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.

Opposition Motion—Measures to Lower Food Prices

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member, who has been a good friend for many years.

In terms of the bills I already mentioned, whether it is Bill C-56 or Bill C-59, we are going to make sure that they bring in legislative measures and give more powers to the bureau and the controllers. In that way, they will be able to control those subsidies, including the one that the hon. member is talking about.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate on the NDP motion submitted by the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford in relation to the price of essential foods and the conduct of grocery giants, such as Loblaws, Metro and Sobeys.

The proposed motion is timely, because by voting in favour of Bill C-59 last week, this House approved the latest initiative in the government's comprehensive modernization of the Competition Act. The relevant clauses were approved unanimously, showing the strong consensus here in this chamber on these issues.

The truth of the matter is that the government has been extremely active in promoting competition in all sectors of the economy, including in the grocery retail industry. It begins with resourcing. In budget 2021, the government increased the Competition Bureau's budget by $96 million over five years and $27.5 million ongoing thereafter. The increase in resources was a much needed boost to the bureau's capacity, and in its own words, “These funds enhance our ability to enforce the law and advocate for more competition. They help ensure we have the right tools to deal with Canada’s competition challenges now and in the future.”

Needless to say, law enforcement will not be effective if the enforcers are not able to carry out their tasks, and that is why this extraordinary increase was crucial to the bureau's functioning. The next step had to do with the legal framework under which the bureau operates, the Competition Act, which was aging and falling short compared to our international partners.

Through the 2022 budget bill, Bill C-19, we took the first step in remedying this, correcting some of the obvious issues. This included criminalizing wage-fixing agreements, allowing private parties to seek an order for abuse of a dominant position and raising maximum penalty amounts to be based on the benefits of anti-competitive conduct. This ensures that sanctions would no longer be a mere slap on the wrist for today's largest economic actors.

The government knew, however, that much more remained to be done. Where the solutions were less readily obvious, the minister turned to the public process, launching a comprehensive public consultation on the future of Canada's competition policy. The process ran from November 2022 through March 2023.

In response to a consultation paper released by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, over 500 responses were received. This consisted of over 130 from identified stakeholders like academics, businesses, practitioners and non-government organizations.

While this feedback was being received, government officials also met with stakeholders in round table groups, allowing them to voice their views and to interact with each other as well. Stakeholders were not shy about sharing their opinions with us. They knew what sorts of outcomes they wanted to be delivered.

There was no shortage of proposals made, some highly concrete and detailed, others more directional in nature. What we heard, however, is that Canadians wanted more competition. Across many domains, the desire to strengthen the law, to enable the bureau to act and to align with international counterparts was evident.

Of course, many also expressed reservations about ensuring we get the details right and warned about overcorrection. The government took those to heart as well, taking inspiration from examples in other jurisdictions and recognizing the careful balancing that must be done when developing new legislation.

All told, the results of the consultation can be seen in two pieces of government legislation.

First, Bill C-56, the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, was adopted in December 2023. It took some of the largest issues off the table. It eliminated the “efficiency exception”, which allowed anti-competition mergers to withstand challenge. It revised the law on abuse of dominant position to open up new avenues for a remedial order. It broadened the types of collaboration the bureau can examine, including those that are not formed between direct competitors. It established a framework for the bureau to conduct marketing studies, including the possibility of production orders to compel information. Work on this last amendment is already under way, as the bureau has announced an intention to launch a study into the passenger air travel industry.

Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023, is the second legislative effort following the consultation. As we know, it is currently before the Senate, and the government looks forward to its quick adoption. The amendments to the Competition Act that it contains are incredibly comprehensive. I will provide some of the highlights.

The bill makes critical amendments to merger notification and review to ensure that the bureau is aware of the most important deals and would be able to take action before it is too late. It significantly revamps the enforcement framework to strengthen provisions dealing with anti-competitive agreements, and it broadens the private enforcement framework so that more people could bring their own cases before the Competition Tribunal for a wider variety of reasons; in some cases, they could even be eligible for a financial award.

Bill C-59 also helps address important government priorities by making it harder to engage in “greenwashing”, which is the questionable or false representation of a product or a business’s environmental benefits. It facilitates useful environmental collaboration that might otherwise have been unlawful. It helps to make repair options more available for consumers by ensuring that refusals to provide the necessary means can be reviewed and remedied as needed.

Finally, overall, Bill C-59 makes a number of critical but often technical updates throughout the law to remove enforcement obstacles and make sure that the entire system runs smoothly.

I cannot overstate how important these measures are. The competition commissioner has referred to this as a “generational” transformation. It is by far the most significant update to the law since the amendments in 2009, following the recommendations of the competition policy review panel; arguably, it is the most comprehensive rewrite of the Competition Act since it first came into effect in 1986. Our world has changed since then, and it became clear that the law needed to keep pace to enable institutions that can oversee fast-changing markets and landscapes.

After the passage of Bill C-59, we can guarantee that our competition law will work for Canadians in markets such as the one under scrutiny here, as well as the many other markets throughout our economy.

I am thankful for having been given the opportunity to share a few words.

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

Madam Speaker, yesterday evening we were debating a Conservative amendment to a Standing Committee on Finance report. This amendment sought to revive the proposal we had voted against just a few hours earlier, the miracle solution of the tax holiday that would last all summer. The taxes would resume once the House was back in session, just in time for us to collectively complain about their return.

Earlier yesterday, we were debating the simplistic solution to the fight against high grocery prices, because, as we know, in addition to solving all the world's ills, world hunger, the cancer and AIDS epidemics and all other problems, axing the tax on carbon will also guarantee more affordable food prices for all. In fact, if we abolish the carbon tax, food costs would go down to zero and everyone would eat for free.

A day after the Conservatives' simplistic motion, we are studying a simplistic motion moved by the NDP. We are shifting from a tax break to a price cap. I will read the NDP motion, as I will be talking about the three proposals it contains. There are some good ideas in there, but the Bloc Québécois cannot support it as a whole. It reads as follows:

That, given that the cost of food continues to increase while grocery giants such as Loblaws, Metro and Sobeys make record profits, the House call on the government to:

(a) force big grocery chains and suppliers to lower the prices of essential foods or else face a price cap or other measures;

(b) stop delaying long-needed reforms to the Nutrition North program; and

(c) stop Liberal and Conservative corporate handouts to big grocers.

The first thing is the basic wording, “That, given that the cost of food continues to increase while grocery giants make record profits”. We all agree on that. However, we run into the same problem that we saw with the Conservatives. They focus on the perfectly legitimate public anger, but then offer simplistic solutions instead of truly addressing the root of the problem.

Let us begin with point (a): “force big grocery chains and suppliers to lower the prices of essential foods or else face a price cap”. Say we support it. Now I would want to know how we are supposed to do this. Is there a how-to manual? How do we go about imposing a cap on the price of bread, for example, when wheat prices are negotiated at the Toronto Stock Exchange? How do we go about imposing a cap on the price of fresh vegetables, when prices are skyrocketing mainly because of crop losses due to drought or flooding, which are caused by climate change?

Unlike the Conservatives, the NDP does believe in climate change. However, the NDP continues to support the budgetary policies introduced by the Liberals, who are always giving handouts to oil companies, even though they contribute more to climate change than any other sector.

How do we force farmers to lower their prices when the price of nitrogen fertilizer has quadrupled? The price per tonne jumped from $250 to $1,000 between 2020 and 2022. How do we force a Californian produce grower to sell their broccoli cheaper in Canada than in the United States? Does the NDP think it can wave a magic wand and cap prices without creating shortages?

Point (a) is impractical and unfeasible, which is already reason enough for the Bloc Québécois to vote against the motion, despite the good intentions behind it.

Now, let us look at the enhancement of the nutrition north program. I will start by saying that this is a good measure. Since 2011, nutrition north has subsidized grocers in the far north to compensate for the high cost of transportation and lower the price of groceries. However, the program does not fully compensate for the high costs, which are due not just to transportation costs but also to low volumes and higher operating costs. Considering that the average income in the Inuit community is around $23,000 a year, which is shockingly low, it is clear that food insecurity must be a widespread problem.

Businesses offer workers from outside the community a golden bridge to encourage them to work in the north. The income of non-indigenous individuals is approximately $95,000 a year, according to a study by Gérard Duhaime, a professor at Université Laval with whom I rubbed shoulders in a previous life.

We agree with that part of the motion. If that was all the motion contained, both my colleague from Mirabel and I would have given very short speeches, two minutes at most. We would merely have said that we supported the motion. Unfortunately, all the rest of it dilutes and undermines the proposal's credibility.

The third point calls on the government to “stop Liberal and Conservative corporate handouts to big grocers”. The only thing we want to know is what that is referring to. The NDP often talks about a subsidy that Loblaw received a few years ago to replace its refrigerators with more energy-efficient models. That in itself is no scandal. I think we all aspire to that.

Besides that, the only handout I see the Liberals and Conservatives giving big grocers is their inaction. By doing nothing, by remaining silent and not taking action, they are giving them an indirect handout. In fact, there are no subsidy programs specifically for grocers, apart from nutrition north, for which the NDP is asking for more funding today. The NDP supports the only subsidy that exists. It is asking the government to enhance and improve the program, and that is what we are asking for as well.

As mentioned earlier, the companies that are really gorging on subsidies are the oil companies. In the past two years, the federal government has given them subsidy after subsidy. That was always the case, but it did not stop when the infamous coalition agreement with the NDP was signed. The tax breaks set out in all the budgets and economic statements will total $83 billion by 2035. That is more than $2,000 per capita, or almost $4,000 per taxpayer. The NDP keeps supporting every budget, every economic statement and every appropriation, no questions asked, in the name of an agreement to further intrude on Quebec's jurisdictions.

This spring, Parliament has been seized with bills C-59 and C-69. Today, the Standing Committee on Finance is voting as part of the clause-by-clause study of Bill C‑69. They could be at it until midnight tonight. It provides $48 billion in tax breaks mostly for the oil companies. Does the NDP support that? The answer is yes.

Since I only have two minutes left, I will finish my speech quickly. I will try to talk as fast as an auctioneer at those events we all occasionally attend in our ridings.

That being said, there is a real problem. I must emphasize that. The grocery industry is dominated by a handful of moguls, namely Loblaw, Sobeys and Metro. In 2022 alone, these three companies, the most affluent companies in the sector, reported over $100 billion in sales and drew in profits exceeding $3.6 billion. Yes, there is a competition problem. Small entrepreneurs have a hard time breaking into the market, since the grocery giants control everything. With a mixture of astonishment and consternation, we are seeing the growing concentration in the sector make it harder and harder for new entrants to break into the market or expand, making competition almost non-existent.

According to a 2023 Competition Bureau report, a grocery sector strategy is urgently needed. If the Liberals and Conservatives are giving these giants any handouts, it is by not having a strategy. That is the handout.

Let us agree on the fact that there are several possible solutions. We need to make it easier for foreign investors to enter the market. We need to increase the number of independent grocers. We also need to have clearer and more harmonized requirements for unit pricing. We also need to take measures to discourage, or even prohibit, property controls in the grocery sector. These controls restrict competing grocers from leasing space in the same building. They make opening new grocery stores much more difficult, if not impossible, and this reduces competition in our communities.

Why is competition so important? It is the backbone of the economy. Simplistic solutions are not the answer. The answer is more competition in the grocery sector.

Opposition Motion—Summer Tax Break

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

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

I declare clauses 323 to 341 carried.

The House has agreed to the entirety of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, at third reading stage.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

The House resumed from May 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time.

I am glad to have the chance to rise to share more about why Greens cannot support this amendment, but we will continue to support Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, despite its imperfections.

Let us be clear: The amendment is essentially saying not to move forward with Bill C-59 at all in its entirety and, instead, to just repeal the carbon tax under the guise that this would help people across the country deal with issues with respect to the unaffordability of day-to-day life. Well, we cannot support the amendment, because repealing the carbon tax will not do any good for the vast majority of Canadians who are having a difficult time with the cost of living. There is a reason for that.

There is a lot of talk of food banks in this place, but has any parliamentarian taken a look at what food banks are actually calling for? For example, what was the Daily Bread Food Bank calling for in its pre-budget submission? It actually has three recommendations, and all three call for increasing and moving quickly to put in place the Canada disability benefit. This would provide support to people with disabilities, who are disproportionately living in poverty across the country. Forty per cent of people living in poverty are people with disabilities. Groups such as the Daily Bread Food Bank have been joining in solidarity with the disability community to call on the government to put in place a Canada disability benefit that would bring people with disabilities above the poverty line. There is no mention of that in the amendment, which would just get rid of everything else that is in the fall economic statement. Not only that, but repealing the carbon tax would mean removing the rebates that go with it, which leave lower-income Canadians in my community better off; it is true.

The carbon tax went up two cents a litre last year, and rebates went up along with it. The pure profits of the oil and gas industry in the same period of time went up 18¢ a litre. There were no rebates for any Canadian on that gouging, and that is not just the total profits, it is only the increase. It went up from around 26¢ a litre to around 42¢ a litre or so. This gouging of Canadians is leading to the $38 billion a year in profits in 2022 alone for the five largest oil and gas companies operating in Canada. This is after share repurchases and dividends are all issued. It is why folks such as myself and others have been calling to put in place a windfall profit tax on the excess profits of the oil and gas industry, the way many other jurisdictions already have all around the world.

In fact, the government put in place a windfall profit tax on another sector already. In the midst of the pandemic, banks and life insurance companies had an extra 15% tax on profits over a billion dollars. It has been done before in this country. We could do the same when it comes to the oil and gas industry, and if we did, we could use those dollars to invest in real solutions to help address the unaffordability of day-to-day life for Canadians who need this the most. For example, we could increase service and reduce fares for public transit across the country; we could make it cheaper and provide more incentives for Canadians who want to retrofit their homes. These are the kinds of measures that would actually help address affordability. Repealing the carbon tax will not do anything to help Canadians who are struggling with day-to-day life.

On the subject of the fall economic statement itself, while it is imperfect, Greens have been supporting it; it includes many measures that will help folks in my community and others across the country. The first I would like to talk about is when it comes to making psychotherapy and counselling services more affordable. There was a long-held promise and commitment that was followed through on in Bill C-59 to remove GST and HST from those services. It is a small measure that would make it more affordable for Canadians across the country to access mental health services.

I would expect all parliamentarians in this place to agree that we need to do more to make mental health services available. Admittedly, the government actually committed $4.5 billion in the last election campaign for mental health transfers. The Liberals have not followed through on that, but they did put in place this measure to remove GST and HST from psychotherapy services. It is an important, good measure that, as Greens, we want to see made available to Canadians as soon as possible.

There are also really important tax credits that would help bring along support for renewable energy across the country. There are tax credits that would benefit companies in my community, such as VCT Group, which is designing and building the future of solar energy. In fact, in conversations I have had with VCT Group executives over the last year, they have shared with me directly how contracts that they would like to see move ahead are being held back because these tax credits are not yet in place; prospective customers of theirs do not have the business case to move ahead unless they see them in place. Even with the tax credits, the payback period for certain projects is still particularly long, but there are far more potential customers of theirs who would be open to moving ahead should we see Bill C-59 and the clean manufacturing tax credit included in it move ahead. This is one reason Greens have been so keen to finally get to the end of the day when it comes to getting Bill C-59 passed.

Again, this is the fall economic statement. We are in the late spring months now and have yet to see it move through. We are keen to see measures like this moved ahead. In fact, it was at committee where Greens even tried to improve on this to have that tax credit. As it stands right now, these tax credits are only available if both the manufacturing happens in Canada and the equipment is exclusively used in Canada. As Greens, we attempted to amend the bill at committee to allow for solar-powered lawnmowers, for example. A company in my community called Swap Robotics manufactures those. However, they are used in Canada only half the year, and they are used in Florida half the year. Because they are used outside Canada half the year, companies such as Swap Robotics would not be eligible for that tax credit. As Greens, we would have liked to see that expanded further. We were not successful with that at committee. However, what is in the fall economic statement is still an important and good measure; we are still going to support it.

I would like to close, though, with the one piece of Bill C-59 that we are most concerned about, and that is another fossil fuel subsidy. It is a massive tax credit for a false climate solution called “carbon capture and storage”. The tax credits in Bill C-59, which have been rolled out for the last three years, amount to $5.7 billion. All this could be redirected, for example, to actually funding the Canada disability benefit and to building public transit infrastructure; instead, it is being wasted on this false solution technology that, more often than not, emits more carbon than it captures around the world. In closing, I will read a quote from Environmental Defence back in 2021. These are the words of Julia Levin, warning the government not to create the tax credits it did create, including in Bill C-59. She said:

Carbon capture is being used as a Trojan horse by oil and gas executives to continue, and even expand, fossil fuel production. It’s a dangerous distraction driven by the same polluters who created the climate emergency. The Government of Canada should not use any kind of financial support or tax incentive to prop up false climate solutions that only serve to delay the necessary transition off of fossil fuels.

I could not agree more with Ms. Levin. Climate scientists around the world have been warning us to get our dollars focused on the most efficient use of funds. There is certainly not such as focus with this subsidy to carbon capture and storage. However, on balance, Bill C-59 has measures that we need to see move ahead, and Greens will be supporting it.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, in Bill C‑59, the government is creating a new department, the department of housing, infrastructure and communities. None of those areas fall under federal jurisdiction. This means the minister can interfere more, impose conditions on the provinces and municipalities, and cause more bickering and delays.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau already tried this in 1971. He created a similar department, and it was a total failure. During the department's existence, there was nothing but bickering until it was shut down in 1979.

Does my colleague agree that when the Liberals do the same thing over and over again, it really seems like a farce?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise tonight to talk about the fall economic statement. I came in here actually prepared to talk about the question of privilege. I am shocked that the government would shut down debate in the House on a question of privilege over the partisan activities of the Speaker. Our House of Commons, our institution, is being discredited and undermined by the Chair, the Speaker of the House of Commons. We have to continue to have a fulsome discussion on that, so I am disappointed that the government would use its power to force debate on Bill C-59, the fall economic statement. Last time I looked, it was May 27, and here we are talking in the summer about the fall economic statement from 2023.

I am going to be splitting my time with the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

As Conservatives, we have said all along that we want to make sure that we build the homes, axe the tax, fix the budget and stop the crime. The government has no intention of doing any of that. We know that housing in this country is in a desperate situation, that in the nine years under the Liberal-NDP coalition, the cost of rent has doubled, the cost of mortgages has doubled and the number of housing starts is below that of what we did in 1976.

We say we want to axe the tax, and that is very important to my riding. I was just meeting with some cattle producers from Manitoba, including from my riding, and they were telling me over and over again that every time they have to pay the carbon tax, every time the carbon tax is hidden in all the supplies they buy, it all trickles down, and that means that they are getting less and paying to the government more. Of course when they sell their cattle, for which right now, thankfully, the price is at record highs, people are complaining about the price of beef on the store shelf.

One has to remember that the coolers that store shelves have their beef in are often powered through thermal electricity or natural gas, We know that this adds an extra cost to the price of beef. We know that in the transportation of that beef from the farm to the packer and from the processor to the retailer, it all gets added in and consumers are paying more. Of course, they cannot afford it.

We are going to fix the budget because the government continues to run up huge national debt and larger-than-ever deficits that are actually going to hurt each and every one of us. We know that the Governor of the Bank of Canada has said that this has not been helpful in controlling inflation. It has not been helpful in its being able to bring down interest rates. Of course every time we have a Trudeau as prime minister, we pay record-high interest rates.

With my first farm, which I bought back in 1984 under the former Trudeau, the interest rate on my mortgage was 21%, which was pretty high and pretty impossible, almost, for a 19-year-old young farmer to get going. I had to eat that at the bank because of the out-of-control spending by the Liberal government at the time, from 1980 to 1984. Our young people today are paying the cost because of out-of-control spending and little care for the economic performance of the country under the Liberal-NDP coalition.

Of course, we have to stop the crime. The government has, for nine years, ignored the plight of Canadians who are dealing with increasing criminal activity, including violent crime, which has gone up by over 32% across the country, including in my riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and including in the city of Winnipeg, where the member for Winnipeg North resides.

We see, over and over again, repeat offenders generating 90% of the crimes that are being committed against Canadians. We want safer communities, and that is why as Conservatives under the leadership of our leader, the member for Carleton, we will implement jail, not bail, and keep violent repeat offenders, those who are perpetrating crimes, behind bars and actually reduce crime across the country.

As members know, I am the shadow minister for national defence. I am very concerned by the way the government has ignored our Canadian Armed Forces and how it has gone from a proud, honoured institution to where it is now, again, in a decade of darkness, which occurred, of course, under the Chrétien era. We are living that again. Members and veterans of the armed forces have told me that they are actually in a decade of disaster because of the dithering and delays being carried out by the current government.

We know for a fact that the world has gotten much more dangerous. We know, and it is not just because of Russia's invasion in Ukraine, that we are seeing increased sabre-rattling by the Kremlin with NATO members in the Baltic region, which we just witnessed this past week with its redrawing of boundaries along Estonia and Russia and between Finland, Sweden and other Baltic nations with Russia. That type of aggression and provocation by President Vladimir Putin and his kleptocrats in Moscow continues to undermine our security.

We know that the Communist regime in Beijing and the People's Liberation Army continue to sabre-rattle with Taiwan. The rhetoric coming out of Beijing this past week after the inauguration of Taiwan's new president was deplorable. We know that its ongoing aggression against the Philippines in the South China Sea and around the Second Thomas Shoal continues to undermine security co-operation and peace and prosperity within that region. We know that Japan, South Korea and other Indo-Pacific countries are more and more concerned about China's growing disturbances in the region.

We know that the government has failed to make the investments in the Canadian Armed Forces to meet our NATO target, and the Washington Summit is coming up. There has been a lot of concern expressed by our allies, especially since the defence policy update came out, that there is no plan to meet the NATO target.

The Minister of National Defence has said that the Canadian Armed Forces is in a death spiral. He has said that our equipment is worn out and unsustainable. At committee today, the Minister of National Defence said that our Victoria-class submarines are no longer serviceable. We know that the greatest proliferation of weapons systems in this country outside of air-breathing missiles, which are hypersonic; intercontinental ballistic missiles; and the advancement of more cruise missiles and drones, outside of that domain, the next biggest growing proliferation of weapons is submarines. The best way to defend against a submarine is to have a submarine, and the minister is saying today, essentially, that we no longer have serviceable submarines to defend Canada in our maritime approaches.

We have to make sure that we are standing up for our troops. The minister said that we are short 6,700 housing units. We hear stories of members of our Canadian Armed Forces living rough. They are living in cars, tents and campers. They are couch-surfing in places like Halifax, Esquimalt and Toronto. We know that they need to have proper housing.

We cannot recruit because the government, under the NDP-Liberal coalition, has not put the troops first and foremost in its minds, making sure they get the kit they need. The government will say that it gave a recent raise, but in giving that raise it also increased the rent of military housing. We actually passed a motion here just two weeks ago calling on the government to reverse that decision. Of course, the Minister of National Defence and the Liberals voted against it. This has affected our recruitment capabilities, and that is why we are still short 16,000 troops.

We know that readiness continues to be undermined. All of us remember Gen. Andrew Leslie, a former army commander who was also the whip for the Liberals for some time. He has come out and stated that he is “not aware of any other [NATO] army, which will be deploying troops to the front line of a possible confrontation with Russia, who are not 100 per cent trained according to a variety of battle test standards.”

He is saying that the defence policy update, the most recent budget by the Liberals and the main estimates that we are dealing with at committee have undermined our overall readiness. We are now at only 61% standing ready. We are not training our troops like we are supposed to be at CFB Wainwright in Alberta before we deploy to places like Latvia. We are no longer doing fighter pilot training in this country. We have farmed that out to places like the United States and Italy. We do not have base training here. We do not even have enough pilots in the Canadian Air Force to fly our current fleet of fighter jets.

I would just say that based upon the comments we heard just this past week from multiple U.S. senators and from the ambassador, Canada is an outlier in NATO. Eighteen percent of the countries will meet the 2%, and 13% have a plan to get to 2% within the next couple of years. Canada is the only country that will never make it, and that is because we have a Prime Minister who actually said that we will never be at 2%.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the member for Victoria said “Orson Welles”, and I found a quote from Orson Welles on politics, which reminds me of the member for Winnipeg North: “I have all the equipment to be a politician. Total shamelessness.” I think that is my colleague across the way.

Coming back to the actual issue being debated, Bill C-59, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, in his commentary about the fall economic statement, commented about the lack of transparency from the Liberal government being a concern. One issue I have noticed in the departmental results, which are part of the estimates process, which is eventually part of the statement, is that we see various departments such as the Department of Indigenous Services did not have 67% of its goals set for its priorities. For Veterans Affairs, it was 70%, and for Environment, it was 40%. I wonder if the member could comment on the lack of transparency from his own government on this important issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-59 includes more than $12 billion for carbon capture by western oil companies. It also includes $18 billion to help oil companies buy nuclear power plants, known as small modular reactors, to replace the natural gas used to heat the oil sands with polluted water, so that they can save the gas and export it instead, particularly through the Coastal GasLink pipeline.

Bill C‑59 gives the oil industry about $30 billion. Is that the Liberals' environmental plan?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, when we came to Parliament this morning, we had anticipated that we would be able to talk about some of the needs that Canadians have, and what we see day after day coming from the official opposition are ways in which it can prevent the government from passing important legislation.

It is interesting. Right now, we are dealing with Bill C-59, which is the fall economic statement. I would like the members of the Conservative Party to start looking in a few mirrors, and they would see that they are not reflecting something that Canadians truly want to see take place. As opposed to the Conservative Party's wanting to have a proactive chamber that helps, assists and supports Canadians, they want to prevent virtually any and all legislation from passing. The only way in which the government can get the Conservatives onside with legislation, where they will actually look at any form of seeing it go through without great opposition to it, is if they are shamed into doing it. If the Conservatives are not shamed into doing the responsible thing, more often than not what we will see is a Conservative Party that will do whatever it takes in order to prevent legislation from passing, and we see that in many different forms. We saw some of that even earlier today, when the Conservatives' focus was more on the issue of character assassination than on dealing with the important issues.

What would Bill C-59 do, as an example? One would think that the Conservatives would be a bit more sympathetic to the needs of rural Canadians. Within this legislation, we have the doubling of the top-up for the rebate. That is within the legislation. This legislation should have passed late last year. It is interesting that the Conservatives will stand up and say that we cannot pass legislation and, at the end of the day, it is the Conservative Party that has not realized what Canadians expect of an opposition party in a minority situation.

At the end of the day, we recognize the importance of Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. We recognize the importance of generation X and the millennials and the needs that they actually have. Whether it is the budget or the fall economic statement, which we are debating today, the Conservatives, day after day, continue to do what they can to prevent the legislation from passing, as opposed to a government that understands and brings forward legislation that is truly reflective of the values and the needs of Canadians.

I have had the opportunity here and there to add some thoughts in regard to that issue and how we bring forward a budget or the budget implementation bill in the manner in which it is brought forward. We have a Liberal caucus with members of Parliament who consistently are in the communities we represent, often bringing ministers into the constituencies, not only where we represent but even beyond that, so we can funnel back into Ottawa the ideas and the thoughts that we are hearing from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Therefore, when people look at the important legislation, like budget implementation acts or budget bills in general, people will see that they are a reflection of what we have been told when talking to Canadians and the different stakeholders throughout the country.

That is one of the reasons why we find, more often than not, that Conservatives will actually avoid talking about the substance of the legislation in many ways. They try to cheapen the policy debates and discussions that we have inside the chamber in favour of talking about things like, let us say, bumper stickers and the ideas that they have going forward into the next election. How often do we hear the Conservatives saying they are going to axe the tax? That is it. That is their number one bumper sticker.

We had a party annual general meeting in downtown Winnipeg this past weekend, and I was on one of the MP panels. I was asked a question about how I, as a member of Parliament, would respond to the Conservative Party's simple message of axing the tax. In responding, I said that people need to realize that as a Liberal government, we talk about how we care about Canadians. We talk about things like the dental plan and the pharmacare plan. We talk about the first-ever disability program. We talk about how we are investing in housing. Liberals talk about caring for people. We talk about caring; the Conservatives talk about cutting. If I was to try to amplify that to my constituents, I would be emphasizing the contrast: Conservatives cut; Liberals care. That, to me, is the contrast that we need to say to Canadians is very real and very tangible. I do not say that lightly.

We negotiated with the different provinces about the issue of child care. As an example, going into a federal election, we had a number of signed agreements, and the Conservative Party said it was going to rip up those agreements. Conservatives did not support the child care program. Shortly after the election, we continued to push the issue of child care. At the end of the day, every province and territory came on board. As a direct result, we have a national child care program, as a result of this government. It is reflective of what we were hearing, not only at the doors during the election, but also in between elections. That is a message, as I said, that we brought here to Ottawa. That is how we formulate budgets and fall economic statements. The Conservatives do not support the child care program that we have put forward. They do not support $10-a-day child care. We saw that in terms of going in and going out of the last federal election, because they said they would rip it up. When I spoke to Liberals in the province of Manitoba, that was the type of thing that I talked about. We need to talk about that contrast.

When the Conservative Party says it is going to axe the tax, what it wants to do is misrepresent the facts. There is a rebate. There is a doubling of the top-up rebate for rural Manitobans and rural Canadians. That is there. They are not receiving that because the Conservatives refuse to pass Bill C-59, the fall economic statement. Take a look at the amendment the Conservatives proposed. I think this is the bill where they proposed to delete the short title or some silly thing like that. Why? It is not only because they want to be able to hear me speak more on the issue. It is because they do not want the bill to pass.

There are other aspects within the legislation and within budgetary measures. Let us do the contrast. Let us talk about the misinformation and that whole doubling of the top-up for the rebates. It is a major issue. It is about the environment. It is about getting more money in the pockets of 80% of Canadians, but that is not the messaging that the Conservatives talk about. Even though it is the truth, it is not the messaging. Instead, they say they are going to get rid of the price on pollution or the carbon tax; they are going to kill the carbon tax. Not all provinces have the carbon tax. There is British Columbia, as well as the Province of Quebec; that is a fairly significant percentage of the population in Canada. For those that do, like my home province of Manitoba, 80% of the constituents in Winnipeg North will receive more money as a direct result of the price on pollution. What does that really mean? Sure, there is a carbon tax component to it, but there is also the carbon rebate, and 80%-plus of my constituents are going to receive more money back through the rebate than they are actually paying out in the tax. Why have the program? It is time that polluters paid.

There is a certain element there that we need to amplify, in terms of how we care about the environment and the Conservatives do not. They do not have an idea. They used to. In fact, 95% of the Conservative Party that is sitting over there today, in the last federal election, knocked on doors with a Conservative platform. Inside that platform, if people read it, they will see that the Conservatives actually supported a carbon tax. It was the Conservative Party and its former leader, not the leader before this leader, but the leader before this leader's leader, Erin O'Toole. When Erin O'Toole was the leader, it was a part of his election platform. In his election platform, he went around telling Canadians he was going to have a price on pollution or he was going to put in a carbon tax, but that has changed.

Let us take a look at other things where we can contrast the Government of Canada and the Liberal Party with what the opposition is actually saying. We have a dental care program, which started off with children. Legislation was brought in to support that, whether it was the economic statements or the budget statements, and we appreciate the support that comes from the New Democrats on this, as they have been very strong advocates.

At the end of the day, the dental program is a program that is helping a lot of children. When I spoke on the legislation dealing with this, I can recall talking about how this program would help prevent children from having to go into emergency because of dental-related issues and not getting those issues dealt with. This is going to enable so many more children to get the type of dental services they need, at least in part. The Conservatives opposed that.

We expanded the dental program. The dental program is now also for those 65 and over. I believe that is what it is at right now, and for individuals with disabilities. It is all being rolled out. We are talking about thousands of people who have already benefited from this particular program, and the Conservatives are going to take it all away.

These are the types of examples that I use when I talk about how Liberals care and Conservatives cut. That is the reality.

I cited a couple of examples. I could have talked about housing-related issues and the initiatives the Liberal government has taken. I would challenge any member opposite to tell me another national government that has done more in terms of supporting Canada's housing industry. I can save them the research and tell them, quite frankly, that it has not happened. The government has led the way in working with municipalities, provincial governments, non-profit groups and indigenous people in ensuring that we have a better future with respect to housing and the crisis that we are having to face. Contrast that to the cuts that the Conservative Party is proposing. These are the types of things that really matter to Canadians.

We are aware of the concerns in regards to affordability. When the world was facing inflation, throughout, Canada did reasonably, actually some would argue exceptionally, well in comparison to the G7 countries or even the G20 countries. We did exceptionally well, but we still hit, I believe in June 2022, just over 8%, and it caused a great deal of pain and concern across the country. We reinforced the importance of the Bank of Canada. At the time, the Conservatives were critical of the Bank of Canada. They do not see what is happening around the world and the impact, yet they jump up so easy like jelly beans, and they yell and blame and say how Canada is broken. In reality, they should do a comparison to other countries around the world. From the point of being over 8% back in the summer of 2022 to today, we have now had four consecutive months of reasonable inflation, and it is going down. I think it is down to 2.7%, which is going to help Canadians. It will hopefully lead the way to getting some sort of interest relief in the coming months. However, they try to give a false impression, which is what Conservatives do all the time, but Canada is not broken. Compared to other countries around the world, we are doing well, but we need to continue to improve where we can.

Putting this budget implementation to the side, we can look, from my perspective, at one of the most powerful statements from the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister, which was when she talked about foreign investment coming into Canada. Canada, on a per capita basis, is number one in the G7, and of all the countries in the world, we were number three on foreign direct investment in the first three quarters of 2023. There is a reason for that.

The House resumed from May 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Request for Office of Speaker to be Vacated

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pretty critical point in the legislative agenda that has come up.

I agree with the Bloc Québécois member and her argument that there are many bills we would like to discuss.

I appreciate that this is a critical time right now. We have a lot of legislation that we need to discuss in the House, legislation that our constituents have sent us to this place to get through. It is serious things that are so important, such as Bill C-49, Bill C-59, Bill C-70 and Bill C-64. We have two opposition day motions just this week. We are trying to deliver the help that Canadians so desperately need, including through legislation like the fall economic statement, which the official opposition has filibustered at committee for months and which is something that would deliver a great deal of support in terms of housing.

Something I am particularly proud of as a part of that piece of legislation is actually the removal of the HST on psychotherapy and counselling services. It is something that would help those who are working within that profession, and something that I actually had a conversation about just yesterday with a psychotherapist who asked me when we would be getting the legislation passed. I said we are working on it and trying to make sure it goes through. The person I spoke to needs the fairness for the removal of the federal tax to occur. She spoke to me about how important it was for her clients to have equality within the services that are provided to them. We know, of course, that we are in a mental health crisis and that every bit of assistance helps in that regard. That is one piece of legislation that the official opposition has filibustered at the committee.

There are, of course, amendments to the Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia accord act that we need to get through. There is the foreign interference act, which is of course becoming more and more important as we move through this parliamentary session.

I do not know how many times New Democrats have to talk about how incredibly important pharmacare is. We certainly know that the official opposition does not believe that. I think about the millions of Canadians who rely upon that piece of legislation to help them afford the medications they need, diabetics in this country, and I believe there are 3.7 million of them, who need the legislation to go through so they would not have to worry about the cost of their diabetes medications and devices. So many constituents have written to me thanking me for moving that forward.

Those are the key pieces of law that we need to get moving in the House. Yes, we are sitting until midnight most nights to do that. New Democrats believe in that absolutely because it is for people that it is important. There is an opposition party determined to delay every single one of the bills. Time again, the Conservatives have obfuscated, filibustered, screamed and yelled in outrage and then attempted to delay and stall all of that progress, all of those supports. I find it unacceptable.

