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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Boulerice.

We want to thank the Competition Bureau—Commissioner Boswell and his team—as well as the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer—PBO Giroux and his team—who are here with us. Thank you for the two hours of the many questions that you were able to answer. We highly appreciate it. We wish you the best for the rest of your day. Thank you for coming here for Bill C-59.

At this time, members, we are going to suspend while we transition to our next panel.

Thank you.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This time, I would like to turn to the officials from Competition Bureau, which recently published a study about the GST exemption for psychotherapy and counselling therapy services.

My apologies, this question is for the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I was thinking that the Competition Bureau had produced another study, and those officials are wondering what they might have written on that topic because they don't remember.

Mr. Giroux, returning to your study on a GST exemption for psychotherapy and counselling therapy services, we and various stakeholders in Quebec maintain that the proposed change is still not enough. Further, we would like to propose an amendment to Bill C‑59 to address this.

Can you tell us about your study on this topic? Is it much different from the government's analyses?

[Matthew Boswell]

As I set out in my opening, rebuttable structural presumptions are incredibly important and would be a very significant change in terms of merger law in Canada. As I pointed out, it's not some sort of magic thing that we've come up with at the bureau by ourselves. It's an approach they've been taking in the United States for 60 years, including through endorsing it at the level of the Supreme Court of the United States. That's why we make a strong point about how Bill C-59 could be amended. We provide very clear language on how it could be amended to mirror the U.S. merger guidelines.

The other point would be the remedy standard, which is—I went through it in my opening as well in terms of the United States, the European Union and the United Kingdom—to restore competition to what it was before, when you have an anti-competitive merger. That should be the remedy.

Those two amendments, combined with repealing the efficiencies defence—which happened, as you will recall, in Bill C-56—would probably be the most significant amendments to our merger law ever. That's why we're pushing so hard. As the enforcer who sees these things, we're at the coalface every day. That's why we're pushing so hard for these amendments. They would make a big difference.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

All right. We'll have to take a closer look. I also imagine that your office would need more resources to be able to conduct these investigations and have access to all the necessary expertise.

I now have a question about the cost of living. Many of the people we represent tell us about the rising cost of living and the cost of many things, including the grocery basket. Food is becoming increasingly expensive. There are provisions relating to this in Bill C‑56 and in Bill C‑59.

I have a very naive question, where I put myself in the place of the citizens I represent: Can we have hope, thanks to the provisions of Bill C‑59, that the cost of groceries will stabilize and perhaps even decrease? We can't control global inflation, I understand that, but can the measures in this bill give people hope that prices will stop rising as they have and that we'll stop seeing crazy prices?

[Matthew Boswell]

Thank you for the question. I'll answer in English again, if I may.

As we point out in our submission to this committee, the issue of greenwashing is a very significant issue on which the bureau has multiple, ongoing investigations. We've brought cases in the past. For example, we fined Keurig $3 million for false or misleading claims about the recyclability of its pods.

We welcome the amendment that is in Bill C-59 now, but as you point out, it's limited to products, not to claims with respect to a business or a brand as a whole being, you know, net zero by 2030 or carbon neutral. These are claims that can be false or misleading.

What we say in our report is that we recommend further study to expand the greenwashing provisions to potentially include a requirement where companies are able to substantiate those business-wide claims. It wouldn't be a situation like the amendment in Bill C-59 now, where it relates to a product and they have to have done adequate and proper testing and the proof is on them. It's more a question of whether there should be a clause that says that the company needs to be able to substantiate its claims and that the proof should be on the company.

I can indicate at a high level that these investigations into business-wide claims or brand-wide claims are extremely difficult investigations for the bureau. Obviously, we're not environmental experts; we're competition law experts. These investigations are incredibly resource-intensive. As is publicly known, we get complaints from multiple organizations to look into these types of greenwashing claims. We are pursuing them, and we take these very seriously. We can also attack them under our general false and misleading claims..., but the point in our letter is that perhaps there should be further study about expanding....

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

That's very good, thank you.

I now turn to the representatives of the Competition Bureau Canada, namely Mr. Durocher, Mr. Boswell and Ms. Pratt.

