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.

[Carlos Castiblanco, Economist and Analyst, Option consommateurs]

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

Thank you for offering us the opportunity to present our comments today.

My name is Carlos Castiblanco and I am an economist and analyst at Option consommateurs. With me is my colleague Sara Eve Levac, who is a lawyer.

Option consommateurs was created in 1983 and is a non-profit association whose mission is to help consumers defend their rights. Option consommateurs is directly involved in issues relating to competition, housing, and measures that affect consumers.

We are therefore in a good position to provide you with our comments on Bill C‑59.

Option consommateurs welcomes the bill and sees it as a step forward for protecting Canadian consumers. Our remarks will focus on three areas that the bill addresses: adoption of the tax recommendations made by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development or OECD, initiatives to stimulate access to housing, and measures to strengthen competition.

I would also note that we have submitted a brief setting out the details of our position on the bill.

Bill C-59 proposes that certain recommendations that came out of the OECD project to combat erosion of the tax base be adopted. The goal of one such measure is to limit unreasonable tax deductions for interest expenses and other financing costs.

That initiative, which is intended to prevent corporate profit shifting by multinational corporations, is worded too broadly, however. It could extend to Canadian corporations in the energy sector, which might see their indebtedness rise at the same pace as the investments needed for the energy transition.

That could have a negative effect on rates, by potentially increasing the financing costs for new projects. For that reason, we are seeking an exemption from the measures relating to section 18.1 of the Income Tax Act for Canadian projects that provide regulated utilities.

On the subject of housing, we support the elimination of the GST on new purpose-built rental units constructed by cooperative housing corporations. We also welcome the incorporation of the housing policy into the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, provided that close collaboration is established and that it respects the jurisdictions of the other governments. This reflects the federal government's commitment to diversifying the housing stock and taking the lead on these initiatives.

Again, we emphasize the need to maintain careful coordination among the various levels of government. We also stress the need to increase the funding for programs associated with the National Housing Strategy and coordination of the programs by the Minister of Housing, Infratucture and Communities.

I will now give the floor to my colleague Sara Eve Levac for our comments on the proposed amendments to the Competition Act.

[W. Scott Thurlow, Senior Advisor, Government Affairs, Dow Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Through you, I would like to extend my warmest regards to the other members of the committee.

I am proud to speak to the committee about Dow Canada. Dow operates two manufacturing sites in Alberta, located in Fort Saskatchewan and Lacombe County. The Alberta sites convert natural gas feedstock into ethane, ethylene and finally, polyethylene to be shipped to customers around the world. Our main product in Alberta, polyethylene, is sold to customers worldwide to make durable industrial goods as well as packaging and consumer products.

In Ontario, we have two manufacturing sites, one in West Hill in Scarborough and one near Sarnia. These facilities produce emulsions and speciality plastic resin, respectively.

On November 29, Dow's board of directors approved a final investment decision for the world's first net-zero scope 1 and scope 2 emissions ethylene and derivatives complex in Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta. Economically speaking, this brownfield investment enables Dow to deliver two million metric tons per annum, effectively tripling our current domestic production. At its peak, we expect 7,000 new construction jobs will be created.

Environmentally speaking, this investment will eliminate one million tonnes of CO2 even with our added growth. We will do this by converting hydrogen from cracker off-gas as a clean fuel while capturing and storing the remaining CO2. This investment paves the way for growth in Dow's entire packing and specialty plastics portfolio. This first-mover advantage gives us the ability to lead in capturing the growing demand for low-carbon solutions for Dow. It puts Dow out in front in delivering the first world-scale, fully integrated site with net-zero scope 1 and scope 2 emissions.

Dow's investment will leverage approximately $3 billion of additional investment from third party companies for circular hydrogen, CO2 capture and other infrastructure assets critical to the project expansion. Dow has announced that Linde was selected as the industrial gas partner for the supply of clean hydrogen and nitrogen for the site. Fluor was selected for the front-end engineering and design. Dow is partnering with Wolf Midstream, which will provide CO2 transportation along the Alberta trunk line.

