travel claims;
(e) modify the Agency’s regulation-making powers with respect to air carriers’ obligations towards passengers; and
(f) enhance the Agency’s enforcement powers with respect to the air transportation sector.
Division 24 of Part 4 amends the Customs Act to, among other things,
(a) allow a person arriving in Canada to present themselves to the Canada Border Services Agency by a means of telecommunication, if that manner of presenting is made available at the customs office at which they are presenting themselves; and
(b) subject to the regulations, require that the operator of a commercial aircraft arriving in Canada ensure that baggage on board the aircraft is transported without delay to the nearest international baggage area.
The Division also makes a related amendment to the Quarantine Act .
Division 25 of Part 4 amends the National Research Council Act to, among other things, provide that the National Research Council of Canada may procure goods and services, including goods and services relating to construction and to research-related digital and information technology. It also establishes a new Procurement Oversight Board.
Division 26 of Part 4 amends the Patent Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Commissioner of Patents to grant an additional term for a patent if certain conditions are met;
(b) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the number of days that is to be subtracted in determining the duration of an additional term; and
(c) authorize the Commissioner of Patents and the Federal Court to shorten the duration of an additional term if the duration as previously determined is longer than is authorized.
Division 27 of Part 4 amends the Food and Drugs Act to extend measures regarding therapeutic products to natural health products in order to, among other things,
(a) strengthen the safety oversight of natural health products throughout their life cycle; and
(b) promote greater confidence in the oversight of natural health products by increasing transparency.
Division 28 of Part 4 amends the Food and Drugs Act to, among other things, prohibit
(a) the sale of a cosmetic unless its safety can be established without relying on data derived from a test conducted on an animal that could cause pain, suffering or injury, whether physical or mental, to the animal, subject to certain exceptions;
(b) the conduct of a test on an animal that could cause pain, suffering or injury, whether physical or mental, to the animal if the purpose of the test is to meet a legislative requirement that relates to cosmetics; and
(c) deceptive or misleading claims, on the label of or in an advertisement for a cosmetic, with respect to testing on animals.
Division 29 of Part 4 enacts the Dental Care Measures Act .
Division 30 of Part 4 amends subsection 41(1) of the Canada Post Corporation Act , in response to the decision in R. v. Gorman , to limit the Canada Post Corporation’s authority to open mail other than letters.
Division 31 of Part 4 expresses the assent of the Parliament of Canada to the issuing by His Majesty of a Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the applicable Royal Style and Titles.
Division 32 of Part 4 amends the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act to provide that the Public Sector Pension Investment Board may incorporate a subsidiary for the purpose of providing investment management services to the Canada Growth Fund Inc. It also amends the Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022 to increase the amount that may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund on the requisition of the Minister of Finance for the acquisition of shares of the Canada Growth Fund Inc. and to provide that the Canada Growth Fund Inc. is not an agent of His Majesty in right of Canada.
Division 33 of Part 4 amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act , the Trust and Loan Companies Act , the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to, among other things,
(a) expand the mandate of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to include the supervision of federal financial institutions in order to determine whether they have adequate policies and procedures to protect themselves against threats to their integrity or security; and
(b) expand the Superintendent of Financial Institutions’ powers to issue directions to, and to take control of, a federal financial institution in certain circumstances.
It also makes a consequential amendment to the Winding-up and Restructuring Act .
Division 34 of Part 4 amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, lower the criminal rate of interest calculated in respect of an agreement or arrangement and to express that rate as an annual percentage rate. It also authorizes the Governor in Council, by regulation, to fix a limit on the total cost of borrowing under a payday loan agreement. Finally, it provides for transitional provisions.
Division 35 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to extend, until October 26, 2024, the increase in the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period to certain seasonal workers.
Division 36 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to, among other things,
(a) establish an account in the accounts of Canada to be called the Environmental Economic Instruments Fund, for the purpose of administering amounts received as contributions to certain funding programs under the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment; and
(b) replace references to “tradeable units” with references to “compliance units”.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Canada Emission Reduction Incentives Agency Act .
Division 37 of Part 4 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to clarify that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation may administer any contract related to deposit insurance entered into by the Minister of Finance and to allow the Minister to increase the deposit insurance coverage limit until April 30, 2024.
Division 38 of Part 4 amends the Department of Employment and Social Development Act to, among other things,
(a) establish the Employment Insurance Board of Appeal to hear appeals of decisions made under the Employment Insurance Act instead of the Employment Insurance Section of the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal; and
(b) eliminate the requirement for leave to appeal decisions relating to the Employment Insurance Act to the Appeal Division of the Tribunal.
It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 39 of Part 4 amends the Canada Elections Act to provide for a national, uniform, exclusive and complete regime applicable to registered parties and eligible parties respecting their collection, use, disclosure, retention and disposal of personal information.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