The fact is that what the Conservatives are now calling out, in terms of their outrage, is that the Speaker seems to have been caught up in supposed partisan activity that clearly was not of his doing. He did everything he was supposed to do, ran through the permissions that he was supposed to get, and yet mistakes were made. The partisanship that the Conservatives are so outraged about actually fuels their own partisanship fire of trying to find yet some other thing that they can hold on to, so much so that it will delay again all of the incredible supports that we need to get to people.

I see this every day, whether I am at the procedure and House affairs committee or here in the House. The Conservatives are desperate to cling on to anything they can, and destroy whatever we are trying to do in the process, to show that this place does not work, because that fits into their communication strategy. I am sorry, but I am not going to allow something to fit into their communication strategy to disrupt what needs to happen for my constituents.

The member across the way for Winnipeg North did quote the letter, but I want to mention it again. We are here, in this case, over a tweet that was sent out by the Liberal Party without having consulted the Speaker. The letter is very clear. It is from the national director of the Liberal Party, apologizing very clearly to the Speaker. It states, “The Liberal Party of Canada unequivocally apologizes to you for this mistake, and we take full responsibility.”

Was there a mistake made? Absolutely. Is it horribly unfortunate? Absolutely. Are we punishing the right person in this instance? No. Should there be more vigilance on this issue? Absolutely, of course. However, calling for the Speaker's resignation is clawing to the communication strategy that benefits one group. It does not benefit the entire House. I do not agree with that. We on this side of the House do not agree with that.

We have to work on the legislation that the people have sent us to work on. We have a very important job, and I have no time for all of the bickering and squabbling. Canadians need this place to work. They need us to get to work. We can make this all about ourselves or we can make it about them. Canadians deserve that. New Democrats want to help deliver the supports they need. The work is urgent, and the official opposition just wants to delay. That is all I have to say on this matter.

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2024-25

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I will be providing 10 minutes of remarks, and I will be welcoming questions from my parliamentary secretary, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. I will be using my time to discuss measures in the recent budget to combat crime, especially auto theft and money laundering. I will also touch on legal aid investments and provide an update of our work on online safety.

Auto theft is a serious problem that affects communities across the country. Not only does it affect people's wallets, it also causes them to feel unsafe. The number of these thefts has risen and, in some areas, they are growing more violent. These criminals are increasingly emboldened. Our government is committed to ensuring that police and prosecutors have the tools they need to respond to cases of auto theft, including thefts related to organized crime.

We also want to ensure that the legislation provides courts with the wherewithal to impose sentences commensurate with the seriousness of the crime. The Criminal Code already contains useful provisions for fighting auto theft, but we can do more.

This is why we are amending the Criminal Code to provide additional measures for law enforcement and for prosecutors to address auto theft. Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, sets out these proposed measures. These amendments would include new offences targeting auto theft and its links to violence and organized crime; new offences for possession and distribution of a device used for committing auto theft, such as key-programming machines; and a new offence for laundering proceeds of crime for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization. We are proposing a new aggravating factor at sentencing, which would be applied to an adult offender who involves a young person in the commission of the crime. These changes are part of the larger federal action plan on combatting auto theft that was just released on May 20.

Auto theft is a complex crime, and fighting it involves many partners: the federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments, industry leaders and law enforcement agencies.

I will now turn to the related issue of money laundering. Addressing money laundering will help us to combat organized crime, including its involvement in automobile theft. However, the challenges associated with money laundering and organized crime go beyond auto theft.

That is why we are continually reviewing our laws so that Canada can better combat money laundering, organized crime and terrorist activity financing.

Bill C-69 would give us more tools to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. These new measures would allow courts to issue an order that requires a person to keep an account open to assist in the investigation of a suspected criminal offence. Currently, financial service providers often unilaterally close accounts where they suspect criminal activity, which can actually hinder police investigations. This new proposed order would help in that regard.

I hope to see non-partisan support from all parties, including the official opposition, on these measures to address organized crime. It would be nice to see its members support something, rather than simply use empty slogans or block actual solutions. We see this as well in their efforts to block Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, which has been in this chamber for literally months. That also contains a range of measures to combat money laundering, which have been asked for by law enforcement. For a party that prides itself on having a close relationship with law enforcement, I find this obstruction puzzling.

What is more, under Bill C-69, the courts will also be authorized to make an order for the production of documents for specific dates thanks to a repetitive production order. That will enable law enforcement to ask a person to provide specific information to support a criminal investigation on several pre-determined dates over a defined period. That means that the individual will be required to produce specific information to support a criminal investigation on several pre-determined dates.

These two proposals resulted from the public consultations that our government held last summer. We are committed to getting Bill C-69 passed by Parliament in a timely manner so that the new measures can be put in place as quickly as possible and so that we can crack down on these serious crimes as soon as possible.

I would now like to discuss our investments in legal aid. Just as we need to protect Canadians from crime, we also need to ensure that people have equitable access to justice, which is an integral part of a fair and just society, and a strong legal aid system is a key aspect of this. It strengthens the overall justice system. Budget 2024 includes measures to increase funding to criminal legal aid as well as legal aid for immigrants and for refugees to Canada.

For criminal legal aid, budget 2024 provides $440 million over five years, starting in 2024-25. This would support access to justice for Canadians who are unable to pay for legal support, in particular, indigenous people, individuals who are Black and other racialized communities who are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Indeed, legal representation helps to clear backlogs and delays in our court system as well.

This essential work is only possible with continued collaboration between federal, provincial and territorial governments. The proposed increase to the federal contribution will assist provinces and territories to take further actions to increase access to justice. This legal aid will help with the backlogs I just mentioned. Unrepresented and poorly represented litigants cause delays in our justice system. Making sure that these individuals have proper support and representation will help ensure access to a speedy trial. This, in combination with our unprecedented pace of judicial appointments, 106 appointments in my first nine months in office, will also address backlogs. In comparison, the previous Harper government would appoint 65 judges per year on average. I exceeded that amount in six months.

For immigration and refugee legal aid, budget 2024 would provide $273.7 million over five years, starting in 2024-25, and $43.5 million per year ongoing after that. This funding would help support access to justice for economically disadvantaged asylum seekers and others involved in immigration proceedings. This investment would help maintain the confidence of Canadians in the government's ability to manage immigration levels, and to resettle and integrate refugees into Canadian society. To do this very important work, Justice Canada continues to collaborate with provincial governments and with legal aid service providers, as well as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. Together, we are exploring solutions to support sustainable access to immigration and refugee legal aid services.

Before I conclude, I would like to talk a little about Bill C-63, which was raised by the member for Fundy Royal. The bill addresses online harms and the safety of our communities online. Much has already been said about this very important legislation, which would create stronger protections for children online and better safeguards for everyone in Canada from online hate and other types of harmful content. What is critical about this bill is that it is dedicated to promoting people's participation online and not to limiting it.

This legislation is informed by what we have heard over five-plus years of consultations with diverse stakeholders, community groups, law enforcement and other Canadians. This bill focuses on the baseline responsibilities of social media platforms to manage the content they are hosting and their duty to keep children safe, which means removing certain types of harmful content and entrenching a duty to act responsibly.

This bill is about keeping Canadians safe, which is my fundamental priority and my fundamental duty as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of this country. It is about ensuring that there is actually a takedown requirement on the two types of most harmful material: child pornography and the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, also known as revenge pornography.

There are five other categories of material that would be dealt with under this bill, including material that includes inciting violence, incitements to terrorism, hatred as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada, bullying a child and also inducing a child to self-harm. I am speaking now not only as the Minister of Justice but also as a father. I think that there is nothing more basic in this country for any parent or parliamentarian than keeping our children safe.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak about how we are making Canada safer and making our justice system stronger, more accessible and more inclusive for all people.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you will indulge me for a minute of my four minutes, I offer condolences to my Aunt Freddie and my cousins and their children on the passing of my Uncle Phil earlier this evening, and to my dad and his sisters, for whom he was their older brother. He was a very generous man. He worked very hard. He gave to his community and to his church community. He was loved by his family and he loved his family. He loved Canada and he will be missed.

In the short time I have, I am going to really focus on one aspect of what I was going to speak about as we look at Bill C-59, the fall economic statement from last November. Of course, we have had the federal budget since, and it has only compounded the cost of living issues and housing issues that we are seeing across Canada. Therefore, let me focus on something that I hear so often from constituents in my community and that weighs very heavy on their minds. It is the interest rate increases that have resulted as a consequence of the inflationary spending, the inflationary taxes and the inflationary deficits of the NDP-Liberal government.

Whether it is the $20 billion of inflationary spending that was piled on in the fall economic statement or the $50 billion that was piled on in the recent budget, that has an impact. We know from the report from Scotiabank that 2% of interest rate increases can be attributed to government overspending, and other banks have made the same comment. The CIBC made the same cautionary warning prior to the recent budget.

Flamborough—Glanbrook is on the western edge of the GTA, surrounding the city of Hamilton. It is made up of very fast-growing communities, where people have fled the GTA to buy a house for a more affordable amount than what they could get in Toronto or Mississauga. Communities like Waterdown, Binbrook, Elfrida and Hannon are where first-time homeowners, often young families, new Canadians or even seniors who are looking to retire on modest savings, have seen these alarming rate increases. I hear this from the mortgage brokers. I hear this from constituents. It is an absolute gut punch to see those interest rate increases that have resulted from the policies of the Liberal-NDP government.

We had the report earlier in May from the Bank of Canada, which predicted the very steep incline we are going to see in the next few years in mortgage payments. If it is a variable mortgage, the prediction is for a median monthly payment increase of up to 60%. If it is a fixed mortgage that someone is renewing, the median monthly payment could be increased by up to 20%. That has a devastating impact on household budgets, and that is, again, the consequence of these inflationary policies and the spending by the current government.

In my final few moments, I will just say that hope is on the way. The common-sense Conservative government would cap the spending, fix the budget and axe the tax so that these people in my communities and across Canada could actually afford their mortgage payments, or it is not impacting their rents, so hope is on the way.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the best thing I can say about Bill C-59 is that it gets us a day closer to the election that will change the government and save Canada from the reckless NDP-Liberal coalition government that is wrecking our country. We have a plan that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget, stop the crime and save Canada. We will make Canada the greatest country that we all love so much, the country that was so much better before the Prime Minister was elected.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it feels like perhaps it is the hour, but things are getting a bit testy, and I thought I would take this in a different direction, because bills like the one before us are always a mixed bag. There is stuff in them that some folks support, and there is stuff in them that some folks really oppose.

I am wondering whether my colleague can just pick one thing from Bill C-59, the bill that we are debating, that he supports and that he thinks would take our country in the right direction. Can he tell us what it is?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member talks about the passage of Bill C-59 and blames the government. What the member does not tell people who are listening is that the Conservative Party focused a great deal of attention on filibustering and preventing legislation from passing. This is one of those pieces of legislation, and their tactics were just demonstrated by yet another amendment to it. However, the member believes, or tries to give the false impression, that the government is not able to pass the bill, when it is allowing for opposition to continue in this fashion to prevent legislation from passing. Interestingly enough, this particular legislation would allow for the top-up of the rebate to be doubled for rural areas.

I am wondering why the Conservative Party chooses to filibuster all legislation and then tries to blame the government for not passing legislation, yet its members cry when we bring in time allocation.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure and an honour to rise in the House. I want to give a shout-out to my family, including my daughters, back home in the city of Vaughan. My daughters should all be sleeping because they have school in the morning. I wish them a wonderful day tomorrow.

Before I get into my formal remarks, I will give an example that personifies how we are doing the right thing to grow our economy in this beautiful country and also invest confidently in Canadians and Canadian families, and that is the recent announcement by Honda to invest $15 billion into the Canadian auto sector and the development of electric vehicles, along with the manufacturing plants.

Last week, I was able to join the Premier of Ontario, the Prime Minister, ministers across the board and many of my hon. colleagues of the House for an announcement of $1.6 billion from a Japanese company, Asahi Kasei, to develop separators for electric vehicles. This will create thousands of jobs in the Port Colborne area of Ontario and provide bright futures for families there, something that we believe in. Confident governments and countries invest in their citizens.

A few days later, I was able to visit Vellore Corners Dentistry, Dr. Elena Panovski and her staff, to talk about the Canada dental care plan. This dentist sent out a flyer in my neighbourhood and many neighbourhoods in the city of Vaughan, telling patients that if they are eligible for the Canada dental care plan, they should go to her clinic. The dentist had also put up a billboard along a major regional road in the city. I visited the clinic and met Peter, an 80-year-old senior citizen in my riding, someone who came to this country and worked hard. He had his Sun Life Canadian dental care plan card with him and was at the dentist thanks to the program that we have implemented. That is awesome. That is progress.

We were sent here to do what is right for our citizens. In fact, as of today, over 90,000 seniors have gone to dental care providers across this country. If we do not all clap about that, I do not know what we are going to clap about. Members on the other side are not clapping. Over two million eligible seniors have signed up, have been approved and will receive their cards. Why is that important? It is important because the day I arrived here in 2015, one of the programs that I knew would make a difference in the lives of literally millions of Canadians was a dental care program, and that is what we have done.

We have done so much: the Canada child benefit, raising personal income tax rates on the wealthiest, cutting taxes for the middle class, raising the basic personal expenditure amount, signing free trade deals with countries around the world and being at the table, and we will continue to do so.

This bill will implement important and fiscally responsible measures from the 2023 fall economic statement that support our government's efforts to build more homes faster, make life more affordable and create more good jobs. Our government is working to create a better future for all generations, and Bill C‑59 is essential to making that goal a reality.

With Canada's housing plan and the 2024 budget, we are taking numerous steps to help increase the supply of housing with the goal of reducing the high costs Canadians face. Bill C‑59 promises to support those efforts by helping increase the supply of rental housing in Canada. About one-third of all Canadians rent their homes, but the number of available rental units has failed to keep pace with demand.

Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, which received royal assent on December 15, 2023, and the federal component of the HST on the cost of newly purpose-built rental housing introduced a 100% rebate on the GST. Bill C-59 would extend the eligibility for the GST rental rebate to co-operative housing corporations that provide long-term rental accommodation. Our objective, as a government, is to incentivize the construction of even more rental units, and that is what is happening in the Canadian housing market.

We know that our growing, vibrant communities also require critical infrastructure, like public transit, modern water systems and community centres, which is all infrastructure that Canadians depend on daily in their lives. That is why Bill C-59 would establish the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities in the federal lead for improving housing outcomes and enhancing the public infrastructure.

The cost of living is weighing heavily on household budgets. Bill C‑59 would make life more affordable by strengthening competition to help stabilize prices in Canada. We have heard public concerns about increasing corporate concentration and the power of private sector giants.

Complementing the changes introduced in Bill C-56, which I mentioned a few moments ago, Bill C-59's suite of amendments to the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act would provide Canadians with more modern and effective competition laws.

As everyone knows in this House, I love capitalism and wealth creation, which lead to higher standards of living, but what I do not like is corporate concentration and measures that are introduced that are anti-competitive by organizations and companies, and that is why we need guardrails. That is why it is smart for us to introduce amendments to the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act, which the opposite party had ignored for the years that it was in power, and it can remain in opposition for many more years.

Together, these amendments would represent generational changes to Canada's competition regime. More competition means lower prices, more innovative products and services and more choices for Canadians in where they take their business. The amendments are designed to empower the Competition Bureau to better serve the public in its role as watchdog and advocate dynamic markets.

Bill C-59 would further modernize merger reviews and position the Competition Bureau to better detect and address killer acquisitions and other anti-competitive mergers. The legislation would also support Canadians' right to repair by preventing manufacturers from refusing to provide the means of repair of devices and products in an anti-competitive manner.

Our plan is also focused on Canadians' well-being. Therapy and counselling play a critical role in the lives and mental health of millions of people in Canada, but they can also be costly. To ensure that Canadians can get the help they need, our government is taking the necessary steps to make these essential services more accessible and affordable. Bill C‑59 would eliminate the GST and HST from psychotherapy and counselling therapy.

Our government is also taking care of young families. EI parental or maternity benefits provide essential support to new parents. The legislation would bring in a 15-week shareable EI benefit and amend the Canada Labour Code so that adoptive parents who work in federally regulated sectors have the job protection they need while receiving the new benefit. The legislation would go even further by creating new paid leave for federally regulated employees with a view to supporting families in the event of a miscarriage.

Turning now to Canada's fiscal position, we do know that Canada's deficit-to-GDP ratio is number one in the G7 and G20: we have the lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Our net debt-to-GDP ratio is also in the mid-30s range, which is top-notch. We are one of the few countries in the world with an AAA credit rating. These ratings were affirmed and confirmed after the budget was delivered by the rating agencies, one of which I spent several years working for, and covered many sectors that we talked about in this wonderful House, which continue to employ hundreds of thousands of Canadians and continue to grow our economy.

It has been an honour to rise in this House and, again, I wish all the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge a wonderful Thursday morning and wonderful and safe travels to work.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the very hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

I am very pleased to rise today to speak about Bill C-59, which would deliver on key measures from the 2023 fall economic statement to advance the government's economic plan to make life more affordable, build more homes and build an economy that works for everyone. This is an economic statement that is about fairness, not just fairness for today, but fairness for generations to come.

I have been continuing to work with my constituents over these past eight years as a member of Parliament. I have a very active youth council of dynamic members who keep me updated on what is important to them in this generation. I have a very active women's council that keeps me updated on what is important for them to make sure that they are thriving within our country. I have attended thousands of events over these past number of years to ensure that I am listening to what Canadians want. I have had stakeholder meetings to listen to what people have to say, to take in that feedback and to make sure we are using it to make good policy.

Over these past eight years, I would put to the House that we have made very good, solid, sound policy. I say this because I have heard from constituents about those needs. Canadians are the backbone of our economy and when we empower Canadians we are strengthening our economy and that is what the fall economic statement is really all about and what we have done over these past number of years in government is all about.

I will share a couple of examples with the House. For example, Lisa, who is on my women's council, has a start-up with respect to the environment. She works around the world to ensure that we are representing Canada with a global framework to build sustainable development to make sure that we are fighting climate change.

Another person on my women's council is Huma, who is starting a second career by going into college at this late stage in her life.

There is a member of my youth council who is now studying in med school and is trying to get into law school.

Mechatronics is a growing industry—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be sharing my time with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, who, I am sure, will happily rise and comment about how proud he is to represent people from his riding.

Now, after 20 minutes of absolute fiction from the member for Winnipeg North, I thought I would continue with a bit of fiction that describes, so well, Bill C-59 and Liberal financing. It is by Hemingway, from The Sun Also Rises. It goes like this. “How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked. “Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.”

That is exactly the Liberal government.

There is another great line, which is not fiction. I wish it were fiction, but it is not. It is actually from the Prime Minister himself. It is a great line: “The budget will balance itself.” Does everyone remember that? What do we get with the Liberal Prime Minister saying that the budget will balance itself? We end up with $1.4 trillion in debt. That is $93,000 for every single household in Canada; $3,400 per year, per household, just for interest on the Liberal debt.

We think about it like the GST. It is 5% on everything purchased. People go out to a restaurant, have a beer or go to a Blue Jays game. Perhaps they would go to the Edmonton Oilers game, but not the Vancouver Canucks game because they are gone. They pay 5% tax on the ticket. This year, we expect the GST is going to raise about $52 billion. The equivalent of every single penny of the GST collected is going to go solely to the interest on the debt. It will not go toward health care or toward any of the fantasy things the member for Winnipeg North brings up; it is just for interest.

The interest on the debt next year is going to be so bad that the GST will actually have to rise to almost 6% just to cover the interest. That is more than we give for health care to the provinces and more than we give to defence. Over the next five years of the budget, it is going to be $338 billion of interest payments.

Do members remember the Prime Minister, when questioned about interest costs, condescendingly saying to Glen McGregor, “Interest rates are at historic lows Glen”? Guess what? Interest rates are not at historic lows, and the Liberals, when they actually had a chance to lock in those interest rates that supposedly were at the historic low, did not. The Liberals actually borrowed vast sums, almost a half a trillion dollars, on a short-term basis. This debt is coming due, and the government is going to have to refinance, so instead of paying 0.25% on that $454 billion, it is going to be a lot more. Billions of dollars are added every year, just in interest.

Let us imagine that someone who is buying a house is at the bank, and they are negotiating a mortgage. A bank officer tells them that he has an all-time low for interest rates and that they can lock it in for a long time at 1%, and the customer says that they are going to roll the dice because they do not think the rates are going to go up. Then, boom, all of a sudden, they would end up with 5% to 8% when they renew. People would not do that. No one would be foolish enough to do that, but that is what the Liberal government has done. It has just basically said that it does not want a long-term, locked-in rate and it is going to roll the dice. Then what happens? We end up with massive increases.

What could we actually buy with that $338 billion that the government is going to pay just in interest costs alone for the next five years? The government could buy 5,600 ArriveCAN apps, not at the $80,000 it was originally going to be, but at the $60 million that the government paid for it. It could buy 17,000 contracts with GC Strategies to develop apps and to not actually do any work on them. The government could do a half a million studies from contractors such as KPMG to advise the government on how to cut back on contracts from the government. The government famously paid KPMG $670,000 to provide advice on how to cut back on contracts to people like those at KPMG. It could buy 42,000 luxury barns, like the $8-million barn it put up at the Governor General's property.

Do members remember the Liberal cabinet spending $1.3 million on three luxury getaways to talk about the affordability crisis? The Liberals could actually afford 260,000 of their luxury getaways to discuss the affordability crisis. They could buy 37 million nights at the $9,000-a-night luxury plaza where the Prime Minister took his Christmas vacation, but was just staying with friends like every other Canadian.

Now, I say some of these things just to show how ridiculous this spending is, but in real terms, we could actually build, with that $338 billion, just on interest, a new hospital for the 100 largest cities in Canada. So, basically, for every city with more than 35,000 people, we could actually build a brand new $3.5-billion hospital. We could increase health care transfers to the provinces by about 700%. We could buy 482,000 houses across the country at the current average house price of $700,000. Instead, it is going to interest, but that is okay, the budget will balance itself and “interest rates are at historic lows, Glen”. We do not have to worry about it. We could actually afford 800% of the current outlay that all Canadians are paying on pharmaceuticals, not a fake pharmacare plan of the Liberal government, for contraceptive and diabetic medication. That is not pharmacare; that is two items. The government could actually pay for everything with just 12% of what it is paying on interest right now.

Now, I want to get to Bill C-59 itself, the fall economic statement, with just a couple quick items from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. This is from his highlights. He says, “Revisions to the...economic outlook and fiscal developments...lower the outlook for the budgetary balance by [$19] billion.” So, the PBO is saying that things are getting worse by $19 billion.

He goes on to say, “Government announced [$23] billion in new spending that was partially offset by [$3] billion in 'refocusing”. So, lots of added spending.

The fall economic statement claims to expand the budget commitment to “refocus government spending, with the goal to identify an additional $2.4 billion in savings” over a four-year period. Now, that is out of $465 billion a year in revenues, about half a trillion a year, and costs about a $2.5-trillion spending budget over the five years. The Liberals are going to save $2 billion, including half a billion this year, even though it is money that they are saying now is not needed, but it went through the Treasury Board process as needed.

He continues, “There is currently little information available on the status of the $15.4 billion in Budget 2023 spending reviews” and savings announced by the government. “Further, there is currently no publicly available information related to the $3.6 billion spending to be reallocated in 2023-24.”

Now, one of the things the government has promised to cut back on in this $3 billion is outside consulting. Of course, if members remember, in 2015, as the member for Winnipeg North, I am sure, will tell us, the Liberals promised to cut back on outside contracting, consulting. What has happened instead is that it has ballooned to $21 billion, including, as I mentioned, $670,000 to KPMG to advise the government on how to stop spending so much money on companies like KPMG.

I have a couple other favourites that the Liberals spent money on through outside contracting. They gave Deloitte a quarter of a million dollars to give a four-page report saying not to buy sophisticated IT security equipment from despotic regimes. They paid a quarter of a million dollars also to Deloitte for a fairness study on an RFP for a security contract for something that they sole-sourced under government policy. There are 50,000 people in the public service whose job is to make sure that the contracts are fair, but they decided they had to give money to Deloitte.

It is clear the government has no clue what it is doing with the economy. It is clear it has no clue what it is doing with the budget. The budgets will not balance themselves. A Conservative government, however, will balance them.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, my colleague's intervention was excellent.

I will ask the member about the Competition Act and Bill C-59, particularly because it is the NDP that is the only party that is fighting corporate greed. I would like to give a specific example.

I am a member of the indigenous and northern affairs committee, and it was my motion that got the North West Company, a grocery company that is subsidized by the Liberal government, to offer subsidies to alleviate poverty. However, instead of using the subsidy to alleviate poverty, the North West Company is helping to feed corporate greed. For example, the CEO, Dan McConnell, would not answer my questions regarding his salary, his benefits or the bonuses that he gets. Instead, he said that he would give me the responses in written form, which he has now provided. That CEO, in 2023, earned $765,000 and in the same year received a bonus of just over $1 million.

How would the Competition Act and Bill C-59 help to address that kind of corporate greed?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member who just finished his speech. I would like to say at the outset that the number of Quebeckers already registered for the NDP's dental care program is in the hundreds of thousands. We also know that thousands of Quebeckers are getting their NDP dental care card every week. I think that is extremely important.

Pharmacare is another topic of discussion. All of the major unions in Quebec say that they view the NDP's pharmacare bill, Bill C‑64, in a very positive light. It is important to mention these two things. The NDP is the one proposing measures in the House to improve the daily lives of people across Canada. That is extremely important.

We are supportive of the fall economic statement, Bill C-59. I will talk about some of the measures the NDP has inserted into it, but I will start by saying that this is not an NDP budget.

Of all the governments in the country, the two most popular are the government of British Columbia and the government of Manitoba, and they are two NDP governments. They have both been very effective. The Manitoba NDP government is new, but it is extraordinarily popular. This is because the NDP really knows that the essence of good stewardship, of managing a democratic government, is ensuring that it is not the rich who are taken care of but, rather, regular folks. We have formed government provincially, of course, in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia. All those governments have been governments that have made a difference in the lives of people.

The simple reason the two most popular governments in the country right now are NDP governments is the financial statements that are issued by the federal ministry of finance. As members well know, the federal ministry of finance is not a hotbed of social democrats or democratic socialists, but it does publish the fiscal period returns. If members look through them, and I hope they do before the end of the evening, they will see that, over the last 40 years, the best governments, in terms of managing money, paying down debt, expanding education services, expanding housing services and expanding health care systems have been, systematically, over the last 40 years, NDP governments. That is why the two most popular governments in the country right now are NDP governments. It is because the NDP is not beholden to lobbyists.

The corporate Conservatives are run by lobbyists. Their national executive is run by lobbyists. There are lobbyists permeating the Conservative headquarters. The Conservative caucus and the campaign team are all lobbyists for the corporate sector. When the Conservatives were in government we could see how badly they performed. They do not understand the issue of stewardship. The infamous Harper tax haven treaties have bled over $30 billion, each and every year over the last 17 years, out of this country. That is $30 billion that could have been used for health care and housing. It could have been used for a variety of services for veterans, seniors and youth. It could have lowered post-secondary education costs. It could have made a big difference, but that was not what the Conservatives chose to do.

The Liberals, when they came to power, kept many of the tax breaks that had been given to the richest of Canadians, the wealthiest of Canadians, who have never paid their fair share, and the most profitable corporations. The NDP's approach is different, which is why the fiscal period returns to the federal ministry of finance show conclusively that the NDP and NDP governments are the best at managing money.

This is not an NDP budget, by any means. There are elements that the NDP forced into the budget that would make a difference in the lives of working people. The reason we are supporting it is the amendments we have achieved, in the same way that we brought dental care to Canadians. There are two million who have signed up already, including 100,000 seniors. There are many who are, for the first time in their lives, getting access to dental care, and this is just in the first two weeks of this new NDP program. NDP dental care is making a difference.

Earlier tonight, we moved the pharmacare bill to the health committee, which is where it should go. I am looking forward to those hearings over the next couple of days. People have been waiting for decades to have pharmacare added to our health care program and our health care strength in this country.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall in this House, as I am sure you have a great depth of historical memory, that 60 years ago in this House of Commons, just a few feet from this temporary house in the West Block, in Centre Block, Tommy Douglas, as the founding leader of the NDP, brought forward universal health care, which was viciously fought against by Conservatives at the time, who did not want to see people getting health care. However, it was a minority Parliament and Tommy Douglas was able to successfully deliver universal health care to Canadians.

Tommy Douglas always thought that we needed to make sure that health care was available from the tip of our heads right to the soles of our feet. He always envisaged that we would move to pharmacare, that we would move to dental care and that Canadians would have access to the full range of health care services that all other countries with universal health care enjoyed. Fortunately, we have the member for Burnaby South as our leader who feels the same way, and this has been a hallmark of NDP leaders over the decades. Every time there has been a minority Parliament, the NDP has stepped up as the worker bees of Parliament, as the adults in the room. We have gotten things done that have made a difference for Canadians, from universal health care to a whole range of other things like the Canada pension plan, employment insurance and all those things that make a difference in people's lives. All of them come thanks to the NDP, because that is our role in Parliament.

Therefore, when we look at the fall economic statement, we can see already that NDP stamp that makes a difference, but unlike the corporate Conservatives and the lobbyist Liberals, we do not believe in spending enormous amounts of money on the wealthy, on the pampered and on big corporations. We do not believe in funding massively the corporate sector. We believe in negotiating with the corporate sector. The reason we are pressing so hard for pharmacare is that countries that have universal pharmacare are able to have the bulk-purchasing negotiating power that forces down the price of drugs. New Zealand is a great example, where there is a reduction of 90% in the cost of certain medications because the New Zealand government was able to say to the pharmaceutical companies that if they wanted to come into that market, they would have to pay New Zealand's price. Currently, with the patchwork of plans that the corporate Conservatives and the lobbyist Liberals have put into place over decades, it is the pharmaceutical company executives who decide what the prices are, and that has to change.

The fall economic statement does contain some measures that we believe would make a difference. First off, we believe firmly in starting to adjust a taxation system that has become profoundly unjust and unequal. We have said that when we look at the infamous Harper tax haven treaties that cost us $30 billion a year, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and we look at the range of other loopholes that exist, it is important to take steps to ensure that those loopholes are closed. The real taxation rate for Canada's largest corporations is single digits because of the loopholes. Because of the corporate executives' ability to write off and because of their ability to take money overseas where they do not have to pay taxes on it, their real taxation rate is in the single digits, less than 10%.

Why not ask Canadians what their taxation rate is? Middle-class Canadians pay their taxes expecting that they will get services and supports in return, but instead, under the Harper regime, we saw that the Conservatives slashed services to those taxpayers who had paid money into the federal government and they gave that money away. They gave it to tax havens. They gave it to the banks. Unbelievably, the Harper regime gave $160 billion to the banking sector so that the banks could prop up executive bonuses and corporate dividends.

The Conservatives have never apologized for that, and Liberals have never apologized for the $750 billion, again, in liquidity supports that they offered to the banking sector just a few years ago. It took 96 hours to provide $750 billion in liquidity supports. Between the two, the corporate coalition of Liberals and Conservatives, over the past 15 years, has given, unbelievably, in current dollars, over a trillion dollars in liquidity supports to the banking sector to prop up dividends and profits and executive bonuses.

We look at the health care problems that we are experiencing, the housing crisis and other problems that exist. We had, today, the member for Nunavut, who is an extraordinary member of Parliament, asking about day care that is not being adequately funded in Iqaluit, yet for Liberals and Conservatives, between them, giving a trillion dollars to the banking sector is no problem.

We can look at the tax havens over the last 15 years. That is half a trillion dollars. That is $30 billion a pop, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, given away to overseas tax havens without a penny of return to Canadians, yet we look at people with disabilities. Half of those who have to go to food banks to make ends meet, half of those who are sleeping outside in the parks and main streets of our country, are people with disabilities. They are not getting what they need in terms of support, but between Liberals and Conservatives, the corporate coalition, for 15 years, half a trillion dollars went to offshore tax havens.

We can look at oil and gas CEOs. Between both the Harper Conservatives and the current Liberal government, over the last 15 years, we have seen $100 billion given to oil and gas CEOs. There is a ton of money that goes to the wrong places in this country. That is why NDP MPs are here fighting on behalf of Canadians, delivering on pharmacare and affordable housing, finally. We had to push the Liberals hard on that over the last couple of years.

We are delivering on dental care, anti-scab legislation, a clean energy strategy and all those things, because, as worker bees in Parliament, we believe firmly that the investments need to happen with families and regular people right across this country, not the rich and the pampered. That is where the corporate Conservatives love to spend tons of money. That is where we have seen, sadly, the Liberal government spend tons of money. We believe that money needs to go to regular people.

When we look at this fall economic statement, there is a first step. Again, the NDP pushed hard for that. We finally will get an annual tax of 3% on types of digital services. This is earned by larger companies with more than $1.1 billion in revenue. This is an important step that we support. Again, is this an NDP budget? No. Does it take an important first step? Yes, it does.

As for the investments in housing, the apartment construction loan program, $15 billion, and the affordable housing fund over the next three years for non-profit and co-op and social housing, we support those as well. In fact, the member for Vancouver East fought hard and so did the member for Nunavut, to make a difference in terms of housing.

I do need to mention the anti-scab legislation for a moment and the work of my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who did a remarkable job in making sure that, finally, replacement workers will be banned at the federal level, and Parliament will be called upon to get a final vote on that in the coming weeks. This is vitally important.

The NDP MPs work as a team. Our leader is the member from Burnaby South. We have made an enormous difference in this Parliament. We made an enormous difference in the last Parliament. We will recall, at the height of the COVID crisis, that it was the NDP that was pushing the government, fortunately in a Parliament where I think it is fair to say that all parties did work together, to invest more than $40 billion to ensure that people, families, people with disabilities, seniors and students were taken care of. Small businesses actually had the wherewithal to keep that shingle out as part of their small business by some rent relief.

All of those things came as a result of the NDP fighting hard on behalf of people. There have been two consecutive minority Parliaments where the NDP has made a difference.

Let me get to the crux of what is in Bill C-59 that we can support. The amendments that were brought originally by the member for Burnaby South, the leader of the NDP, would finally enhance the Competition Bureau. This is fundamentally important. We have had no consumer protection in this country. The corporate sector, the lobbyists, have really been paramount. We have seen, over the decades, how successive Liberal and Conservative governments have refused to do anything to enhance consumer protection.

The member for Burnaby South, the national leader of the NDP, brought forward enhancements to the Competition Act that would ensure that we can crack down on food price gouging and gas price gouging that we are seeing. It has happened with impunity because the Competition Bureau has not had the tools to take action against it. Members will recall that the member for Burnaby South tabled a bill in this regard. The NDP fought hard. We negotiated hard. We did our work as the worker bees in Parliament.

As a result of that, many of the enhancements to the Competition Act are now in this legislation. This is important because despite the protestations of the member for Carleton, who tries to pretend that putting a price on pollution has led to the difficulties and challenges around the rise in food prices, we know that most Canadians understand, unlike the member for Carleton, that it is actually food price gouging that has taken place. We are seeing massive profits in the grocery industry. We are seeing record CEO bonuses.

We have a Conservative Party that is absolutely inundated with lobbyists. Lobbyists run its national party and run its campaign team. This is no surprise because of all the corporate Conservatives have done. Their past track record is giving massive amounts of money to the corporate sector, without ever asking for anything in return. It is like they are not even trying to get any benefits for Canadians. They just hand it out. There were the infamous Harper tax haven treaties, $30 billion each and every year handed over to the wealthiest of Canadians in the corporate sector, and they never asked for a thing in return.