Last month, Dow CEO Jim Fitterling joined Premier Smith at the CERA conference in Houston to talk about this investment. He noted that reducing carbon emissions in an energy-intensive industry takes the right investments, the right policies and the right partners.

Our Fort Saskatchewan Path2Zero project will serve as a leading example that industrial decarbonization not only is possible but also can be profitable when we work together. Fort Saskatchewan is strategic and advantaged because we have access to low-cost ethane. There is existing rail and export infrastructure that will be expanded to support these new global sales. We have government support, including subsidies that are offsetting a portion of the cost of our investment. It is also one of the few places in the world where existing infrastructure for carbon transportation and storage exists. This is a key reason why we have a first-mover advantage in low-carbon solutions.

Certainty in the investment environment we are operating in is certainly a key essential advantage. Therefore, I am here today to offer Dow Canada's support for Bill C-59 and the carbon capture, utilization and storage tax credit that it creates. These were first announced in budget 2021. It is high time we adopt them.

Similar measures were introduced, debated, adopted, implemented and deployed under the United States Inflation Reduction Act in less than two months.

I also offer our hearty support for the creation of a similar tax credit for the deployment of hydrogen technology. Similar to the CCUS tax credit, this was first mentioned in the previous budget. We are anxiously waiting to see it in next week's budget implementation act in association with next week's budget.

We urge Parliament to pass this bill expeditiously so that the certainty required to rely on these investment tax credits can be built directly into our investment models. These tax credits will help support the decarbonization of our operations in Fort Saskatchewan and our return to operation by 2030.

I want to repeat a key point. These credits will lead to absolute emissions reductions. In order for Canada to meet our emissions reduction goals, we need to see transformative investments like the one being made by our company. It is through advents in the chemistry sector that these deep emissions reductions will occur.

I welcome any questions the committee may have.

[George Maringapasi, President-Elect and Registered Counselling Therapist, Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is George Maringapasi. I'm a registered counselling therapist in private practice in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia. My practice is inspired and informed by the central issue of accessibility to quality mental health services for everyone seeking care. To be here advocating for improved access through the removal of the financial barrier of GST/HST on counselling therapy and psychotherapy services is the greatest honour of my career so far.

I am before you today in my capacity as the president-elect of the Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association to discuss a crucial topic that affects us all: mental health.

Mental health is an essential aspect of our well-being, yet it is often overlooked or stigmatized, and in our case, taxed. The CCPA has long advocated for a solution that could make a significant difference in the lives of many—tax-free therapy.

I represent the voices of close to 15,000 counsellors, counselling therapists and psychotherapists across the country who are encouraged, indeed enthusiastic, that we have been invited to this discussion. It is a sign that we are aligned in our assessment of the importance of providing quality, accessible and affordable mental health services to the people of Canada.

We applaud the proposed exemption of counselling therapy and psychotherapy services from GST and HST as tabled by the Minister of Finance in the 2023 fall economic statement and outlined in Bill C-59. We thank the many members of Parliament from all political parties, who have supported this cause. I would like to expressly thank the member for Cumberland—Colchester and the member for London—Fanshawe for their private members' bills that called for this change.

Counselling therapists and psychotherapists are qualified, competent and available to meet Canada's skyrocketing mental health care needs, yet the additional cost of GST/HST on their services is limiting their capacity to serve their communities and those seeking care.

Our profession meets the threshold for tax exemptions in the Excise Tax Act, as it is regulated in five provinces; however, the profession is regulated under two different titles, a decision that falls under provincial jurisdiction.