June 8, 2023 Passed 3rd reading and adoption of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023
June 7, 2023 Passed Concurrence at report stage of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023
June 7, 2023 Failed Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023 (report stage amendment) (Motion 730)
June 7, 2023 Failed Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023 (report stage amendment) (Motion 441)
June 7, 2023 Failed Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023 (report stage amendment) (Motion 233)
June 7, 2023 Failed Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023 (report stage amendment) (Motion 126)
June 7, 2023 Failed Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023 (report stage amendment) (Motion 122)
June 7, 2023 Failed Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023 (report stage amendment) (Motion 112)
June 7, 2023 Failed Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023 (report stage amendment) (Motion 15)
June 7, 2023 Failed Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023 (report stage amendment) (Motion 3)
June 7, 2023 Failed Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023 (report stage amendment) (Motion 1)
June 6, 2023 Passed Time allocation for Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023
May 2, 2023 Passed 2nd reading of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023
May 2, 2023 Failed 2nd reading of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023 (reasoned amendment)
May 1, 2023 Passed Time allocation for Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

December 12th, 2024 / 5:35 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB

Madam Speaker, it is too bad the hecklers were not listening.

Corruption and decay go hand in hand. As such, when we say that everything feels broken, we say it because we mean it. The country is in decay, and the government's rotten influence is running rampant, spoiling every single thing it touches, including even those programs and services for which there is consensus in all corners of the House. The consensus regarding immigration is another great example of something that this Prime Minister has now destroyed.

My colleague, the member for South Shore—St. Margarets, said in one of his speeches that this is corruption like we have never seen in Canada. I believe that he is correct in his assessment of the situation, with one exception: There is probably one other prime minister who could rival the current profligate spending and graft, and that is the Prime Minister's father. It seems like every time we have a prime minister with that last name, the country ends up on edge. This Liberal rot extends far beyond the SDTC. It now touches every facet of Canadian society and its institutions.

Members can take the natural health product industry, for instance, and I will tie that in. The government took a world-leading regulatory regime, implemented by the previous Harper government, and ripped it up as if it meant nothing. It did not bother to consult with the industry, either. That would have obviously been beneath it. Instead of continuing with the existing framework, the government, led by the inept Minister of Health, decided to move natural health products into the same regime as therapeutic drugs, contrary to previous parliamentary studies and general consensus that vitamins and supplements are not the same things as doctor-prescribed medications. These changes would devastate the natural health product industry. The IADSA, the International Alliance of Dietary Food Supplement Associations, had this to say about the changes that are being proposed by the current government here in Canada:

We are writing today to express our concerns about the regulatory changes being proposed in Canada, which, if implemented, could impact not only the competitive position of the dietary supplement industry within your country but also Canada's position as a global reference point in this area.

Up to now, Canada has been a world leader in the regulation of dietary supplements. We fear that the proposed changes to Canada’s regulatory framework for natural health products risk creating an environment that could stifle the industry and limit Canadians' access to high-quality supplements.

IADSA has always promoted the Canadian model as a global reference point for governments across the world who are creating or redeveloping their regulatory systems. This Canadian model is recognized as providing consumers access to products which are safe and beneficial while fostering innovation and supporting investment in the sector.

Those are probably the most glowing words we could hear from an international organization, touting the regime created by the Harper administration for natural health products as being the gold standard against which every other country is measured. Now it is writing to our committee and to members of Parliament saying that if we pursue the current agenda of the Liberal government, with the support of the NDP, through Bill C-47 and the self-care framework that the regulatory framework entails, we will actually destroy the gold standard, the gold star, the institution that the rest of the world should be modelling itself after and designing itself after.

As a response to the illogical and unwarranted attack on the natural health product industry, I did introduce my private member's bill, Bill C-368, to bring the industry back to the old regulatory regime, yet the government is not done with its attacks. Let me explain to the people at home why an election is so important.

In early spring, the government plans to implement its cost recovery framework through the gazetting process. Bill C-368 may have passed second reading in this place and it may have passed the committee stage, but it is yet to be debated at third reading in the House and passed. It would then have to go to the Senate to go through that same set of steps and processes all over again, all before the next election.

Given that the timeline is probably getting to be fairly unlikely, the government is still free, then, and still has the old legislation it passed in Bill C-47 and Bill C-69, to pursue the regulatory environment to implement the self-care framework. This is a self-funding model that is behind the changes to begin with.