The letter that the bureau sent to the committee on March 1 states that the amendments proposed in Bill C‑59, as well as the recent reforms made in bills C‑19 and C‑56, represent a generational upgrade to Canada's competition legal framework. All three bills mentioned are budget implementation bills.

Do you believe that reform of the Competition Act, through a bill dealing solely with it, would be beneficial so that parliamentarians can weigh every effect of the act and of any amendments made to such a bill?

[Matthew Boswell]

What I can say is that the amendments we saw to Bill C-19 and Bill C-56, and the amendments that are proposed to Bill C-59, are significant changes to Canada's competition laws. They are generational, in fact. They make positive changes in multiple different ways.

With them, Canada is catching up to the rest of the world. As I've said before this committee, we have been an international outlier on many fronts in terms of how we handle competition in Canada. What we've seen are positive changes to catch us up.

I would say it's not a question of putting a banner up that says, “Mission accomplished” on a ship in New York Harbor. This is constant work that we need to do. There are other things that other countries are doing that we have not yet tackled in Canada, including really talking about how to deal with digital platforms and the serious competition issues that they can present. Other countries are taking very definitive strides in that regard.

To go back to your point about the lack of business investment in Canada, about a month ago, StatsCan put out a report that analyzed a 15-year period that demonstrated quite clearly the decline in business investment across the country. It pointed to competition as a significant factor in the lack of that investment. When you're not afraid of somebody eating your lunch—I'm sorry to use the proverbial term—there isn't that drive to invest in order to get better, produce better products, be more efficient and all of those things. It's a big issue.

The amendments are certainly significant. As you heard in my opening comments, I don't think we could go further, even in Bill C-59, to further strengthen various aspects of the Competition Act in Canada.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to say a huge thank you for the excellent presentations.

I'll start off with our competition commissioner. I have been very worried for years about a lack of business investment by our businesses in Canada. Before the pandemic, we had probably over 10 years of historic low interest rates. Typically, the theory is that if you have low interest rates, companies are going to take the cheap capital and actually reinvest in their companies. We did not see that.

I've suspected that one of the key things is around competition. Our government has done a lot of consultations around competition and how we strengthen competition law. I think we've had three bills that have attempted to strengthen our competition law and update it: Bill C-19, Bill C-56 and now Bill C-59.

Just as a general first question, would you say that collectively the changes we've made to the competition law and the act have made it overall much better and that Canada will be more competitive?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I have heard that there may be some significant amendments coming to Bill C-59. Do you think that those amendments, if they're substantial, would be better put forth to committee with some time to review them, as opposed to at report stage?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

We'll get a name tag for her next time, hopefully.

Mr. Giroux, your office didn't look at all of Bill C-59, but at least one provision in it. I think that had to do with the psychotherapy GST or the changes to the excise tax. I'm not necessarily interested in that.

It was news to officials at the CRA that they would be responsible for auditing the labour provisions as part of the investment tax credits. Has your office looked at the number of people who might be required to perform the auditing required?

[Yves Giroux, Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen members of Parliament, thank you for inviting us to testify today.

We are pleased to be here to talk about 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.

Contrary to what you mentioned earlier, Mr. Chair, I am indeed accompanied today by Diarra Sourang, whom you correctly named, but to whom you attributed a title she does not have. She's director of economic analysis, not political analysis, a type of analysis we don't do in our office. I just wanted to be clear on that.

My mandate as Parliamentary Budget Officer, as defined by the Parliament of Canada Act, is to provide parliamentarians with independent, non-partisan analysis to help you fulfill your constitutional role of holding the government to account.

To this end, on December 7, 2023, my office published an analysis of the fall economic statement—published by the Department of Finance on November 21, 2023—and more recently, on March 5, 2024, we published an update of our economic and financial outlook. In the coming weeks, consistent with our practice, we will publish our detailed analysis of the government's most recent budget. These analyses are intended to provide parliamentarians with important information on key issues to inform your discussions on the country's economic and fiscal situation.

To leave more time for your questions, I will stop here. We are pleased to respond to any questions you may have regarding our fall economic statement and budget 2023 analysis, or other work carried out by my office.

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

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.