Counselling therapists and psychotherapists are the same in all but name. Take me, for example. I'm a registered counselling therapist in Nova Scotia. My colleague joining me here today, Lindsey Thomson, who's also our director for public affairs, is a registered psychotherapist in Ontario. We, like all who hold these regulated titles, share a common scope of practice, abide by similar codes of ethics and standards of practice, and have an equivalent training and education profile and a commitment and obligation to ongoing education. In the absence of regulation of our profession throughout Canada, CCPA offers voluntary and non-statutory self-regulation of the profession via our Canadian certified counsellor designation, which is a national certification program with similar requirements to the regulatory colleges.

We were excited to learn from the Canada Revenue Agency's recent public notices that the proposed amendment may apply to providers in unregulated provinces with equivalent qualifications. This means that individuals seeking care in unregulated provinces will potentially benefit from the same tax exemption as those in regulated provinces, thereby contributing to consistency and equity in accessing services from coast to coast to coast.

It is also our hope that this amendment will advance regulatory efforts in the unregulated provinces. Imagine a world where seeking therapy is not only encouraged but also financially accessible to all. By making counselling therapy and psychotherapy services tax free, we could remove a significant barrier, especially for those with limited financial resources.

This exemption could mean that your child, partner or friend seeking mental health treatment on a biweekly basis would be able to access an additional three to four sessions a year, based on an average cost of $100 to $150 per session. In many clients' experience, an additional four sessions can significantly improve their ability to fully adopt and integrate positive changes and habits for improved well-being.

Tax-free therapy is about investing in the well-being of our society. It's about acknowledging the importance of mental health and taking concrete steps to support those who are struggling. If the recent pandemic taught us anything, it is that Canadians do not have appropriate access to mental health care.

We humbly urge members of this committee to support this bill, to take action to implement tax-free therapy and to help see this proposal through to the finish line. We are almost there. Together we can create a more compassionate and mentally healthy society for all.

Thank you for this opportunity. We look forward to answering any of the committee's questions.

[Lucas Claveland]

will do my best. Thank you very much, sir.

As introduced, I am Lucas Cleveland, the mayor of Cobourg.

For those who are unaware, Cobourg is the largest municipality in the county of Northumberland in Ontario. It's an idyllic, beachside, heritage-rich community with over 200 years of history. It's truly the hidden gem in southeastern Ontario, located just one hour east of Toronto along the beautiful coast of Lake Ontario. We find ourselves just south of Peterborough on the traditional treaty territory of the Mississauga Anishinabe.

I am here today to share my community's frustrations regarding the issues that are affecting them which have been left out of Bill C-59. I'm here to get your attention on behalf of my residents.

I want to ask, as an individual, why this bill continues to completely ignore our world-renowned natural gas sector and why we continue to miss opportunities surrounding LNG. I want to ask those questions as a journeyman, someone who spent 10 years in the oil and gas sector working on the rigs. You see, I'm one of those people who lost everything—my career, home and retirement savings—due to the decisions of this level of government. I'd like to ask why Bill C-59 doesn't address the $82-million-a-day opportunity of the LNG market, but that's not why I'm here today.

I'd like to address why this bill doesn't help small business owners, of which I am one. You see, after returning home from Alberta, I built a business with my partner within eight years. Yet, every year it gets harder to break even. I'm curious about why Bill C-59 continues the legacy of not standing with the small business community in this country. Again, however, that is not germane to why I'm here.

No. Today, I am here to speak for the citizens of Cobourg. I'm here because I desperately need this level of government to listen to their concerns, the ones they share with me every single day. I need you to listen, because they keep coming to me to fix the problems that only this level of government can actually fix.

You see, I'm the first person in Cobourg to ever be elected from the public straight to the mayor's office with zero public experience. I did it because I moved to this community just seven years ago. In the last seven years, as I built this business, I've watched our community drift into total chaos. I was happy just running my business, but our community is completely under siege. I needed to try to do something.

Here I stand 18 months later as a first-time mayor, proud of the drastic and immediate changes we made in Cobourg and at the county level. I am proud of the work and attention our local community and county are getting, both provincially and internationally, for the work we're doing. However, I need to get this level of government's attention, because, when I hear from my constituents, 99.5% of the issues they complain about day in and day out, the fears, concerns and things they want fixed and are asking me to fix, are issues that are up to this level of government to address.