The role the NDP plays in Parliament is so important because the Competition Act amendments that we brought in would mean that we could start cracking down on the egregious food price gouging Canadians are experiencing when they go to the grocery store, and gas price gouging. Just a few weeks ago, my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni signalled this. I know my colleagues in British Columbia, like my colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay, can attest to this. The prices in British Columbia all of a sudden skyrocketed by 30¢ a litre. There was no explanation because the companies can do that now. They can do gas price gouging.

The companies do this when we have peak season in terms of travel in British Columbia. It is a beautiful province. We like to get around in British Columbia. The gas companies can gouge with impunity because the Conservatives have allowed them to do this and the Liberals have allowed them to do this. Finally, with these enhancements, the Competition Bureau and the Competition Act would be able to crack down on this gas price gouging that has inflicted so much pain on British Columbians and Canadians right across this country.

These are two important elements that are part of this bill, and it is why we are supporting it.

I wanted to give a shout-out to my colleague from London—Fanshawe. She presented a private member's bill waiving the GST on counselling and psychotherapy. The NDP has also put that into this bill. That would make a difference for all those who need counselling and psychotherapy. Those who have experience with mental illness, mental challenges and mental health know how important it is to be able to pay for those services. This is another innovation that would make a difference.

The NDP has achieved a lot to improve the bill, and we will support it.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean. I also have a treasured whip, but not the same one.

According to my colleague, the federalist parties—whether the governing party or the Conservative Party on this side—have supposedly not been advocating for Quebec. As he said, the people of Quebec will decide. I think he is in the wrong Parliament. I think that if he wants to ask the people of Quebec to undo the Canada we know today, he should run for the National Assembly.

Partisan comments aside, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about including registered massage therapists in Bill C-59.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here this evening to finally give this speech, which I have been looking forward to doing for quite some time. I would like to start by saying that there are some good measures in Bill C‑59. As everyone knows, this is an omnibus bill. It would have been terrible to not have anything to sink our teeth into. Of these good measures, I have identified a few that I think are worth highlighting in the House.

First, Bill C‑59 seeks to make it more difficult to use tax havens by cracking down on two schemes. The Bloc Québécois has wanted to crack down on tax havens for a long time. It is not perfect, but the government is nevertheless tackling two schemes, specifically interest deductibility between subsidiaries and hybrid mismatch arrangements. This measure was recommended by the OECD working group on tax evasion.

One of the schemes involving tax havens is the creation of financing subsidiaries. Simply put, the primary function of a subsidiary in a tax haven is to lend to the Canadian parent company. The interest paid by the Canadian company is thus diverted to a tax haven where it is essentially not taxed. That is the loophole that Bill C‑59 aims to close. This is a good measure. As for the implementation of rules on hybrid mismatch arrangements, this is consistent with the OECD and the Group of Twenty base erosion and profit shifting project recommendations regarding cross-border tax avoidance structures.

This bill also picks up on the idea of Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act regarding mental health services, which was sponsored by my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester and passed unanimously at second reading. The Bloc Québécois supports that bill. Quebec is a pioneer in psychotherapy legislation and has inspired several provinces, like Ontario, to regulate psychotherapy. Anyone who wishes to offer psychotherapy services in Quebec and who is not a doctor or psychologist must obtain a licence from the Ordre des psychologues du Québec. However, the different tax treatment afforded to the various professional associations is unfair. For doctors and psychologists, psychotherapy falls within their scope of practice and is therefore not taxable, but all other categories of professionals must charge tax on the services they provide. The bill would address this unfairness and would come as a welcome change, given the growing need for mental health services. The bill also includes a review of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. At first glance, this is a small step in the right direction.

In the House, if a bill is good for Quebec, then the Bloc Québécois votes in favour of it. If a bill is bad for Quebec, then my colleagues and I vote against it. As I said in the beginning, there are some good things about Bill C‑59, but mostly it is a bad bill. That is why the Bloc Québécois will be voting against it. Bill C‑59 is an omnibus bill that is almost 550 pages long. It sets out 60 different measures and amends or creates 31 laws and regulations. I would like to remind the House that there are some good things in the bill but that the Bloc Québécois will be opposing it at second reading because of two measures.

There are two things that the Bloc Québécois still does not like about the bill. That will not change, regardless of the political party sitting on the other side of the House. The first thing is that this is the umpteenth time the federal government has tried to infringe on provincial jurisdictions. The second thing is the subsidies that the government is giving to oil companies at Quebeckers' expense. This bill gives $30.3 billion in subsidies to oil companies in the form of tax credits. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change is telling us that his government has put an end to oil subsidies, but he should have read his government's bill because that is not what it says. We are talking about $30.3. billion that is being taken out of taxpayers' pockets and given as a gift to oil companies so that they can pollute less, when they obviously do not need that money. One thing is certain, I highly doubt that the official opposition will do much to oppose that, even if it is “wacko”, as they say.

Another crazy idea in this bill is the creation of a federal department of municipal affairs called the department of housing, infrastructure and communities, which will lead to more federal attempts at interference, more endless discussions and more delays, when the housing crisis requires swift action.

On top of these two very bad measures, the government made no attempt to address the Bloc Québécois' priorities, priorities that reflected the real and urgent needs of Quebeckers. When my colleagues and I are on the ground, in our ridings, we connect with our constituents and take calls every day at our offices. People talk to us about these needs.

Worse yet, in response to Quebec's requests, the federal government decided once again to disregard provincial jurisdictions. Housing, local infrastructure, land use, municipal affairs: none of that falls under federal jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, Bill C‑59 creates the department of housing, infrastructure and communities. By creating a designated department, Bill C‑59 gives the minister the capacity to interfere even more. This department will allow the federal government to impose even more conditions on the provinces and municipalities and, of course, make the delays even worse.

Former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau tried a similar stunt when he created the department of urban affairs in 1971, and it failed miserably. To prevent the federal government from meddling in municipal affairs, the Quebec government amended its Act respecting the Ministère du Conseil exécutif to prohibit municipalities, RCMs, school boards and crown corporations from dealing directly with Ottawa. That law remains in effect.

The department of urban affairs caused endless bickering between the federal government and the provinces for its entire existence and never managed to deliver anything useful. It was finally shut down in 1979, which was good for Quebeckers, under pressure from a certain PQ government led by René Lévesque.

Despite this disastrous experiment, the federal government is trying something similar today. After the national housing strategy was announced, it took more than three years for an agreement to be signed between Quebec and Ottawa. Just recently, the federal government refused to give $900 million to Quebec to create housing, with no strings attached. It is hard to imagine that negotiations will be streamlined under a new department.

The picture is not much brighter if we look at the other federal parties. The government is essentially proposing more and more centralization. The Conservatives display the same centralizing tendency, only they are also threatening to cut investments if housing construction targets are not met. This is a disturbing trend among all the federalist parties in the House.

It will come as no surprise to learn that we will not support the creation of a department whose main mission is to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions. We will not support Bill C‑59 either. The Bloc Québécois will continue to oppose all forms of federal interference in Quebec's jurisdictions for as long as it takes, for one very simple but exceedingly important reason: Quebec never has been and never will be dictated to by the federal government.

Once again, we have proof that this government, this institution, the federal Parliament, does not respect the Quebec nation. It will not respect the Quebec nation until the people of Quebec decide to create a true nation with all the tools needed to achieve Quebec's sovereignty and independence.

When that time comes, we will congratulate them on creating a new department of no consequence to us.

The House resumed from May 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the third time and passed.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

moved that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the third time and passed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Before we proceed, I wish to remind hon. members of the Speaker's ruling of Tuesday, January 30, regarding Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023. At the time, the Chair indicated that, pursuant to Standing Order 69.1, the question on the motion for the second reading would be divided to provide for separate votes on measures that were related to each other.

Furthermore, on November 8, 2017, at page 15145 of the Debates, Speaker Regan explained how the Chair intended to implement Standing Order 69.1. He stated, “The vote at third reading will be conducted in a similar way to the vote at second reading, assuming all of the identified elements are still part of the bill by the time it reaches that stage.”

Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 69.1 the question will be divided at the third reading stage as follows:

First, the measures in clauses 1 to 136, 138 to 143, 168 to 196, 209 to 216, and 278 to 317 appear in the 2023 budget. Since their purpose is to implement certain budget proposals, they would be grouped based on this unifying theme and voted on together.

Second, the measures that can be grouped under the theme of affordability, clauses 137, 144, and 231 to 272, will be subject to a different vote.

Clauses 197 to 208 and 342 to 365 will also be grouped for voting because they amend the Canada Labour Code.

Clauses 145 to 167, 217 and 218 will be subject to a separate vote because they relate to vaping products, cannabis and tobacco.

The remaining divisions of Bill C-59, consisting of clauses 219 to 230, 273 to 277, 318 and 319, 320 to 322 and 323 to 341, will each be voted on separately because they are not linked to any of the common themes mentioned earlier. In all, nine votes will be held.

I would like to remind members that when putting the question on groups of clauses for Bill C-59, I intend to follow a procedure similar to that outlined in Standing Order 76.1(8) for the putting of the question on amendments at report stage.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The House will now proceed to the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-59.

The question is on Motion No. 1.

The House resumed from May 10 consideration of Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Indeed, Mr. Lawrence is correct.

Some of those workers we're subsidizing are coming in with their expertise as temporary foreign workers. I hope the idea is that they'll pass their expertise on to Canadian workers and members of our unions.

What's interesting is that the government has decided to play the game where they're going to subsidize everything to come. We've been told for at least a generation that, compared to the U.S., Canada stands out for a few reasons. One is a favourable exchange rate. Two is that health care costs are largely borne by government. Three is a well-trained workforce. Apparently, none of those things matter. What we have to do is now meet the U.S. dollar for dollar on the subsidies that they're going to provide. If we want to go down the same fiscal path as the U.S., then I suppose that's the way the government would like to go.

I think it's very concerning. We don't have the same amount of money that the U.S. does. We don't have the world's reserve currency. We are going to see the challenges that this government's spending and subsidization are going to have on the economy when our dollar goes down and when our balance of payments gets significantly out of whack because we're not allowing investments in productive areas of the economy. The government has a clear path, which is that we will subsidize to make it happen.

The other interesting point is that the government says to look at these new data points. Foreign direct investment is going up. The only reason there's foreign direct investment is that the government is subsidizing the investment that's coming here. That's not realistic, and it's not practical.

I mean, at this recent announcement last week with Honda, the person at Honda said Canada was their third choice. They looked at a couple of other countries before they came here. Why did they come here? It's because the government gave them tons of money. Of course, they're going to come here.

Natural gas has no business case, notwithstanding the fact that multiple countries, representatives and leaders have come here and asked for it. We're to believe that natural gas has no business case, but for some of these investments that the government is making, the only business case that exists is a subsidy. I have a hard time following that.

I appreciate the intervention from my colleague to remind everyone that those initial workers at these battery plants will be temporary foreign workers.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to pause here for a moment. Before I pass on the floor, I will come back to the transcript, because there is some good stuff in here. I think it's even more relevant to what we'll be discussing.

We were in the middle of witness testimony and hearing from officials on the budget. The government decided to put a very aggressive timeline on the budget to get it reported back to the House. We do this every single spring. The government could have brought forward a motion to have a certain number of witnesses and a certain number of hours. We could have agreed upon that and ensured that the NDP was satisfied with the number of witnesses, and then we could have deferred the decision about when to start clause-by-clause to any time. We could be dealing with it in a week from now. We could be dealing with it in two weeks from now. They could have brought a motion just on when they wanted to start clause-by-clause at any time and not taken witness time away.

I suspect that we'll wind up in the same place as we were last year. We'll run the clock all the way down to the end and have a rushed set of witnesses, or maybe not. Maybe this time it will require a House instruction. What we've been doing is not an effective way to be looking at bills.

I appreciated the fact that, with Bill C-59, we had a certain amount of witness testimony, which was negotiated with the former finance critic of the NDP. That was reasonable, but we could have the same here if we just agreed to defer the decision on the clause-by-clause start date for a couple of weeks, or even just a couple of meetings. It's unfortunate that we may be here tonight until midnight, as I understand there are resources.

I'll have to find another podcast with Mr. Carney to regale you all with, but it's pretty clear that Mr. Carney is looking to enter the political arena so I think we should give him the opportunity. He's been to this committee before. He's always held himself very well. He's capable on a number of fronts. He's a dynamic individual who already appeared at the Senate committee last week. He appeared at the finance committee a couple of years ago. He's going on podcasts. He's giving speeches.

Those Liberal caucus members who are supporting other candidates should want Mr. Carney to face a certain level of scrutiny because it's not fair that members of cabinet who are also running have to stand up in the House of Commons and receive questions every day from opposition members, or they have to show up at a committee to be grilled. Those leadership contestants are facing a level of scrutiny. What Mr. Carney has been able to do is basically enter the political arena with very little scrutiny, so we'd like to provide him the opportunity to give his plan for Canadians and where he demarcates from the current government, as he's been talking about in a few of these examples such as that the budget is not focused enough on growth.

By the way, back in this podcast, which I didn't get to yet, but we will later, he talks about how it's going to be a couple of years before we see the benefits of the government's budget. I wonder if he thinks that those benefits have come true. It doesn't look like it by his recent comments.

Three years ago he said we needed to wait and see, and three years have gone by. I don't think he's as happy. Look, I quite like Mr. Carney. I think we would all learn something. It's not very often you have an opportunity to talk to somebody who's been the Governor of the Bank of England, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the senior associate deputy minister in the Department of Finance, someone who was in the financial sector for 30 years and someone who has obviously thought a lot about public policy, has written a book about it and is now interested in contributing. I give him an immense amount of credit for wanting to think about how he can contribute to the country. I also think it's just reasonable to say, why don't you come in and talk about it?

I'd also say that those of you who are very upset with and hold dearly central bank independence should ask what's been done more to erode the independence of the central bank. There's the fact that in the U.S. the former fed chair is now the Secretary of the Treasury, and in Canada you have a former Governor of the Bank of Canada who wants to run for a political party. He has been at least very open about which political party he belongs to. I would submit that this actually has a lot to do with the eroding independence of the central bank.

By the way, just a couple of weeks ago, the Prime Minister said that interest rates would come down, which I found very surprising. I know my colleague, Mr. Lawrence, will likely have something to say on that later, but there's a news flash. The central bank isn't really that independent.

Anyway, you look at how much communication goes back and forth between the Department of Finance and the central bank on a regular basis. The government picks who leads it. The government at any time can send a letter or instructions to the central bank, in writing, on issues with respect to monetary policy. For example, back in 2013, there was this discussion about quantitative easing, and Jim Flaherty took some criticism for saying that Canada would not do quantitative easing. Guess what. Quantitative easing is the reason why we have inflation today.

There are a number of people now who have been questioning the use of quantitative easing. It was well within the finance minister's comments then, as he was able to write a letter or instructions to the central bank, but those individuals who thought that quantitative easing had no consequences for 10 years are now all basically backpedalling.

By the way, with MMT, modern monetary theory, and the fact that you could just print money with no consequences, those people are very quiet on Twitter these days, because it's created a significant amount of inflation. I think someone like Mr. Carney would have a lot to say about the intersection between monetary policy and fiscal policy. I also would love to ask the current central bank governor how he would feel if a former central bank governor was the Prime Minister. I wonder how those conversations would go.

I think it would be a wonderful opportunity to hear from Mr. Carney. As I said, I hold him in very high regard, and I think we should want the opportunity to hear from someone with a résumé like his and a desire like his to make the country better. I'd like to give him the platform to do that, and that's why I hope that my colleagues will at least agree to the subamendment, or a version of the subamendment, that would see Mr. Carney appear here as a witness as he has previously done before.

Quickly, before I pass the floor to the next speaker, we still haven't dealt with this money laundering motion yet. I see that there are four meetings in the main motion for money laundering. The last review of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act was 14 meetings I think. It's inadequate. The government, which claims it's doing so much on money laundering, hasn't even kept its statutory obligation to review the act.

The government has been doing amendments to the money laundering act on a piecemeal basis, claiming that every time they make one little change it is the biggest monumental change. How about actually just completing the systemic review of the act to fulfill our obligation?

They're doing the exact same thing with money laundering that they're doing with competition. Every six months they come out with some new changes to the Competition Act and say that these are the most monumental changes that have ever been seen to the Competition Act. Now they're doing the same thing with money laundering. Are they making progress? Yes. Is it piecemeal? Yes. Is it inadequate? Yes, because they're not looking at the whole system.

I hope we can get through this motion. I also don't support the few meetings. I think we need to have many more meetings on money laundering. I hope that Mr. Carney will come and give us some ideas about how we can organize ourselves and our government better for the purpose of Canadians.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on 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. The bill would advance the government's economic plan to make life more affordable, build more homes faster and build an economy that works for everyone.

To build an economy that works for everyone, the bill delivers critical pieces of our fall economic statement. It would help make life more affordable. We are rolling out new measures to strengthen our economy, combat climate change and forge excellent career opportunities for Canadians, now and in the future.

The Liberals' plan is already yielding results and we continue to push forward. We are advancing Canada's clean economy with a clear timeline for deploying all investment tax credits by 2024. We are launching the Canada growth fund as the primary federal issuer of carbon contracts for difference. We are progressing the indigenous loan guarantee program.

Canada's economic prosperity increasingly depends on a focused strategy to boost growth, particularly in a globally competitive environment. The nation's future success relies on enhancing productivity, innovation and investments in pivotal sectors, such as technology, clean energy and advanced manufacturing. These fields are vital not only for generating high-quality jobs but also for maintaining Canada's competitive edge internationally.

Additionally, empowering small and medium-sized enterprises with supportive policies and tax benefits is crucial to foster entrepreneurship and economic expansion. Equally critical is attracting and retaining top talent. Policies that encourage skilled immigrants to settle in Canada, coupled with significant investments in the education and training of Canadians, are essential to develop a workforce capable of leading in a high-tech, competitive global market.

Canada stands out among G7 countries for maintaining the lowest deficit and net debt-to-GDP ratios, showcasing exceptional fiscal management. This indicates a more sustainable economic position compared to other G7 countries like the U.S., U.K., Germany, France, Italy and Japan, which generally face higher debts and deficits relative to their GDPs.

This fiscal prudence in Canada supports economic stability and investor confidence. Canada's strategic financial policies enable it to better manage economic fluctuations and invest in future growth.

Among G7 nations, Canada's credit rating is ranked near the top. Major credit rating agencies frequently cite Canada’s prudent fiscal policies, low debt-to-GDP ratio and robust institutional framework as key factors supporting its high rating. This strong credit status enhances Canada's ability to attract foreign investment and borrow at lower interest rates, significantly benefiting the economic environment relative to other G7 countries.

On advanced technologies like artificial intelligence, our approach in promoting reflects a robust and proactive strategy aimed at both fostering innovation and ensuring responsible development within the sector. Canada is globally recognized for its influential role in the artificial intelligence sector, distinguished by its significant contribution to AI research and development.

The nation's focus on AI underscores its dedication to technological progress and strategic economic integration. Leading the way in AI innovation are Canadian universities and research centres, which are vital in producing cutting-edge research and attracting international talent. AI's relevance to the Canadian economy is substantial, serving as a key economic engine.

This is supported by major governmental investments, including the $2-billion artificial intelligence compute access fund and the Canadian sovereign compute strategy, aimed at equipping Canada with the infrastructure and resources needed to sustain its competitive advantage in this critical field.

Artificial intelligence technologies in Canada find applications across diverse sectors, such as health care, environmental protection, agriculture, manufacturing and finance, promising to elevate productivity, competitiveness and job quality. For the companies in these sectors to adapt these AI technologies in their operations, we have provided $200 million. By proactively enhancing its AI ecosystem, Canada not only bolsters its global stature but also secures its economic future, positioning AI as a fundamental pillar of its national strategy for long-term growth and innovation.

Canada is strategically established as a significant contributor to the global supply chain for the critical minerals necessary for manufacturing advanced batteries in electric vehicles and energy storage systems. The country's abundant resources of lithium, cobalt, nickel and graphite make it a key player in the clean energy transition.

In response to the growing importance of these minerals for the global economy and environmental sustainability, we are actively expanding our mining and refining capabilities. This enhancement not only meets domestic demands for EV production but also serves international markets, especially those transitioning to greener technologies. We support this sector with favourable policies, substantial investment and collaborations with private companies and international partners. These initiatives aim to create a secure, sustainable and competitive supply chain that utilizes Canada’s natural resources responsibly.

Additionally, we prioritize partnerships with indigenous communities in mineral resource development, promoting inclusive growth and sustainable practices, thereby reinforcing Canada's reputation as a reliable and ethical source of critical minerals internationally. We are also promoting “one project, one environmental impact assessment” to speed up the implementation of projects.

Our strategic focus on economic growth ensures the sustainability of social programs and the continuation of high living standards amid an uncertain global landscape. After a contraction of 0.1% in the third quarter of 2023, Canada's GDP rebounded with 0.2% growth in the fourth quarter. In February, Canada's inflation rate was 2.8%, down from 2.9% in January. It rose slightly to 2.9% in March, roughly in line with the Bank of Canada's forecast.

Statistics Canada reported today that the economy added approximately 90,000 jobs, far exceeding the anticipated 20,000 positions. This marked the most robust month for job creation since January 2023. Nevertheless, the unemployment rate remained constant at 6.1%. These figures indicate that employers are ready and capable of hiring additional staff, despite the economic challenges posed by increased interest rates.

Bank of Canada governor Tiff Macklem has mentioned a possible rate reduction as soon as June. I have been saying for the last 12 months that we will see interest rate reversals starting mid-2024. Recent months have seen quicker-than-expected easing of price pressures, boosting the Bank of Canada’s confidence that inflation is returning to target levels.

The current high interest rates, which aim to curb borrowing and cool inflation by making debt more expensive, may not need to be maintained much longer. We are achieving a soft landing of the economy, though many had predicted we would fall into recession

The House resumed from May 9 consideration of Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

Report Stage

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, last November, the government introduced Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act of 2023. Among other measures, Bill C-59 proposed significant amendments to our Competition Act. I am proud to share that the Standing Committee on Finance has recently completed its review of the bill and has made several amendments to further strengthen existing proposals.

For many years, Canada's markets have been described as overly concentrated and not competitive enough. In fact, the landmark Competition Bureau study last year, based on Statistics Canada data and analysis from a University of Toronto professor, made critical findings in this respect, showing that competitive intensity has been on the decline over the past two decades, which is reflected in a number of important indicators. These trends have been exacerbated by the inflationary pressures our country is facing following a global pandemic and increasing geopolitical uncertainty.

Bill C-59 was introduced to help build a stronger domestic economy through more competition and contestable markets to bring lower prices, more choice and better product quality for consumers across all sectors. The proposed amendments to the Competition Act in Bill C-59 arose out of a comprehensive public consultation conducted from November 2022 to March 2023.

Having heard from stakeholders, the government introduced Bill C-56, the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, which was ultimately passed by this Parliament in December 2023.

Completing its response to the consultation, the government then presented a more extensive set of reforms by way of Bill C-59. The measures in this bill include strengthening provisions with respect to merger review, enhancing protections for consumers, workers and the environment, and broadening opportunities for private enforcement.

We should not underestimate just how critical these reforms are for modernizing our laws and promoting competitive markets. The commissioner of competition has stated on multiple occasions that the amendments in Bill C-56 and Bill C-59 are “generational.” I would therefore like to highlight some important reforms that have been proposed.

To begin with, anti-competitive collaborations between competitors would be under increased scrutiny as the bureau would be able to examine and, if necessary, seek penalties against coordinated conduct that lessens competition. Up until now, at worst the participants would be told to stop what they are doing. The expansion of private enforcement and the ability of the Competition Tribunal to issue monetary payment orders in cases initiated by private parties are also significant changes to our existing enforcement approach. By relaxing the requirements to bring a case and providing an incentive to bring matters directly to the Competition Tribunal, there would be greater accountability throughout the marketplace and more action on cases that the Competition Bureau may not be able to take.

More competition is always beneficial to consumers, but the bill also takes some direct approaches to protect consumers. These include strengthening provisions on deceptive marketing, such as applying requirements more broadly so vendors must present the full cost of a product or service up front without holding back mandatory fees, known as “drip pricing.” The law is further being refined to make it easier to ensure that advertised rebates are authentic when compared to a vendor's past prices. Businesses making environmental claims about their products would be required to have undertaken adequate and proper testing before advertising their benefits. Together, these changes would ensure that consumers have accurate and complete information about products and services in order to make informed purchasing decisions.

I would also like to highlight barriers to repair, which have been an issue of great importance in recent years. Where manufacturers refuse to provide the means of diagnosis or repair in a way that harms competition, remedial orders would be available to require them to furnish what is necessary. This could help a wider variety of service providers offer more options to consumers when choosing where to repair their products.

On top of everything I have mentioned so far, anti-reprisal provisions would also ensure that the system can function. These are included to ensure that workers and small businesses are protected from potential retaliation when they work with the authorities to address anti-competitive behaviour and violations of the act by other parties.

These reforms, along with various administrative changes, aimed at facilitating efficient enforcement of the act, are crucial to ensuring that Canadian markets remain competitive and in line with international practices.

It has been acknowledged by all members of the House that our competition framework requires reform. My colleagues have engaged in thoughtful discussion on ways to modernize the existing marketplace framework. Nothing exemplifies this better than the enthusiasm shown by members of all parties to strengthen these provisions of Bill C-59 once it reaches the Standing Committee on Finance, especially in light of recommendations made by the commissioner of competition.

The amendments adopted in committee notably relate to merger review, deceptive marketing, and refusal to repair. The committee members were quite interested in enhancing protections for consumers and the environment, and these are the ones that I would like to draw attention to now.

First, clarifications were made to ensure that in the Competition Act's various provisions on drip pricing, the only amounts that could be excluded from the upfront price are those imposed by law directly on the purchaser of the product, such as sales tax. Next, with the committee's amendment, sellers advertising reduced prices would now be required to be able to prove that regular price is authentic in order to publicize their discounts.

On the topic of doubtful environmental claims, or so-called greenwashing, the law would also require that those who make environmental claims about their businesses or business activities, not only specific products, must have adequate and proper substantiation in hand to support such claims. On refusal to repair, the committee added some helpful clarifications to ensure that the scope of provision was broad enough.

In sum, amidst the period of inflation and growing affordability concerns, it is crucial that our markets remain resilient and open to competition. Bill C-59 would reform Canada's competitive landscape, encourage greater innovation, and improve affordability for Canadians.

Therefore, I would like to urge my colleagues from all sides of the House to work together to expeditiously pass this crucial piece of legislation.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, every day, Conservatives stand up in the House and cite food bank lineups, as if they care. They are also clear that they are going to vote against the national school food program. One of the other measures that we have taken, of course, in Bill C-59 is competition reform.

I wonder if my colleague could speak to the importance of having more competition.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here tonight to discuss Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, for which we have been waiting for some time. Unfortunately, Conservatives have blocked debate on it and therefore its passage, but they came along tonight, and that is a great thing to see.

Hopefully we will see less obstruction on key legislation going forward, and the bill before us is key legislation. It includes within it items that are fundamental to this country's future, items that my constituents and constituents throughout the country really care about, like mental health, for example.

Through the years, and especially during the pandemic, I have talked to many mental health practitioners in my community of London, and I know I speak for many colleagues on this side of the House and on the other side of the House as well who made the case that the GST and HST should be removed from the cost of psychotherapy and counselling services. I think that is absolutely critical. We have seen that the government has moved on that. That is a testament to the government's commitment on mental health. Of course there are other things we have done to advance mental health, but this was something that previous governments had not recognized. I want to thank constituents again for raising the issue, because without their advocacy in the first place, I do not think we would have seen that change.

With respect to the environment, I am not going to talk about carbon emissions. I could, because there is a lot in the economic statement that addresses the issue of carbon emissions. However, our fresh water is a source of pride for Canadians. Canada has 20% of the world's total freshwater resources. What the economic statement opens the door to is the establishment of the Canada water agency that would be headquartered in Winnipeg. Here, all orders of government, indigenous peoples and researchers would collaborate on ensuring the management of this country's freshwater resources.

Again, that speaks to a fundamental concern that Canadians have. They want clean air and clean water. They want to ensure that we have sustainable resources going forward for current and future generations. I have a two-year-old little girl. I want her to grow up in a country that values all of these things. When we talk about the future, we cannot talk about Canada without talking about—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say it seems a bit surreal to be here tonight debating Bill C-59.

In a way, it reminds me of the movie Back to the Future, because we are going back to the Liberals' fall mini-budget of last year with the hindsight of knowing what we know today because of the Liberals' recently introduced and massively failed budget 2024 document.

What did they call that budget again? Was it “Fairness for Every Generation”? I am still floored by that. Imagine leaving future generations of Canadians massive amounts of debt with zero plan whatsoever on how that debt will ever get paid. Only to the Liberals could this concept of leaving behind your bills for someone else to pay be considered some sort of generational fairness. Fortunately, everyday Canadians see the budget document for what it truly is, and they know that it is anything but fair to leave today's bills behind for our kids and grandkids to try to pay.

I realize we are here tonight to debate last fall's mini-budget and not the spring's latest budget failure, so I will focus my comments on the so-called mini-budget, also known as the fall economic statement.

There is one very fascinating thing about that mini-budget that caught my attention. Prior to it, the Liberals had forecast total debt would be $35 billion for the 2024-25 fiscal year and $26.8 billion for the 2025-26 fiscal year. This was comical. They actually forecast that the debt would go down in 2025-26. The sheer fallacy that this always-be-spending Liberal-speNDP partnership would ever spend less borrowed money is completely nonsensical, yet that is exactly what they tried to pass off to Canadians.

In this mini-budget, of course, the debt forecasts were revised and to the surprise of absolutely no one, except for possibly a certain CBC analyst, the debt forecast increased. The revised debt forecasts were now increased for 2024-25 and 2025-26 to $38.4 billion and $38.3 billion, respectively. However, it is all pointless, because we know the total debt proposed for this year is now up to $40 billion. Next year is an election year, so we can only speculate how much more debt will again increase as the desperate Prime Minister once again attempts to shovel as much money as he can out the door, hoping to buy Canadians' votes.

We are now in a position where we spend more money servicing debt than we are spending on the Canadian health care transfer. Keep in mind that this is just servicing the debt, not actually paying any off, because that is what “fairness” means to the Liberal-speNDP partnership: Leave today's bills behind for someone else to pay.

Going on nine years now, the Prime Minister has never honoured any such fiscal guardrail he has promised. The Prime Minister has never once tried to live within the fiscal framework he has established for his own government. Every year, the Liberal-speNDP partnership can pick a number they say the total debt will be, and every year, no matter how large that total debt number is, they still totally blow it off and come in higher. It is like they do not even try to live within their own means, let alone what is affordable for taxpayers.

Here is one really wacko thing about that mini-budget. The budget update mentions more housing multiple times, but the most significant parts of those housing promises, even though they were announced in the fall update, in reality are for programs that are still years away.

A few examples of this include $15 billion in new loan funding for an apartment construction program, mentioned by the member for Calgary Skyview. However, that program will not be available until fiscal year 2025-26. Similarly, there is an additional commitment to allocate $1 billion over three years for what the Liberals call an affordable housing fund for non-profit, co-op and public housing. However, this funding would not begin until the fiscal year of 2025-26.

Of course, we have an election that will occur no later than October of 2025. So devoid are the Liberals of ideas that they are now actually making promises today, or I should say last fall, on behalf of a future government that is yet to be decided on by voters. No matter how I look at it, the fall fiscal update was yet another very expensive failure in a long line of expensive Liberal failures.

Now, remember, despite all this massive Liberal deficit spending, things are so bad that even the Prime Minister himself now openly admits that young people feel like they cannot get ahead in the same way as their parents or grandparents could.

Another point, which I raised recently in my budget speech and I will make here again tonight, is that when it comes to total spending and debt, the Prime Minister has failed in every single budget to do what he promised he would do in the previous year. Let us ask this question: If the Prime Minister, who, if we ask him, thinks he is pretty awesome, in nine years has massively and completely failed to come even close to balancing a budget, what is he expecting future generations of Canadians to do that he has never done himself, because they are the ones who will be inheriting all of this?

Of course, on that side of the House, the question is never asked, is it? Why is that? Every member on that side of the House knows that bills need to be paid, and this is why so many Canadians are struggling right now. At the end of the month, when they pay their bills, for a growing number of Canadians, there is no longer enough left to live on. For some, each month, the line of credit or credit card debt only grows larger. Many tell me that they realize their financial situation is just not sustainable, and that is why there is such a growing disconnect. They see a Prime Minister, propped up by the NDP, who will literally spend any amount of borrowed money. It is not helping the average family in the least, and they are frustrated.

I am certain there are members on the other side of the House who absolutely understand and know this. I am also certain that there are a few members on the other side who are probably frustrated, because we all know that much of this mess is made behind closed doors from that inner circle inside the Prime Minister's Office without much input from them. I have been reliably informed that, at least in one caucus, some matters are even decided upon without a vote.

I realize that there is an expectation that the official opposition will oppose the government's fall fiscal update. It is, after all, the opposition's job to oppose and to hold the government to account. That was for the NDP. However, in this case, it is not like the Liberal government even tries to live within the fiscal limits it proposes for itself. That is why I mentioned in my opening comments that it is somewhat surreal to be here debating this.

We all know that the recently released budget, much of it, is just a sham, much as budget 2024 will also go down as a sham. Next fall, there will be another fall fiscal update, which will have an even bigger debt than what was proposed here today, and record spending deficits will once again be through the roof. Is there any person in this room who does not doubt that? What will they call the next budget? Would it be the “even more fairness budget”, as it will leave more unpaid debt? It is obviously pointless to speculate on whatever ridiculous title the Liberals will try to use to sell their next budget.

Getting back to the fall economic statement, we could summarize it as Liberals saying, “Yes, we spent even more than we promised, but don't worry, our expensive new programs are coming soon.” That is really, to me, what the update says. It is pretty much what happens with every single Liberal budget and budget update. The bottom line is that I will oppose this latest debt-and-deficit bill from the Liberals, brought to us by their speNDP partners.

I would like to thank all members of this place for hearing my comments at what is a very late hour, and to the Canadians who are at home, particularly those in Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, I thank them for sticking it through this far.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things about this economic update that I am particularly happy with, of course, is something that I have been pushing for for a long time. It is the removal of the GST on psychotherapy and counselling services.

While I was frustrated that the current government and previous governments did not do anything about it and that it took a long time to do it, this is something that makes a lot of sense. If the member could talk about the importance of this measure within Bill C-59, that would be great.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to speak to Bill C-59, which delivers on key measures from our 2023 fall economic statement. It is designed to make life more affordable, to build more homes faster and to forge a stronger economy.

This is a key part of our government's economic plan; since 2015, our plan has been squarely focused on improving life for the middle class and those who want to join it. From enhancing the Canada workers benefit to creating the Canadian dental care plan; delivering regulated child care for $10 a day, on average, in eight provinces and territories so far; and providing 11 million individuals and families with targeted inflation relief through a one-time grocery rebate in July 2023, our actions have strengthened the social safety net that millions of Canadians depend on.

In fact, since 2015, our government has lowered the poverty rate by 4.6%, thanks to direct income supports and a strong economy that benefits all Canadians, all the while ensuring that we maintain the lowest deficit and net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.

Compared with before the pandemic, we can proudly say that, today, over one million more Canadians are employed. However, we cannot refute that still-elevated consumer prices and looming mortgage renewals continue to put pressure on many Canadian families or say that there is not more important work ahead of us to address affordability.

When it comes to housing affordability, supply is at the heart of the major challenges facing Canadians. That is why we are taking real, concrete action to build more homes faster, including new rental housing. Bill C-56 proposed to eliminate the GST on new rental projects, such as apartment buildings, student housing and senior residences, built specifically for long-term rental accommodations. Bill C-59 goes even further by proposing to eliminate the GST on eligible new housing co-operatives built for long-term rental, as outlined in the fall economic statement.

