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.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I will, Mr. Chair. I'll speak briefly and have this go to a vote.

It amends clause 249 of the bill to stipulate “that the purpose of an order made against an anti-competitive merger is to preserve or restore the level of competition that would have prevailed without the merger.”

As currently drafted:

Bill C-59 does not address the standard for merger remedies under the [Competition] Act, which remains weak by international standards. Specifically, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that remedies for anti-competitive mergers need only “restore competition to the point at which it can no longer be said to be substantially less than it was before the merger” and, moreover, that we should favour the “least intrusive” remedy that meets this standard.

As well, Mr Chair:

The emphasis, therefore, is on finding a remedy that makes the harm from anti-competitive mergers less bad, or more tolerable, rather than preserving the state of competition. And even then, the Tribunal has discretion not to order a remedy at all—section 92 only says the Tribunal “may” make various orders if it finds that a merger is anti-competitive.

As explained in the [Competition] Bureau's February 2022 and March 2023 submissions, most jurisdictions seek remedies that fully prevent the harm from anti-competitive mergers. This makes sense [to us, given that] anti-competitive mergers generally occur in concentrated markets where there is limited competition and little prospect of new entry in the future such that the effective markets are unlikely to 'self-correct'.

I'll end by further quoting the Competition Bureau. In March 2024, when they wrote this committee, they said:

Merger control should seek to preserve the level of competition in these markets as much as possible rather than allow it to be eroded through anti-competitive consolidation that is only partially remedied.

Accordingly, we recommend that Clause 249 be amended to provide that the purpose of merger remedies ordered under [section] 92 is to preserve or restore the level of competition that would have existed without the merger, consistent with international best practice.

That's exactly what our amendment would do.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

NDP-9 expands the Competition Tribunal's remedial authority in cases of refusal to deal. As it's currently drafted, Bill C-59 would allow the tribunal to:

order one or more suppliers of a product, including a means of diagnosis or repair, in a market to accept a person as a customer within a specified time on usual trade terms

The proposed amendment would allow the tribunal to “order one or more suppliers of a product, including a means of diagnosis or repair, in a market to accept a per—”

This is the additional part:

—son as a customer, or to make the means of diagnosis or repair available to a person, within a specified period and on the terms that the Tribunal considers appropriate

[Martin Simard]

Yes.

As mentioned, these two lines are the instruction in Bill C-59. It says this section of the act is amended after the following, so we were all confused about drip pricing earlier. It's because there are four instances in the Competition Act where we have drip pricing. Bill C-59 was amending two of them. Then, collectively, you have now amended three of them.

I think the drafter was confused here and thought we were doing something twice. They deleted the instruction, thinking, “Oh, we've already dealt with drip pricing and this exact same wording,” so they added these things here. It's not necessarily to add a new thing. In fact, what it would do is defeat the purpose of what we're all trying to achieve, which is to make the change in four different places. It would leave one place unamended if we were to delete that instruction.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I would indeed, Mr. Chair. Basically, NDP-7 amends 236(2) of Bill C-59, so that sellers would bear the burden of proving that discounts are genuine. That follows a recommendation by the Competition Bureau.

Fake discounts are a common deceptive marketing practice. In some cases, businesses promote a price as being a discount when, in fact, the advertised price is just the ordinary price of the product. That conduct is prohibited under the ordinary selling price provisions of the Competition Act. That's in section 74, in a couple of different places.

Currently, Mr. Chair, the Competition Bureau bears the burden of proving that discount claims are false or misleading. This means that if a seller makes a claim like “$50 off the regular price of $100”, the bureau would have to obtain the data and run the numbers to verify whether the claim is truthful or not and be prepared to prove it in court, which can be a difficult burden. This is not the most efficient approach, given that the company is the one making the savings claim based on its own sales history and is best positioned to back it up if challenged. Therefore, we would recommend that this amendment be made.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I'm happy to say that what the legislative clerk just revealed to me, which I didn't understand when he first spoke, was that this is related to drip pricing. It's adding, by the sounds of it, another clause in order to deal with the drip pricing inconsistency that we would have in the Competition Act. I think it's 74.01(1.1), if I'm not mistaken, which is the section of the Competition Act that has to get amended in order to preserve that consistency.

We all gave unanimous consent, and we passed the other section, because there are two sections. The other one was...remind me of the number. Was it 52(1.3)? That was what we had already voted on, but we gave unanimous consent to amend two sections. The legislative clerk is just saying that we need to now add a clause into Bill C-59 in order to make this additional amendment to the Competition Act.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my colleague Mr. Ste-Marie.