When is this government going to seriously look at bail reform? Why isn't this part of Bill C-59? How many people need to be assaulted during their lunch breaks in my community, in front of their children, for just being in our community? How many more women need to feel attacked and threatened? How many times does the Cobourg Police Service need to arrest the same person for the same crime before we actually put them away so they stop terrorizing our community?

Why is there nothing in this bill addressing the failed drug strategy that is destroying my community? When will this government listen to the thousands of seniors, women and families in our communities and those from across this country who tell us they are afraid to come out of their homes due to the lawlessness, erratic behaviour and changing face of poverty and mental illness on our streets?

Why isn't Bill C-59 creating more treatment options for our most vulnerable? Let's talk about it, ladies and gentlemen. Why is there nothing in this bill about doing something for our most vulnerable to improve their lives? Why are we focused on protecting the rights of encampments, yet failing to do anything to address the systemic issues in our continuum of care? Why is it falling to us, the lowest tier of government agency, to enact bylaws in our community and set standards of care for our most vulnerable? We would love this bill to start focusing on delivering the mental health services we desperately need in our community, not on more dental health.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's not cavities that are destroying my community. Why doesn't this bill address any of the three major concerns of our community?

I realize that I'm out of time. I want to say thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak. I am here to advocate for the most vulnerable in our community who need all levels of government to work together.

Most importantly, I am here to speak on behalf of the silent majority in our community. These are the people who are tired of watching beautiful towns like Cobourg fall into chaos and disrepair and who are tired of having the vocal minority in our communities influence the decisions of this government.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Strickland, in November, in response to the fall economic statement, you said, “We welcome the announcement of a new Department of Housing, Infrastructure, and Communities.” Bill C-59 enacts the department of housing, infrastructure and communities act which will transfer part of the federal housing portfolio to the office of Infrastructure Canada.

Can you outline why Canada's Building Trades Unions supports that provision?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I think you have anticipated where I'm going next, because under the requirements in Bill C-59, the incentive claimants must make “reasonable efforts to ensure that apprentices registered in a Red Seal trade work at least 10% of the total hours worked during” an installation tax year at the “designated work site”.

I'm curious as to how that compares with the current situation. Currently, do most work sites have 10% of the hours worked being performed by apprentices or not?

[Natasha Knox]

I think I would just go back to my original point, which is that with Bill C-59, the measure that allows siblings to become successor holders is temporary. It would be great if that were a permanent provision, because that just makes the administration simpler, more flexible and more streamlined for families. Access to the RDSP is contingent on the disability tax credit. Expanding access to the disability tax credit is something that I think could potentially happen over time and that I would like to see.

Disabilities that are episodic in nature are particularly tricky. The impacts on people are devastating. I will give one example to help illustrate my point. I have a client who has a severe migraine disorder. She has maybe five good days a month, but she doesn't know when those good days are going to be.

Thanks to the expanded access for mental health issues, which was very recent, she was able to get access to the disability tax credit, which has enabled her to open up an RDSP. That has been fantastic. If she gets even a little better, she may lose access to that disability tax credit, so she is caught in a loophole. If she gets even a little better, she may no longer meet the threshold even though this is an absolutely devastating disability in which she spends most of her days feeling like her head is in a vise. She needs help.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to welcome the three witnesses, whose presentations gave us much to think about.

Mr. Céré, I too wish you a happy 65th birthday. I want to congratulate you on the fullness, in every sense, of your 45 years in the struggle to protect the rights of unemployed men and women. I have the feeling that the historical perspective is too often lost when policy is made, because short-term action is what is wanted.