Swift passage of the bill would enable more people in every province and territory to find the types of rental housing they need at a price they can afford. The legislation would also help protect tenants from renovictions, which statistics show are displacing individuals and families, as well as increasing the rate of homelessness.

Our federal government also recognizes the clear link between housing and infrastructure, which is why the fall economic statement proposes to establish the department of housing, infrastructure and communities, currently, Infrastructure Canada. Bill C-59 would formally establish this new department and clarify its powers and duties as the federal lead on improving public infrastructure and housing, so our communities would have the infrastructure they need to grow and remain resilient.

Another important housing measure in the fall economic statement includes cutting the red tape that prevents construction workers from moving across the country to build homes, as well as cracking down on non-compliant short-term rentals, which are keeping far too many homes in our communities off the market.

Our government is also providing $15 billion in new loans through the apartment construction loan program, which accelerates the construction of rental housing by providing low-cost financing to builders and developers. As recently announced by my colleague, the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, we will be broadening this program by including student residences to help more students find housing across the country. This crucial change would relieve pressure on the housing market by freeing up housing supply that already exists in communities. Budget 2024 delivered a top-up to support the construction of even more units.

In addition, we have launched the Canadian mortgage charter, which “details the tailored mortgage relief that the government expects lenders to provide to Canadians facing a challenging financial situation with the mortgage on their principal residence. It also reaffirms that insured mortgage holders are not required under the regulations to requalify under the minimum qualifying rate when switching lenders at mortgage renewal.” Our goal is to protect Canadians by ensuring they have the support they need to afford their homes.

On a similar topic, I would be remiss if I did not also mention the new first-time homebuyer tax-free savings account, which allows Canadians to save up to $40,000 tax-free towards the purchase of their first home. We launched this account in April 2023, and to date, it has helped more than 750,000 Canadians, and counting, reach their first home savings goals.

A more competitive economy benefits all Canadians by offering more choice and greater affordability for consumers and businesses alike. Building on changes proposed in Bill C-56, Bill C-59 would amend both the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act to modernize competition in Canada, thereby helping to stabilize prices across the entire economy. This includes supporting Canadians' right to repair by preventing manufacturers from refusing to provide the means of repair of devices and products in an anti-competitive manner. It also includes modernizing merger reviews, enhancing protections for consumers, workers and the environment, including improving the focus on worker impacts in competition analysis and empowering the commissioner of competition to review and crack down on a wide selection of anti-competitive collaborations. Finally, it includes broadening the reach of the law by enabling more private parties to bring cases before the Competition Tribunal and receive payment if they are successful. These truly generational changes would drive lower prices and innovation, while fuelling economic growth, helping to further counteract inflationary pressures.

Today, I outlined just a few examples of how Bill C-59 makes targeted, responsible investments to improve affordability, build more homes and build an economy that works for everyone, all while taking care not to feed inflation. These are real solutions that, when combined with new measures announced in our recent budget and Canada's housing plan, will help us tackle Canada's housing challenge while improving affordability across the board. That is why I urge my fellow parliamentarians to continue to support this important piece of legislation.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, what I appreciate about Bill C-59 is that, inserted into it, because of the great work of the NDP, are measures to lower bills for Canadians, as well as to end the free ride that has been given to CEOs for too long. Some of these measures include better protections for Canadian consumers in the areas of prohibiting drip pricing, deterring greenwashing and moving toward a right to repair.

Could the member respond to how he would communicate the protections we are creating for consumers in his riding?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate 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.

What a difference four months can make. Indigenous peoples, leaders, advocates and Canadians were shocked and angered at the cuts announced by the Liberals to Indigenous Services Canada in the fall economic statement. How could the government, in the face of a $350-billion infrastructure gap for first nations, be proposing cuts to the services indigenous peoples and communities rely upon?

The Liberals said it would not affect services, but never in the history of cuts this big has that been the case. While they will never admit it, the Liberals reversing some of those cuts is a tacit admission that it would have been the case.

Let us be real about what a $350-billion infrastructure gap looks like. It is a lack of a hospital for the Island Lake region here in northern Manitoba, a region the same size population-wise as Thompson. Communities, such as Shamattawa, are having to deal with a tuberculosis outbreak because the housing crisis is so bad.

First nations on the east side of Lake Winnipeg, such as Poplar River, St. Theresa Point, Garden Hill, Wasagamack, Red Sucker Lake, Oxford House, God's Lake Narrows and God's River, have to live in enforced isolation by the federal government because of the lack of an all-weather road, and the devastating impact of climate change that is rendering its ice roads less and less dependable.

Communities such as Peguis have recently announced that they are taking the federal government to court because of the lack of support they received during the devastating floods of 2022. It has crumbling roads, a housing crises, and a lack of care homes, day cares, youth drop-in centres and recreation centres.

How could the government show this kind of disdain when it comes to its most important relationship? The Liberals say this gap will be closed by 2030, but we know that is not true. Department officials have made it clear that this will be another Liberal broken promise. The AFN has estimated the gap will not close until 2040. The ministers in charge of indigenous services, northern affairs, infrastructure and Crown-indigenous relations refused to meet with the Assembly of First Nations representative to discuss the government's failure on infrastructure and housing.

Ultimately, this failure rests with the Prime Minister, who always says the right thing when it comes to first nations, but pathologically refuses to deliver. He is now refusing to release the quarter billion dollars on housing. The federal government shortchanged first nations in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta because the federal government was using outdated census data. For a Prime Minister who says he is committed to first nations and reconciliation, it seems his preferred method for delivery of services is court ordered.

First nations were clear that the cuts to Indigenous Services Canada for key programs, such as Jordan's Principle, could not stand. The sunsetting of programs related to mental health or the harmful legacy of residential schools was a non-starter. The NDP was clear on this too. I am proud of the work of our team has done, in solidarity with first nations, Métis and Inuit communities, to roll back these cuts. We were clear with the government that it had to reverse these cuts if it wanted NDP support because it is that important.

However, it is clear the Liberals still do not get it, or they do, but they simply do not care. What other conclusions can one draw when the Liberals are investing less than 1% of what is needed to end the housing crisis facing first nations? It is a housing crisis so severe that we could double the amount of homes for first nations and people would still be living in overcrowded conditions.

It is no wonder the Minister of Finance did not mention the word “reconciliation” once in her speech on the budget. Why would she? This year's budget highlighted the $57 billion the government is spending that is court ordered. It is clear the government only helps first nations when either the NDP pressures it to or the courts order it to do so.

I know many of the people across the country are sick and tired of the harmful and divisive partisan bickering that takes place in this chamber every day and of how nothing is done here the way it should, but the NDP showed what principled politics can look like. We held firm on our demands. The Liberals folded, and we reversed the cuts. We did that with 25 MPs. While the Conservatives were happy to spend their days arguing and fighting for the best clip to use for fundraising, we in the NDP got to work to make a difference for people who in many cases need it the most.

Imagine what we could do with 35 MPs or 50 MPs, or even as the official opposition or government. An NDP government would not give away hundreds of millions of dollars to billionaire CEOs so that they can pay dividend checks. We certainly would not have bought fridges for Galen Weston. We definitely would not have spent less than 1% of what is needed to end the housing crisis on first nations.

With 25 MPs, we reversed the cuts to indigenous services, forced the Liberals on dental care and pharmacare, and brought in a capital gains tax. We did not point fingers. We did not plug our fingers into our ears. We just got to work to deliver for indigenous communities, for working people and for Canadians, because for every failure in the budget, there is an important win to be found.

While there is no wealth tax, we did force the Liberals to bring in a capital gains tax on gains above $250,000. While the Liberals refused to reverse the Conservative $60-billion corporate giveaway they have ignored for almost a decade, we forced them to deliver so that kids would not go to school hungry. We also know that 3.7 million Canadians will now have access to diabetes medication and 9 million Canadians will have access to free birth control, all due to NDP pressure.

Meanwhile, we have a Conservative Party, led by a hyperpartisan Conservative leader, that seems hell-bent on bringing back a war on women. Shamefully, we also saw at least one Conservative MP stand with anti-choicers, who were standing against a woman's right to choose and against women's human rights on Parliament Hill today.

Looking at this budget, and looking at the wins for working-class people, how could one make their signature opposition to it be access to free birth control in 2024? Why is the Conservative Party so bereft of ideas that it is forced to recycle their worst ones from yesterday, a few decades ago or maybe even a few centuries ago, when it comes to women?

It is no surprise they are single-mindedly focused on making Parliament fail for people. For a leader who likes to cosplay as a defender of the working class, he sure is happy to echo the message of the well-heeled lobbyists he pretends not to meet. He may say he will not meet lobbyists, unless you include his chief strategist. He may say he will not connect with billionaire CEOs, but he will fundraise off them. He may say he will not speak with the wealthiest corporations in the country, but he will echo their every message. I want to point to the recent work of The Breach in uncovering the extent to which so many people connected to Loblaw, Metro and others are big donors for both the Liberals and Conservatives.

It is ironic that the Conservatives, a party whose slogan is “bring it home”, are so fundamentally opposed to housing solutions in the country. What homes are they “bringing it” to? They are consistently opposing funding for housing for first nations living in overcrowded and mouldy homes, and their approach to housing would mostly help rich investors make more money off the housing market and leave Canadian families behind.

Our message to Canadians is clear. If they want more cosplay and stunts, if they want more coddling of billionaires and if they want to watch their tax dollars go to the wealthiest people in the country, they should vote Liberal or Conservative, but if Canadians want a country where indigenous justice is a priority, where no one is left behind, where we can have a health care system that is truly there for our needs, and where the wealthy pay their fair share to fund the services and the society we need, the NDP is the party for them.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be able to speak on behalf of the people of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook in Nova Scotia, and I am pleased to speak to Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023.

When I say “fall...2023”, I know that those listening to me must be perking up their ears. It is because the Conservatives have been dragging their feet, as they often do, to slow down the process and delay the passage of bills that will help and support Canadians.

The bill is really our government's economic plan for making life more affordable and ensuring that we continue to invest in housing and create an economy that works for all Canadians. Over the past few years, our government has introduced a number of measures to help Canadian families. We know that many families are struggling right now because of the cost of living. That is why we are introducing direct measures to help Canadians in difficult situations.

For example, the Canada-wide early learning and child care system that we are implementing from coast to coast to coast is saving many families a lot of money. When I say “a lot”, I do mean a lot. Thanks to this new national system, families across the country are saving between $2,000 and $14,000. My colleagues can imagine what that means to these families. I can say that my daughter used to pay nearly $2,000 a month for child care for her three children, and now she pays $800. Now she can invest the remaining $1,200 in something else to help her family. There is no doubt that this is making a big difference for families and their budgets.

Furthermore, our government's enhancements to old age security, the Canada pension plan and the guaranteed income supplement allow more retired people to live comfortably in dignity. It is very important that the benefits increase every year so that they do not fall behind.

We are well aware that groceries cost more. My children remind me often, and when I go to the grocery store, I also notice that the prices are too high and that something needs to be done. In June last year, we distributed a grocery rebate worth hundreds of dollars to 11 million Canadians to help them out.

We also made college and university more affordable. We helped young people by permanently eliminating interest on student loans and Canada apprentice loans. To help students, we increased grants from $3,000 to $4,200.

Our government fully understands that better competition means lower prices, more choice and more innovative products and services for Canadians. That is why, with Bill C-59, we are proposing to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act to ensure that Canadians have more choice when it comes to the companies that they do business with. With these changes, we will be able to strengthen the Competition Bureau's tools and powers. We will be able to further modernize merger reviews, which is always an important issue. We will be able to strengthen consumer and worker protection. We will give the competition commissioner the means to examine more types of anti-competitive collaborations and find solutions that work.

These measures will help us increase competition. This will enable Canada to align itself with international, not just domestic, best practices, to ensure that the domestic marketplace promotes fairness, affordability and innovation.

Our government also understands that psychotherapy and counselling services play a key role in the lives and mental health of millions of Canadians. With Bill C-59, we are making essential services more accessible by eliminating the GST and HST on professional services provided by psychotherapists and counselling specialists.

On another matter, our government wants to help adoptive parents through Bill C-59. While EI maternity and parental benefits provide essential support for new parents, adoptive parents are currently entitled to EI parental benefits but not the 15 weeks of maternity benefits. We are therefore introducing a new 15-week EI benefit for adoption that both parents can share.

As members can see, our government has already implemented several measures to make life more affordable. We are continuing our work with Bill C-59.

In conclusion, I think it is clear that the government wants to make life more affordable for Canadians. We have already implemented a number of measures over the past few years to help take the strain off Canadians. We will continue in the same direction to support Canadians. Obviously, we are making sure that the measures we propose fall within our ability to pay. Fortunately, we are in a very strong economic position to invest in Canadians. We continue to make those investments.

I invite all my colleagues in the House to vote for Bill C‑59 so that we can continue to make life more affordable for Canadians.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, a leopard cannot change its spots.

Once again, it is clear that the Liberal government is trying to interfere in Quebec's affairs and fantasizing about taking over jurisdictions that do not belong to it and in which it has no expertise. Why? Maybe it is trying to justify its existence and appear relevant. Budget 2024 and this bill are perfect examples of that. That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C‑59. Let me say this loud and clear: The federal government's unabashed assault on Quebec's jurisdictions is scandalous.

By choosing to create a federal department of municipal affairs, which it calls the department of housing, infrastructure and communities, Ottawa is announcing yet more interference in how Quebec runs its internal affairs. The size of the public service has jumped by 42%, or 109,000 public servants, and the tax burden has increased by $20 billion, but the Liberal government wants to make the public service even bigger, doubling its army of highly paid public servants, whose thankless task it will be to interfere in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, and who will give the federal government the organizational capacity to impose even more conditions on Quebec and municipalities.

It is readily apparent that this massive public servant hiring campaign will make it easier to coordinate the centralization of power and decision-making in Ottawa. The father of the current Prime Minister, the member for Papineau, tried a similar approach when he created the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs in 1971. The experiment was a dismal failure. As the saying goes, like father, like son. We need the humility to learn from our past mistakes in order to avoid repeating them.

As a proud regionalist and elected official in a riding that includes 39 municipalities and three regional county municipalities, commonly known as RCMs, I know what I am talking about. Many of them are already having a hard time getting what they are owed from the federal government, because of funding that never arrives on time or cuts in financial support for the cultural sector, for example. Why complicate the process with more delays, costs, disputes and even more delays? Municipalities need fast, effective and direct action to address the various issues. They are the ones that deliver services most directly to the public. The federal government, however, is doing the exact opposite by adding more layers of red tape that will only increase costs and lengthen delays.

I should also point out that the Parliamentary Budget Officer recently said, about federal services, “public services themselves appear to have deteriorated. Not all of them are at the level one would expect from the public service.” Do my fellow citizens really want the federal government to manage more things? Well, no.

The really sad thing about this part of Bill C‑59 is that the Liberals are offering a solution that no one asked for instead of meeting expectations within their own areas of jurisdiction, and that is really detrimental. I feel like I am repeating myself, but the housing crisis we are currently experiencing, which is dragging on because of half measures that do not solve the problem, must be addressed quickly. People are suffering. Social housing in particular has been chronically underfunded since the 1990s, yet the federal government is not stepping up. Instead, it is trying to take even more responsibility despite its ineffectiveness and incompetence in other matters.

The vacancy rate in Rimouski is 0.6%. A balanced market sits at 3%. That means it is almost impossible to find housing. Families are living in motels. It is disgraceful. It is not just in my riding, either. My colleagues and neighbours throughout the Lower St. Lawrence are in similar situations, with a rate of 0.7% in Rivière-du-Loup and 1.2% in Matane. The answer is simple. We are asking the federal government to stop trying to manage everything, to stop micromanaging, and to simply do what is expected of it, which is to transfer the money to the Quebec government, unconditionally. Then we can tackle the crisis and try to resolve it. The Bloc Québécois is not going to make concessions. We will stand firm.

Let us now talk about the second major concern that we have with this bill. While we want to do away with fossil fuels, the Liberals are reminding us that they are great allies of the oil companies by adding a $30.3-billion subsidy in the form of tax credits paid for by taxpayers. I am talking about the taxpayers who are watching us at home this evening. That $30.3 billion belongs to them. This is not really surprising. We know that Suncor had a hand in drafting the government's policy. The image that comes to mind is that of a firefighter arsonist.

In Rimouski, these same super wealthy companies are increasing the cost of gas for residents, sometimes by up to 20¢ overnight. They have a virtual monopoly and yet they are putting a huge burden on the shoulders of those who depend on their vehicles to get around, make a living and get to work. I already know that some members will tell me that those individuals can just use public transit to get around. They are right, but when the federal government abandons the regions to focus on large urban centres, then public transit in the regions is obviously not sufficient to offer a real alternative to vehicle use.

The Lower St. Lawrence has practically no trains or buses anymore. The number of weekly private bus departures has gone from 6,000 to 882 since 1981. That is an 85% drop. I met the heads of Via Rail recently. They told me that the trains that go to Rimouski have been in service since the 1950s or 1960s, that the rail cars are at the end of their useful life and that these lines will have to be shut down in a few years if the federal government does not invest in them soon. That means we are going to lose one of our last links to the rest of Quebec if the government continues to do nothing. This situation has been going on for too long. Budget 2024 was not the boost we were looking for to save the regional connections.

I get the impression that we are going backward. Our ancestors who built the railway must be rolling over in their graves looking at their descendants shutting it down, when we do not even have an alternative in place. Is the federal government waiting to swoop in at the last minute like a hero at the risk of further isolating the regions?

I will not get into the fact that there are virtually no flights in the regions. The wonderful corporate citizens at Air Canada took advantage of the public health crisis to cease their operations in June 2020 and they never came back to our region, or to the Mont-Joli regional airport, more specifically.

As a result of all of these transportation problems, some of my constituents now even have to take a taxi to Quebec City to get hospital services. I hold the federal government responsible for that, because it is refusing to abide by its agreement to cover 50% of Quebec's health care costs, which compromises access to health care and the development of these kinds of services in the regions.

Now, if the billions of dollars earmarked for oil companies had instead been allocated to transportation, imagine how much the government could have actually improved the situation. We see that the government's priorities are not always in the right place and that the regions still do not matter to the Liberals. They basically never do.

Consequently, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C-59, which both encroaches on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and demonstrates the full extent of the Liberal government's hypocrisy. There has never been a more centralizing government. I get the impression that it wants to revise the definition of a confederation. We are no longer in a confederation; we are under a central government that wants to appropriate all the powers and change the rules of the game without consulting the players. I would even go so far as to say that the rules of the game are constitutional agreements. We cannot take it lightly when agreements with partners are not being upheld. The government claims to want meaningful collaboration with its partners, yet it does not even respect its own agreements with its so-called partners.

Moreover, we will not support the creation of a department whose main task will be to interfere more aggressively in Quebec's jurisdictions and double the government's army of public servants. Nor will we support the $30.3 billion subsidy to ultrarich oil companies that will undoubtedly compromise our ecosystems and slow down the energy transition that Quebec is spearheading.

That concludes my speech. I welcome questions and comments from my colleagues.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her wonderful speech on the environment. It was very clear and straightforward.

I would like to ask her the following question. Does she see any interference in Bill C-59 and does she see even more of it in Bill C-69?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask the member about the greenwashing provisions in the Competition Act. The government worked collaboratively and very closely with Bloc and NDP members to strengthen the provisions within the Competition Act that deal with products that claim to be sustainable and also general claims that companies may make. I think those provisions in the Competition Act really prevent against greenwashing and ensure that companies have to substantiate and have evidence for the claims they make.

Could the member opposite speak to whether she supports that and whether she will be supporting Bill C-59 as a result?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have been talking about Bill C‑59 for a long time, so I will get straight to the point.

There are both good things and bad things in the bill. The Bloc Québécois is opposed to it. I think that has been said. I have very strong feelings about one of the reasons we oppose it. The government is once again giving gifts to the oil industry.

For the umpteenth time, the government is kowtowing to this sector, giving it $30.3 billion in oil subsidies in the form of tax credits. As a result, taxpayers will be paying oil companies to pollute less, even though they do not need that money. What is more, the companies have no intention of cutting production or undertaking projects that will help Canada meet its climate and environmental protection commitments. Quite the contrary.

Oil companies do not need this money, but they keep asking for it, and the government gives it to them. They have the most powerful and influential lobby, so the government always gives them whatever they want. From pandemic-era asks to arguments in favour of technologies that do not work and increasing deregulation, oil companies always end up with plenty of money.

In recent years, as the pandemic wound down, the oil extraction industry was posting record profits. It raked in $38 billion in 2022, and 2023 promises to be just as lucrative, though the figures are not yet available. Who benefits from these returns? It is the shareholders, 70% of whom are foreign. That is a lot of capital leaving Canada.

The current government's budgets are loaded with goodies for this sector, with plans to introduce no fewer than six tax credits largely intended for oil companies and totalling no less than $83 billion by 2035. The industry is thrilled. Two of the tax credits are tailor-made for the industry: a clean technology investment credit and a carbon capture and storage credit.

Let us start with clean technology. How are the oil companies going to get their hands on the lion's share of the $17.8‑billion pot of money earmarked for clean technology? Let me try to make this simple, but by no means simplistic. It takes a lot of energy to extract the molasses-like substance known as bitumen from the Alberta sands. Right now, the sector uses gas. Selling the gas is a lot more profitable, however, and that is what the oil companies would prefer. The good news is that after punching through Wet'suwet'en territory for the Coastal GasLink project, a new Shell and LNG Canada methane port will make the dream of exporting gas a reality within about a year. This is where the genius of clean technology comes in. Everyone supports it. Everyone believes in it. Just tack on the word “clean”, “green” or “sustainable” and problem solved, the Government of Canada will mind its own business.

With this subsidy to enable the extraction of this toxic molasses to continue and even increase, Bill C‑59 will pay oil companies to buy small modular reactors or SMRs. These are nuclear reactors. The energy from the SMRs will replace the gas that oil companies are currently using, so that they can extract more bitumen and make more gas available for export at taxpayers' expense and especially for their own profit. I am not making this up. It is really well thought out. We still do not know all of the characteristics of the radioactive waste that these SMRs produce, and yet oil companies will be using them in a context where Canada still has no control over the governance of such waste. It is a real model of cleanliness on all counts. Excuse me if I laugh.

For the fervent soldiers across the aisle who might try to tell me that we know that the clean technology tax credit will also benefit renewable energy, no, that is not true. First, there is no qualifying limit for this tax credit. In other words, the astronomical costs of the SMRs are going to drain the allotted budget, leaving very little for the other manufacturing sectors. This is expected to cost the public treasury $17.8 billion by 2035, according to estimates from the Department of Finance. Despite the repeated requests from my esteemed colleague, the member for Joliette, the government has not seen fit to provide the Standing Committee on Finance with a breakdown of the numbers to help us calculate how much of the money would go to the oil companies.

So much for Canada the champion, the leader of leaders, and its much-touted transparency.

What can I say about the carbon capture and storage investment tax credit? There is a lot to say. I talk about it often, but I will reiterate a few points.

I will begin with the fact that the government says that the $13‑billion carbon capture and storage investment tax credit will be available to every major emitter, such as cement plants and steel mills, but that is not true. It is pretty obvious that it is available only to oil and gas producers. There is nothing for Quebec's major emitters, unless the intended message is that Quebec should just produce oil and gas. No thanks. Legislation was voted on for this.

A 2022 Pembina Institute report entitled “Waiting to Launch” shows that, despite making record profits, the oil sands industry is not investing in decarbonization efforts in accordance with its climate commitments. The infamous Pathways Alliance is publicly calling for easily available measures such as process improvement, energy efficiency and electrification. Again, the oil and gas industry has more than enough money to put these measures in place. However, its priority is buying back shares and paying dividends.

The federal government fell into the industry's trap. In my opinion, the government saw it coming, but fell for it anyway. Pathways Alliance's game plan depends entirely on major investments by the federal government. Essentially, it sees consumers as the ones responsible for their greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, it makes the federal government responsible for the costs of carbon capture projects. This is an industry that is transferring all the risks and costs of the transition to the public. It is putting the burden on the shoulders of taxpayers and consumers.

The United States is not always a good model, far from it. However, our southern neighbours seem to be wising up to the truth a bit faster. In fact, just last month, the U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget and the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Accountability published a joint report stating that “[t]he companies' massive public-facing campaigns portray [carbon capture and storage] as a viable and available solution to increasing greenhouse gas emissions, but the companies acknowledge internally that they are not planning to deploy the technology at the scale needed to solve the warming crisis”. Clearly, these companies know what they are doing. The report also states, “The industry's true goal is to prolong, perhaps indefinitely, the unabated use of fossil fuels”.

There is something deeply disturbing about the federal government's fiscal trajectory. Bill C‑59 and Bill C‑69 share a connection. I will briefly explain.

Bill C‑69 creates a clean hydrogen investment tax credit and sets out the terms and conditions. When the government announced it in 2023, it estimated that it would total $17.7 billion by 2035. It is a refundable tax credit. Even if the company pays no tax, it is entitled to the refund.

With Bill C‑69, the government will cover between 15% and 40% of the investment costs required to produce hydrogen. We are talking about green hydrogen, a net-zero energy source. Costs are still prohibitive. Right now, hydrogen is made from natural gas. It is good for the companies, because it creates another market for their gas. As a result, even if gas consumption were to stagnate, they could continue to increase production if they converted their gas into hydrogen.

The oil and gas industry's agenda is well crafted, Machiavellian even, because it covers all the angles. Still, one would have to be deaf or blind, or both, to not notice and take action. Either the government is drinking the Kool-Aid the industry has been serving at the hundreds of lobbying meetings they have had, or it is collaborating with the industry.

I will close by saying that if oil companies dip into the first pot, Bill C‑59, for carbon storage in gas extraction, they can then get even more out of the second pot for converting that same gas at taxpayers' expense. That is bad for the energy transition, but it is a dream come true for freeloaders.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member on many of the things she said. I know that in our discussions on Bill C-59, the Competition Act reforms, there was much collaboration between the Liberals and the NDP at committee. We took some of the NDP's suggestions and further strengthened the measures. I would ask her if she knows what is left to do on the Competition Act reforms as per her leader's bill.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C‑59 today. As tabled, the federal budget proposes a series of measures that will impact all of Canada. However, it is critical that we consider the unique impact these measures will have on Quebec, a distinct society within the Canadian federation. I believe that budgets should always reflect the general needs of Canada, as well as respect Quebec's specific needs and its jurisdiction.

The bill in question is a key document, as it outlines both the financial overview and specific allocations for various government programs and initiatives. It is sort of like setting political promises to a musical score. The main objective for the Bloc Québécois will always be to ensure that budgets consistently reflect the specific values, needs and aspirations of Quebeckers.

Bill C-59 is a nearly 550-page omnibus bill that contains 60 different measures, about half of which are tax measures, and amends or creates 31 acts and regulations. Naturally, Bill C‑59 is made up of good and bad elements, but there are two measures preventing the Bloc Québécois from voting in favour of Bill C‑59.

Indeed, the bill contains two measures that could be described as very bad. There is $30.3 billion in subsidies to oil companies in the form of tax credits, meaning that taxpayers will pay oil companies to pollute less when they do not need that money, which seems very sarcastic. That $30 billion could have been used to help families, who are struggling more and more every day. I think everyone agrees that families are currently in greater financial trouble than oil companies. Instead of greasing the wheels of oil companies, the government could have used that $30 billion to fight against homelessness and increase access to housing.

The government could have taken that $30 billion and done some of the good things the Bloc Québécois suggested. For example, it could renew the rapid housing initiative and make it permanent; create a program to acquire and renovate existing rental buildings for non-profit housing organizations; set aside a specific portion of funding in all housing programs to ensure that Quebeckers receive their fair share; increase the transfer for rent subsidies; transfer the affordable housing innovation fund and the new co-op housing program to Quebec; increase funding for renovation of the existing social housing stock currently under contract; support community rental housing projects by providing ultra-low-rate loans; offer lower-rate loans to first-time buyers to give young people access to home ownership again; relax the prohibition on the purchase of a home by non-Canadians for people who live here and intend to stay here, regardless of their status; significantly increase the envelope for indigenous housing to address the housing shortage on reserves by 2030; and tackle homelessness by increasing and renewing the Reaching Home program for five years.

We have a lot of homelessness back in Val-d'Or. There is no money. There is no support administered by the federal government or transferred to the provinces. The government could have set up an emergency fund to help cities and municipalities support the homeless in their communities, and could have given them the resources to do it.

As we can see, this $30 billion could have been used effectively to make a big difference in the lives of Quebec families. This $30 billion could have been transferred to the provinces and territories so that governments could better support and fund food banks.

I would rather see children going to school with full bellies and in good health than give money to oil companies with deep pockets and healthy finances. I also think that our seniors could have benefited from this money, because they deserve a lot more than what the federal government is offering them. They worked hard, very hard, their entire lives and they deserve to live with more dignity today. I am sure they would have been very happy to get that extra money. This $30 billion could have been used to increase old age security starting at age 65 or to implement measures for our seniors.

The fact is that the Bloc Québécois made some good proposals to the government. We asked the government to implement an action plan to encourage the retention and hiring of experienced workers, including an increase in the employment income that can be earned without affecting the GIS. The government could have provided a tax credit to encourage experienced workers to stay on the job. It could have continued to pay the deceased's OAS and GIS to the surviving spouse for three months. It could have enhanced the caregiver tax credit and made it refundable so that everyone could benefit, including people with modest incomes.

No, none of that was done. This government thought it would be better to help rich oil companies than our seniors. In my riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and elsewhere in Quebec, there is also the forestry sector that could really use a helping hand. Since last summer's forest fires, the forestry industry has taken a beating. Hundreds of people have been laid off at various mills in Quebec. In my riding, for example, Resolute Forest Products announced to its 50 employees on March 26 that it was suspending operations at its sawmill in Comtois, near Lebel-sur-Quévillon, for an indefinite period. The Béarn sawmill in Témiscamingue, owned by Chantiers Chibougamau, closed its doors indefinitely on April 25. A total of 120 workers were laid off. In just over a month, nearly 600 workers have been affected by this wave of layoffs across Quebec.

The money for oil companies could have been used to help the forestry industry. We do not know what will happen this summer. Are we going to have to live through the same hell we experienced last summer? How much forest area will burn? The forestry industry in my region is an important player in our regional economy. Is it or will it be in jeopardy? One really has to wonder. I also think that it would have been a good idea to use the money for rich oil companies to increase the health transfers to the provinces thus guaranteeing equitable access to care for everyone, particularly after the challenges posed by the COVID‑19 pandemic. In short, there are many examples of how those billions of dollars could be put to better use.

The second bad measure in this bill is the creation of a federal department of municipal affairs. Yes, Bill C‑59 creates the department of housing, infrastructure and communities. There is already a minister, but unfortunately, there is no department and we cannot count on an army of civil servants to interfere in provincial jurisdictions, which is the Prime Minister's favourite activity. By creating a full department, Bill C‑59 gives the minister the organizational capacity to interfere more, to impose more conditions on the provinces and municipalities, and to intensify disputes and delays. I wonder who in the House likes to pick fights. This bill definitively answers that question. What about the massive amount of money it will take to run this new department? That is money that could have been used elsewhere, to make life better for everyone. One thing is very clear. Housing, local infrastructure, land use planning and municipal affairs are not federal jurisdictions.

In closing, although the budget implementation bill also contains some good things, it remains essential that these proposals be adjusted to more specifically meet the needs of Quebec. The Bloc Québécois will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that Quebec is not just a partner, but a key player in designing policies that affect its constituents. We are at a decisive crossroads. Before us is the chance to shape a stronger, fairer and more sustainable Quebec. In the future, we see an innovative, green and prosperous Quebec, a Quebec that thrives and inspires not only within Canada, but around the world. Quebec has to be master of its domain, and its jurisdiction has to be respected. We do not accept a budget that would treat Quebec as just another province, without taking into consideration its specific realities. We are advocating for a strong Quebec in a just Canada. Accordingly, because of the measures cited, we will be voting against Bill C‑59.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite must know about the challenges that many Canadians have faced in terms of postpandemic recovery, with mental health issues on the rise and with many Canadians stressed out about an uncertain future. Bill C-59 proposes to waive GST on accessing psychotherapy. I think that is a great measure for ensuring that Canadians can get access to the mental health care they need, when they need it.

Can the member opposite tell me whether she supports that measure?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the utmost respect for the member opposite, having worked with her on several committees, heard her testimony, and seen her great advocacy for her community.

I know the particular bill we are debating tonight, Bill C-59, has a measure to waive GST on new co-operative rental housing construction. That is obviously one measure of many in a package of measures that are included in this year's budget, which would make a difference.

I note that the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities had a great intervention earlier with the member opposite. He detailed specific investments that are quite sizable in northern, rural and remote indigenous communities. I know my work on the HUMA committee years ago was part of those studies, and I am glad to see that our government is following through with significant investments.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, last November, the government introduced Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act. Among other measures, Bill C-59 proposed significant amendments to our Competition Act.

I am proud to share that the Standing Committee on Finance has recently completed its review of the bill and has made several amendments to further strengthen existing proposals. Before I get into some of the key details of this critical piece of legislation, I feel it is important to highlight the economic context in which this legislation is being introduced.

Countries around the world are dealing with higher inflation due to a global pandemic, further exacerbated by geopolitical uncertainty. Despite the fearmongering of the Conservative members opposite, Canada's economy is remarkably strong and resilient. That is truly due to the hard work of Canadians themselves. A few proof points demonstrate this: Canada's net debt-to-GDP ratio is well below that of our G7 peers; our deficit is declining; and we are one of the only two G7 countries with an AAA credit rating from independent experts. Something that we can all be quite proud of is that Canada received the highest per capita foreign direct investment in the G7 in the first three quarters of 2023. Some may ask why those facts matter. These proof points show that Canada is in an enviable position when it comes to fiscal management. That position is exactly the reason our government can afford to make transformative investments in improving housing affordability and making life cost less.

Unlike Conservatives, who cut support for Canadians, we believe in supporting the middle class through growth and investment. I hear from my constituents often that their top concerns are being able to find an affordable place to live and wanting to find ways to make their day-to-day expenses cost less. This legislation addresses these two core issues head on.

For many years, Canada's markets have been described as overly concentrated and not competitive enough. In fact, a landmark Competition Bureau study last year, based on Statistics Canada data and analysis from a University of Toronto professor, made critical findings in this respect, showing that competitive intensity has been on the decline over the past two decades, reflected in a number of important indicators.

Bill C-59 was introduced to help build a stronger domestic economy through more competition and contestable markets, to bring lower prices, more choice and better product quality for consumers across all sectors. The measures in this bill include strengthening provisions with respect to merger review, enhancing protections for consumers, workers and the environment, and broadening opportunities for private enforcement.

We should not underestimate just how critical these reforms are for modernizing our law and promoting competitive markets. The Commissioner of Competition has stated on multiple occasions that the amendments in Bill C‑56, the affordable housing and groceries act, which was ultimately passed by this Parliament in December 2023, and Bill C-59, are generational. I would therefore like to highlight some important reforms that have been proposed.

To begin with, anti-competitive collaborations between competitors will be under increased scrutiny, as the bureau will be able to examine and, if necessary, seek penalties against coordinated conduct that lessens competition. The expansion of private enforcement and the ability for the Competition Tribunal to issue monetary payment orders in cases initiated by private parties is also a significant change to our existing enforcement approach.