It is a tax grab on the industry to get the people in the small and medium-sized mom-and-pop shops, which are small businesses that create, innovate and develop all the supplements, such as vitamins, protein powders and things of this nature, under the same cost recovery framework that companies like Pfizer or Purdue Pharma would have to actually be under. Nobody in the industry has this kind of money. It is a death sentence for the natural health product industry.

Every day that the government has care and control of the Governor in Council, the ability to pass regulatory changes, it is still allowed, notwithstanding Bill C-368, to pursue this framework. The Minister of Health has said very clearly that he is hell-bent on destroying this institution as well. The government will implement the self-care framework.

For the Canadians who are watching, this is very important. There are two parties so far in the House that have voted non-confidence in the government so we could have an election. An election would kill the ability of the government to pursue the regulatory change to the natural health product industry. It would not be able to gazette anything during an election. At the outcome of the next election, hopefully there is a government that will cease destroying the natural health product industry in Canada.

This is why it is very important that the one party that continues to support the government be held accountable. It is continuing to support the government, even though it may have supported my bill in some bizarre manners. I might add that a member on the health committee actually tried to move a wrecking motion to destroy the bill at committee. Luckily he was granted a time out, heard from tens of thousands of Canadians and changed his ways, and we managed to salvage Bill C-368 at committee.

However, every day that the New Democratic Party continues to prop up the government brings us one day closer to a gazetting process for the self-care framework, which will put the cost recovery model burden on the natural health product industry. That is what will destroy the innovation and growth and destroy the gold standard model that the IADSA says is the best one in the world. That is what is at stake.

We need an election, not just because of all of the other corruption but also because of all the bad ideas. I said that earlier in my speech. Never has there been such a collection of bad ideas, bad judgment and bad leadership in one human being as there is in the current Prime Minister.

I use this example because it is a microcosm of what is wrong with the government. The Liberals cannot work collaboratively anymore. They have no friends left. No one is defending them. I cannot imagine why they are staying the course, because nothing is getting passed in this place. It is only to pursue the regulatory power and authority that they still have that they are clutching on to government. Who is the enabler? It is the New Democratic Party.

One can only conclude that that is the true agenda, even though others might not say so publicly. There is no doubt in my mind that that is what is going on. For those who are watching, what is at risk for the natural health product industry if we do not have an election sooner rather than later is that another gold standard institution will be ruined by the incompetence of the government.

To get back to SDTC, the crux of the matter is document production. Without documents, how are we to hold the government accountable for anything? We in the Conservative Party have asked for documents numerous times, and not just in this particular example. We have asked for them constantly, in every committee.

I happen to be a member of the procedure and House affairs committee at this time. We have asked for document productions many times. We were denied access to documents that members of the media had access to during the foreign interference scandal, for example. Members of the media can see documents that I as an elected member of Parliament have never been able to see, because the Liberal government, propped up by the NDP, whether it is in the House or at committee, always denies Parliament getting access to unredacted documents. It does not matter what the issue is.

In this particular case, it just happens to be the documents surrounding Sustainable Development Technology Canada. If Canadians are wondering why we are making such a big fuss about it, it is because this is the line in the sand. It has been crossed so many times. It was even crossed in the previous Parliament to the point that an election was called to prevent documents for the Winnipeg labs from being tabled in this place. We had someone summoned to the bar, which I do not think had happened for 113 years, who refused to bring documents when he was here. He was admonished by the Speaker of this place.

Also, the government, so self-righteous in its determination to keep things secret, actually took the previous Speaker to court. Everybody knows courts have always said that Parliament is supreme in the matters of its own governance, but that did not stop the government from pursuing that matter, so desperate it was to hide what it had done and to keep it from Canadians.

Here we are at an impasse. We are several months into it, and there is only one political party in this place that does not want to turn over the documents. It is that of the government. All the other parties to date are allowing this debate to continue until the government does what it is supposed to do and what the Speaker has asked it to do. As the Speaker has said, “The House has the undoubted right to order the production of any and all documents from any entity or individual it deems necessary to carry out its duties.”

Some $400 million of taxpayers' money was inappropriately spent, and 186 conflicts of interest were identified by the Auditor General. This is taxpayers' money. This is a government program. If this is not a textbook case of documents that Parliament should be able to see, then, frankly, I do not know what else would be.

I will wrap up my comments by saying this. A number of us in this place tonight have been here for a long time. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, if I am not on my feet again by the time I return, I will have eclipsed the 19th anniversary of my first election to this place. I have never seen a House of Commons in this much disarray, and I have never seen a government that has lost complete and utter control of the finances of the country and of law and order on the streets. It has lost control of itself and the ability to follow the rules of this place. Shame on them.