They do the same thing. It basically expands the approach to greenwashing taken in clause 236 to cover all environmental claims made to promote a product or business interest.

Subclause 236(1) of Bill C-59 adds a new provision to the deceptive marketing provisions of the Competition Act to help address certain types of falls from misleading environmental claims. It specifies that claims about a “product’s benefits for protecting the environment or mitigating the environmental and ecological effects of climate change” must be based “on an adequate and proper test”. Importantly, the burden of proof would fall on the person making the representation, making it a type of reverse onus provision.

While the Competition Bureau has welcomed the new tool to address certain forms of greenwashing, it has also noted that it may prove to be a limited change that is more in the vein of clarifying the law than expanding it.

Notably, there's already a similar reverse onus provision in the act, dealing with product performance claims. That's in section 74.01. That provision prohibits making a claim about “the performance, efficacy or length of life of a product that is not based on an adequate and proper test”, and it would likely capture some of the same claims captured under this new provision.

The reality is that a significant portion of the greenwashing complaints the bureau receives do not involve claims about products. Rather, they're more general or forward-looking environmental claims about a business or brand as a whole, such as claims about being net zero or carbon neutral by 2030. These more general claims to promote a business interest can also be false or misleading, and they may be captured by our general deceptive marketing provisions. However, these claims are not reverse onus, and, as was stated by the competition commissioner, it can be challenging for the bureau to prove they are false or misleading in a material respect.

While these more general claims may not be amenable to testing in the way product performance claims are, businesses should at least be able to substantiate them, if challenged.

That's the rationale behind the change. I would have been happy with BQ-3, but I think this does the same thing. I hope we can get support for it.

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

Mr. Chair, there have been many amendments, and I hope I can explain them clearly to you.

To replace amendment BQ‑2, I move the amendment that the clerk emailed to you at 3:40 p.m. This new amendment is in the same spirit as amendment BQ‑2.

I want to acknowledge my colleague Mr. Weiler's very thorough work on this. I also welcome the fact that the government is proposing measures to limit greenwashing. That said, the purpose of my amendment is to go further. After completing some working sessions, I came up with what I'm going to propose to you, which is largely inspired by what Mr. Weiler might have proposed, but I'm also adding something at the end.

I would remind you that it's not amendment BQ‑2, but rather the amendment sent by the clerk in mid-afternoon. This amendment proposes that clause 236 of Bill C‑59 be amended first by replacing lines 14 and 15 on page 428 with the following:

benefits for protecting or restoring the environment or mitigating the environmental, social and ecological causes or effects of climate

Second, the amendment proposes that the same clause of the bill be amended by adding after line 18 on page 428 the following:

(b.2) makes a representation to the public with respect to the benefits of a business or business activity for protecting or restoring the environment or mitigating the environmental and ecological causes or effects of climate change that is not based on adequate and proper substantiation in accordance with internationally recognized methodology, the proof of which lies on the person making the representation and the evidence for which must be made publicly available upon request;

The amendment aims to limit greenwashing. For example, companies that make claims about their products will have to be able to prove it. To add to the work done by my colleague Mr. Weiler, I inserted “and the evidence for which must be made publicly available upon request” at the end of the wording so that people can have access downstream to the evidence a company has used to trumpet the environmental benefits of its product.

I hope I've been clear.

I'd like to point out that Mr. Davies worked a great deal on this whole part as well, so I hope to get his support too.

That would be my suggestion.

[Martin Simard, Senior Director, Corporate, Insolvency and Competition Directorate, Department of Industry]

Yes, I'm happy to explain.

I believe this amendment is founded on a suggestion from the commissioner of competition. In his testimony, he recommended tightening up the language around drip pricing.

What we have here in Bill C‑59 are consequential changes addressing changes made in 2022 to clarify that, according to the Competition Act, drip pricing is a form of misrepresentation. At the time, it was said that all attainable prices had to be displayed upstream. The best example of this is when someone is shopping online and, after they click “Next” several times, they're surprised to see another price at the end. That practice is not allowed. The total price, the attainable price, has to be shown upfront. However, there was one exception: amounts imposed pursuant to an act passed by the federal Parliament or by a provincial legislature. Such is the case with sales tax, for example. Consumers expect sales tax to be added on the final screen.

The commissioner was concerned that some businesses might allege that other types of fees they have to pay, such as those for staff training or security, are the result of some sort of regulation or act of Parliament and that they could use that as a loophole to add fees to the price at the end of the process.

The amendment specifies that the laws in question must clearly indicate that the fees apply to purchasers themselves. It refers to subsection (1), so to the purchaser. Fees that apply to businesses are therefore not eligible. Sales tax applies to purchasers themselves.