More competition is always beneficial to consumers, but the bill also takes some more direct approaches to protect consumers. These include strengthening provisions on deceptive marketing so that vendors must present the full cost of a product or service upfront, without holding back mandatory fees, which is known as drip pricing. Businesses making environmental claims about their products will be required to have undertaken adequate and proper testing before advertising those benefits. Together, these changes would ensure that consumers have accurate and complete information about products and services to make informed purchasing decisions.

We have also made strides on the right to repair. Thanks to the bill, a wider variety of service providers would be able to offer more options to consumers when they are choosing where to repair their products. These reforms, along with various administrative changes aimed at facilitating efficient enforcement of the act, are crucial to ensuring that Canadian markets remain competitive and in line with international best practices.

It has been acknowledged by all members of the House that our competition framework requires reform, and my colleagues have engaged in thoughtful discussion on ways to modernize the existing marketplace framework. The committee members were notably quite interested in enhancing protections for consumers and the environment, and I would like to draw attention to some now.

First, clarifications were made to ensure that in the Competition Act's various provisions on drip pricing, the only amounts that can be excluded from the upfront price, are those imposed by law directly on the purchaser of the products, such as sales taxes.

Next, with the committee's amendment, sellers advertising reduced prices would be required to be able to prove that the regular price is authentic to publicize discounts. On the topic of doubtful environmental claims, or so-called greenwashing, the law would also require that those who make environmental claims about their business or business activities, not only specific products, have adequate and proper substantiation in hand to support such claims.

This bill goes beyond making generational changes to competition in Canada. It also takes concrete action to build more homes faster, including new rental housing. Bill C-59 proposes to eliminate GST on eligible new housing co-operatives built for long-term rental, as outlined in the fall economic statement. This is just one of many measures our government is proposing to ensure that more people across all provinces and territories find the housing they need, at a price that they can afford.

Amidst a period of inflation and growing affordability concerns, it is crucial that our markets remain resilient and open to competition. Bill C-59 would reform Canada's competitive landscape, encourage greater innovation and improve affordability for Canadians. It would also get more rental housing built faster so that we can ensure housing is affordable for every generation.

I would urge my colleagues from all sides of the House to work together to expeditiously pass this crucial piece of legislation, instead of doing what we have seen in committee, which is to slow the bill down. We continue to see the Conservatives try to obstruct key pieces of legislation that are helping Canadians in their time of need, and that is not what we have been put here to do.

The House resumed from May 8 consideration of Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

Bill C‑59—Time Allocation Motion

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-59 creates a federal department of municipal affairs, which will bring with it more interference, bickering and delays, when the housing crisis requires fast action.

Members will recall that Pierre Elliott Trudeau attempted something similar in 1971, when he created the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, which was an abject failure. The Ministry of State for Urban Affairs was a source of contention with the provinces for its entire existence and never managed to play a useful role. It was finally disbanded in 1979.

Why is the government trying to do the same thing again when it was such a failure the first time around?

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

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the minister.

Bill C‑59 provides for more than $30 billion for the oil industry. For example, there is the $12.5-billion credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage. I would like to quote what his former colleague, Catherine McKenna, said about it and then have him share his comments with us.

It should never have happened, but clearly the oil and gas lobbyists pushed for that....We are giving special access to companies that are making historic profits, that are not investing those profits into the transition and clean solutions. They are returning those profits to their shareholders, who for the most part are not Canadian, and then they ask to be subsidized for the pollution they cause, while Canadians have to pay more for oil and gas for heating.

What does the hon. minister think?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister about affordable housing and what Bill C-59 offers on affordable housing. My community in London, Ontario, is challenged with homelessness, as are many communities across the country.

What is also interesting, and I would love to hear commentary on this too, is that I never hear anything from the Conservatives about a plan to address homelessness or a plan to address the challenges we see on Canadian streets. This is something, if the Conservatives want to put themselves up as the official opposition, they have a responsibility to speak to, but they never talk about it.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, in the over 20 hours of witness testimony that was heard at the Standing Committee on Finance, we heard from industry about the importance of the investment tax credits that our government is launching, two of which are rolled out in Bill C-59.

Could the minister speak to the importance of those investment tax credits, in particular, the carbon capture, utilization and storage and the clean technology investment tax credits, in terms of their ability to mobilize capital to build a clean economy here in Canada?

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I know the government is approaching that issue with all the seriousness with which the Conservatives come up with their slogans, but I will move on to the House agenda.

This evening, we will resume debate on Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023. Tomorrow morning, we will call Government Business Motion No. 39, concerning the pharmacare legislation. We will go back to debate on Bill C-59 in the afternoon.

Upon our return following the constituency week, we will resume debate on Bill C-69, the budget implementation act. I would also like to inform the House that Thursday, May 23, shall be an allotted day.

On the extension of sitting hours, I request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the next sitting be 12 midnight, pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 28.

Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), I would like to designate Thursday, May 23, for consideration in committee of the whole of the main estimates for the Department of Justice. Furthermore, debate on the main estimates for the Department of Health will take place on the evening of Wednesday, May 29.

Carbon Pricing

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my hon. colleague to actually read Bill C-59, which would double the rural top-up. I would encourage him to actually read the letter from 300 economists across the country who say that eight out of 10 Canadians get more money back. Rather than simply axing the facts, he should do his homework.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you.

I have one quick final question. I know you talked about how a strong economy is very important for us. You talked about investment tax credits. We introduced them in Bill C-59 and now in this budget. Can you talk to us, Minister, about how you see investment tax credits helping Canadian businesses remain competitive in the global market while also pushing Canada towards a more sustainable economy?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

I'll start where you concluded, which is to say this really is a budget for fairness for every generation. We recognize that means we have to make investments in Canada, for Canadians, and especially for millennials and Gen Z, and that means massive investments in housing. This budget has the most ambitious federal housing plan in Canadian history, with nearly four million new homes to be built by 2031. It means investments in affordability and in the social safety net. We've been discussing some of those, and they are really important for all Canadians, especially young Canadians.

Crucially, it means investments in economic growth. The budget includes a $5-billion investment for students, for post-docs, for our universities and for research. That investment in our fundamental intellectual capacity is an investment in young people. It's an investment in the future.

The budget includes an investment of more than $2 billion in AI to be sure Canada maintains its strong position in this essential frontier of the global economy. The budget includes really important investments in productivity overall, like the expansion of the accelerated CCA, the accelerated capital cost allowance. When you talk to businesses, they say that is a measure that drives investment. Of course, with this measure, plus Bill C-59, we will have four of our investment tax credits in the clean economy passed into law. That program is essential to ensure that Canada can remain an industrial and manufacturing economy in the 21st century.

We're making really big investments in Canada's economic capacity, and those investments cost money.

Now, some people would simply choose not to make any investments and follow a path of austerity. I think that would be a terrible mistake. Other people might choose to make the investments, but not do it in a fiscally responsible way. We saw that with a far-right budget, which didn't last very long, that was put forward in the U.K. I think that would be a mistake here also. Our government, which recognizes we need to make investments and we have to do it in a fiscally responsible way, is making our tax system more fair and using that fair approach to fund the investments that Canadians need.

I think the elephant in the room—in this committee, in the House of Commons, in Canada—is the Conservatives' really refusing to be clear on their view of tax fairness for every generation. I think that we're actually going to end up disagreeing: The Conservatives are going to prefer not to invest in Canadians because I think they find it too challenging to ask those who are doing the best to contribute a little more. I think that's a clear line of difference, and that would be a real mistake for Canada and Canadians.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I take this opportunity to build on what my colleague Mr. Cooper said. We are increasingly seeing, not just in the House but in several committees, including multiple times here at the House and procedural affairs committee, a record of the NDP, frankly, saying one thing but when it comes to a vote doing the opposite.

I want to read into the record.... Actually, I want to give a bit of background to what's happened so far today. Mr. Cooper gave a notice of motion regarding the question of privilege, which was just passed within the last hour or so by the House of Commons and referred to PROC, to study another question of privilege around the issue of foreign interference. This time it is not just one specific member but 18 members of Parliament from many different political parties who are affected by the issue.

Mr. Cooper asked to adjourn the debate that we are currently undertaking—the subamendment that Mr. Cooper has on the amendment by Ms. Mathyssen to Mrs. Romanado's main motion. It seems like the NDP complained, saying it would defeat the motion. For those Canadians who are watching, adjourning debate on a motion does not defeat it. It puts it back in the proverbial parking lot and allows another issue to come forward, particularly the notice of motion that Mr. Cooper has, which the House was just seized with for several hours this morning and last night. The NDP refused to adjourn the debate to allow discussion about the question of privilege and to move forward on the study. Let's make it very clear what happened there.

I want to take a moment. I have the transcripts from last night, particularly of what the NDP was saying on the floor of the House of Commons about the priority and importance of moving forward with this question of privilege and studying it.

The Speaker took the floor last night at about 8.20 p.m. and ruled on the question of privilege raised on April 29, 2024, by the member from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I'll fast-forward to different colleagues in the chamber making comments. I will read into the record what NDP House leader Mr. Julian, in one of his first interventions, said in the House of Commons:

...I always listen attentively to my colleague. I think, in this case, it is very clear, as we have seen with Justice Hogue's preliminary report, which points very clearly to some things. There is a real shortcoming in terms of how the government and past governments have dealt with the information around foreign interference. We have seen repeatedly, from the 2019 election and the 2021 election, that information was not communicated to candidates. In this case, addressed in the question of privilege, information was not communicated to members of Parliament.

There is a lack of protocols and a lack of organization, not necessarily around the obtaining of information but in actually communicating that information to people who might be impacted. This may be members of Parliament or, as we saw in election campaigns, candidates. We need to ensure that action is taken to prevent further interference of this type.

To go on, Mr. Julian got up a bit later. I quote from Mr. Julian, the NDP House leader—and it's the NDP deputy House leader who sits on this committee. Mr. Julian said last night:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that we see this matter, this question of privilege and the motion before the House of Commons as important. We will therefore support this motion so that it can be adopted as quickly as possible and this whole matter, this question of privilege can be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as quickly as possible.

Then Mr. Julian said a few minutes later—I believe in an exchange, a back and forth—in questions and comments:

There is a systematic pattern of the government erring in how it potentially gets information to candidates during an election or to members of Parliament. That needs to change. That is why we need to refer this to [the] Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to come up with protocols and suggestions for actions.

This was just last night.

In response to the Bloc Québécois, in questions and comments, Mr. Julian of the NDP said the following:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. It is precisely for that reason that the NDP moved the motion that led to the public inquiry....

Further on, he said:

We believe that we should act in the national interest and think first about how [we] do everything we can [do] to prevent foreign interference in our politics, in our democracy and in our elections.

He goes on to further state:

There are many things we can do and it starts tonight with referring the motion to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Then Mr. Lamoureux got up and asked a question or made a comment, and Mr. Julian of the NDP responded:

That is why I suggest to all members tonight that we need to refer this to...PROC...promptly and not take a day or two to talk about it. The time for talk is over. It needs to be referred to PROC for action. That, coupled with the Hogue commission...hopefully [gives] us all the things we need to put in place to fully protect our democracy and any future election.

He continues on again. In response to an exchange with Mrs. Kusie, Mr. Julian asks her a question:

Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member agree with me that this needs to be referred promptly, this evening, to procedure and House affairs to come up with recommendations?

He wasn't done yet. There's more. Mr. Julian had a lot to say, with a lot of passion, about PROC taking this up, beginning deliberations, making recommendations and studying this question of privilege.

Actually, Ms. Ashton took the floor for the NDP a couple of times last night. I'm going to quote what she said. The NDP said this last night on the floor of the House of Commons, even though the NDP blocked Mr. Cooper's motion to get the ball rolling.

Here's what Ms. Ashton said last night in the House of Commons:

Mr. Speaker, given the severity of issues like this, would the member agree to sending the matter to PROC? It is obviously the body that is best equipped to deal with it. Would the member agree that it should be sent to PROC as soon as possible?

Ms. Ashton again took the floor a little while later. She said:

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this issue merits proper examination. At this hour, we have heard from many speakers that this must be taken seriously.

Will the member agree that this should be referred to PROC as soon as possible? Obviously, we gathered here to debate C-59, which has issues of great importance to the citizens we represent. Will the member agree to—

These are her words. This is continuing the quote:

—speeding up the process and moving this to PROC as soon as possible?

Ms. Ashton took the floor again last night as a member of the NDP.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

To be candid, it's a little disappointing that we don't have the ability to talk to the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister, Chrystia Freeland, today. We were looking forward to having a robust discussion. I've personally had many interesting discussions with Ms. Freeland about such things as the gap in GDP per capita between Canada and the U.S. and some of the financial struggles.

Just to set the stage, as it were, for the discussion—and unfortunately I suspect it will be a lengthy discussion on where we are right now—I don't want to tell tales out of school, but I did have a discussion with the parliamentary secretary, who was very upfront this morning. I appreciate his candour. However, the challenge is that we started off on the wrong foot. He surprised us with a programming motion. For those in the media or simply watching at home, a programming motion sets up the organization of business. Normally this is done through a collaborative, co-operative process, even when parties are having a very heated exchange over their various different ideas and thoughts as to how the government.... There have to be certain administrative and procedural agreements.

In the last couple of years, while sitting on the finance committee, I've had the privilege of negotiating those with various Liberal members, including Mr. Terry Beech. Yvan and I have also had some chats in the interim. They were not always friendly, but they were always respectful. Mr. Beech, for example, would nearly always give me the opportunity to discuss and have input on a motion prior to it being brought forward. While we didn't always agree, I very much appreciated that from the former parliamentary secretary, whose title is now “minister of fixing government” or something like that, I believe.

As I said, I try as much as possible to be an advocate for the truth. In fairness, there was a subcommittee meeting, but that meeting broke down. I would have expected maybe a courtesy call, as I got this morning, and I appreciated that.

Mr. Turnbull, I would very much have appreciated a call beforehand, and maybe we would have had a discussion. What we have is a programming motion that calls for, really, a very small amount of testimony. I understand that the government and the NDP brought a subamendment to increase it, so that's a positive sign. However, this programming motion is still deficient in a number of different ways, and I want to characterize it correctly. It's not that I'm objecting on behalf of Philip Lawrence or on behalf of the Conservative Party or Pierre Poilievre. I'm objecting on behalf of the people of Northumberland and the people of Peterborough South.

This is a massive document. It's over 600 pages, and I think even just some of the finite tax provisions in it could be the subject of lengthy debate and discussion, because anytime you're amending the Income Tax Act—it's a massive document—there are nearly always knock-on effects from that amendment. We need significantly more. I am pleased that Mr. Davies brought a subamendment to expand that. I think that's a step in the right direction.

The challenge is that Conservatives really want to know what the direction of the government is. In order to know the direction of the government, we need to hear from them. We've certainly heard enough from their current leader, but we need to hear from their future leader to know what the direction is to help us understand it so we can convey that to our constituents.

For example, we have seen Prime Minister Trudeau be absolutely unequivocal that he's going to continue with his carbon tax. He's actually going to quadruple that carbon tax. It is said that there will be no variation from this plan. In fact, his environment minister has said that if there's any deviation from the carbon tax, he will resign. That is absolutely crystal clear. What we don't know is what the Liberal plan is with respect to the carbon tax going forward if there is a change in leadership.

We have the Deputy Prime Minister, who is, of course, one of the likely Liberal candidates, for one hour. It's not really sufficient enough to discuss even her role as Minister of Finance, much less as a future potential leader of the party. We have an hour to discuss a 600-page document that will affect every Canadian through one provision or another. Some of these are quite in-depth; these are not simple provisions.

We can talk about some of the tax changes specifically. One of those changes could easily take up two or three hours. I suspect that many individuals haven't had the briefing they need to fully understand some of the ramifications of tax policy. We really need Ms. Freeland, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, for at least two hours.

There's another challenge that Conservatives have. We would really like to hear from Mark Carney. It's no surprise that to many Liberals that he is the heir apparent as we move forward. I don't know whether we'll see a resignation from the Prime Minister; I don't know if he knows that. Clearly, things are not going well. While it doesn't appear that Liberal members will push the Prime Minister out the door, it does appear as though he's frustrated. Clearly, the economy and other factors are pointing to an early exit. With that being the case, there's a high likelihood that we're going to have Mark Carney as the new Liberal leader.

What we're asking for is to have Mr. Carney, who has in the past been an outspoken advocate for the carbon tax, appear. He's a huge proponent of the consumer-driven carbon tax. However, in recent days, including in recent Senate testimony, he has seemed to equivocate. When asked directly about it, he wouldn't give a yes or no answer. In fact, he quite adeptly equivocated, I guess getting ready for his career in politics. We want to ask him whether a Carney-led Liberal government have a consumer carbon tax.

We've heard the NDP equivocate on this point in recent months with the leader of the NDP stating that maybe the consumer-led carbon tax was not the best direction to go in, while they continue to support and prop up the regime of Prime Minister Trudeau's Liberals, which is on track to quadrupling the carbon tax. Canadians deserve to know whether the future Liberal leadership candidates, whether it's Deputy Leader Freeland or former governor of the Bank of Canada Mark Carney, would indeed support a consumer carbon tax.

The other issue that I would really like to talk to Mr. Carney about is what his thoughts are on the actions of the current Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem. Of course, during the pandemic, Mr. Macklem said that interest rates would be low for long, and many Canadians relied on that. They selected variable mortgages and had shorter renewal terms on their mortgages thinking that interest rates would be, as Mr. Macklem said, unequivocally I might add, low for long.

I would really like to know whether Mr. Carney would criticize Mr. Macklem's actions. I'd also like to know, because inflation doesn't seem like it's going down, as is often the case with inflation.... We saw this in the 1970s and in the 1980s. Getting that first part of inflation down is oftentimes the “easy part”. It's in that last mile that inflation gets really sticky and hard to remove.

We've heard past comments from Tiff Macklem that excessive government spending is unhelpful because it boosts demand, which increases the prices and costs of nearly everything and raises inflation. I'd love to hear from the future Liberal leader on whether he would reduce spending or continue with the $54 billion of interest at which the debt is being paid. That's more than the entire amount in health care transfers. Just imagine if we did not have a national debt in Canada. We would be able to double our health care spending. That's really amazing.

Another issue was pointed out by Thomas Mulcair, former leader of the NDP. What he said, which is interesting, is that the amount of interest is equal to the entire revenue collected by the goods and sales tax, the GST, across the country. If we didn't have that $1.3-trillion national debt, we would be able to cancel the GST, which was a Liberal promise from many years ago that still has yet to come to fruition.

I think that having Mr. Carney here is an absolutely reasonable request. He went before the Senate, so he's clearly not shy, and he has a willingness to go before public officials. It does get to me. I try not to, in politics—or as little as possible—speculate on people's intentions, because I believe that most people's intentions are good. I think you get into a dangerous world when you start speculating on the intentions of our colleagues. It's hard to look into someone's heart, but it does make you wonder where the brakes are here.

What is the Liberal government so afraid of that they will not allow Mr. Carney to testify in front of the finance committee? Maybe they're protecting.... Maybe the Prime Minister prefers his successor to be the Deputy Prime Minister, and he doesn't want Mr. Carney to come here and outshine him. Maybe it's a Paul Martin-Jean Chrétien type of thing, where they're afraid Mr. Carney will make too much of a splash.

I hope it isn't that Mr. Carney is afraid to answer questions. Clearly, as a former governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, he's hopefully faced tough questions. In fact, I'm mindful of an exchange that I saw between the current leader of the official opposition, Mr. Poilievre, asking Mr. Carney some difficult questions. I don't think anyone can say that Mr. Carney did a great job of answering those questions, but if I were him, I might want an opportunity to redeem myself and come before the finance committee. If nothing else, for altruistic reasons, I would think Mr. Carney would want to share his experience with us.

Specifically on that, I have talked at length about productivity and the importance of economic growth in bringing prosperity to our country. I'm not the only one, of course; there's a wide symphony of voices across economic experts. I can rattle off the names of Bill Morneau, John Manley, the C.D. Howe Institute and the Fraser Institute. Even the current finance minister, Chrystia Freeland, has talked about it. Of course, most recently, Carolyn Rogers gave her famous “break the glass” speech about productivity. Do you know who else has spoken about productivity? It's Mark Carney. He's criticized this government for their lack of focus on economic growth and their lack of focus on productivity, so I would welcome him into the discussion.

It is a nut that Canada hasn't been able to crack. Out of fairness, it has been a 30-odd-year problem, but it's gotten significantly worse over the last 10 years. You can see that; it comes through in the numbers. If you look at a chart—I tried to show the chart to the Minister of Finance, but the chair said I wasn't allowed to use props—a clear departure between GDP per capita in the United States of America and GDP per capita in Canada started in about 2015 and 2016. The gap is now wider between income per Canadian and income per American. It has never been wider in recent history—in the last 100 years.

Of course, the productivity crisis has led us to the lost decade in Canada. We have had virtually no economic growth in the last 10 years. Our GDP per capita has more or less been flat. That really is an outlier. We are the worst in the G7 in the last five years in growth of GDP per capita, and we continue to be a laggard. Actually, our GDP per capita is, I believe, in its seventh negative quarter. I would have asked the Minister of Finance some questions: Have you looked at these numbers? Could you explain to the committee why our economy is the worst in the G7, looking at a GDP per capita lens? Why do Canadians have to suffer through the seventh quarter of declining GDP per capita?

These were the questions I would have asked Minister Freelandand quite frankly, I'd put them to former governor Mark Carney as well. We really need to have these discussions for the BIA, because I think it's important for Canadians. We need to have these discussions now about the economic changes that Canada needs in order to get back on a strong footing.

As I said, it's not just me talking about this. It is the C.D. Howe Institute. It's Bill Morneau. It's John Manley. It is the Fraser Institute. It's Ian Lee. It is Jack Mintz. They're noted economists, and it doesn't really matter whether they're left, right or centre. There's a near consensus across this country that the numbers are the numbers and that we are struggling mightily when it comes to productivity.

These challenges will continue to plague our country as we go forward. We really need to have a discussion, not just at the boardroom tables on Bay Street but at the coffee shops on Main Street, about how Canada can get out of this economic hole. As my colleague Damien Kurek talked about a bit in his speech last night in the House, when you're at the beginning of piloting a boat or a plane and you have a long journey, even a slight error in navigation early on in that journey can have massive consequences down the line.

We actually saw this under Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Of course, Pierre Elliott Trudeau ran up massive deficits, and that left the Mulroney government in a difficult position. It ran structural surpluses, meaning that if you took out the debt that was accrued under the Trudeau government, every year under the Mulroney government, it took in more than it spent. Part of that was because of tremendous economic growth, no doubt spurred on by the free market policies of the Mulroney government. The challenge was that they carried along with them a Pierre Elliott Trudeau legacy.

We're really, sadly, at the beginning of a debt or deficit crisis if we don't get ourselves back on course. Right now, we're at $54 billion in interest. If the minister were here, I'm sure the first response to some of my economic questions would be that we have a AAA credit rating, and that's true for now. The reality is, though, that if we don't course correct on the debt and deficit, we won't, because sooner or later the interest will get to be such a big force. In fact, Albert Einstein said that the most powerful force in the universe is compounding numbers or compounding interest, meaning that if you are on the wrong side of this—and we are now on the wrong side of it, with $54 billion of interest being paid—it starts consuming more and more. Eventually, it will get to a point where Canada will no longer be able to pay its bills. Already we're at the point where we're spending more on interest than we are on health care, and there's more interest being paid than the entire amount collected by the GST. Alarms should be going off.

The challenge, too, is that there is a bit of a spiral effect. The more resources in general—and I'm sure my NDP colleague might add some caveats here—that businesses have for spending on investment and on their workers.... Quite frankly, I agree with him on that, but in general, the more resources the private sector has, the more effective it can be at investing and innovating, at becoming competitive and at creating prosperity for the country.

As you suck more of the revenue, the wealth, from the private sector and give it to the public sector, not for goods and virtuous services like some of our social safety nets, our health care or our productive resources, but to banks and bondholders in the form of interest payments, you reduce the efficiency and the effectiveness of the economy. Then the economy actually starts to shrink, which means there's less revenue and the government has to increase rates. Then it goes back again: The economy shrinks more and rates go up more, and you get into a negative debt-spiral trap. We've seen this in non-advanced economies, and it has had devastating consequences. We've had many economists talk about this, so we need to get our spending under control.

The leader of the official opposition has put forward a dollar-for-dollar plan, saying that every new dollar we need to spend—and there will certainly be new dollars we have to spend—will be matched with savings from somewhere else. The Liberal government has talked about potential savings, but as the member for Simcoe North has talked about, while the government has planned to generate savings through attrition in the public sector, it has yet to publish any type of plan that will allow that to happen. All we see is a government that continues to spend more and more money.

As Ed Fast, the member for Abbotsford, has talked about many times, we can't let that spending get out of control. The reason is not that Conservatives want, in any shape or form, any type of austerity when it comes to government or otherwise, but that it would prevent the type of austerity we saw during the nineties era, under the Chrétien-Martin Liberal government. They dramatically cut health care transfers because the debt, which was largely accrued under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, got to a point where banks and bondholders basically cut the country off. That led to very dramatic reductions in health care transfers and other spending. Conservatives want to protect health care and other government spending by making sure that we are fiscally responsible now.

If the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister were here, she would no doubt tell me that we are on track to hitting all three of our guardrails. The reality, though, is that that's on very shaky ground, and I'll tell you why: A number of the economic forecasts in the budget are very positive, bullish forecasts, such as increasing GDP.

The other issue is that we haven't yet seen capital gains legislation, and to make that budget work, they need $7 billion in the first year from capital gains. Otherwise, they miss two of the three guardrails. I confirmed that with testimony from the PBO. Those guardrails would be the debt-to-GDP ratio not increasing and the deficit not increasing. They would miss two out of three of those guardrails. Quite frankly, right now that capital gains legislation hasn't appeared.

You might say, “Well, Mr. Lawrence, we have the whole year to gain additional revenue from capital gains, so just relax. We might even get some retroactively.” However, no, that's not the case here because the government has set up an artificial fire sale by saying that the legislation goes into place on June 24 or June 25. I have no doubt that there are Canadians right now preparing to sell their property to take advantage of the current capital gains rate as opposed to what it will be. Until there's certainty and Canadians know that the capital gains rate will go up through the introduction of legislation, I'm sure many will just wait to see whether this legislation comes into place. We're quickly approaching—I think it's June 24, but I can never remember if it's the 24th or the 25th—that timeline. If the government doesn't introduce this capital gains legislation—which, for political purposes, they decided to pull out of the budget—they will not hit two out of three of their guardrails. That means we will have more spending, which is going to put us further down the debt and deficit spiral going forward and will worsen our economic growth.

When last I checked in, Mr. Davies wasn't sure whether he agreed with me. However, I'll say it again, and maybe he'll have a chance to agree or disagree. We'll see. It's my contention that, while Canada's GDP growth has been just high enough to keep us out of a technical recession, if you look at GDP per capita or the economic reality of the average Canadian, it has been negative for much more than two quarters continuously, which is the definition of a technical recession. We're at seven quarters, and that means that while Canada as a country is not in recession, Canadians are. In fact, we are in one of the longest recessions to occur since the Great Depression, and that is a great segue into talking about what Philip Cross said on GDP per capita or the economic circumstances of the average Canadian: We are in the worst economy since the Great Depression.

When we look at the severity and the seriousness of the economic situation we're in, I don't think Conservatives are being unreasonable—I really don't—by asking for three things in total. One of them has already been agreed upon, which is additional hours of study. For 665 pages, I don't think 30 hours is much. In fact, I've thought about a good change in process. For those who don't know, parliamentarians get a technical briefing for maybe a couple of hours, and we are responsible for, within 24 hours, reading 665 pages of extremely technical information. By the by, I say 665 pages, but those 665 pages are amending thousands of other pages. In order to understand those 600 or so pages of amending legislation, you have to understand the other thousands of pages of legislation.

While I have the floor, one of the changes of process I'd love to put forward to the government for the next budget would be to have the bureaucrats, many of whom have great depth of understanding of these changes and the context around them, give a presentation of five or 10 minutes on the substance of the changes. In a budget, there might be 100 different substantive changes, so it might be a couple of days. I would sign on to working from dawn until sundown to fully understand that and to have some of the knowledge held in our bureaucracy transferred to the politicians. That's one of the changes I thought would be a great idea.

I was a little bit surprised, although Mr. Davies did, in fairness, ask for additional time. I appreciate that, and Conservatives agree. He said that some of the testimony got repetitive. I didn't really see that, but to the extent that it did, I think that we could have eliminated that by having the public service put forward a substantive discussion of each of the provisions being changed. I don't think it would be unreasonable, when you look at the provisions in place that would affect literally every Canadian from coast to coast with millions, billions or, in some cases, if you look at it globally, trillions of dollars, to have a discussion on each one of the objects for five or 10 minutes and let them present to parliamentarians the substance of the issue. I think if we did that, we would give parliamentarians a good base for having fruitful, meaningful and constructive discussions about the individual areas.

The way the budgetary process works is that when we have the briefing, it is within 24 hours. By the by, the night before, we were working hard at the finance committee trying to get the fall economic statement through, which left us very little time to study those 600-odd pages and to fully understand that budget. Then, instead of being briefed on some of the technical provisions, we were told to ask any questions we wanted to.

I certainly did my best to try to review and understand it, but it's hard to consume such a massive amount of information in a very short period of time. That's why I believe a great change to the budgetary process would be to have members of the bureaucracy brief us on each one of those changes. Therefore, as I said, if there are 100 changes at five or 10 minutes a pop, it might be 500 or 1,000 minutes. I'm sure each one of those minutes would be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in changes that we would effect in each minute. I would throw that out as a constructive suggestion.

I do want to respond to what I expect will be some comments from the parliamentary secretary, among others, that Conservatives are holding up this legislation. I think, quite frankly, our track record, specifically over the beginning of this year, rebuts that quite conclusively. Clause-by-clause consideration is where the rubber meets the road and where we as parliamentarians decide what will be in the legislation and what won't be in the legislation. Conservatives were actually agreeable, candidly, to the NDP's request to start grouping sections so we could move quickly. In fact, my colleague Mr. Singh Hallan actually withdrew some of his amendments so that we could get through the fall economic statement quickly. I would also point to the fact that it was a very constructive process in which my colleague Mr. Chambers said he had not, in his considerable experience, seen a budget amended as thoroughly as the fall economic statement implementation act was, so it was also a thorough process.

Conservatives were willing to do that going forward. We have, I think, a very reasonable—I won't even put it as a demand—request to have Mr. Mark Carney for at least three hours and then to have the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance for two hours.

Quite frankly, I don't like it when people speculate on my intentions. I don't think it's fair, and I try not to do that as well. I would just throw this out as free advice to that side. Minister Freeland is a very intelligent, eloquent speaker, and so if I were one of them, I would try to get Minister Freeland up as much as I could, and Mr. Carney has always acquitted himself fairly well. I'm not exactly sure why they're afraid of having two of their future leaders answer some questions.

As Minister Freeland has said before, certainly our exchanges in the past have been respectful. I don't believe I asked Minister Freeland any inappropriate questions. Maybe I asked tough questions, but that's the job. It's my job to ask those questions to make sure that the people of Canada and the people of Northumberland—Peterborough South, soon to be Northumberland—Clark, are given the answers so they know, so they understand.

In context, of course, during the early part of our calendar every year as parliamentarians, a fair amount of our time is spent in our constituency. Like all other 337 of my colleagues, I spend a lot of time at events talking to people. Soon we'll be on the barbecue circuit again, talking to thousands of people. In all sincerity, it really hit home. I've never had a series of interactions of the kind I have had in the last two or three months, with nearly every individual saying one of two things, or both. One is, “I am really struggling. I've never had these economic conditions before. I've never gone to a food bank. In fact, I have a lifetime of donating to food banks, and now I'm a recipient of the food bank.” These are very serious issues. I'm sure we've all received those calls or emails or have had those direct one-on-one interactions. I don't think I'm in a vacuum at all.

Quite frankly, I think having the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance here for two hours and having the future Liberal leader, Mark Carney, here for three hours to explain their economic plans, their commentary on why Canada is in such a terrible economic shape, is reasonable.

Right now we will agree to the scheduling put forward by the NDP and the Liberals. All we're asking is that we get a little bit of insight for two hours from the current finance—

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this issue merits proper examination. At this hour, we have heard from many speakers that this must be taken seriously.

Will the member agree that this should be referred to PROC as soon as possible? Obviously, we gathered here to debate Bill C-59, which has issues of great importance to the citizens we represent. Will the member agree to speeding up the process and moving this to PROC as soon as possible?

Report Stage

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

Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate to work with my hon. colleague on the Standing Committee on Finance. He always has a thorough knowledge of the issues and makes constructive suggestions.

I want to ask him about the amendment to the Competition Act. He referred to it in his speech. For years, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry has been announcing a comprehensive reform. However, the reforms have come in bits and pieces, in Bill C‑56 and Bill C‑59.

The commissioner of competition told us it was not enough, that it would take this and that. Public officials replied that if we did such and such, it would affect something else that was not in the bill. In fact, we were supposed to have a bill to reform the entire Competition Act.

Does my colleague think that doing things this way amounts to incompetence on the part of the government?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be from Simcoe North.

As I was mentioning, at a time when Canadians are facing an affordability crisis, the government's stated policy objective is to make energy more expensive. We are the only country on the planet that has increased the cost of energy through direct carbon tax increases and now also through an indirect increase by imposing additional taxes on public utilities, which is commonly referred to as the EIFEL restrictions. Therefore, it is with great pleasure that I speak to this bill tonight, especially on the short title.

I think we can think of many better titles for this bill, including “the Government of Canada wants people to pay more”, “the Government of Canada does not think people pay enough for energy” or “the Government of Canada is just out of ideas”. Those would be far better titles for the bill.

There were some competition provisions in this bill, which also raised some concern. The government has made very significant and substantive changes to competition policy in the last three budget bills. Each time, interestingly enough, it says that these provisions are monumental and that it has made these great changes to the competition policy that have never been seen before, but only a few months later, it brings in some more changes. I say that because it has had a lot of time to think about what it would do with competition policy.

The government proposed a number of substantive changes, and I have to give my NDP colleague credit, who is now the new member of the finance committee. He sliced up and diced up the government's competition provisions in this bill like never before. In fact, the government should be embarrassed that the competition provisions it put forward in Bill C-59 were completely redrafted by its coalition partner. It had multiple months and years to think about the provisions it wanted to change. When it finally said that it had the best changes, it got absolutely railroaded by its supply and confidence partner. That should be embarrassing for the government.

That is why we are here debating this bill and debating the title. If members want another title for the bill, as this is a government that is out of ideas, how about, “we think people can pay just a little more”. That is what the bill should be called because energy bills are going up for people in Nova Scotia with this bill.

In addition, the number of drafting errors in this bill are significant. There was a provision called the dividend deduction rules. As soon as the budget bill was tabled, some smart individual did not think that the government understood how it was going to affect individual life insurance policyholders and that maybe somebody should call it and give it a lesson. It took eight months for it to explain how a particular life insurance product worked when participating in whole life insurance. It eventually brought in a significant amendment to fix it. This bill was delayed because of all the drafting errors in it and because the government did not even understand how these significant changes would affect the cost to Canadians.

These are the reasons for which we are trying to delay the bill. The government does not have a sweet clue about what some of these amendments do.

Now the government is saying that it has to pass the bill because the market is asking for the investment tax credits. Guess what? We can pass the bill tonight if the government wants to, and no one can use the investment tax credits because the CRA and Natural Resources Canada still have not put out the guidance required for companies to take advantage of the investment tax credits. If the government was so serious about getting this bill passed, it would have had all of its homework done, but it does not. Maybe the dog ate it. I do not know what the excuse is, but the Liberal government is not ready. It is out of ideas. It chose to delay this bill until now. It was the government that had drafting errors in the bill. It decided to make energy more expensive in the bill.