Natural Health ProductsPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

December 11th, 2024 / 4:05 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by the great people of Pickering—Uxbridge, Whitby and the Liberal Minister of Health's very own riding of Ajax. They call on the House to immediately repeal sections 500 to 504 of Bill C-47, which was passed last year. These amendments made to the Food and Drugs Act are new regulatory constraints on natural health products that millions of Canadians rely upon and has since affected their medical freedom of choice and the affordability of these products.

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

The last part of paragraph (f.02) is clear: “…or of the regulations made under paragraph (f.01)”. That would enable the government to determine appropriate penalties.

We currently want to maintain the existing provisions until the government makes new regulations. It seems to me that a consultation process should be required in order to establish new regulations, but no one has been consulted to date. The government proceeded in secret, without being transparent. It tabled Bill C-47, and fines of up to $5 million were suddenly imposed on industry people.

For the moment, no one has demonstrated that the industry was as recalcitrant as was said. The Auditor General's report made it clear that Health Canada was unable to perform its duty to inspect. I imagine Health Canada would be in a better position to do so in the context of the discussions on the cost recovery regulations.

Amendment BQ-3 would clearly make it possible to proceed with consultations for the purpose of developing appropriate regulations for natural health products. That requires discipline, of course. Fines of $5,000 may not be enough.

The amendment clearly states: “…within the meaning of the Natural Health Products Regulations or of the regulations made under paragraph (f.01)”.

Fines may be applicable in the meantime, but they would be the fines provided for under the natural health products regulations currently in force.

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are currently discussing Mr. Naqvi's motion, and I find it very galling for the Liberals to introduce such an amendment.

We wouldn't be discussing Bill C‑368 if the government had been transparent in the first place, and if it hadn't hidden Bill C‑47 in an omnibus bill, a mammoth bill, without partnering with industry. That isn't how we get things done in politics. We're here because there's been an attempt to give the industry a raw deal.

However, there was an intention behind that. It was to tighten up the rules and the legislative framework to ensure that bad actors or bad apples would be pushed out of the industry or that they paid for their bad reputations and actions that don't meet industry standards. That's why we need to get it right.

Remember, Mr. Chairman, that at one point, we had to have the minister and Health Canada officials appear before our committee to explain what was going on with the regulations. It wasn't even a study; it was a request. They came to give us explanations, and we realized that, with respect to the regulatory framework they wanted to create, particularly with regard to recovery costs, they were completely wrong. In fact, this meant that the model established for pharmaceutical products would be transposed into a natural health products model.

Whether the Liberals like Bill C‑368 or not, it's necessary. The basis of Bill C‑368 is necessary to create another legislative and regulatory environment for natural health products. That's what we're trying to do here, and that's what my amendments are trying to achieve, which is to strike a balance with respect to the interests of an industry. We don't want to destroy this industry because of a few bad actors. This pertains much more to small or medium-sized businesses than very large ones.

It was illogical and inconsistent to simply transpose the pharmaceutical model to another for natural health products. But we were good sports and we proposed amendments. People told us that they didn't want to question the basis of Bill C‑368, but they maintained that we were contravening the ministerial order, which had allowed us to replace nicotine products that aren't properly regulated, once again, because Health Canada did a bad job. We were told that there was a legal vacuum and that we shouldn't do that because it would give free rein to bad actors.

Those people came to warn us about the unintended consequence of Bill C‑368, and we listened to them. We proposed an amendment. I'm going to correct it again today, because people think we need to distinguish between nicotine-based products that are used as nicotine replacement therapy and tomatoes, cauliflower and eggplants. We received thousands and thousands of emails telling us to be careful when we say that a product contains nicotine. Vegetables and fruits contain nicotine. I'd have had to eat 10 kilos of eggplant today to reach the nicotine content of one cigarette.

Still in the spirit of calming things down and listening to everyone's comments, we changed the amendment in question to add clarification and ensure that Parliament's intent wasn't misunderstood.

What we're doing here today is paying attention to what people told us.

Industry representatives told us that they wanted to preserve its reputation. However, it doesn't make sense to impose fines of $5 million on the pharmaceutical industry, as planned. This explains our third amendment to Bill C‑368. This amendment will allow for discussions to establish the regulatory framework for appropriate fines.

That's what the government should have done. It should have had a proper discussion with people instead of trying to pull the wool over their eyes with an omnibus bill. That's not the way to do politics. Today, we're proposing a motion to, supposedly, amend Bill C‑368, on which there is a consensus on this side of the table, so that it can be passed in the House of Commons. However, this is a dilatory measure, but not in the way you understand it. The intent is to delay passage of Bill C‑368. We'll end up with a bill that we know full well won't pass the House in its current version.