So that's what the commissioner suggested. I must say that because these are new statutory provisions, they haven't yet been tested in the courts. Have they already been interpreted that way? That remains an open question. The commissioner recommended that we not wait and that we go ahead and tighten up the wording.

I assume that the New Democratic Party supports this recommendation since it's covered in amendment NDP‑5.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Lawrence. I'll now give my ruling.

Bill C-59 amends several acts. The amendment seeks to amend the bill by repealing the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which is not amended by the bill. This is a new scheme not envisioned in the bill that goes beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

Therefore, for the above-stated reason, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you for that, MP Ste-Marie.

I'll advise you that you will not be able to speak after my ruling, as you know.

My ruling is this: Bill C-59 amends several acts, including the Excise Tax Act. The amendment seeks to amend schedule VI of the act to add a new part XI to exclude home heating fuel from taxation. This is a new scheme not envisioned in the bill that goes beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

Therefore, for the above-stated reason, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Morrice.

The chair's ruling is that Bill C-59 amends several acts, including the Income Tax Act, to allow for the creation of a refundable tax credit related to the acquisition of clean technology products to be used all year round. The amendment seeks to create a partial refundable tax credit for goods that can be used for only 183 days in a calendar year, which in effect would create a new category for which a refundable tax credit could be paid out of the public treasury.

As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes a new scheme, which could impose additional charges on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Yes.

Mr. Chair, I've provided it to the clerk, and I believe it's been circulated to all members. Again, I just want to clarify that there's a revised version of G-1.

I'll just read it into the record. I move that Bill C-59, in clause 28, be amended by adding after line 23 on page 133, under “Insurance corporations—exemption”, the following:

(2.03) Subsection (2.01) does not apply to a dividend received by an insurance corporation in a taxation year that is

(a) either

(i) received on a share (other than a share described in subparagraph (2.02)(a)(i)) held by the corporation in connection with an insurance contract entered into, issued or acquired in the ordinary course of an insurance business of the corporation, or

(ii) deemed to be received by the corporation as a result of a designation by a mutual fund trust under subsection 104(19) in respect of a unit of the trust that is held by the corporation in connection with an insurance contract entered into, issued or acquired in the ordinary course of an insurance business of the corporation; and

(b) identified in the corporation’s return of income under this Part for the year.

That's the revised motion, Chair.

If I may, I will just add a few brief comments.

The purpose of the dividend received deduction changes in this part is to ensure that financial institutions pay their fair share. This amendment clarifies that Canadians with certain types of life insurance policies that offer variable returns, who are not the target of this change, are not affected by it.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to propose a subamendment to amendment CPC-1. It was distributed to you a little over an hour ago, along with amendment G-1, I believe.

Amendment CPC-1 proposes to modify clause 7 of Bill C‑59 by replacing line 37 on page 25. Through my subamendment, I move that the change proposed in this amendment be modified so that, in proposed paragraph (f), the passage referring to “electricity, natural gas or steam or any other input for the production of light, heat, cold or energy” be replaced by the following:

provision — with zero emissions — of electricity, steam or any other input, other than natural gas and nuclear energy

The criticism that my party and I have of the government's transition plan is that it supports industries that do not contribute enough to this transition. We know that the nuclear industry is very risky. From our point of view, it should not be supported. The same applies to the natural gas industry. Although a better choice than other energy sources, this industry should not benefit from the same level of support. This subamendment therefore aims to remove the mention of natural gas and exclude nuclear power from this provision.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you for that, Ms. Gwyer.

It's more of a political discussion, so I won't carry on too far, but in my review of it in Nova Scotia, they have publicized everything. They've got the numbers out there and it's clearly adding $50 million in additional costs and will cost consumers more at the end of the day, regardless of the intricacies of it, which we can debate in terms of leverage ratios and everything like that.

It's not just me saying that. It's actually the Liberal member from Kings—Hants who fully supports that as well, the opinion that it will increase the cost. This isn't a partisan thing. Liberal members as well, quite frankly, don't agree, and at the end of the day, regardless of whether it's because of leverage issues or how it's funded, the people of Nova Scotia will end up paying more because of Bill C-59.

That's not really a question; it's a statement, but thank you very much for your hard work.

[Lindsay Gwyer]

I can find the numbers that were in the budget, which would be the number in the 2023 budget that reflects the amendments in Bill C-59, and then there was the subsequent exemption on gains realized on the sale of an employee ownership trust, which was announced in budget 2024, so that has a separate costing. That's not in this bill, though. It's something that I believe is in the notice of ways and means motion that was tabled today.