The government tried to indirectly make life insurance products more expensive in this bill, but then it realized that five million Canadians would have to pay more for their life insurance products because they were trying to find revenue somewhere and tax the big banks more and tax financial institutions more, not realizing that those costs for that product are passed directly to consumers.

I was very pleased to speak against the short title of this bill, if that means we can keep energy costs lower for some Canadians for just a little longer. I welcome the wonderful questions from the member for Winnipeg North, as I know he always has a zinger.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this chamber.

Before I start my remarks on the bill, I seek the Speaker's indulgence for just a moment.

I was notified earlier today that a dear friend and former colleague of mine, Matthew Vaccari, had passed away. He succumbed to cancer. He leaves behind two children and his wife, Heather. Matt and I worked very closely together at Canada Life. I know a number of people at that organization who are very upset and sad and, of course, his family. Matt was a wonderful human being, someone who was full of energy and who always had a positive attitude. It is with a heavy heart that I extend my condolences to his family for their loss and to all the people who worked with him and who knew Matt. He was a wonderful human being.

It is a pleasure to speak to any financial legislation that the government brings forward. I know that there is a lot of debate tonight about the short title and some words, but the truth is that we are talking about a bill that would increase energy costs for Canadians.

In Bill C-59, the EIFEL restrictions would impose an additional cost on public utilities in this country. We had witness testimony at the finance committee from a public utility in Nova Scotia that said that the bill would directly increase the energy costs of ratepayers in Nova Scotia. I understand that it may be inconvenient for the government, or for other parties who support the government, that Conservatives are doing their due diligence, taking their time and looking at ways to slow this legislation down because it would increase the cost of energy for Canadians at a time when they can least afford it.

Wisdom has been chasing the Liberal government for a long time, but it has just not caught up with it yet. How is it possible that, in an affordability crisis, the government thinks it makes sense to introduce tax legislation that would directly increase the cost of energy for certain Canadians in this country, in particular Nova Scotia? There is no debate about it. There is no—

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

Madam Speaker, in Bill C‑59, there is a $17.8-billion tax credit that will help oil companies reduce their use of natural gas by financing the installation of small nuclear power plants to extract bitumen from the tar sands. The gas would then be exported to Asia, including from the LNG terminal in British Columbia.

Does the member believe that this is an environmental plan to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this place as the representative for the great riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill and discuss important issues of the day.

However, I must say that, this evening, I have a bit of a challenge in discussing this motion. It is a disgusting motion that we are discussing, actually, because it has been put forward to delete the short title of a very important bill, Bill C-59. Just to be clear, the long title of the bill is “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”. The long title is a mouthful; therefore, as is the normal course of business, the bill has a shorter title. The short title is simply the “Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023”. The motion put forward by the Conservatives tonight, requiring debate for five and a half hours, is to delete that short title. Just so that everyone is clear, because I know this is a very important motion for the Conservative Party, we are talking about deleting the title “Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023”, not the long title.

Why would we be discussing this motion this evening? That is a question I have asked myself. There is no good answer; the answer really lies in the work that the official opposition party is doing, which we have seen them do over the past year, at least. That is to ensure that there is not productive conversation or debate and that we do not get things done in this place.

Earlier this evening, a member opposite made a comment implying that I do not speak to the constituents in my riding, but that is what I try to do most of. In fact, I think that all of us here should take the responsibility of being the representatives of our constituencies very seriously. Certainly, spending five hours here tonight to debate this motion to delete six words from a bill is not time well-spent. In fact, I could be using this time to speak to constituents. We could be saving money. As the member for Vancouver Kingsway has so aptly pointed out several times, this exercise is costing taxpayers, including my constituents, a lot of valuable money that need not be spent.

The Conservative Party purports to care about fiscal matters and represent common sense. It is quite astounding to me that Conservatives would put forward this motion to debate this evening, especially when we have a piece of legislation in front of us that actually has a lot of important content that we could be discussing or debating.

Knowing that there is a lot of leeway given on what we can discuss, even given a motion as silly and wasteful as the one in front of us, I will comment on a few of the measures in this very important bill that the Conservative Party has continually filibustered on and tried to block, as it has done with most things our government has been doing.

In fact, I would refer to something that happened just a couple of weeks ago. As the chair of the women's caucus, I was actually very discouraged to see the chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women removed.

I do not sit on that committee, but I spoke to every member. To a person, they felt that the work being done by the chairperson and by the committee involved collaborating very well to get important things done for the women of Canada. They felt that the chairperson was removed simply because she was allowing constructive work to be done in this place.

Members of that committee are all saddened by the fact that this member has been removed from her position. The reason I mention that in relation to this very important motion that was put forward to remove the short title of the bill is that this is another example of how the opposition party is trying to block, delay and stall any good work being done in this place.

Let us look a little at what the bill contains and what is being held up by this wasteful motion that the Conservative Party has put forward. We have heard a lot about how Canadians are struggling. In my riding, when I speak to my constituents, I hear how people want relief, particularly on the cost of food. I sit on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I was part of the study that looked at addressing stability in food prices, given their recent increase. A lot of the recommendations that came up from witnesses were regarding the need for increased and improved competition in Canada.

Bill C-59, which we can still refer to by its short-form title, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023, has many measures that are being blocked now to do just that: to modernize our Competition Act, to give it more teeth and to ensure that it can fight against the practices that have been occurring and have increased food prices in Canada.

Another thing in this important bill is support for adoptive parents, including surrogates, with a 15-week shareable employment insurance adoption benefit. To many families, this is a very important measure. My husband and I are adoptive parents. I know that, when someone brings a child into their home, especially an older child, having that time to spend where one can just be with that child and not worry about other things is very important. While I am not a child psychologist, I read a lot about adoption before we adopted two of our children, and it makes quite a difference. This is a very important measure that many parents and families would benefit from.

For me, as someone who has experienced this, I feel it is reprehensible for the party opposite to be wasting our time tonight talking about removing the short title of a bill in order to obstruct and to delay it. There are parents like me out there who would very much like those 15 weeks to spend with their adoptive children.

There has also been a lot of talk about affordability and the effect of the pollution pricing regime on Canadians. I have heard, because I have some constituents who live in a semi-rural area, that there are not always the same options. Therefore, the rebate that is being given back to Canadians, which gives back more money to 80% of our families, is being adjusted to ensure that Canadians living in rural areas receive more. They would get a 20% top-up on the rebate that is given to other families.

Members of the party opposite often speak about rural ridings, people living in rural areas and the importance of agriculture, and I share their views. Therefore, how, in good conscience, can they talk about this?

I will conclude by saying that there are a lot of important things we could be—

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

Madam Speaker, I was not expecting such a lively debate tonight. I thank the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway for his speech, and I congratulate him on the six amendments that he was able to get passed in committee. He touched on them briefly. I would like him to tell us more about that, but I will ask my question.

There have been a lot of changes and improvements to the Competition Act, some of which were requested by the commissioner of competition. When it comes to the Competition Act, we know that Canada had a long way to go. Bill C‑56 improved the act, and Bill C‑59 and its amendments are improving it even more.

Does the member think that the system is now robust enough that consumers can expect healthy competition at all times, or is there still more work to do in that regard?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member should know about free things from government, because he gets free dental care, and so do his children. I do not see him giving that back. I have not heard of a Conservative giving back their free dental care yet.

By the way, dental care, of course, is not free; it is paid for, but we believe on this side of the House that, collectively, by pooling our resources, we can make sure that every person can get access to primary health care. It is the foundation of our Canadian health care system, so I think that is a wise expenditure of money.

More to the point, I have already gone through a couple of examples where Bill C-59 would return money to taxpayers. It would take 5% of the GST off new homebuilding, which is returning money to our home builders. It would take 5% off the GST for counselling services, returning money so that people can maybe afford to get the mental health support they need.

What I would ask my hon. colleague is this: Why does he not support the bill, which would return money to important parts of our economy, instead of holding us up and costing taxpayers $450,000 tonight to have this absolutely avoidable and nonsensical debate?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, for anybody who may be watching tonight, I think a brief explanation of what their tax dollars are going to is in order.

Tonight, beginning at about 6:30 p.m., due to the Conservatives' motion, we are spending five and a half hours of debate, an entire evening sitting in the Canadians' House of Commons, to debate a Conservative motion on Bill C-59, which is a bill to enact provisions that were announced in the fall economic statement in 2023.

In this long bill with hundreds of provisions in it, the Conservatives' motion and contribution to Canadian democracy is to strip the short title of the bill. I think we have already heard that this has necessitated a late sitting of the House, which is probably going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and hold up all sorts of legislation that is of prime importance to Canadians.

Now, one thing that I think we all agree on is that Canadians across this country, millions of them, are in fact enduring pain, hardship, worry, insecurity and need. Bill C-59, while not perfect and certainly with a fair number of problems and omissions, does contain a number of important measures that would address those needs in a myriad of ways.

While the New Democrats are working constructively as an opposition party to move that legislation forward so that Canadians can get the relief they need, the Conservatives are holding it up. When the Conservatives claim to care about the needs of Canadians who are struggling with economic uncertainty, they are going to have to explain to Canadians why they are holding up the very measures that are contained in the legislation before the House that would help ameliorate those needs.

I also want to say a few things about the business community in this country. On the finance committee, along with my colleagues, I sat through testimony for 20 hours, hearing Canadian stakeholders comment on the provisions of this bill. When they did so, there were two very clear statements that were made to us repeatedly by Canadian businesses. Number one, they wanted this bill passed quickly. Number two, they wanted certainty.

As I will talk about in a moment, this bill contains a number of measures that would provide important tax incentives and tax credits to stimulate business activity, and businesses across this country are waiting for this. They are actually holding their investments. They are holding up creating jobs. They are holding up purchasing machinery and equipment, as well as research in technology, until this bill passes.

What is the Conservatives' reaction to this? They hold the bill up. If that is the Conservatives' concept of common sense, I do not think I share the same definition.

I want to talk about some of the important things in this bill. One of the things in this bill is a measure to implement the NDP's dental care plan. It would introduce an amendment to the provision that authorizes the sharing of taxpayer information for the purposes of administering the Canadian dental care plan.

We all know that, as of May 1, about a week ago, the first one million seniors who successfully applied to the CDCP started to access the dental care they need. Over two million seniors have already applied, with children under 18 and people living with disabilities, with a disability tax certificate, able to apply in a little over three weeks.

I want to stop for a moment, because I heard the Conservatives talk about Canadians who are suffering. Let us think of a senior right now who is at home suffering with dental pain, someone who does not have dentures that fit properly or maybe does not have dentures at all. They are unable to eat an apple. They have pain in their mouth. They have a choice to make: they continue living in pain, or they scramble together some form of money and try to go to a dentist, and pay out of pocket.

The Conservatives say they care about people who are suffering economically, yet they are holding up legislation that would help get the CDCP in place so seniors can go to the dentist and have their needs paid for. Imagine a single mother with a couple of kids at home, and a five-year-old or a seven-year-old has dental pain and they do not have enough money to go to the dentist. Like every parent in this room, we know what we would do. We would do whatever we could. We would sell something, take an extra shift or borrow money to get our child to the dentist. That is what Canadians are doing.

What will the Canadian dental care plan do? It will provide that dental care at no cost to Canadians, freeing up their funds. At a time when Canadians are suffering, what could be of more direct assistance than to have the federal government champion a national dental care plan, which, by the way, the Conservatives do not support and will take away? Funnily enough, every one of them on that side has their dental care needs taken care of by taxpayer dollars. They get to go to the dentist, and their kids get to go to the dentist, paid for by taxpayer dollars, but they do not think that senior, that five-year-old and that single mother have the same right.

I will tell members this. To the NDP, dental care is primary health care, and everybody gets to go to the dentist regardless of their ability to pay. That is what this bill will help facilitate, and it is what the Conservatives are stalling. Is that the Conservative common sense? I cannot wait to go to the doorsteps in the next election and put that definition of common sense to my constituents.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I also really appreciated my colleague's speech.

It is interesting to me that the members of the Standing Committee on Finance were able to work together. I completely understand that, and an amendment proposed by my Bloc Québécois colleague was even adopted. Nevertheless, he said in his speech that he will be voting against Bill C-59. I am trying to understand why.

I would also like an answer regarding this evening's motion. Is he for or against the short title?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to work with my hon. colleague from Joliette on the finance committee.

At the committee hearings on Bill C-59, the opposition members worked together to strengthen many provisions of the bill, as the member pointed out in his speech. I think at least six or seven different amendments were made to strengthen consumer protection and empower the Competition Tribunal's ability to police mergers. In particular, I want to congratulate my colleague, as we had similar motion to strengthen the greenwashing provisions in the Competition Tribunal and in consumer legislation. His motion was the one that was passed. Could he elaborate a little on why he thinks that is an important amendment to the legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, as we know, Bill C-59 is an omnibus bill that is nearly 550 pages long. It contains 60 different measures, about half of which are tax measures, and it amends or creates 31 acts and regulations. We studied this bill at length in committee. We raised various issues, and I think we managed to partially improve it. In my opinion, we made improvements in three areas.

The first good thing that we did was to strengthen the part of the legislation governing greenwashing. We worked with various stakeholders, including the Centre québécois du droit de l'environnement, Quebec's environmental law centre, which has a lot of expertise in this area. The compromise that we managed to come to does not solve all of the problems, but it reminds us of the importance of regulating that practice. I want to recognize the Liberal member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country and the NDP member for Vancouver Kingsway, who made important contributions on this subject.

The second good thing that we did was to strengthen the Competition Act. The testimony of the commissioner of competition was very important. The consumer advocacy group Option consommateurs also made a very valuable contribution. Last but not least, I want to once again recognize the member for Vancouver Kingsway for his hard work. Unfortunately, we did not have time to compare the commissioner's analysis with the senior departmental officials' analysis, which meant we had some tough decisions to make.

The third good thing we did was to strengthen the right to repair.

During the committee study, I came away very disappointed about one aspect that still has not been clarified. I am talking about how the association representing Quebec's orders of mental health professionals is being treated. This association represents the Ordre des psychoéducateurs et psychoéducatrices du Québec, the Ordre des conseillers et conseillères d'orientation du Québec, the Ordre professionnel des sexologues du Québec, the Ordre professionnel des criminologues du Québec, as well as the Ordre des travailleurs sociaux et des thérapeutes conjugaux et familiaux du Québec. We are talking about 2,500 professionals in private practice who must charge their clients tax.

However, clause 137 of Bill C‑59 seeks to remove the GST from psychotherapy and counselling services. The professionals represented by the orders I just listed work in professions that have been covered by Quebec's Professional Code since 2012, such as mental health and human relations. Ordinarily, they should therefore be included in the measure set out in Bill C‑59.

I would like to quote Mr. Soucis, president of the Ordre des psychoéducateurs et psychoéducatrices du Québec, who said:

However, the Canada Revenue Agency's notice 335 concerning the exemption for counselling therapy states that the professional services provided by a person could be exempted if the person “has the qualifications equivalent to those necessary to be so licensed or otherwise certified in another province”.

Under this interpretation of the bill, it would be confusing and time-consuming, for all of the authorities that participate in such a process, for a professional to have to ask another Canadian authority to verify a qualification when it has already been attested to by the permit that authorizes the person to practise their profession. In its present form, the bill would require the members of Quebec's professional orders to verify with a regulatory agency that oversees the profession of counselling therapy in another province, as is the case in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, that they have qualifications equivalent to the qualifications of the professionals in the province in question.

We would point out that under the Professional Code, our professional orders have a mandate to be the regulatory and supervisory body for their profession in Quebec and that they are capable of doing that.

In committee, the department told us that these Quebec professionals would not have to charge GST and would be included in the measure. However, this conflicts with what the Canada Revenue Agency and Revenu Québec are saying. We tried to clarify this part of Bill C‑59, but we were unsuccessful. I sincerely hope that Quebec professionals are not excluded from the measure.

That was a summary of some of the work we did in committee.

However, given that the bulk of Bill C‑59 was adopted in committee by the majority, we are now seized with the improved text at report stage. At this stage, again, Bill C‑59 contains some good and some bad elements, but the Bloc Québécois is opposing it once again because of two measures.

The first is the $30.3 billion in subsidies to oil companies in the form of tax credits. This means that taxpayers will be paying oil companies to pollute less, when they do not need that money.

The second is the creation of a federal department of municipal affairs called the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities. This is a sign that we can expect more interference, more bickering and more delays, at a time when the housing crisis demands swift action.

Let us look at the oil subsidies.

On April 30, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a study indicating that the latest budget would lead to a shortfall of $39 billion by 2029. The budget includes $61 billion in new spending, including tax expenditures, and there is $22 billion in new revenue, mostly from capital gains.

Bill C‑59 alone contains more than $30 billion in tax gifts to the oil companies. Roughly half goes to wasting public money on carbon sequestration, while the other half would enable them to use nuclear energy to extract the tar from the tar sands. This represents more than 80% of the $39‑billion shortfall that the Parliamentary Budget Officer unveiled in his recent study, the same shortfall the Conservatives are making such a big fuss about.

Since 2022, the government has announced $83 billion in tax gifts for the oil companies. That is twice the shortfall that the Parliamentary Budget Officer was talking about early last week. Need I remind the House that the oil companies do not need any gifts? According to the Centre for Future Work, the oil and gas extraction sector has made record profits these past few years, specifically $38 billion over three years, in 2020, 2021 and 2022, and half of that in 2022 alone. Apparently, 2023 was just as profitable. Since 70% of the shareholders are foreign, that is money that has left the country.

In the last two budgets, the government announced its intention to introduce six tax credits largely aimed at oil companies. According to information provided by the Department of Finance, these tax credits will total a whopping $83 billion by 2035.

Bill C-59 amends the Income Tax Act to create two of these tax credits, which are tailor-made for oil companies: a clean technology investment tax credit and a tax credit for carbon capture and storage. The first, worth $17.8 billion, aims to replace the use of gas to extract oil from the oil sands with nuclear power, all in order to export more gas. The second tax credit is worth $12.5 billion. Instead of accelerating the transition to renewable energy, the federal government would rather help oil companies pump every last drop of oil, hoping that they will pollute less in the course of their operations. That is the aim of this refundable tax credit for oil companies. It is only available to companies in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, and not anywhere else.

As we know, carbon capture and storage is an experimental technique that is supposed to enable major polluters to recover some of their carbon emissions and bury them in the ground, usually in old, empty oil wells. Carbon capture is a central plank of the oil companies' pseudo-environmental strategy, in much the same way as cigarette manufacturers used to argue that filtered cigarettes were better for smokers' health in the 1970s.

The International Energy Agency, an OECD affiliate, believes that countries will be making a serious mistake if they put carbon capture at the heart of their environmental strategy. It believes that carbon capture is an illusion, that the technology is unproven and that, even if could someday be made to work on an industrial scale, it would deliver only marginal results at an exorbitant cost.

Bill C‑59 confirms that the government has acceded to the oil companies' demands. No surprise there. The independent media outlet The Narwhal published a document it had obtained through the Access to Information Act showing that the oil company Suncor had a hand in drafting the government's environmental policy, particularly the section on carbon capture that Bill C‑59 brings to fruition.

This is what former Liberal environment minister Catherine McKenna had to say about the carbon capture tax credit in an interview with the newspaper 24 heures, on December 5, 2023:

It never should have happened, but clearly the oil and gas lobbyists pushed for that.

She went on to say:

We are giving special access to companies that are making historic profits, that are not investing those profits into the transition and clean solutions. They are returning those profits to their shareholders, who for the most part are not Canadian, and then they ask to be subsidized for the pollution they cause, while Canadians have to pay more for oil and gas for heating.

Those are some of the reasons why we are voting against Bill C‑59.

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

Madam Speaker, we have just seen the Minister of Environment announce that there will be a gag order on Bill C‑59, an omnibus bill of nearly 550 pages with 60 different measures and 31 acts and regulations. It is the implementation bill for last year's budget and the fall economic statement.

However, the government delayed introducing it in the House so that we could study it in committee. The government has organized its time poorly and here we are in May sitting until midnight with limited time to debate a subject as important as this.

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary agree with me that the government manages its priorities very badly?

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

Bill C-59—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allow a specific number of days or hours for consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages of the bill.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Yes, I am interested in what impact that will have in the short and maybe medium to long term. Certainly, it's hard to predict, but some of these changes have probably been contemplated for quite a while, and I know that quite a lot of consultation was done.

What I'm interested in is how quickly we will see the impact of these changes. I'm sure it's hard to predict that, but I wonder how quickly markets respond to the signals that go out there. I'm sure industry is paying attention to our proceedings, and certainly to the finance committee and our work.

Mr. Schaan was with us for many hours on Bill C-59, which made an additional round of changes to the Competition Act.

I'm wondering if maybe you can speak to the impact that will have and how quickly we will see the impact.

Motions in Amendment

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to bring it back to the original question. The motion is that the bill, Bill C-59, be amended by deleting the short title.

I am not sure that the hon. member actually got to the motion and why the title should be deleted or not, but I want to remind members to speak to the motion as well.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There is one motion and amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-59. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

I will now put Motion No. 1 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Carbon Pricing

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Special Advisor for Water]

Mr. Speaker, there is a common misconception about carbon pollution pricing. It is not a tax. It is a measure recognized as one of the lowest cost and most effective ways of reducing greenhouse gases, and therefore, of tackling the adverse impacts of climate change, which are very real. It is also a measure that the government has designed to make life more affordable for Canadians.

Natural disasters are on the rise due to climate change, and we are all suffering the effects and the costs too. Last summer, forest fires forced tens of thousands of Canadians to evacuate their homes. There were also droughts in the Prairies, where the hon. member is from. There were intense hurricanes on the east coast, extreme flooding on the west coast, and melting permafrost in the north. What does that mean? It means we all need to accelerate climate action.

Carbon pricing is core to serious climate action. It provides an incentive to innovate and reduce emissions, while allowing businesses and households to decide for themselves how best to reduce emissions. Carbon pricing is not about raising revenues. All proceeds from carbon pricing are returned to the jurisdiction they were collected from.

The Canada carbon rebate, the CCR, returns fuel charge proceeds to Canadian residents through direct deposit or cheque every three months. Eight out of 10 households receive more money back through the CCR than they pay toward the fuel charge. Residents of these provinces living in small and rural communities also receive a rural top-up, which the government, under Bill C-59, is proposing to double from 10% of the base amount to 20%. The system actually leaves most families, especially low- and middle-income ones, better off financially.

Carbon pricing is a fair system that does leave more money in the pockets of Canadian workers, and that makes life more affordable for lower-income families. The benefits go way beyond that. It is a tool to help us create healthier communities and usher in clean growth and a more sustainable future for our children and our children's children.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to lend my voice today in support of Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, 2024. This budget is about what kind of country we want to live in and what kind of country we want to build together.

For generations, Canada has been a place where everyone could secure a better future for themselves and their children, and where a growing economy created opportunities for everyone to succeed. However, to ensure every Canadian succeeds in the 21st century, we know that we must grow our economy to make it more innovative, productive and sustainable. We must build an economy where every Canadian can reach their full potential, where every entrepreneur has the tools needed to grow their business and where hard work pays off.

Building the economy of the future is about creating jobs in the knowledge economy, in manufacturing, in mining and forestry, in the trades, in clean energy and across the economy in all regions of the country. To do this, our government's economic plan is investing in the technologies, incentives and supports critical to increasing productivity, fostering innovation and attracting more private investment to Canada. This is how we will build an economy that unlocks new pathways for every generation to earn their fair share. Bill C-69 is a crucial step in opening up these new pathways.

Bill C-69 takes us forward on the understanding that, in the 21st century, a competitive economy is a clean economy. There is no greater proof than the 2.4 trillion dollars' worth of investment made around the world last year alone in the transition to net-zero economies. Experts say we are at a global inflection point, with clean energy investments surpassing investments in conventional energy, with the cost of renewable technology dropping significantly, including wind, solar and heat pumps, as technology advancements are made and deployed at scale, and with companies that outperform their peers in decarbonizing more competitive and yielding higher returns for stakeholders.

As the big anchor investment decisions around the globe are being made to secure the global supply chains for the emerging clean economy, we need to ensure Canada is best positioned to compete and lead the way by seizing the massive opportunities to attract investment and generate economic growth that will bring decades of prosperity. That is why our government is putting Canada at the forefront of the global race to attract investment and seize the opportunities of the clean economy with a net-zero economic plan that will invest over $160 billion to maintain and extend our lead in this global race.

The cornerstone of our plan is an unprecedented suite of major economic investment tax credits, which will help attract investment through $93 billion in incentives by the year 2034-35. That includes carbon capture, utilization and storage, the clean technology investment tax credit, the clean hydrogen investment tax credit, the clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit, clean electricity and, added in budget 2024, an EV supply chain investment tax credit. These investment tax credits will provide businesses and other investors with the certainty they need to invest and build here in Canada. They are already attracting major job-creating projects, ensuring we remain globally competitive.

For example, just a couple of weeks ago, I attended the announcement in Alliston, Ontario, where Honda made the largest investment in Canadian automotive history, investing over $15 billion. This is a huge vote of confidence in our economy. Out of all the countries in the world, Honda chose Canada to build its comprehensive, end-to-end EV supply chain, which will mean thousands of good-paying jobs for decades to come. The federal investment tax credits were essential in remaining competitive and securing that generational investment. From new clean electricity projects that will provide clean and affordable energy to Canadian homes and businesses to carbon capture projects that will decarbonize heavy industry, our major economic investment tax credits are moving Canada forward on its track to achieve a net-zero economy by 2050.

In November 2023, our government introduced Bill C-59 to deliver the first two investment tax credits and provide businesses with the certainty they need to make investment decisions in Canada today. That bill also included labour requirements to ensure workers are paid prevailing union wages and apprentices have opportunities to gain experience and succeed in the workforce.

With Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, 2024, we would be making two more of these major economic investment tax credits a reality to attract more private investment, create more well-paying jobs and grow the economy.

First, it would implement the 30% clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit, which would be available as of January 1, 2024. This is a refundable investment tax credit for clean technology manufacturing and processing, and extraction and processing of key critical minerals equal to 30% of the capital cost of eligible property associated with eligible activities.

Investments by corporations in certain depreciable property that is used for eligible activities would qualify for the credit. Eligible property would generally include machinery and equipment used in manufacturing, processing or critical mineral extraction, as well as related control systems.

Eligible investments would cover activities that will be key to securing our future, including things like the manufacture of certain renewable energy equipment like solar, wind, water or geothermal. It would cover the manufacturing of nuclear energy equipment and electrical energy storage equipment used to provide grid-scale storage. It would cover the manufacturing of equipment for air and ground storage heat pump systems; the manufacturing of zero-emission vehicles, including the conversion of on-road vehicles; as well as the manufacturing of batteries, fuel cells, recharging systems and hydrogen refuelling stations for zero-emision vehicles, not to mention the manufacturing of equipment used to produce hydrogen from electrolysis. These are the technologies that will power our future.

Bill C-69's clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit would power the investment that is needed to build them today and build them here at home.

The bill would also make the clean hydrogen investment tax credit a reality, which would exclusively support investments in projects that produce clean hydrogen through eligible production pathways. This refundable tax credit would be available as of March 28, 2023, and could be claimed when eligible equipment becomes available for use at an applicable credit rate that is based on the carbon intensity of the hydrogen that is produced.

Eligible equipment could include, but is not limited to, the equipment required to produce hydrogen from electrolysis of water, including electrolyzers, rectifiers and other ancillary electrical equipment; water treatment and conditioning equipment; and certain equipment used for hydrogen compression and storage. Certain equipment required to produce hydrogen from natural gas or other eligible hydrocarbons, with emissions abated using carbon capture, utilization and storage, would also be eligible. Property that is required to convert clean hydrogen to clean ammonia may also be eligible for the credit, subject to certain conditions, at a credit rate of 15%.

It is important to realize that these clean economy investment tax credits work to incentivize investment and remain competitive but also do not stand alone. They are just part of the tool box that also includes legislation like the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act; the Canadian sustainable jobs act and amendments to CEPA, which is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act; regulations like the clean fuel regulations, the carbon pricing and oil and gas emissions cap; programs like the strategic innovation fund and many others; and the blended finance utilities that the government has launched, including the Canada growth fund and the Canada Infrastructure Bank. These all work together, and that is why we are seeing the results we are seeing.

Bill C-69's support for these investments comes at a pivotal moment when we can choose to renew and redouble our investments in the economy of the future, to build an economy that is more productive and more competitive, or risk leaving an entire generation behind.

With Bill C-69, we would not make that mistake. Our major economic investment tax credits are moving Canada forward on its track to achieve a net-zero economy by 2050. I could not be more proud of our work in this area.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to address some of the comments that were made today, in particular one by Mr. Turnbull.

Usually in the past we've had negotiations outside of committee if things don't get resolved. In this case, there was no discussion. We were not reached out to whatsoever. I'm surprised to know that Mr. Davies actually got this amendment before all of us, and he admitted that.

It does bring up the question about this carbon tax coalition. It makes it more and more clear—to us, at least—that there is a coalition, not just in this committee, but outside.

I would like to propose an amendment to the motion as amended. Before I do that, I would like to say, in the spirit of collaboration on Bill C-59, that Mr. Davies' request was to get this passed as soon as possible. I will remind him that I ended up pulling my two amendments at the end so we could group the rest of the clauses. We passed the bill right away in that collaboration, which is why we got to this point.

We did help to pass his amendment. That's good. We should have some more witnesses.

I'd like to make an amendment. There are a few of them. I'd like to speak to them after I've given them.

In item ii, after May 23, I'd like to add the dates May 28 and May 30, 2024.

In item iii, I'd like to remove the date and put May 30, 2024.

In item iv, I'd like to change the first date to June 3, 2024, and strike everything after “resources on that day”.

In item v, after where it says “Bill C-69”, I would like to add “four meetings on its study of proceeds of crime and money laundering”. Strike everything before that and replace it with that, so “following the completion of the study of Bill C-69” strike out everything and add in "four meetings on its study of proceeds of crime and money laundering”.

I think we've distributed that, or we're going to distribute it. I believe it's been sent to you.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you to my colleague for that. I appreciate it.

I want to get to something constructive, because that's where I think we need to be. However, I have a few comments to make just prior to that.

Just to set the record somewhat straight, I'll say that I'm new to this committee. I've been on the committee for only three weeks. One thing that I believe is important is that in a minority parliament, as has been pointed out, we try to seek a consensus on how we get business done. No party can dominate in a situation like this. Frankly, even in majority governments, I don't think a majority can ever be used in a tyrannical way, but there has to be attention paid to other parties so that other priorities can make it to the committee's business.

I think it's important to note that we did meet last week, and I was the person who proposed that we have a subcommittee on the agenda so that we could meet in camera. I'm not going to discuss anything that was said at that meeting, but the purpose of that meeting was to try to get an agreement on the scheduling for the next two months. Many of the issues that have been canvassed here today were precisely the subjects that we intended to talk about at that meeting. Therefore, it's not quite accurate to say that where we are at this moment is a surprise to anybody, because we specifically talked about each and every meeting between now and the end of June in our subcommittee meeting and tried to arrive at an acceptable agenda that met everybody's goals to some extent.

On the motion that's been put forward today, for the record, I saw this motion for the first time last night at quite a late time, but there's no real issue of any intent to offend any of my colleagues on this committee.

I do want to say that we're sitting seven of the last eight weeks. We have one break week in there. I do want to say that in terms of the break week.... By the way, if ever there was a less apt name for a week, it's “break week”. As all of us know, the last thing we all do when we go back to our ridings is have any break at all. However, it is a critical time to meet constituents and to consult. I know we're all just as busy as always, if not more busy, when we go our constituencies.

I jealously and assiduously guard that break week. It's the only one we have, and I think it's really important for some work-life balance as well, but unfortunately, that week takes out time when we could schedule meetings.

I did some quick research, and I found that in 2023 we spent 15.5 hours of witness time on the budget. In 2022, we spent 18 hours of witness time on the budget. That's excluding clause-by-clause consideration. I didn't go back to what was done before then, but if those are representative samples, that gives me a bit of an idea.

I want to say that I empathize. I've been in opposition my entire time on the Hill. I'm sorry, but I'll say it every time I hear it: We're not in a coalition government. I wish we were, but we're not in a coalition government. We don't have any cabinet seats. We don't get to make decisions. We have the confidence and supply agreement. I know that's a nice slogan that gets thrown around, but I don't think it does our political atmosphere any good to use terms that don't accurately describe the real situation.

However, being in opposition, I empathize with my Conservative colleagues when we talk about fighting to make sure that we have enough time to properly debate bills. I want to preface my proposal by saying this: Often when a bill comes to committee—just your garden variety of bill—that we've not seen before or had any study on, it's fresh. We don't know much about it, and we really need to hear from a broad variety of stakeholders and probe new concepts in order to do our job properly at committee.

A budget, to me, is a bit of a different type of bill. First of all, you have pre-budget hearings. I haven't had the pleasure of sitting in on them, but I have commiserated with and watched many previous finance critics as they go through days and days of—and travel across the country for—pre-budget hearings to hear from stakeholders. I presume it happened with this budget too.

Then we have pre-budget major announcements. I remember a day when budgets were secret until they were announced in the House.

It started with the Conservatives, actually. It's been a slow erosion of that over the last, I'd say, 10 years. In this case here, we did see major announcements made about the budget for several weeks in advance. Then we saw the budget itself.

I think we all have to acknowledge that a 416-page document has been published that contains pretty much everything about the budget. We've had a chance to read that and to study it. We've had budget lock-ups. Then we had budget briefings. Then we had the ways and means motion that was tabled. I had briefings, as I'm sure we all did. We were offered those on the budget.

When this budget implementation act comes to this committee, it's a little disingenuous to suggest that this is brand new and that we have to probe in all sorts of interesting areas. We're well aware of what's in this budget. We're well aware of what we like and, more importantly, what we don't like. We're prepared, in a way that we're not for any other bill, to probe in those areas.

We don't need 65 meetings on this budget, given the preparatory work that goes into the preparation of this budget, in the way that we would on other things. When the issue is something like medical assistance in dying or something like that, it can take months and months to canvass, and it should.

I do note that with Bill C-59, which was my inauguration to this committee, we had 20 hours of hearings. I have to say, with that 20 hours, and I think I've said this before, that I noticed a lot of repetitive testimony. We were hearing from multiple witnesses who were saying the same thing over and over again. I think that easily could have been cut by 50% or maybe more. We still would have gotten the thrust of the testimony. There were amendments made, I think from all parties, that were well crafted and that made the bill better, so I think that was important to do.

I do have to correct a couple of things that my Conservative colleague said. I think he said that the Harper government balanced its budget. I happened to have been in the House from 2008 to 2015. I missed 2006, and the truth is that the Harper government had seven consecutive deficits in a row, and it only tabled what it claimed to be a balanced budget in year eight, which was the election year. I think that turned out to be a deficit budget when the numbers rolled in anyway.

I just have to correct that for the record. I'm not taking a shot, but whether a budget was balanced or not is a matter of numbers and facts, and that's just a fact.

I also want to say that in terms of this budget, I don't share a lot of the perspectives, reasons and policies of my Conservative colleagues, but I do agree that the budget is very important. I think we come at it from different ends. I also very much share my colleague's eloquent description of the difficulty that many Canadians are facing right now. There's no question about that. I don't know if I'd say that Canada could be in a recession, but Canadians are. I'll have to ponder that one for a while. I don't think they can be. However, I can say that millions and millions of Canadians, particularly low-income and middle-income Canadians, are struggling. I'm not sure everybody is. I think there's a sector, maybe the top quartile of this population, that's probably doing very well, maybe better than normal. However, millions of Canadians are not.