I certainly understood that you had expectations of the last budget. Bill C‑59 is about implementing that budget. Commitments were made and consultations were held. I recall that when you came to testify before the committee you were enthusiastic about that commitment, but there is nothing about that in the last budget. The last economic statement talks about temporary measures, which, as you said, are to end on September 7, and the pilot project, which will be ending in a few weeks.

You gave a quick listing of the requests that need to be filled if we are to have a good scheme, a scheme that functions. As you said, the economy is a cyclical thing and the crises will return.

Can you repeat what has to be done if we are to be sure this is a good reform?

[Sean Strickland, Executive Director, Canada's Building Trades Unions]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.

My name is Sean Strickland, and I serve as the executive director of Canada's Building Trades Unions, the national voice for over 600,000 skilled tradespeople in Canada who belong to 14 international unions and work in more than 60 different trades and occupations.

I am pleased to be here today to talk about the positive impacts that the skilled trades anticipate from the investment tax credits and the substantial benefits to the broader construction industry from the measures in this bill.

I want to be clear with members of the committee that the investment tax credits are a game-changer for all construction workers, union and non-union. We urge Parliament to move forward as quickly as possible. That's because, for the first time, government incentives in the tax code that encourage investment in priority projects are being directly tied to delivering benefits for skilled trades workers. The investment tax credits are a true win-win for skilled trades workers, businesses investing in clean technology and for all Canadians.

Bill C-59 will require that companies that are claiming ITCs and investing in projects involving clean technology, clean hydrogen, clean electricity, nuclear and carbon capture that want to receive the maximum benefit must pay good wages—union wages and benefits—to the skilled trades workers who are building these projects.

The prevailing wage requirement in the investment tax credit is, without a doubt, the best definition of prevailing wage in Canadian labour history. Regardless of whether a skilled trades worker is one of our members or not, they will be paid the robust wages and benefits we've negotiated through multi-employer collective agreements.

This bill is also a monumental win for developing our Canadian skilled trades workforce. The provisions of the investment tax credit require companies to hire apprentices. This is important. Developing the skilled trades workforce for the future requires high-quality, well-paid apprenticeship opportunities. It is critical that companies receive incentives to invest in training of the next generation clean economy workforce, and the 10% apprenticeship requirement is an outstanding measure to help ensure that we're doing what we need to do to build the clean economy workforce of the future.

Moreover, because of the strong prevailing wage requirements, many more Canadian workers will be attracted to the skilled trades to the benefit of them and their families. Beyond benefits to the workforce as another critical reason to advance this bill, there is regulatory certainty. You've heard that from other delegations today. There are tens of billions of dollars in final investment decisions—and I don't say that lightly—awaiting the certainty that the passage of this bill will bring.

From new net-zero petrochemical production facilities in Alberta and carbon sequestration to small modular nuclear projects in Ontario and New Brunswick and hydrogen projects in Atlantic Canada, there are billions of dollars on hold that can start flowing into our economy, including wages into the jeans of Canadian workers.

We know that these measures do work. We've seen it in the United States under the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS act. On behalf of the members of Canada's Building Trades Unions, we have one overriding message to this committee: We can't wait.

To the benefit of Canadian construction workers, our environment and the Canadian economy, we look forward to the passing of this bill. Let's get to work.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Natasha Knox, Financial Planner, Alaphia Financial Wellness Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for allowing me to speak with you today.

I have four main points I'd like to address that concern planning for people with disabilities that I have encountered in my private practices. I think if these issues were addressed, it would be greatly helpful to people with disabilities and their families. It would be a ray of hope for a more inclusive and supportive future.

The first thing I'd like to talk about is with respect to the inclusion of siblings as successor holders of RDSPs, which is part of Bill C-59. This change, which I am very heartened by, addresses a very real need and concern for parents of children with disabilities. It makes their planning process more streamlined, more flexible, and it gives certainty and comfort around knowing their children's savings will be seamlessly managed when they're gone. This is a major worry for people who have children with disabilities.