For those reasons, I agree with Mr. Ellis. If the Liberals are acting in good faith, if they really listened to the people who came to testify and if they saw the turpitude of Health Canada, they'd do things differently. Witnesses told us they had evidence that the methodologies used are totally biased. Saying that 88% of an industry and over 900 companies aren't compliant is an aberration. They would fail a methodology 101 university course.

Personally, I'm not here to waste my time, but to find points of convergence and a balance so that everyone can benefit. Consumers need to regain their confidence in natural health products, and imposing an established pharmaceutical model isn't going to do that.

I hope that I've convinced my colleagues opposite to proceed with the study of Bill C‑368.

Finally, if I may, I move adjournment of the debate on the motion.

Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank my colleague, Dr. Ellis, for his accurate assessment. I wish I could say I found it passing strange, Mr. Chair, but I've been in this place for a long time, as have you and as has the member for the New Democratic Party. I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this point by anything at all.

You would think, Mr. Chair, that a member of a political party that found itself in a situation where it accepted carte blanche everything that the minority government was going to do would be a little more gracious when offered a path to redemption on the issue of being able to rescind the clauses in Bill C-47, which Bill C-368 seeks to do. You would think that a member for the NDP would be gracious in accepting a path to redemption for his proposed amendment to this bill, which would have changed this bill in its entirety. Instead of accusing people of filibustering, you'd think he would have been gracious and said thank you for buying him the time to figure out that he was once again wrong, as he, I would argue, Mr. Chair, often is.

I appreciate the fact that he is now going to need unanimous consent, I believe, Mr. Chair, in order to withdraw his amendment. I'm just musing publicly on whether I should be as gracious as he has been to me in giving him that or whether I should actually say no and make him vote against his own amendment. That would be the fun thing to do, Mr. Chair, but I'll be the bigger person in this.

Hopefully, we will get to the point where we can withdraw NDP-1 and do the right thing on behalf of the industry that relies on getting this legislation and these regulations right and the 80% of Canadians who rely on natural health products.

I will enjoy taking the higher road.

Thank you, Chair.

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

I think Mr. Ellis's reading is quite accurate.

I have the impression that Mr. Julian's comments don't correspond exactly to what his amendment proposes. What he's proposing is to remove the reference to the exception and leave natural health products as therapeutic products. On the other hand, he says he wants to remove the obligation linked to sections 21.31, 21.32, 21.33, 21.7 and 21.71.

However, the bill proposes to change the environment in which the exception is dealt with, that of therapeutic products, to one dealing with natural health products, by referring to Vanessa's Law. Even if we remove these sections, and even if we say that these sections would not apply, this is already provided for in the Natural Health Products Regulations. It's as if we're doing nothing here except contravening the spirit of the bill. That's my understanding. Perhaps we should ask the clerks for clarification.

For this reason, I thought amendment BQ‑2 would be related to amendment NDP‑1. Indeed, in our amendment, as I'll explain shortly, we return to the minister's power of recall, whereas, in the NDP amendment, the minister's power of recall is already provided for in Bill C‑47. So there's a problem with Mr. Julian's intention.

It seems to me that amendment BQ‑2 is more in keeping with the spirit of the bill, while ensuring that the minister is guaranteed a right of recall. I don't want to discuss two amendments at the same time, but the one I proposed was aimed at two things. I should have proposed four amendments rather than just three. In any case, amendment BQ‑2 goes some way to restoring the minister's power of recall, which was abandoned in the bill.

This power of recall must also lead to offences and penalties. That's why we're including it in amendment BQ‑2, because of the proposed change. We are subsequently clarifying this in amendment BQ‑3.

I would vote against amendment NDP‑1, because it does not respect the very spirit of the bill.

In fact, I was sure it was a government amendment. If the government had wanted to make an amendment, it would have made this one.

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The point I want to make is that just because I voted earlier against resuming debate on the motion to obtain additional documents does not necessarily mean that I voted against the principle of the motion. However, I don't think we need to have this debate, and I don't think we need this information to do our job today. Let me explain why.

First, I'd like to point out that we've tabled three amendments in relation to Bill C‑368. I may not have enough parliamentary experience, but in nine years, I've never worked as hard as I did on these three amendments. We had to study Bill C‑368, Bill C‑47, Vanessa's Law and the Food and Drugs Act. We also had to study another piece of legislation—the elephant in the room no one is talking about—the Natural Health Products Regulations, which are linked to Bill C‑368, our amendments and all the laws I've just mentioned. These regulations are a key element in their own right, and are already designed to protect consumers. I've looked into this. It's the centrepiece.