Therefore, I've come to a conclusion that is the complete opposite of that of my Conservative colleague, and it is that I think those people need assistance as fast as possible. This budget has things like pharmacare. I am biased and I'm shaped by the eight years I spent as health critic. I heard too many stories of people suffering, living with diabetes, type 1 and type 2, through no choice of their own, who were out of pocket thousands of dollars every year, and they're also struggling with the high costs of food and rent, etc. They're the same kind of people who were accurately described by my colleague.

If this pharmacare legislation passes—this money that's in the bill and the legislation in the House, which, by the way, the Conservatives are holding up and are trying to block right now—and gets royal assent by the end of June, you could have the federal government negotiating with provinces as early as July and August, and that would result in free diabetes medication. I negotiated the formulary for 11 kinds of insulin, SDG inhibitors, life-saving medication for free, including the devices, needles, syringes, test strips, pumps and continuous glucose monitors.

I heard some stories of people who have children who are five years old, of parents who have to wake their child up every hour and a half at night. Imagine waking your child up at one in the morning, then at 2:30 in the morning, then at four in the morning and then going to work—never mind the trouble to the child—because you're not sure if their blood sugar levels are going to spike in the middle of the night.

This legislation would deliver them a continuous glucose monitor and an insulin pump so that the child can sleep through the night and those parents don't have to go to work the next day sleep deprived, never mind the out-of-pocket expenses. Do you know what parents do now if they're not covered for that? They'll buy that glucose monitor for their child. Who here wouldn't? Do you know what that costs them? It's thousands of dollars, so when we talk about giving Canadians economic relief right now, what about that?

That's in this budget. There is $1.5 billion in this budget to fund those programs that we want the federal government to be negotiating—that I want them to be negotiating yesterday—and the Conservatives are blocking the legislation in the House for pharmacare and the bill that would finance it here.

There is a school nutrition program. We're talking about the high cost of food; well, my primary concern for children is that I don't want a single kid in this country in grade 3 sitting at a desk trying to learn math or trying to read when their stomach is hurting them, but in addition to that, given the health and learning issues with the children and the families struggling with high food costs, what could be better right now to relieve their budget than to know that when their child goes to school, their child is getting a hot, nutritious meal in the middle of the day, five times a week?

That's one meal taken off their budget and, if you have multiple children—if you have two or three children—that's 10 or 15 lunches that you don't have to pay for. For the families I represent in Vancouver Kingsway, which is a working-class neighbourhood, if you're struggling on a total median household income of $64,000 a year, that one measure alone might be the difference, and the Conservatives are holding this up. They want to have debate on this.

Then, we have billions of dollars of affordable housing expenditure in here.

I've said this before: There are 10,000 issues in politics. We all know that. Some are foundational. Some are existential. Housing is one of them, because housing anchors you. It anchors you in your community. It anchors you in terms of your work life, your community, your neighbours and your children's school. It anchors you. Too many Canadians can't find a decent place to rent or buy for love or money, and this has been going on for decades.

I'm going to say this. This didn't start in 2015. I've been in Vancouver for 40 years. You couldn't buy an affordable house or rent an affordable house 20 years ago—or 15 years ago, for that matter. Holy mackerel—I'll show you housing prices from 2010 that not a single person in this room could afford on our incomes. It's $4 million for a house on Vancouver's west side that people bought for $60,000 30 years ago: That's the reality. This budget has money for that.

There are critical indigenous services investments. I want to talk just for a moment about the indigenous people in this country. If there's one group of people in this country that is suffering more than any other, it has to be Canada's first peoples, and this budget has billions of dollars that ought to be flowing.

I think we have to find a balance here. The balance has to be how we can preserve our role here to do a proper dive into this bill—given that we all know what's in it and we know where we want to probe—and how to get this out. Budgets are different. No government, not a Conservative government that I've ever seen and not one that we'll see in the future, will want a budget held up for three months while it's debated. This budget was tabled earlier in April. We all know that this budget has be passed by the end of June.

I will talk for just a moment about the business community in this country. Again, if I've heard one thing more consistently from the business community over my time in politics, it's this: they want certainty. They can deal with a wide variety of policies—from the left or the right—but what they do need is certainty. In a time of economic uncertainty—and we're all aware of the problems that our business community is facing with productivity, lack of investment in machinery and equipment, technology and research—we want to hasten the transition to a more sustainable economy. We know the tax credits....

I had the opportunity to ask some questions about the hydrogen and clean-technology tax credits. We heard in the fall economic statement testimony that businesses are waiting for this.

I do think the meetings that are proposed in this motion don't give quite enough time. I'm going to put in some form of amendment, but I thought I would just share this with my colleagues first.

My calculations of the witness time for this, as has been proposed, is, in theory, two hours today and two hours on Thursday. That's four hours. Then we had the 21st and the 23rd, and this motion proposes another four hours for those. That would make a total of eight hours. I don't think that's sufficient.

What I'm thinking is that we do our two hours today and we do our two hours on Thursday. On the 21st and 23rd, I think we should schedule six hours each for those meetings. That would bring us up to 16 hours—12 hours there, and the four we have this week.

I'll go back to what I said. We had 15.5 hours last year and 18 the year before that. That puts us in the normative range for budgets—right smack in there—and it still preserves our ability to have the clause-by-clause consideration starting the week of the 27th. We can get this bill out of this committee by the end of the month and into the Senate by the beginning of June.

I know that the Conservatives really want to call Mark Carney. I think they referred to him as “governor” Carney. I don't know if it's proper to call him “governor” Carney, as he's no longer the governor. He's a private citizen. If they want to call witnesses.... Once we get this set, we'll all be able to call witnesses that we want to come to testify on the budget. I fully invite my colleagues to call Mr. Carney as a witness if they wish to. That would get him earlier.

I know this programming motion would have.... I wanted to point out as well something that's not been pointed out: It gives every party something in June that they wanted. It has two meetings on the housing study, which I think my predecessor Daniel Blaikie had started; two hours on the green financing, which I think the Liberals like; and two hours on the inflation study, which I think the Conservatives want. I also thought there's a built-in time, then, for calling Mr. Carney as well on inflation, since I think it was his remarks on inflation that spurred their interest. There are a couple of different points there when they can call Mr. Carney if they want to.

I have said before that I know there's a concern if Mr. Carney doesn't come. Well, that happens in this place, and we know what the remedy for that is. We can get to that at the time. I don't know that Mr. Carney will come, but I think there's an opportunity to call him.

I think that pretty much covers what I wanted to say. I want to thank my colleague for ceding the floor and letting me have a chance to have my say.

I don't know if you want me to put it in the form of an amendment, but I'm happy to. For pro forma purposes, I will.

I'll move to amend the motion, if I could, to make the meetings on the 21st and 23rd six hours each. I think that's all the amendment that's necessary—just add the needed hours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm really disappointed with this motion. I find that it's disrupting the work that the Standing Committee on Finance must do on Bill C‑69. As Mr. Turnbull said, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure has not been able to come to an agreement. Basically, I think we could try to work on a motion that would focus solely on Bill C‑69. As for what happens next, there would be other discussions.

The number of hours proposed for the study of Bill C‑69 is really insufficient. In fact, if I understand correctly, we're going to have very little time today to ask the senior officials questions on parts 1 to 3 of the bill. Personally, I still have a lot of questions to ask. In my opinion, even if we didn't debate this motion, we could run out of time, which means that we would not have the answers to all our questions.

Only one hour to study part 4 is clearly not enough. We need to take the time to do things right. I would remind my colleagues that part 4 implements an open banking system. This is something new, and we need to take the time to reflect on it. In addition, what the government is proposing goes against the wishes of the Canadian Bankers Association and a number of financial institutions, if I'm not mistaken.

This bill is not aligned with the laws of the various provinces. To my knowledge, no consultations have taken place between the government or the departments and their counterparts in Quebec and the provinces. If they did happen, it was very recently. We have a lot of questions about that. In addition, a number of things need to be improved. Several details seem technical, but they will have major repercussions.

I'll give you an example. There's a bank that doesn't call itself a bank in Alberta, and it's owned by the provincial government, the Alberta government. If that institution wanted to be part of open banking, it would have to come under federal jurisdiction, at least for the part about open banking. We have to wonder why anyone would want to duplicate legal services and legal advice. That's a major concern.

It's the same thing with credit unions. If memory serves, in British Columbia, lawmakers didn't allow credit unions to come under federal jurisdiction. What about that part? Are we creating a two-tiered open banking system, that is to say for banks under federal jurisdiction and for other institutions under provincial jurisdiction? We have a lot of concerns about that. So I'm going to have a lot of questions for the officials on this. In addition, the committee is going to have to call many witnesses.

The committee must proceed with the study of a mammoth 660-page bill that affects a number of acts, makes a lot of amendments and contains a number of elements to be covered. Are we saying that we're going to finish studying the bill this week, hear from witnesses for two two-hour periods and move to clause-by-clause consideration immediately afterwards? In my opinion, that's woefully inadequate.

During the pandemic, the government urged us to pass bills. We did it on the fly, but there were a lot of mistakes. A number of things had to be corrected because the committee didn't have the time it needed to do its work properly.

This bill is 660 pages of jargon that's incomprehensible to the average person. It will take time for all stakeholders in society to read it, to reflect on it and to see whether it meets their expectations or causes problems. Therefore, we have to give all stakeholders a little time so that they can get an idea of the bill and contact us individually to share their concerns with us.

There's not enough time allotted, obviously. Let's take the example of Bill C‑59, Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023, which wasn't as significant. We spent 20 hours hearing from witnesses. Four hours are being proposed now for Bill C‑69. The officials will have been here for an hour, maybe a little longer, if we can get through this. A single hour to study part 4 is clearly not enough.

I also want to remind you that, recently, the Minister of Finance has spent only one hour at committee when she comes. However, Mr. Morneau very often stayed two hours to answer our questions. There are so many things to deal with in this bill. One hour is not enough time to ask questions.

In my opinion, it will take much longer than what's being proposed to properly study Bill C‑69, improve it and ensure that everything is in order. We had 20 hours to question witnesses on Bill C‑59, but only four hours have been proposed for Bill C‑69. That's unacceptable.

The minister should come for two hours, as Mr. Morneau did most of the time, if I'm not mistaken. We would also have to extend the deadline in order to do our work properly, which would mean holding meetings during constituency week, I believe. No one wants to do that, but if the government is in such a hurry, we will have to do it. We will also need to have additional meetings at least a week later to make sure that all stakeholders in the economy have had time to take note of the 660 highly complex pages of the bill, that everything is in order and that there's no distortion. Then, of course, we will have to withdraw what comes after the study of Bill C‑69 if we pass this motion.

So I have a lot of reservations about this motion. In my opinion, it's completely unacceptable in its current form and I won't be able to support it. In fact, I find it very cavalier to propose such a motion, which I would describe as a gag order, to take up the debate without warning while the senior officials are here to answer our questions. We have to react to it immediately, as we were unable to read it in advance.

Those are my initial comments. I'm sure I will have more.

[Lindsay Gwyer, Director General, Legislation, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm Lindsay Gwyer, director general, legislation, at the Department of Finance. I'll be speaking about part 1 of the bill.

Part 1 contains the income tax measures. There are 15 measures in part 1 of the bill, in addition to a number of technical amendments. Given the number of measures, I won't discuss them all. I'll just touch on some of the key measures. They're all summarized on the second page of the bill.

First, part 1 includes a measure to restrict deductions in respect of short-term rentals that are not compliant with applicable laws in the province or municipality in which the short-term rental is located. Part 1 also includes changes to the home buyers' plan, increasing the withdrawal limit from $35,000 to $60,000 and deferring by three years the start of the period during which individuals must repay their home buyers' plan withdrawals.

It also includes changes to certain existing tax credits. In particular, it doubles the volunteer firefighter and search and rescue tax credits, enhances the Canadian journalism labour tax credit and extends the mineral exploration tax credit by one year.

Part 1 would also implement the new Canada carbon rebate for small businesses. This measure would return a portion of federal fuel charge proceeds via a refundable tax credit directly to qualifying Canadian-controlled private corporations that have employees in provinces where the fuel charge applies.

Part 1 would also implement two new refundable investment tax credits. First, it would implement the clean hydrogen investment tax credit. The credit rate for hydrogen production would range from 15% to 40% of eligible project costs, with the cleanest hydrogen receiving the highest level of support. Ammonia production equipment that meets certain conditions would receive a 15% credit. To obtain these rates, projects would need to meet the labour requirements in Bill C‑59. The clean hydrogen credit would be available for equipment that is acquired after March 28, 2023, and would no longer be available after 2034.

The second investment tax credit is for clean technology manufacturing. It is a 30% credit that would be available for property that is acquired on or after January 1, 2024, and would no longer be available after 2034.

Part 1 would also implement significant changes to the existing alternative minimum tax. Key changes would include an increase in the rate from 15% to 20.5%, an increase in the exemption amount, a requirement to fully include most capital gains in income, and restrictions on the available tax credits and deductions.

Finally, contingent on Bill C-59 receiving royal assent, part 1 would implement a $10-million capital gains exemption available for qualifying shares of employee ownership trusts.

Those are some of the measures in part 1.

My colleagues and I would be happy to explain those or any other measures in part 1 in more detail.

Finance

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following three reports of the Standing Committee on Finance.

First, I present the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Finance, in relation to 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. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Second, I present the 18th report, entitled “Main Estimates: 2024-25”.

Third, I present the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Finance, in relation to the motion adopted on Thursday, March 21, regarding the excess profit tax on large grocery companies.

I want to thank the members and all those who helped us get these reports prepared for Parliament.

Grocery Industry

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member opposite feels that grocery prices are too high, and they have been, certainly. However, the CPI index has shown that food prices are stabilizing in our economy, which is good news for Canadians.

What the government is doing is proposing multiple rounds of reforms to the Competition Act. It is good to see that the NDP and other parties are starting to work with us. Earlier this week, we got Bill C-59 through the finance committee, which was great progress on reforming the competition laws.

Carbon Pricing

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, Canada's approach to carbon pricing is designed to reflect the true cost of pollution, incentivizing a collective move toward less carbon-intensive choices in energy production, home heating and transportation.

In provinces where the federal carbon pollution pricing system applies, the majority of fuel charge proceeds go right back into the pockets of individuals and families via the Canada carbon rebate, with the remaining proceeds returned through other programs to indigenous governments and small and medium-sized businesses. Residents in these provinces living in small and rural communities also receive a rural top-up, which Conservatives voted against in Bill C-59, which proposes to double the top-up from 10% to 20%. Our measures balance support and the environment together. It is through this approach that we will—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Congratulations, everyone. We have concluded Bill C-59.

Shall we adjourn?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

That's nice. That's good.

I'd like to congratulate Mr. Davies. I've actually never seen, in probably half a dozen budgets, a budget bill get amended like it's getting amended right now. I can understand why the government's a bit nervous about it. They had six months for drafting the clauses, and we're still fiddling with some subamendments, which they've also had from all members of the committee for a couple of weeks.

I also note, just out of interest, that the ways and means motion that was tabled today amends this bill. I find it really convenient that on the day we're doing clause-by-clause on a bill that is supposed to pass, the government tables a ways and means motion that amends Bill C-59.

I think that's a whole other story that we'll save for another day, but it's not above board.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[Samir Chhabra]

Bill C-59, as drafted, obviously did not set out a statutory presumption for unlawfulness. Rather, what the bill proposes to do is to essentially repeal the bar against the tribunal issuing a merger remedy solely on the basis of evidence of concentration of market share.

The government has proposed to make a significant move from the current state of affairs, in which the tribunal cannot consider market shares as a basis for decision-making, to move towards a scenario in which, in fact, market shares can be used as an approach, which again eases the enforcement burden.

Additionally, the tribunal is expressly permitted to take into account any effect from the change in concentration of market share that the merger or proposed merger has brought about or is likely to bring about when determining the competitive effects.

Our understanding of NDP-13 is that it would further move the markers of the goalposts from a situation currently in which you cannot consider market shares to a situation in which, in fact, market shares would become a very critical consideration and would create a rebuttable presumption. In other words, it's another area among many that we've talked about today in which the burden of proof would be reversed. It would no longer be incumbent on the competition commissioner to make the case. Rather, the merging parties now would have to prove that it is not anti-competitive to move forward.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Esteemed colleagues, we're in a predicament here. It's really not easy to do what we're doing here.

On the one hand, we have a competition issue and that has an impact on the economy, that's for sure. There are a lot of things being done to address that. The commissioner of competition is suggesting amendments to the bill with respect to the Competition Act. I consider him to be an expert in the field. He's in a position of authority and he's suggesting that we adopt the amendment Mr. Davies proposed to us.

On the other hand, senior officials from the Department of Finance are telling us that some key issues around this could have serious consequences.

Our role is that of legislator, but we're caught between two authorities who are not saying the same thing. That's a real problem.

How did we get here? For years, the government has been promising that it will do a comprehensive reform of the Competition Act, but instead of going through with that reform, it's using a piecemeal approach with this omnibus bill, which deals with a whole host of subjects and acts and implements certain provisions of last year's budget. Meanwhile, this year's budget has been tabled and there's a briefing tomorrow on the notice of ways and means. That's where we're at. We never get to see the big picture.

That leads to situations like the one we're in right now. The government is telling us that we have to look at the Competition Act as a whole. That's its reasoning for rejecting the amendments proposed at the commissioner's request. For example, it's arguing that the threshold would be different in two parts of the act. The government never lets us see that darned big picture.

In my opinion, this shows that the government isn't doing its job well. If they'd wanted to do things properly and ensure that we, elected members who are legislators, had the time to get a complete look at this situation, they would have moved these amendments in a separate bill. That way, we could have taken the time we needed to get a good look at this.

The committee has heard from the commissioner of competition. We've heard the officials' presentations. Now, some officials with us are still making some very important and valuable points. We're flying half-blind, and we can't see the big picture. We're in this situation because the government is doing a bad job, and I condemn the situation.

Yes, the commissioner did say that the issue of his powers to block mergers was largely resolved thanks to the provisions in Bill C‑56 and what's in Bill C‑59. That said, when the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food did its study on grocery prices, the commissioner of competition's arguments were the same ones this amendment is based on, and that committee accepted them. Therefore, if we don't pass this amendment, we're putting ourselves at odds with the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Frankly, I would have preferred that the commissioner be with us to debate this amendment in depth.

We're hearing from public servants that there are some very significant issues. However, their arguments are at odds with the commissioner of competition's request, even though the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food accepted the commissioner's suggestions.

I find myself having to reject valid arguments to decide on this. As it stands, I will support the commissioner of competition's suggestions, agree with the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and the work it has done, and support Mr. Davies' amendment. Nevertheless, I strongly condemn this situation.

[Samir Chhabra]

I am avoiding the fact specifics of that particular case or example, in the sense that there are a number of important changes to the Competition Act that have been proposed—there's Bill C-56, which has received royal assent, and then again there are changes being proposed here through Bill C-59. I think the key piece to recognize is that on mergers in certain federally regulated sectors, including in finance and including in transport, for example, there's a two-key system. There's the Competition Bureau making its assessment and providing analysis and advice, and then there's also an opportunity for a ministerial decision to be taken. Nothing that's being proposed here or in Bill C-56 specifically changed those ministerial engagements.

[Martin Simard]

It's asking us to opine on the decisions the tribunal has taken over the years.

I think the tidbit about the “least intrusive” remedy is fairly universal. If you look at all the merger guidelines around the world, there's a network of enforcers, and they have this part. I think the notion is you want to stop the harm, but you want to keep, if you can, the benefits of a merger, like efficiencies and so on. I don't think Canada is unique in taking the least intrusive remedy that fixes the problem. I think that's the important caveat.

I agree with you that those were the two things the commissioner highlighted, and he clearly feels that the decisions over time have been too timid and the tribunal should be constrained by the act to be more aggressive. It is also perhaps worth replacing this in the overall reforms of C-56 and C-59, which generally really strengthen...so, no efficiencies defence and stronger abuse of dominance. There's a lot that has been changed.

We were also going to talk about the potentially structural remedies just after this, and there's already the ability now for the tribunal to take into account market share alone, so there's a lot that has been done. Even if the diagnostic is that it was too weak before, there has already been a lot of change to strengthen this, and whether this one is needed or not is a question for the committee.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

First, thank you for being here and for answering all these questions.

I think part of the reason it's so important, at least for me, is, one, we have made some really amazing progress on and generational change to our competition law, and when the commissioner came, he acknowledged that. Then he also said he felt there were two really important additions we also needed to consider for C-59. My ears did perk up at that, because I think he was very happy with C-56, C-19 and, now, the changes around competition here in C-59. However, he then very deliberately said there are two things he really feels we need to have right now. I believe, if I'm correct, the amendment that's before us.... It was when he was talking about merger reviews that he said:

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.

That's this one that we're referring to.

Then he said:

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.

Do you agree with his assessment on that? Do you agree with those statements?

[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.

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

The initial proposal with respect to employee ownership trusts didn't have much in the way of tax relief. The new one in Bill C-59 does have substantial tax relief.

Thank you for sharing that answer, by the way. I appreciate that.

What is the amount of tax revenue that will be lost as a result of the employee house trust? Ms. Gwyer, you can just send it to me afterwards. I'm sure it's in the list, if you don't have it there. I'm not going to make you sweat it there.

[Lindsay Gwyer]

First, Bill C-59 includes two investment tax credits. These are the investment tax credit for carbon capture and the investment tax credit for clean technology. There have been subsequent enhancements announced—not on the carbon capture tax credit, but on the clean technology tax credit—that are not in the bill. Those will be in a future bill.

There are also additional tax credits that will require some coordination between the multiple sets of tax credits. Those are also amendments that will be in a future bill.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Well, I'm glad there's an acknowledgement that they're wasting time.

Of course we can't do that, because there are amendments before the committee on Bill C-59. I think there are about 15 of them, and some of them are extremely important. A lot of them come from the witnesses themselves. I think all parties in the House have actually put forth amendments to Bill C-59. We can't actually pass Bill C-59 right now without dealing with the amendments. However, I will hold the Conservatives to their word, that as soon as this motion before us is dispensed with, we can move swiftly through Bill C-59 so that we can actually pass this legislation, get it back in the House and give Canadians and businesses the economic relief that they need and deserve.

It's funny; I always hear that the number one thing the business community needs is certainty. They can deal with all sorts of different policies, but what they really want is certainty. Here the Conservatives are, holding up Bill C-59, when business after business came to this committee and said they wanted these rules in place so they can plan their economic activity. Businesses are waiting to invest in environmental technology and in all sorts of investment decisions based on the provisions in this bill. The Conservatives are holding this up, leading to great uncertainty among businesses.

You know, in business, especially in this global world, time is money and things are moving quickly. While Canadian businesses have to hold off, other countries and businesses do not. In terms of what the Conservatives are doing here, they think they're being kind of cute in this room. That would be one thing, and that would be tolerable, but what they're really doing is hampering Canadian businesses and harming our interests on a global scale.

I move to adjourn the debate so that we can get to Bill C-59.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to make that clarification. If Ms. Dzerowicz thinks the carbon tax doesn't impact the trucker who's shipping the material to build those houses, and consequently the farmers who are growing the food, and the trucker who's shipping the food, and the people who are retailing the food, then I think it just goes to show how out of touch and out of reality the Liberal government is. It just proves how out of touch they are about this carbon tax scam. That's what we're concerned about—that Mark Carney is just as out of touch and doesn't understand the pain of Canadians.

The carbon tax has a huge impact on people's lives, whether it's housing or groceries. It's also a factor in why people are going into food banks. It's now two million, in fact, and a million more this year. This fact flies over Liberals' heads, because they're so ideologically obsessed with their woke, extremist view on this carbon tax scam.

In closing, I just want to throw it out there that if the Liberals and the NDP want to pass Bill C-59, we're willing to do it right now. We could get it done with a vote right now. If this coalition agrees to pass our motion right now, as amended by Mr. Lawrence, we can get both things cleared up right now, within the next minute. That's all we ask for. Let's get both things passed right now. We don't have to waste any more time.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone. It's difficult for me to speak after Mr. Baker's very strong and heartfelt speech.

I first want to greet Mr. Turnbull and congratulate him on his new position, which brings him to join our committee.

As several colleagues have said, I hope we can get back to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑59. I'm thinking in particular of all the senior public servants who are here today. We shouldn't hold them up too long unnecessarily.

I have great respect for Mr. Carney, who was Governor of the Bank of Canada and then Governor of the Bank of England. I always wish we could hear from him in committee, so I support the proposal to invite him to testify.

On the other hand, I'd like to say to my NDP colleague that he'd have my agreement if he ever suggested that the committee invite Jim Stanford. He's been here a few times too. It's always interesting to hear him talk about all the economic issues.

So I'm in favour of the motion for the reason I've just mentioned, not for the reasons raised by the Conservatives. However, I will be against the amendment, because I don't think it's useful at this time to send a subpoena to Mr. Carney to force him to come and testify for four hours.

That's my position.

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

Thank you.

That amendment has been moved. Am I correct?

Terrific. Now I'll be speaking about the amendment, if that's correct.

With respect to Bill C-59, I want to clarify that there is no conspiracy afoot to delay this legislation. The fall economic statement was introduced almost six months ago. It's actually unprecedented. It's running parallel to the budget. That's not because of Conservatives. That's because of the Liberal Party's mismanagement of their calendar. Those are just the facts.

As part of the discussion on Bill C-59, yes, we think it would be informative and illustrative to have Mr. Carney appear. He is the former governor of the Bank of Canada. He's the former governor of the Bank of England. We believe he's not just a random Liberal and not just any private citizen. I think it's been well reported out there that he will be the next leader of the Liberal Party. His input on Bill C-59 is not only important but also critical.

We followed the legislative process. We invited him as part of the process. He refused to appear. It is not the first resource of Conservatives or, I would think, of any MP to summon someone. We give them, first, a chance to respond. He failed to respond. Now we're bringing in the next part. Bill C-59 is, of course, about ready to conclude. We have the budget going forward, so it is not out of order. In fact, it's completely within order. We followed the process. We put him on the witness list. He refused to attend. Now we're coming back.

We weren't going to summon him, but the NDP seem to think it's required. We will agree somewhat reluctantly with their request to summon Mr. Carney, because we think it's a bit of overkill. We would expect and hope that all members would utilize, in a common-sense manner, the powers that are bestowed on us to get important witness testimony from Mr. Carney.

Thank you very much.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't intend to speak for long, but since I and my party were referenced in the Conservatives' comments, I want to set the record straight.

First of all, I endorse all the comments of Ms. Dzerowicz. I've only been on this committee two weeks, and if there is one thing I've heard consistently through 20 hours of finance committee hearings on the fall economic statement in the last two weeks alone, it's that there is unanimity that they want this bill passed as soon as possible.

This is clearly a delay tactic by the Conservatives. Anybody watching this could tell easily, because they had three Conservatives speaking to a simple motion to call a witness. That's not necessary if they truly are sincere about just calling this witness.

The repeated references to Mr. Carney's putative political ambitions, I think, also starkly reveal where the Conservatives are really coming from on this. They're being partisan, and they're trying to politicize this committee for their own electoral purposes, which I find a misuse of this committee's time.

I've never heard the name Mark Carney and central planning ever mentioned in the same breath. He doesn't strike me as a central-planning type of person, but maybe I have a different view of central planning than the Conservatives do.

I've had multiple conversations with my colleagues on the other side about calling Mr. Carney. Mr. Carney does have a storied history. He was Governor of the Bank of Canada as well as Governor of the Bank of England, but right now he's a private citizen. He made some remarks as a private citizen. If this committee is going to function so that any one of the 12 members of this committee at any time can call to this committee a citizen of this country who says something interesting, we will grind this committee to a halt. I could list 12 people who have said interesting things about monetary policy and fiscal policy in the last week. I was talking to Jim Stanford a few days ago. I'd like to call Jim Stanford to the committee by May 9 to hear what he has to say. If we do that....

The Conservatives are saying yes. We'll see how they react, if and when they are government again, when important things like budget implementation bills—upon which 40 million Canadians depend and for which businesses in this country are yearning—are held up while we have a debating salon in the finance committee as opposed to dealing in an orderly fashion with the business that should come before the finance committee, which is the fall economic statement.

For Canadians watching, right now on the docket of this committee we have the fall economic statement, Bill C-59, which we're trying to pass today. We have an upcoming budget. We have a housing study, which is currently under way and unfinished. These will be delayed by these kinds of political shenanigans.

I will tell you that my constituents are much more interested in getting affordable housing than they are in hearing about Mr. Carney's potential political ambitions.

We have an inflation study. I think a lot of Canadians in the last two years have really struggled with the high cost of food. The Conservatives claim to care about it. We have a study before this committee, and they want to delay that study to engage in a partisan attack on someone they view to be a potential Liberal leader.

What's funny about this is how brazen and stark the Conservatives are about their ambitions. I thought they would at least have enough respect for this committee to try to hide it, but they haven't. I mean, they lay it right out there. They want to call Mr. Carney because he's a possible Liberal leader. That's not a proper use of the finance committee.

By the way, as I've communicated to the Conservatives, absolutely, Mr. Carney could be invited to this committee, and I'd be interested in hearing what he has to say. Do it in the proper way. Do it in the context of a study.

For any Canadians watching this, when there is a study here, every party is entitled to nominate the witnesses they want to hear. They don't need a motion passed for that. I've already indicated to the Conservatives that we should have a couple of days on the inflation study in the next 60 days. I'd support their calling Mr. Carney as a witness on inflation if they think he has something interesting to say. They know that, yet they come in public here and move a motion in order to politicize something that is simply a waste of time.

If Mr. Carney has been invited before and he didn't come, as the Conservatives have said, issue a summons. Move a motion to issue a summons. That's a tool they have. They haven't done that.

For all of those reasons, I'm going to vote against this motion.

I want to be clear on the record: I look forward to Mr. Carney's coming to this committee at the appropriate time in the appropriate study, which can happen in the next two months. I'm not prepared to hold up the important work of this committee to get Canadians and Canadian businesses the important relief they need just so the Conservatives can use this committee as a political attack tool as opposed to an important parliamentary committee that is here to move forward important legislation like the budget.

Thank you.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to concur and agree wholeheartedly with my colleague, Mr. Turnbull. I am glad he's here with us today. I too am very disappointed that the Conservatives continue to try to delay the passing of Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, by proposing this time-wasting motion. We have heard from stakeholder after stakeholder after stakeholder. They have asked to move as quickly as possible to get going on passing this legislation, particularly on things like the clean economy investment tax credits. They're not able to do the work until we actually pass this legislation.

I will tell you that in proposing this motion today, the federal Conservatives are disingenuous. It is not the job of the finance committee to interview possible future politicians. They have to stop using the finance committee for their fishing expeditions and honour our important role to review, improve and pass critical legislation that comes to committee, which is what we're doing today.

Mr. Chair, I would ask our colleagues to stop the games and stop the gimmicks that slow down our important work. Let's get back to clause-by-clause. Canadians are looking for serious leadership from their government—not games, not slogans, not gimmicks.

Thank you.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's great to be here with all the committee members. This is my first finance committee meeting.

I just want to make a few points about this. It sure seems to me like Bill C-59 and the amendments to the Competition Act, the investment tax credit regime that I know industry has been asking for, and the many other components of this bill make up the reason that we all came here today. It was to do clause-by-clause analysis of a very important piece of legislation. I note that there have been about 20 hours of witness testimony. It's actually been many months to get to this point.

It's just interesting to me that the Conservatives bring this motion now, at this time, right before we're moving into clause-by-clause analysis. It seems to me that this is a delay tactic. We've seen these many times before. Conservatives use obstructionist tactics to delay committee proceedings, to delay House proceedings and to delay such important pieces of legislation as the sustainable jobs act and the amendments to the Atlantic accord. There are many, many examples of Conservatives obstructing our parliamentary proceedings.

Stakeholders in industry want us to pass Bill C-59. They are calling for the doubling of the rural top-up and the amendments to the Competition Act. There is a lot of will behind the passage of Bill C-59.

If the Conservatives really want to hear about monetary policy, the Bank of Canada governor is scheduled to appear this Thursday. Tiff Macklem, as you know, would be probably the most appropriate witness to answer your questions about monetary policy. I think the Conservatives have an opportunity to do that. This is obviously a political play and tactic to get clips and clicks. Let's move on here and move back into clause-by-clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Members, witnesses, it's good to see everybody here. I hope you had a fruitful constituency week this past week.

Welcome to meeting number 140 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, March 18, 2024, and the motion adopted on Monday, December 11, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss 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.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to Standing Order 15.1.

Before we begin, I'd like to remind all members and other meeting participants in the room of the following important preventative measures, which have changed.

To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents that can cause injuries, all in-person participants are reminded to keep their earpieces away from all microphones at all times.

As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all members on Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents.

All earpieces have been replaced by a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black in colour, whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please only use the black approved earpiece.

By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of a meeting.

When you are not using your earpiece, please place it face down in the middle of the sticker for this purpose, which you will find on the table as indicated.

Please consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.

The room layout has been adjusted to increase the distance between microphones and reduce the chance of feedback from an ambient earpiece.

These measures are in place so that we can conduct our business without interruption and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.

Thank you all for your co-operation.

In accordance with the committee's routine motion concerning connection tests for witnesses, I inform the committee that all witnesses have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

Those are the witnesses here, members. There are many officials and witnesses who are outside, and they may not have had that testing done. If they are called upon, we will suspend so that we can make sure their recording devices and interpretation devices are working well.

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

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For members in the room, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your understanding in this regard. As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair. Officials are at the meeting to answer technical questions on the bill.

Now we are moving to the annotated agenda.

Members, as we start clause-by-clause consideration, pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.

(Clause 1 allowed to stand)

There are no amendments to clauses 2 to 6, so I would seek unanimous consent to group those, members.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to come back to this debate.

I was debating the battle for the soul of Canada, a battle between, on one side, the left and NDP-Liberal socialism, with its spending problem approach, high crime rates, divided division, high taxation and an unproductive monopolistic economy and, on the other side, the vision for a common-sense Conservative economy, where government is leaner, taxes are lower, paycheques are better and competition thrives. Of course, we also talk about democracy. Democracy works when there is public trust and good fiscal stewardship. We are trying to make the lives of Canadians even better.

Canadians enjoyed a good life in the middle class nine years ago. Canadians, young and old, now see the truth after nine years. They see, now, a government that is, instead of working hard for the middle class and those looking to join it, shutting the door to the middle class and those very Canadians it promised help to nine years ago. To top it all off, we have a monopoly problem and more pain, where people are paying higher fees for airlines, groceries, banking and cell phones.

The government approved, mere months ago, the merger of RBC and HSBC, which was the number one bank buying the number seven bank. One can already see the costs of mergers and acquisitions to those Canadians and to all Canadians across Canada. The five-year variable for HSBC, before the merger, was 6.4%. Now, after the merger, just today, that variable rate is at 7.2% under RBC, meaning that, if those mortgage holders had a $500,000 mortgage, which is pretty low for Canada, they are now paying over $333 a month. The monopoly problem means that we have less competition, and it means that Canadians are paying higher rates.

When we look at open banking as a solution for our problem with banking, we do not get the legislation promised out of this budget. Just like a caterpillar, it says that it is coming soon.

The reality is that legislation on open banking would bring savings to Canadians. In the U.K., introducing open banking brought $400 per family, yet this legislation would just kick it down the road once again, six years after the government promised to introduce it. Another one, called real-time rail, which would bring modern payments and make payments faster between Canadians, has been delayed, deferred and postponed.

There have been no new announcements on grocery prices. The government says that it has done enough with Bill C-59. Of course, Canadians have the highest grocery prices in a whole generation and are buying less food.