However, this measure is still temporary, and it expires at the end of 2026. I believe this excellent measure should actually be made permanent. I would hope that whatever negotiations or mechanisms need to be implemented to make this change permanent can be done.

The second point that I would like to talk about today concerns specified disability savings plans. These are for beneficiaries who have shortened lifespans. Regular RDSPs can be designated as specified disability savings plans when a doctor or a nurse practitioner provides a written opinion that the beneficiary is unlikely to live more than five years. At a really high level, the current provisions allow for a withdrawal of up to $10,000 of the taxable disability assistance payments or the LDAP formula, whichever is greater, without having to repay the grants and bonds.

The issue here is that with older plans that were funded early on, the taxable portion of those plans could be well in excess of $50,000—so $10,000 times five years. With a beneficiary with a significantly decreased life expectancy, this current structure ends up creating estate value, which is not the purpose of these plans. These plans are intended to help the lives of people with disabilities while they're living. What would be more helpful instead would be perhaps a percentage withdrawal, rather than a specific dollar value limit that would allow those people with disabilities, who also have a shortened life expectancy, to properly access their savings, to make their lives easier and more comfortable in their final years.

My third point today concerns inter vivos Henson trusts. It would be helpful if those could regain access to the principal residence tax exemption. The loss of the principal residence exemption for these types of trusts happened in 2016. It has had unintended consequences for people with disabilities, who have a property that they live in in this type of trust that was set up for them prior to 2016. The particular issue here is that the 21-year rule causes a deemed disposition and causes capital gains to be paid on all trust assets. Without the principal residence exemption, these trusts have to pay capital gains based on the increase in the value of the property since 2017. This is unjust since these properties are in fact the principal residence of the person with disabilities living in them. Further, it's problematic, because it imposes hardship on the beneficiary if the trust assets don't have sufficient money to pay the capital gains.

The final piece I will mention today is around expanding access to the disability tax credit itself for people who have a diagnosis of a degenerative illness or an episodic disability. The disability tax credit is the key that unlocks access to lots of programs, including the ability to establish a RDSP, which is the aspect that I personally encounter in my work. When we're talking about RDSPs, the time value of money is significant. The earlier on that a person can start saving, the more meaningful those savings become.

It's a real shame that someone who has a diagnosis of something degenerative in nature like MS, for example, that progresses over time, is unable to start saving. They could get the grants and bonds and all of the sheltered growth on those savings when they first get the diagnosis versus the situation now, which is that they have to wait a number of years for their condition to get bad enough to qualify for the DTC in order to even open up an RDSP.

Recently there were some provisions made, which was a really great step in the right direction for people with type 1 diabetes to automatically qualify for the DTC. What I would love to see is if we could make even more strides in that direction and continue expanding access.

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I have some more questions I would like to ask Mr. Soucis and Ms. Landry. Bill C‑59 presents a major problem for all the professions they represent. I hope to have time to question them on this subject.

Second, I would not support the idea of a House of Commons committee inviting the provincial premiers to appear, which is an unusual process. However, I would support that idea in the event that the provincial premiers wrote to the committee to ask to appear at a meeting, as in the really unusual case we have seen. In that case, it is the least we could do is to give them a respectful hearing. Four premiers have already made that request: Mr. Moe, Mr. Houston, Ms. Smith and Mr. Higgs. If there are motions proposing to invite them to testify, I will support those motions.

Regarding the premiers who have not asked to appear at the committee, I will not support such motions. Obviously, if the other provincial premiers wrote to the committee, then I would be in favour of having the great pleasure of hearing them. I am sure we can arrange our schedule to have them appear quickly, while continuing our study of Bill C‑59. I think that is possible.