If we were to write a new regulation on natural health products or a new law on food and drugs, I would agree with the proposal that we wait 30 days in order to have time to receive the requested documents. However, this is not the case.

I will now share my preliminary remarks.

It is important to understand the concerns of the public, that is, those of the organizations whose representatives have come to testify before us, and the concerns of the minister in relation to Bill C‑368. I'll summarize the six main concerns.

First, we were told that nicotine products are extremely dangerous and that the provisions of Vanessa's Law should therefore be maintained, as well as the ministerial order issued in August. The latter concerned additional rules for nicotine replacement therapies. We will be proposing an amendment to this effect.

Secondly, we were told that the minister must retain his right to order a recall.

Third, we were told that the minister must have the ability to require changes to labels and packaging.

Fourth, we were told that poisoning from natural health products is dangerous. We agree that all intoxication is dangerous. We are aware of this.

Fifth, we've been told that we need the capacity to carry out inspections and post-marketing monitoring. We are aware of this, and there are already provisions for this in the Natural Health Products Regulations.

Sixth, with regard to new products, such as the new drugs mentioned by the minister, we were told that, if Bill C‑368 were passed, there would be a problem in relation to precursor chemicals.

I will now address these six concerns.

With regard to the first concern, we do indeed find it important to maintain in law the existing provisions concerning nicotine-based products. That's why we'll be proposing an amendment to keep the provisions affecting these products in Vanessa's Law and in the government's emergency order.

As for the second, we'll be proposing amendment BQ‑2 to retain the minister's right to order a recall when there are risks of serious harm to health, as well as his right to impose coercive measures in the event of serious risks to the environment.

As for the third, I would emphasize the following. Where there is a risk of harm to health, the minister can already impose a label change without going through the provisions of Vanessa's Law. He can simply apply the Natural Health Products Regulations. Indeed, under sections 16 and 17 of the Natural Health Products Regulations, found on page 13, Health Canada can require a company to modify its labelling, including the addition of new warnings. According to section 16, the minister may do so if he or she has “reasonable grounds to believe that a natural health product may no longer be safe when used under the recommended conditions of use.”

In fact, Health Canada recently used this same power to require companies to add a warning to products containing chasteberry. Companies had the option of adding the warning to the label, discontinuing the sale of the product, or presenting evidence that the warning was unnecessary. The minister already has this power under the regulations, and does not need to go through the provisions of Vanessa's Law.

The fourth concern is that poisoning from natural health products is dangerous. This is indeed the case. However, the provisions of Vanessa's Law do not necessarily come into play here.

It's about two things. The first is to ensure enforcement of the Natural Health Products Regulations. Health Canada must verify the recommended dosage indications and enforce other labelling requirements. This is its duty, Mr. Chair. This power was not acquired as a result of Vanessa's Law. Health Canada already has this power. In fact, that's what the Auditor General mentioned in one of her reports, which gave rise to Bill C‑47.

The second thing is that Health Canada really must do its duty. This organization absolutely must provide health information to help Canadians and Quebeckers make informed decisions. It must launch an awareness campaign on the dangers of natural health products and their interactions with other natural health products or medications. It must also stress the importance of adhering to the recommended dosage, as has been done with regard to the same risk of harm posed by medications. Health Canada has conducted successful medication awareness campaigns. That's Health Canada's role. It's their job to do it, but they're not doing it. Health Canada representatives admitted as much to the committee.

This authority, to conduct such awareness campaigns, does not derive from Vanessa's Law. It's Health Canada's job. The problem is that, for years, Health Canada has not adequately or sufficiently fulfilled its monitoring duties, even though the Natural Health Products Regulations legitimately entitle it to do so. Health Canada is not fulfilling its duties, and this is what the Auditor General denounced in her report.

I now turn to the fifth concern, which is that we must have the capacity to carry out inspections and post-market monitoring of products. Post-market monitoring is not included in Vanessa's Law. However, it is provided for in the Natural Health Products Regulations, notably in section 17(1), page 13. Section 16, page 13, deals with pre-marketing requirements. Subsection 17(1) deals with post-marketing requirements. It states in particular:

17(1) The minister may direct the licensee, manufacturer, importer and distributor to stop their sale of a natural health product if (a) the licensee does not, within the required period, provide the minister with the information and documents requested under section 16;

In other words, he has failed to provide the information requested by the minister.