My name is Matthew Boswell and I am the commissioner of the Competition Bureau. Joining me today are my colleagues Jeanne Pratt, senior deputy commissioner of the mergers and monopolistic practices branch, and Anthony Durocher, deputy commissioner of the competition promotion branch.

As part of your study into Bill C-59, we submitted a brief outlining a number of recommendations that we believe could strengthen this already important piece of legislation. During these opening remarks, I would like to focus on our two recommendations relating to merger review.

The first of our recommendations with respect to mergers is for Canada to adopt a rebuttable structural presumption system in our merger law.

The idea is quite straightforward. Mergers that significantly increase concentration in highly concentrated markets are more likely to harm competition. Beyond certain thresholds, there should be a presumption in the law that a merger is anti-competitive, and merging parties should then have an opportunity to rebut that presumption.

This is not a novel idea. The U.S. has taken this common-sense approach for over 60 years, backed by U.S. Supreme Court precedent. We recommend adopting the threshold set out in the U.S. "Merger Guidelines”. Those thresholds are supported by a large number of economists and legal scholars and are consistent with retrospective studies that look at the actual effects of mergers in concentrated industries. Harmonizing Canadian law with the U.S. merger guidelines would, of course, also increase predictability for businesses and improve co-operation in cross-border merger reviews.

This is the kind of definitive reform that's needed if we want to see a true course correction in the way that mergers are treated, and avoid further harmful consolidation in Canada.

The second recommendation I'd like to highlight is our recommendation to strengthen our ability to remedy anti-competitive mergers.

Merger review is our first line of defence for protecting competition. However, when we find that a merger is anti-competitive, the law does not require strong remedies. The Supreme Court held that the goal of a merger remedy is simply to mitigate the harm from a merger so that it is no longer substantial, and to do so in the least intrusive way. As a result, we sometimes end up with merger remedies that take a strong competitor in a market and replace it with a weaker one.

The U.S. accepts only merger remedies that fully maintain competition, reflecting, once again, a common-sense view that the public should not bear the cost of a risky remedy.

In the European Union, merger remedies have to eliminate the competition concerns entirely, and have to be comprehensive and effective from all points of view.

In the United Kingdom, the objective is to ensure that competition, following the remedy, is as effective as pre-merger competition.

There is, in my submission, no reason why it should be any different in this country.

Our brief provides model legislative text that would implement each of these recommendations.

In closing, allow me to reassure you, we are committed to transparent, principled and evidence-based enforcement of the act for the benefit of all Canadians. If Bill C-59 becomes law, with or without our proposed amendments, we will implement the changes responsibly and provide guidance to business and stakeholders on our approach.

I want to thank parliamentarians for their diligent efforts in modernizing Canada's competition law framework. A more competitive economy will benefit all Canadians—by offering more choice and greater affordability for consumers and businesses and by stimulating productivity throughout the economy.

Thank you very much. We look forward to your questions this morning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Dr. Burry.

Thank you, Mr. Boulerice.

At this time we want to thank our witnesses.

Thank you for your opening remarks, for your testimony and for your many answers.

If there were some questions from members that you're not able to answer at this time, you can submit them through the clerk, please, along with any other submissions you would like the committee to receive.

We thank you again for appearing on Bill C-59.

At this time we're going to suspend as we transition to our next panel.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Ms. Quaid, I'm going to continue with you. We have, of course, Bill C-59, and we're talking about competition changes.

The budget was just released this week, and it also points to Bill C-59 in saying that it's tackling some of these affordability issues. They talk about lowering everyday costs and affordable groceries.

Have you seen the budget or not? Is the budget going to fix competition for Canadians, yes or no?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for attending today on a very important act, specifically talking about competition.

Canadians know that we have a competition monopoly problem in Canada. Canadians are paying some of the highest fees and have an affordability problem for groceries, airlines, cellphones and banking. We've been very focused on looking at those changes, and the government has brought forth some of those changes and some of those bills.

Ms. Quaid, the first bill you mentioned, Bill C-56, was the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act. Of course, we're looking at Bill C-59 now with new changes.

I have a short question first. Yes or no, does Bill C-59 fix our monopoly problem, our competition problem, in Canada?