Regarding the present motion, if I am not mistaken, only Mr. Houston of Nova Scotia is named. For that reason, I will not support the present motion. I will only support motions that propose to invite the premiers who have asked to appear at the committee.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I just want to say that I'm very, very disappointed that this motion has been moved, for the following reasons. At the very end of this motion, it basically says that we should be entertaining this motion at the expense of moving forward with Bill C-59 business, which is the fall economic statement. We have listened to six excellent witnesses so far. They have been very clear that they're asking for fast passage of Bill C-59. We heard from industry today, who indicated that it's very important for them to have clear timelines and predictability or else we will be at risk from a competition perspective, from an economic perspective and from a competitive perspective. I'm very disappointed that the Conservatives are moving this forward.

Also, Mr. Chair, just from a technical perspective, the premiers listed in this motion have not written to this committee. Other premiers wrote to this committee, but not the premiers who are listed here. I wanted to point that out.

I'm really glad that Mr. Hallan mentioned OGGO. I happened to be watching some of the commentary on national news about that testimony from the premiers at OGGO. I'll be quoting a couple of them, because I think their summary of what took at place at OGGO after the testimony around the carbon pricing was very accurate.

Andrew Coyne, referring to the testimony of the premiers at OGGO committee, now a couple of weeks ago, said, “What you saw on display...with each of them was [actually a] parade of nonsense. You saw how completely dishonest they were about the costs of the carbon tax and...basically...ignoring the [Canada carbon] rebates that are available, that for 80% of households, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer has found, makes [most Canadians] more than whole. But also, when they were asked for their alternatives, it was just fantasy. It was...maybe we could amend the Paris Accord, or maybe we [can] get China to reduce [their] consumption of coal, or maybe we could get other countries to give [Canada] the credit for the carbon reduction” that our companies are making or the provinces are making “by using our liquefied natural gas rather than claiming the credit themselves.”

In terms of what the provinces would do alternatively, they have no suggestions. Mr. Coyne mentioned his favourite, which has been mentioned a couple of times today in other debates. When Premier Scott Moe was asked what he would do, he said he looked at the alternatives, but all of them “cost more than the carbon price”.

Chantal Hébert said that the Premier of Alberta had mentioned that the carbon tax is immoral and inhumane, but then in her budget that was unveiled just a few days before her testimony, she raised the tax on gas in her own province, so it seems like the price on pollution or carbon tax is immoral and inhumane because it's federal, but when the Province of Alberta raises the price on gas, it is not inhumane and immoral.

It is ridiculous. This is a colossal waste of time. This is bad strategy. It is stopping us from continuing to move expeditiously on Bill C-59, which is what we need to do right now.

I will not be voting in favour of this motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

My second confession is that I do remember 1971, but it's very hazy, very hazy.

Mr. Beaulieu, clause 236 of Bill C‑59 adds a new provision, as you've pointed out, to the deceptive marketing provisions of the Competition Act to help address certain types of false or misleading environmental claims. It specifies that claims about a product's benefit for protecting the environment or mitigating the environmental and ecological effects of climate change must be based on an adequate and proper test, and that the burden of proof would fall on the person making the representation, thereby making it a type of reverse-onus provision. However, Canada's commissioner of competition, Matthew Boswell, in a letter to this committee in March, said this:

The reality is that a significant portion of the greenwashing complaints the Bureau receives do not involve claims about products, but rather more general or forward-looking environmental claims about a business or brand [such as] being “net-zero”...by 2030.... These claims are not reverse onus, and it can be challenging for the Bureau to prove that they are false or misleading in a material respect.

Do you agree that more general or forward-looking environmental claims about a business or brand should also be subject to the reverse-onus test?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Bill C-59 also eliminates the requirement that credit unions derive no more than 10% of their revenue from sources other than certain specified sources, such as interest income from lending activities.

Mr. Hatch, how does the removal of the revenue test benefit credit unions and their members?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Hatch, I will declare my bias from the outset. I have been a proud member of the credit union movement for over 30 years. I will situate myself there.

Bill C-59 amends the Canadian Payments Act to, among other things, expand membership in the Canadian payments association to credit union locals that are members of a credit union central.

Could you outline how this measure will impact credit unions and their members?