(b) the information and documents provided by the licensee in accordance with section 16 do not demonstrate that the natural health product is safe when used under the recommended conditions of use;

(c) in the case of a natural health product that is imported, the minister has reasonable grounds to believe that the natural health product is not manufactured, packaged, labelled, imported, distributed or stored in accordance with the requirements set out in part 3 or in accordance with requirements that are equivalent to those set out in part 3;

Part 3, which begins on page 24 of the regulations, defines good manufacturing and inspection practices.

I'm almost done, Mr. Chair.

(d) in the case of a natural health product that is not imported, the minister has reasonable grounds to believe that the natural health product is not manufactured, packaged, labelled, distributed or stored in accordance with the requirements set out in part 3; or

(e) the minister has reasonable grounds to believe that the natural health product is not packaged or labelled in accordance with the requirements set out in part 5.

Part 5 of the regulations, entitled “General”, begins on page 48 of the regulations, and includes requirements related to labelling and packaging.

What about the new hazardous products, such as drug precursors, mentioned by the minister?

I've already answered that in committee, but I want to say it again here, since we have the health of citizens at heart. Precursors are provided for in subsection 7.1(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. This subsection provides as follows:

7.1(1) No person shall possess, produce, sell, import or transport anything intending that it will be used: (a) to produce a controlled substance [...]

Offences and penalties are already provided for in cases of violation of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Precursor Control Regulations, and these precursors are set out in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

In addition, drug precursors, also known as “precursor chemicals” or simply “precursors”, are substances used to manufacture illicit drugs.

Most precursors also have legitimate commercial uses, and are used within the law in a variety of industrial processes related to consumer products, such as medicines, flavours and fragrances. We can therefore add drug precursors to the prohibited precursors.

Mr. Chair, I hope I have made the case that we cannot make amendments to Bill C‑368.

What exactly does this bill do? It simply says that natural health products cannot be left in the legislative environment of Vanessa's Law. We have to get them out of there.

We need to make the necessary amendments to the Natural Health Products Regulations. This fully addresses consumers' concerns, insofar as recalls will no longer be strictly voluntary, but mandatory. The minister will absolutely have the power to do this, and it won't be done at the will of the company.

The amendments we will soon be studying will ensure that we are well equipped to continue our study of the bill. We have the necessary documents at our disposal to do the work we have to do this afternoon. I'll also be able to explain the rationale behind these amendments.

Thank you.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

November 4th, 2024 / 6:45 p.m.


See context

Milton Ontario

Liberal

Adam van Koeverden LiberalParliamentary 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 my friend and colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her advocacy for killer whales tonight. I know that she has been a steadfast champion of mammals that do not vote. It is important to recognize that many aspects of our environment depend on us to be their stewards and their stakeholders. Killer whales are very intelligent animals, but obviously they do not have the right to cast a ballot.

Back in 2019, the Government of Canada announced an enhanced recovery strategy for the southern resident killer whale population. Environment and Climate Change Canada and three other federal partners took measures to help with the conservation and recovery of this population. This specific group of orcas, the southern resident killer whales, faced a triple threat of pollution, declining numbers of the chinook salmon that they feed on, and acoustic and physical disturbances from busy shipping lanes and other marine activity. This is not new, but it is undeniably urgent. That is why our government is taking action through an enhanced recovery strategy. This past spring and for the last six years, the federal government announced the implementation of new seasonal measures and funding to protect these whales, restore their population and conserve the health of their food sources.

Environment and Climate Change Canada continues to fund and support the chemicals management plan. This is one of several pollution prevention initiatives that have implemented measures and allowed enforcement officials to intervene to protect the killer whales and the environment from harmful pollutants.

In addition, new approaches and innovations are changing how we ship goods through the waters, and Canada's marine safety system must also evolve to continue to protect Canadians and the environment. Last summer, the Minister of Transport announced the passage of Bill C-47, which took budget funds and allocated them to specific oceans protection measures and we created better compensation for communities that would feel the impact in the event of a hazardous substance spill.

Canada's oceans protection plan strengthens marine safety within our waters, and we now have vastly faster responses to emergencies, such as marine firefighting and emergency towing. The vessels that travel to the Trans Mountain terminal in Burnaby, British Columbia are monitored and must adhere to strict safety and incident regulations because our government is committed to protecting our waters. Canada targets problem vessels. There is a fund and a protocol in place to remove hazards to navigation and to wildlife, and these measures were created in response to feedback from indigenous peoples, stakeholders, Canadians and I imagine some of the whale-sighting volunteers that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands mentioned, as well. We all agree that the oceans are hurting, and the protection of our oceans is a national priority. It is in everyone's best interest to advance this federal government's oceans protection plan.

We stand with all Canadians in our love of these B.C. orcas and the natural environment around us, and we stand behind the protections that we have written into Canadian law. Together, we walk a delicate line between preserving biodiversity and species at risk, tackling climate change and keeping our economy evolving.

With the remaining time, I would like to acknowledge the extraordinary work on this subject that Senator Murray Sinclair did. He was a steadfast advocate for whales, dolphins and other marine mammals, particularly when they were being held in captivity for entertainment. We lost Senator Murray Sinclair today. Canada is a poorer nation without his mind and advocacy, but we are so much richer for his many contributions.

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. David, I would like some details on the operation of the Canada Growth Fund.

At the outset, in 2022, the fund was created and entrusted to the Canada Development Investment Corporation, which owned Trans Mountain. If I understand correctly, in 2023, pursuant to Bill C‑47, the fund was completely removed from the books, meaning that it is no longer subject to public scrutiny, if I am not mistaken. That means that neither the PBO nor the Auditor General can comment on it. I also understand that the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources intends to use the fund to finance the Pathways Alliance.

Is that correct?

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Madam Minister and Mr. Minister.

Madam Freeland, in 2022, when the cost of the pipeline rose from $12 billion to $21 billion, you said publicly that you wanted to assure Canadians that there would be no additional public funding for Trans Mountain. The cost then was $21 billion, but now it's $34 billion.

In 2022, you also created the Canada Growth Fund, initially managed by the Canada Development Investment Corporation, the company that sort of owns the pipeline. However, in 2023, you made changes as part of Bill C‑47, so that the Canada Growth Fund is now completely outside the reporting perimeter and beyond any government control. The Parliamentary Budget Officer can't look at its activities and, ultimately, you can do whatever you want.

You mentioned earlier that you're currently in discussions with the Pathways Alliance about funding for carbon capture and sequestration.

So, we're talking about $34 billion for a pipeline, $12.5 billion in tax credits and $15 billion that could potentially be used for the gluttons of the oil sector, which are posting record profits.

Today, I want to know if you can reassure me and Canadians and Quebeckers that not one penny of the $15 billion Canada Growth Fund will go to the oil companies. Can you tell me that?

October 31st, 2024 / 5:30 p.m.


See context

Director, Regulatory Affairs and Policy, Canadian Health Food Association

Jules Gorham

I think this bill is important because it has given us the opportunity to come talk about it, which we were not granted before Bill C-47. For that, I'll say thank you, Chair and all members. It's the first time we will all have our say.

However, I think the bill is also important because putting natural health products under the definition of therapeutic drugs is not what's good for industry. It's not what's good for Canadians. If there are gaps, those can be addressed and discussed.

October 31st, 2024 / 5:10 p.m.


See context

Director, Regulatory Affairs and Policy, Canadian Health Food Association

Jules Gorham

As Mr. Harrington has referred to, the labelling changes were passed into law in 2022. Those are to start being enforced early next year. Those labelling changes will essentially make NHPs a lot more similar to over-the-counter medication packaging—essentially drug packaging.

We have a cost recovery proposal that is now in its second consultation, which has closed down. This must be one of the consultations being counted, which was on cost recovery. Regardless of anything, that is set to go into the Gazette, part II in spring 2025, and the industry will be faced with cost recovery fees as of December 1, 2025.

We have these two omnibus bills, Bill C-47 and Bill C-69. We also have new good manufacturing practice guidance and quality guidance that is coming out. The one that was written before was written in conjunction with the department and industry, and the new one seems to be very similar to what is out for pharmaceuticals.

October 31st, 2024 / 4:25 p.m.


See context

Director, Regulatory Affairs and Policy, Canadian Health Food Association

Jules Gorham

We had a meeting with the DG at the time. She's no longer there. She told us that she did not know that it would be in the budget, Mr. Naqvi. We weren't consulted on Bill C-47.

October 31st, 2024 / 4:25 p.m.


See context

Director, Regulatory Affairs and Policy, Canadian Health Food Association

Jules Gorham

When Bill C-47 reached the Senate, our president and CEO, Aaron Skelton, asked if he could testify, because we were not consulted. Aaron testified at the Senate that we did not have meetings with the department.

October 31st, 2024 / 4:20 p.m.


See context

Director, Regulatory Affairs and Policy, Canadian Health Food Association

Jules Gorham

As far as I'm aware, the last conversations would have been on what Mr. Harrington spoke to, the self-care framework. That would have been in 2019. That was not on Bill C-47.