We have false statements about halving phone bills. The Prime Minister said that he would halve phone bills. Canadians are paying more and specifically more for data, as Canadians consume more data, especially for doorbell cams, as they are seeing increases of auto theft and they have to monitor their cars. Canadians are using data. Companies, of course, are profiting from that.

Canadians, instead, are broke because capitalism without competition is not capitalism, where prices are freely negotiated. We do not have competition in this monopoly-centred Canada and, what is worse, the budget aims to tax those who stay.

Canadians in Canada are broke, but it does not have to be that way. The state has no money other than the money people earn themselves. If the state wants to spend more, it is only by borrowing from one's savings or taxing one more.

In contrast, Conservatives champion the principles of individual responsibility and limited government, greater revenues and growth. We would have a dollar-for-dollar rule. For every dollar we spend, we must find a dollar in savings, just like a family does.

As Canadians, we must have the conviction to embrace the principles of that conservatism, to reject the false promises of Liberal-NDP socialism and to defend the values of freedom, opportunity and prosperity.

We would fix the budget, build the homes and axe the tax, and we would make sure that we bring Canadians home a capitalist government that would bring home their paycheque and bring back the middle class.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Davies.

Thank you, Dr. Da Silva and Professor Lee. We really appreciate your remarks, your testimony and the many answers you gave to questions on Bill C-59 for our work.

We wish you a nice evening. We'll see you again at committee.

Thanks, everybody. We are adjourned.

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

Thank you for that.

Every microeconomics course teaches that barriers to entry determine the level of competition possible in a market.

Do you think the act as a whole should be revised in light of that? I see you nodding, so thank you.

Bill C‑59 also aims to prevent corporations and wealthy individuals from using tax avoidance, tax evasion and tax havens to pay less tax.

Do you have any comments on that?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

Mr. Lee, thank you for your presentation. I'm going to ask you some questions about Bill C‑59. In your presentation, you said that your comments were general and more macroeconomic in nature. However, some bills, such as Bill C‑59, amend the Competition Act.

What should regulations, laws and standards look like in a competitive economy, in your view? How should the act govern that?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Let's not lose that. That's very important. I think the reason it was done when I was younger was that it was the only thing the school system, the health care system, could afford, because it didn't cost a lot of money. We want to do that. Also, whatever I learned in grade school, I very much carried through in high school. I just want to say that as a reminder to us all.

Thank you for your leadership, by the way. I really appreciate all the work you have done.

My second question is for Mr. Lee.

Mr. Lee, you might be the guest most invited to the finance committee. I've been on this committee for almost four years now, and I think I've seen you for just about every single study.

We're here to talk about the fall economic statement, so I want to ask you a question on that. We have heard a number of industry guests who have come before us talk about the fall economic statement. They very much support the investment tax credit, and they have been very vocal in telling us to get going in approving the fall economic statement and Bill C-59.

Would you agree with them?

[Dr. Amrinderbir Singh, President, Canadian Association of Public Health Dentistry]

Thank you, Chair and committee.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Dr. Amrinderbir Singh. I'm the current president of the Canadian Association of Public Health Dentistry. I'm also an assistant professor and the director of inclusive community outreach at the College of Dentistry, University of Saskatchewan.

I am extremely honoured to be invited today to represent the Canadian Association of Public Health Dentistry, which I'll refer to as CAPHD, as a witness before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance in view of its study of Bill C-59. The CAPHD is the national voice for dental public health in Canada and exists to support members, government, institutions and agencies dedicated to improving oral health and assuring oral health equity for Canadians.

First of all, on behalf of CAPHD, I would like to applaud and acknowledge the tremendous efforts made by the federal government in the latest phase of the development of the Canadian dental care plan. This unprecedented initiative will enable many of our equity-deserving Canadians to access much-needed oral health care, potentially improving their overall health and well-being while decreasing the burden of oral disease in Canada.

The CAPHD promotes and advocates for equitable oral health care for all Canadians. We will continue working with the government, partner organizations and our membership to support the CDCP and advocate strongly for its uptake and utilization across Canada.

The CAPHD is closely following the phased rollout of the CDCP and eagerly awaits early reports regarding plan enrolment and utilization. Our association believes that it is critical for the CDCP to remain responsive to the evolving needs of Canadians. Continuous evaluation of the CDCP will be important for informing data-driven policy adjustments, and interdisciplinary collaborations will be vital for enhancing the CDCP's effectiveness. As the plan matures, the CAPHD looks forward to more emphasis on preventive services for caries and periodontal diseases. This includes upstream services that increase oral health literacy, such as oral health education and counselling and the encouragement of interventions addressing the microbiology of dental decay and gum disease.

To encourage more health care providers to support the plan and increase access to care for underserved Canadians, the CAPHD proposes alignment of the CDCP fees with the existing provincial fee guides in the future. We believe that harmonized compensation rates will encourage more providers to participate in the plan.

Additionally, the CAPHD would like clarification on how health care providers can coordinate benefits for individuals eligible under more than one public insurance plan, be it federal, provincial, territorial or municipal. This clarification is essential to streamline the processes for health care providers and ease the financial burden for eligible individuals, which aligns with the CAPHD's preference for minimizing out-of-pocket expenses for patients.

By addressing these key areas, the CAPHD aims to encourage greater provider participation in the plan and support a sustainable model of care. Success in these endeavours is contingent upon the active involvement of health care providers, equity-deserving communities and high-risk populations. The CAPHD commits to advocating for enrolment strategies that actively engage all crucial stakeholders and promote provider enrolment within its membership. These collaborative efforts may enhance the plan's reach and impact and support Canadians in accessing the oral health care they need.

However, I would like to take this opportunity to emphasize that access-to-care barriers are complex and multi-dimensional, especially for rural and remote communities and high-risk population groups. If I may, I will extend that to include inner-city areas. Hence, in future planning, we urge the government to consider investing more resources to address the access-to-care barriers.

Again, the CAPHD expresses profound gratitude for the recognition of oral health’s vital role in the overall well-being of all Canadians. The CDCP has the potential to contribute towards increasing our population health significantly in the forthcoming years. By prioritizing oral health, we anticipate a notable reduction in the overall burden of disease, thereby alleviating pressures on our health care system.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello to all my colleagues. I'm glad to be back with you.

Hello to all the witnesses as well, and thank you for being here.

My questions are for Mr. Kelly from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB.

My first question pertains to Bill C‑59, the massive budget implementation bill, not for this week's budget, but for last year's budget. That is what we are concerned with here today.

Does the CFIB have any comments on the changes the bill makes to the Competition Act? If so, what are they?

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Kelly.

Once again, Bill C‑59 includes a reform of the intergenerational transfer rules for farms and businesses. We in the Bloc Québécois fought for a long time to make headway on this.

Can you tell us how this is really useful, important and helpful to business owners?

[Daniel Kelly, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Thank you so much, Chair.

It is good to be with you all. I am coming to you from Calgary today.

I was in Ottawa earlier this week, so budgets are fresh on my mind. I was there to review the provisions of the 2024 budget. It's been a busy week for you and for me on that front.

Small and medium-sized businesses that are members of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business remain at this moment very fragile. There are lots of concerns, lots of worries about the months ahead. Many businesses have been hanging on by a thread over the last several months, and sadly it would take very little to push them over.

I think we should all pay very close attention to what's happening with respect to both business closures and business start-ups right now. We have a huge number of business closures, up dramatically from previous years, and we have had, over several months, for the first time in recorded history, more businesses closing than businesses opening. That is a very worrisome trend across Canada.

In recent days, some of our data at CFIB has shown a little glimmer of hope on the horizon. The potential of lower interest rates may provide some help to small and medium-sized companies. However, we also have to put that in the context of what's happened over the course of the past few months considering there have been four federal tax increases since January 1—an increase in Canada pension plan premiums, an increase in employment insurance premiums, a significant increase in the carbon tax on April 1 and a more modest increase, but an increase nonetheless, on liquor taxes across Canada.

With respect to the substance of the piece of legislation, Bill C-59, there are three big categories we've paid attention to. One of them is intergenerational business transfers. Another is employee ownership trusts, and the third is amendments to the Competition Act. On all three of these files, the legislation does, I think, move the ball forward.

We are pleased that the legislative changes being proposed for the intergenerational business transfers don't seem to dramatically veer from the intent of the private member's bill that was adopted by the House of Commons, so that is a good thing. However, we do worry that there may be a lot of administrative procedures gumming up the works. Some tax experts have told us that there are going to be 12 different tests to determine the legitimacy of an intergenerational business transfer. I worry about the red tape and paperwork we are creating through that process, recognizing that we want to make sure that these are valid transfers nonetheless.

On employee ownership trusts, there has been some positive momentum, in both the subject of Bill C-59 and this week's budget. We are particularly encouraged by the allocation of a capital gains exemption of up to $10 million with respect to transferring a business. That's not in this legislation, but I imagine it will be in the implementation of the current budget, and that is good news. We think this is a good pathway for small and medium-sized firms and we are pleased to see this moving forward.

Also, there are some good amendments to the Competition Act. Canada has fairly weak competition laws, generally speaking. Small firms really do need strong competition law to prevent the creation of monopolies and oligopolies, and we support some of the amendments that have been proposed.

I'll leave it there. I suspect I may get a question or two about the 2024 budget. I am happy to take any of your questions on this or on the previous one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 139 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, March 18, 2024, and the motion adopted on Monday, December 11, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss 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.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to Standing Order 15.1. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

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

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to the interpreters and can cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to the microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on. In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of our interpreters, I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and to avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

I remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

All virtual witnesses have been tested. Everybody is ready to go.

With us today we have Dr. Paul Allison, who is from McGill in Montreal. He will be with us to answer questions.

From the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, we have the president and chief executive officer, Mr. Daniel Kelly, via video conference.

Welcome.

We are going to start with Dr. Paul Allison for his five-minute opening statement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Zarrillo.

That's a great way to end this session and this panel right now.

We thank this excellent group of witnesses for coming before us, for their remarks, for their testimony and for all the questions that they answered on Bill C-59. We appreciate it.

Have a wonderful end to the day.

We are adjourned.

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

For my last question, one of the biggest barriers we're finding is interprovincial trade barriers. I know your organization has written extensively about this. Freeing those barriers could free up between $110 billion and $200 billion in GDP in Canada in the long run.

This is a bigger topic than we have one minute for, but in one minute, what do we need to do to release these trade barriers? Should this have been in Bill C-59 and others to increase competition and productivity? What can we do about interprovincial trade?

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

Mr. Dufort, I'm going to follow the same line.

We believe that you cannot tax your way to prosperity. I think Mr. Winston Churchill said that once. However, in this budget we see that our government is trying to hike taxes on investment, and anyone with experience in entrepreneurship investment sees how that will stifle growth. We're at a moment when capital is harder to access than at any time in the past generation. High interest rates and economic uncertainty mean that many high-growth companies and innovative products struggle to secure growth capital.

You've already made a pretty stark recommendation, but what should we be doing in Bill C-59, and in others, in order to ensure that we get growth and better investment and, as you said, productivity in our companies?

[Joan Rush, Vice-President and Advocacy Committee Chair, Canadian Society for Disability and Oral Health]

Chair Fonseca and committee members, good afternoon.

My name is Joan Rush, and I'm here on behalf of the Canadian Society for Disability and Oral Health, or CSDH. We thank you for this opportunity to speak to Bill C-59 and the Canada dental care plan, or CDCP. In addition to my comments to you, please refer to our written brief, which includes more detailed information on our recommendations to the committee.

The CSDH is a pan-Canadian, not-for-profit society run by expert oral health professionals and committed volunteers. We advocate for needed change to Canada's systems for oral health care delivery, education, research and governance to ensure equitable access to medically necessary oral health care for persons with disabilities.

More than 27% of Canadians live with a disability, half of them with a severe disability. Canadians with disabilities have the highest rates of dental disease among all Canadian adults and face the greatest barriers to accessing oral health care.

The CDCP presents an opportunity to lower these barriers and has the potential to enable Canada to meet its legal obligations to Canadians who live with disabilities. The CSDH applauds the federal government, which worked closely with its minority government colleagues, for creating the CDCP.

However, the CDCP will succeed in improving the oral health of Canadians who live with disabilities only if Canada's health, education, research and governance systems support it.

Regarding Bill C-59, the CSDH understands that the provision of the bill concerning sharing taxpayer information is necessary to administer the CDCP; however, we are concerned that not all persons who live with disabilities have filed their taxes or applied for the Canada disability tax credit. We recommend that your committee encourage the CRA and relevant federal ministries to work with the provincial and territorial ministries of social services to ensure that every person with a disability is assisted to file a tax return and to complete all administration necessary to qualify for the CDCP.

Our CSDH recommendations concerning the CDCP flow from Canada's legal obligations. The Canada Health Act enshrines the equal right of every Canadian to access medically necessary health care. Canada's private delivery system for oral health care fails to ensure equitable access to medically necessary oral health care to persons with disabilities, causing them pain, suffering and a loss of their oral and overall health.

Canada ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2010. Article 25 requires health professionals to provide care of the same quality to persons with disabilities as to others, including through training and the promulgation of ethical standards for public and private health care. Canada fails to meet either of these requirements of the convention.

Canada also breaches sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantee persons with disabilities security of the person and protection against disability-based discrimination. As lawmakers, I'm sure you agree that Canada must rectify this glaring failure to meet its legal obligations to persons with disabilities.

The CSDH makes the following six recommendations for changes to Canada's oral health care systems to meet Canada's legal obligations to Canadians who live with disabilities.

One, Health Canada should define oral health care for persons with disabilities as health care under the Canada Health Act, consistent with the World Health Organization's 2021 recommendation.

Two, the CDCP should recognize the additional treatment time necessary to treat a patient with a complex medical or intellectual disability.

Three, Canada must ensure access to essential medical infrastructure for patients with complex disabilities, including hospital or general anaesthesia facilities.

Four, Canada must train oral health providers to treat persons with disabilities to address the serious lack of appropriately trained professionals.

Five, Canada must collect data about the oral health status of persons with disabilities and research best practices to address their oral health needs.

Six, Canada must provide federal oversight to ensure the outcomes and the effectiveness of the CDCP.

Thank you again for offering the CSDH an opportunity to address you today. I will be pleased to answer your questions.

[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?

[Dr. Jennifer Quaid, Associate Professor and Vice-Dean Research, Civil Law Section, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, Deputy Chairs, members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, good morning.

For those who don't know me, I'm an associate professor and vice-dean of research at the University of Ottawa's Civil Law Section. My areas of expertise are corporate criminal law, general criminal law, business law, corporate regulation and competition law.

I am very pleased to appear before you to share my thoughts on section 6 of Bill C‑59, namely competition-related measures.

Let me add that, although I have prepared this statement primarily in English, I will, of course, be happy to answer your questions in the official language of your choice.

This is the first time that I am appearing before FINA—I'm glad to be here—but it is not the first time that I have appeared before parliamentary committees over the past couple of years, as the government has undertaken a major reform of the Competition Act, the first since 2009. As you know, the reform has been split into three parts: Bill C-19, enacted in June 2022, then Bill C-56, enacted in December 2023, and now Bill C-59 before you.

In the interests of time and given the scope of the proposed reform to the Competition Act, I will make four general points rather than going into detail about the extensive changes proposed, but I am at your disposal to answer questions on any aspects of the reform, and I may very well submit a brief if I have time.

Let me start by saying that the reform has made a lot of changes to the Competition Act, but not enough. Given the amount of political and public attention being directed at the state of competition—or the lack thereof—expectations for positive change flowing from this reform are very high, but are they warranted? To me, this is the central question that cuts across all aspects of the reform. Will we have better and more effective enforcement against anti-competitive practices and will we also at the same time promote better market and business conditions to promote a dynamic and innovative economy?

In my opinion, whether these expectations can be met depends on whether we are prepared to do what is necessary to operationalize the reform in a way that respects the spirit of what is driving the changes. It is also essential that we adopt a mindset of competition law and policy as a dynamic process that adapts to an ever-evolving economy while remaining true to the underlying values that Canadians share.

While there have been many changes to the act, fundamentally, it's still a cumbersome, overly detailed legislative text. This in the past has led to the development of complex analytical frameworks requiring specialized expert evidence. Obtaining remedies to anti-competitive behaviour is difficult, expensive and uncertain.

Many of the changes in the act right now are designed to respond to long-standing criticisms and to enforcement challenges, but I worry, to be frank, that fixing these problems is only.... We're not really addressing the underlying structural problems of how the act is designed. The fact that we've got all of these little different ways of going about characterizing conduct is actually just going to generate new problems. We haven't really done the rethink we need.

I could give one example. There's been an attempt to standardize the way we approach different reviewable practices, but in doing so, the fundamental question is, do we need to do that or could we just have one recourse for anti-competitive practices? Why, all of a sudden, are we blurring the lines between all of these different recourses? To me, that's creating a legal ambiguity that's not going to help anyone. I have other examples, but I'll talk about that in the questions, because I see my time going.

The second thing we need is a mechanism by which the act can be updated on a regular basis. Even with a perfect reform right now, we can't just stop and rest on our laurels. I think it's prudent to think about that now. We've had 15 years between the last reform and now; that's too long. What that means is that we've had to take on a huge reform and split it over three bills, but we've done it in two years. Everyone is still catching their breath, it's been so fast.

Given the pace at which technological and societal changes are occurring, I think it would make sense to plan for periodic review at maybe a three- or five-year interval. That way, we could do things in manageable chunks and not have to use this sort of wholescale giant process and then put it in a budget bill. I think we have to get into that mindset.

The third thing I'm going to raise is that for this reform to work it needs to be supported by adequate resources and expertise. Bill C-56 and Bill C-59 especially add considerable components to the bureau's mandate, and I don't see any new resources coming here. The last ones were allocated in 2021, as far as I know.

I worry for things like understanding labour impacts in mergers and trying to determine whether the bureau can issue a certificate for expertise in environmental issues. Are those things that we should just leave to the existing resources? I think we need to ask ourselves that question: Do we have the resources to make this work?

Finally, this is not the end—and I will close quickly, Mr. Chair. At the beginning of this process a couple of years ago, there was a lot of energy and enthusiasm, and it seemed like there was more audacity and willingness to think outside the box. Then we kind of got into a more technocratic mindset, and what we have before us are a lot of changes, but they are mostly technical and legal.

I think we still need to have that broader conversation about what competition law and policy in the 21st century look like, and we need to do that by consulting people and talking to Canadians about what they want and then maybe having a broader process of approaching it. There's a lot of energy. There are a lot of new voices to the conversation. There's a lot of enthusiasm. I really wish they would do that.

Thank you.

[Olivier Surprenant, Public Policy and Health Analyst, Union des consommateurs]

Good morning, members of the committee.

First of all, we welcome the changes to competition law. Increasing competition can be a way of reducing the price of goods and services. Both the Competition Bureau and the Competition Tribunal must therefore have the right tools giving them greater power so that, ultimately, they can fulfill their mandate properly.

We particularly welcome the expansion of remedies available to private parties. In our view, this amendment is worthwhile in terms of defending consumer rights, particularly given the addition of remedies for deceptive commercial practices.

We also welcome the intention to frame the right to repair and the government's intention to consult on this issue, as confirmed in Tuesday's budget.

In short, we believe that the federal government should draw inspiration in particular from the French legislation surrounding repairability and durability ratings.

When it comes to regulating grocers and suppliers, we believe that industry self-regulation through the Canada Code will not achieve the desired objectives. It is essential to adopt a mandatory code of conduct between grocers and suppliers, to provide it with sanctions, to have its application supervised by an independent authority, in this case the Competition Bureau, and above all to ensure that consumer groups are consulted as part of its development.

In addition to the competition measures set out in Bill C‑59, we believe that other measures would help reduce the effect of the rising cost of living, particularly when it comes to food.

That is why we are proposing, for one, to abolish the Goods and Services Tax, or GST, pertaining to essential goods and products, including all food products.

We are also proposing that the government tackle the problem of shrinkflation by imposing mandatory display of quantity changes to products for a period of six months, following the example of Brazilian legislation.

In summary, we believe that Bill C‑59 provides some very promising measures to tackle the rising cost of living. We believe, however, that the bill could go even further, including by making a code of conduct for grocers mandatory and by abolishing the GST on food products.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[Maxime Dorais, Co-Director general, Union des consommateurs]

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, good morning.

My name is Maxime Dorais, and I'm co-CEO of Union des consommateurs.

I would first like to thank Mr. Gabriel Ste‑Marie for inviting us to appear before the committee to present our analysis of Bill C‑59.

First, let me introduce you to our organization. Union des consommateurs represents 14 consumer rights associations. Our mission is to promote and defend consumer rights, with a particular focus on low-income households.

In addition to consumer law, Union des consommateurs' team of risk analysts also takes a keen interest in social policies. On top of research and public awareness work, the union undertakes collective actions to support consumers and advance consumer law.

As part of the bill currently under study, we were primarily interested in measures affecting competition and affordability in grocery stores.

I'll now hand over to my colleague Olivier Surprenant, public policy analyst.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 138 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, March 18, 2024, and the motion adopted on Monday, December 11, 2024, the committee is meeting to discuss 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.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to Standing Order 15.1. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

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

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and can cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when their microphone or their neighbour's microphone is turned on, in order to prevent incidents and to safeguard the hearing health of our interpreters.

I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and to avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

I remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the raise-hand function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as well as we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

With us today as individuals are witnesses David Brown, realtor; and Jennifer Quaid, associate professor and vice-dean of research, civil law section, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa. She will be joining us shortly. From the Canadian Dental Association, we have Aaron Burry, chief executive officer. From the Union des consommateurs, we have Maxime Dorais, co-director general, as well as Olivier Surprenant, analyst, public policy and health.

Welcome, everyone.

David Brown is here. We'll start with him for five minutes.

Go ahead, please.

Carbon Pricing

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the hon. member that he should just advance a couple of rows up here. I could introduce him, if he would like to speak to the opposition House leader. Bill C-234 is completely in their hands. If they would like to bring it to the floor for a vote, we could deal with it.

While I am on my feet and we are talking about doubling, Bill C-59 is something he could also do something about. It would bring the carbon rebate to double what it is today. Let us pass that today, have a positive impact for the constituents he serves and bring a better carbon rebate to rural Canada.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, today New Brunswickers can look forward to receiving a Canada carbon rebate payment in their bank account.

For example, this year, a family of four in New Brunswick will receive $760 through the Canada carbon rebate. That is $183 more than they received last year. If the Conservatives stop obstructing Bill C‑59, families in rural communities will receive an additional 20% of the amounts I just mentioned.

Our plan is making Canadians better off. Our carbon pricing system is putting more money back in the pockets of eight out of 10 Canadians through the Canada carbon rebates, while building a better future for our children and grandchildren.

The future of our planet and coming generations is more important than the official opposition's slogans.

Climate Change

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in 2015, Canada was on the wrong track. The Canadian government at the time had no climate plan. It was free to pollute and emissions kept going up. Now, because of work done in Nova Scotia and across the country, our emissions have declined by 8%.

For the first time ever, we are on track to meet our 2026 climate target, thanks in no small part to pollution pricing and the Canada carbon rebate.

Starting today, a Nova Scotia family of four will receive the first instalment of their $824 rebate. For the average family in my province, that is $157 more than they will pay out over the year. For rural families, they will get more when Conservatives finally stop blocking the 20% top-up in Bill C-59.

While the other side tries to ruin the rebate, hurting lower-income Canadians, we will continue our work to help Canadians leave a healthier planet for our grandkids.

Climate Action

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for the first time ever, we are on track to meet our 2026 climate target.

Most importantly, Ontario families, including those in Ottawa—Vanier, will receive $1,120 this year through the Canada carbon rebate, starting today. That means an extra $255 in their pockets. If the Conservatives stop their delay tactics, rural Ontario families can expect an extra 20% with the passage of Bill C‑59.

In 2015, Canada was clearly off track when it came to greenhouse gas emissions. The Conservatives had no plan, polluting was free and emissions kept rising. Today, thanks to the efforts of Canadians and our government, Canada's emissions have dropped by 8%.

The Conservatives refuse to fight climate. They prefer to chant slogans rather than help Canadians. On this side of the House, we are reducing emissions while making life better for eight out of 10 Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Davies.

We want to thank our witnesses for their compelling testimony, their advocacy, and the work they do in our communities from coast to coast to coast. We truly appreciate your coming here on Bill C-59.

Thank you. Have a great day.

Members, at this time, we are adjourned.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to continue with Mr. German.

I was quite blown away by your presentation and all your answers to my fellow members' excellent questions.

Coming back to Bill C-59, I have a two-part question for you.

First, what would you recommend to improve the bill in terms of amendments? If you don't have them all now, it would be appreciated if you could get back to the committee in writing.

Second, what measures should Canada and the other levels of government implement to better combat money laundering, based on the experience of the European Union, the United States and other jurisdictions?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Now, Bill C-59 would also permit a court to “infer the knowledge or belief or recklessness required in relation to the offence of laundering proceeds of crime”. That is “if it is satisfied, given the circumstances of the offence, that the manner in which the accused dealt with the property or its proceeds is markedly unusual or the accused's dealings are inconsistent with lawful activities typical of the sector”.

How can courts effectively apply the inference provision to determine the “knowledge or belief or recklessness required” for money laundering offences?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I think you touched on this, but I want to explore a bit the notion that Bill C-59 would require entities that provide acquirer services in relation to private automated banking machines to register as money services businesses. In your view, what impact will that have? What criteria should entities providing acquirer services for private ABMs be required to meet to register as money services businesses?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thanks.

Dr. German, Bill C-59 would permit FINTRAC to disclose designated information to the Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, subject to certain conditions. What impact do you expect this provision to have on the investigation and prosecution of money laundering, terrorist financing or sanctions evasion offences?

[Dr. Peter German, Chair, Advisory Committee, Vancouver Anti-Corruption Institute]

Thank you for the invitation to appear before this committee.

I wish to address certain amendments related to money laundering that are contained within Bill C-59.

Before doing so, allow me to introduce myself and to apologize for not being there with you.

I've been engaged in the field of anti-money laundering since Canada adopted proceeds of crime legislation in 1989. That work included being director general of financial crime for the RCMP, completing graduate degrees on the topic, teaching at law schools, providing expert opinion evidence, speaking within Canada and internationally, and working as a consultant. I'm the author of a text published by Thomson Reuters, which has been on the market since 1998 and is the only current service dealing with Canada's proceeds of crime legislation.

The Vancouver Anti-Corruption Institute is an entity created in part as a response to two reports written for the then attorney general David Eby: “Dirty Money” and “Dirty Money—Part 2”.

Mr. Jeffrey Simser, who appeared before this committee on April 9 of this year, is a professional colleague of mine and has a distinguished record of service in the province of Ontario, including being the first director of civil forfeiture in Canada. We endorse the comments he made to this committee and will not repeat them.

In British Columbia, there are virtually no prosecutions under way for money laundering. Police officers and prosecutors cite a plethora of reasons why. Most revolve around the wording of the Criminal Code and judicial decisions. As a result, most asset forfeiture in B.C. occurs by way of civil forfeiture. British Columbia has a very successful civil forfeiture regime. This is good; however, it simply removes money and goods from criminal actors, which they should not have in the first place. The individuals are not sanctioned, they are not charged and they do not go to jail. We need a robust Criminal Code regime that deals with money laundering.

For many years, the major complaint of police and prosecutors has been the difficulty in connecting dirty money to its predicate crime, which is a requirement of the offences. Bill C-59 attempts to overcome that obstacle in the case of third party money launderers. These are individuals who do not necessarily commit predicate offences, such as drug trafficking, but specialize in the laundering of money. Internationally, we now use the term “global money-laundering organizations” to identify third party money-laundering entities that contract their services. In many cases, they operate out of major financial hubs.

Canada has witnessed a considerable uptake in money laundering. We are an easy target for laundering organizations for any number of reasons.

I am pleased to see the amendments to the Criminal Code that attempt to deal with third party money laundering. I'm also very pleased that the undertaking requirement that was previously located within the “Special search warrant” and “Restraint order” provisions of the Criminal Code is being removed.

My only disappointment is that it has taken us since 1989 to make these changes. This is symptomatic of a greater problem. We are tweaking our legislation; we are not grabbing it, shaking it and making sure it is effective. Without going into detail, I fully anticipate that there will be further amendments to the very amendments being considered today.

I also wish to support the inclusion of white-label ATMs under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. People, such as I, have been calling for this change for probably 20 years. It is well overdue.

Members of the committee, we can do better. Canadians do not want their country to become a haven for money launderers. This will require political and bureaucratic will and a continuing commitment to rid Canada of this vice.

Thank you. I am most pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[Rob Cunningham, Senior Policy Analyst, Canadian Cancer Society]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity.

My name is Rob Cunningham. I'm a lawyer and senior policy analyst for the Canadian Cancer Society.

My testimony will focus on the provisions in Bill C-59 for the cost recovery fee for tobacco and vaping companies in clauses 217 and 218 and the vaping tax administration and enforcement provisions in clauses 145 to 167.

With respect to the cost recovery fee, it would provide enabling authority for regulations to require tobacco companies and vaping companies to reimburse the federal government for the $66 million annual cost of the federal tobacco control strategy. We strongly support this measure and thank, with appreciation, the government for bringing it forward. Indeed, we thank all parties for their unanimous 323-to-zero vote at second reading in support of this measure.

The cost recovery fee has a long history. In 2021, this committee recommended the fee in its pre-budget report. In the 2021 federal election, it was in the Liberal, Conservative and NDP platforms. In the 2019 federal election, it was in the Conservative platform and called for by the NDP. It was in the health minister's 2021 mandate letter. MP Don Davies, now on this committee, has been a long champion, with motions introduced in the current and previous Parliaments.

It shouldn't be all Canadians who are paying for the government's strategy to reduce smoking, a strategy that also now regards vaping. It should be the tobacco industry with the principles of accountability and fiscal responsibility. The tobacco industry has caused the tobacco epidemic and vast health devastation, and it should be responsible for the cost of reducing tobacco use.

Moreover, the vaping industry has benefited significantly financially due to high rates of youth vaping, with many previous teenagers now older, addicted and vaping as adults. They may be addicted to nicotine for life. It should be noted that the tobacco industry is a major player in the vaping industry as well.

In the U.S., a cost recovery fee has been in place since 2009, administered by the FDA. Each year, $712 million U.S., more than $900 million Canadian, is recovered from tobacco companies on the basis of market share to reimburse the FDA's tobacco control budget. If the U.S. can have a cost recovery fee, surely we can in Canada.

Here in Canada, we've had a cost recovery fee on the cannabis industry since 2018. If we can do it for cannabis, we can do it for tobacco and vaping.

The tobacco industry, on average, over a nine-and-a-half year period, has increased their own prices, not including tax, by $30.40 a carton. They increased their own prices by 180% in a period when cumulative inflation was just 28%. As a result, they have incremental revenues of $2 billion a year or more. Can they afford $66 million a year to pay to the federal government? Yes, they can.

For the cost recovery fee, we have three proposed amendments to strengthen the implementation. The amendments are short and simple and would advance the bill's objectives and the government's objectives. Draft legislative text with rationale for these recommended amendments has been provided to the clerk.

First, we urge the legislation to require that companies pay upfront: Unless the company has paid the fee, they can't sell the product. That's the way a tobacco excise tax works. The government shouldn't have to be chasing companies after the fact.

Second, the maximum fine for contravening cost recovery fee provisions should be increased from just $50,000 to $500,000, a maximum already found frequently elsewhere in the act. A fine of only $50,000 would merely be the cost of doing business for a tobacco company.

Third, the legislation should explicitly state that the Service Fees Act does not apply to tobacco and vaping cost recovery fees, just as the Cannabis Act states that the Service Fees Act does not apply to the cannabis cost recovery fee. It is not the case here that there is a service, and thus a fee for that service, such as an approval of a patent or a prescription drug.

With respect to the vaping tax administration and enforcement provisions, they are important to ensure that the vaping product tax works well, including to reduce youth vaping.

Finally, I want to highlight the category of disposable e-cigarettes. They are very popular with youth and have recently taken off in Canada. They are very inexpensive and are undermining the objective of the vaping product tax of reducing youth vaping. Before the Senate finance committee recently, even Imperial Tobacco urged an increase in the tax rate for disposable e-cigarettes.

Thank you. We look forward to your questions.

[Joan DiFruscia, Chair, Otonabee-South Monaghan Food Cupboard]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Standing Committee on Finance.

I am honoured to be here to speak to you on the issue of affordability from the perspective of people who are living in poverty, such as the families served by the Otonabee-South Monaghan Food Cupboard, also known as the OSM Food Cupboard.

The OSM Food Cupboard is a rural food bank located in Keene, Ontario, in the riding of Northumberland—Peterborough South. The OSM Food Cupboard opened over 10 years ago as an outreach project of Keene United Church, and it supports residents of the township and Hiawatha First Nation.

Please consider this: When you leave this meeting today, I assume that you have a safe place to go, where you will be sleeping tonight, the next night and so on. Tomorrow you will make choices for breakfast, lunch and dinner. But what if you are food-insecure? For example, with Ontario Works, the basic social assistance program in Ontario, you receive just over $700 a month, the same as in 2018. After you pay rent, if you can find a place for, say, $700—please don’t laugh at that comment—and pay for utilities, for gas, as your friend drives you to a training program, for a cellphone, for receiving calls for potential jobs.... Whoa. You ran out of money long ago. And then what about food?

The reality is that there just isn’t enough money to cover the costs of even the essential items. With all the stress, what is a person’s health like, physically and mentally?

At the OSM Food Cupboard, between November 2023 and February of this year, the number of families with children doubled. Children now make up one-third of the individuals supported by our food bank. Keep in mind that whether it's one member or six members, families come to our food bank only when they need to, and select the foods they need.

The volunteer staff and committee members are dedicated and compassionate in working to support the families. The Food Cupboard is a reliable and consistent source of food, and also offers a listening ear. A family can pay their electricity bill knowing that there is help with food needs. Over time, special relationships have developed between the staff and the families, along with respect for each other. Please know that people do want to improve their lives. The fact is that when one lives in deep poverty, it is, like a deep hole, extremely difficult to climb out of.

In this amazing country of Canada, what solutions are there for dealing with the root cause of poverty, which is low income? One solution is a guaranteed livable income.

A second solution is governments of all levels and stripes collaborating with the shared goal of lifting people out of poverty. Mechanisms need to be in place to prevent clawbacks, such as during the rollout of the Canada disability benefit, thus improving the lives of people living on disability.

A third is that supports to cover benefits during a transition period from social assistance to even a part-time minimum-wage precarious job would encourage people to leave the social safety net.

Four, affordable housing, such as Otonabee Court in Keene, allows long-time residents of the area to continue to live in the community, paying either market rent or geared-to-income rates, depending on their income.

Financially, there are costs to all of society when people live in poverty. The already stressed health care system responds as best it can, as adults living in poverty are more likely to need treatment for such chronic conditions as heart disease and diabetes, plus mental health conditions. There are also costs to the justice and education systems. There is a tremendous cost to not making changes, which also prevents people from living up to their full potential.

I have been involved with food banks for over 40 years. The system is broken. Food banks are not helping people get ahead. Recently, food insecurity has grown substantially, partly due to inflation, but it's a global phenomenon and not something unique to Canada. For our food cupboard, which distributes food once a month, I have heard this comment: “I live for two weeks and then I exist for two weeks—until the next food distribution day.” That is not acceptable in this country.

Members of the Standing Committee on Finance, you have a responsibility to ensure that government investment responds to the needs of Canadians.

Bill C-59 aims to implement elements of the 2023 fall economic statement, but shortly you will also likely have a role to play in implementing elements of budget 2024.

I am here today to tell you that we are facing a food insecurity crisis that needs to be urgently addressed. As you consider Bill C-59 and eventually budget 2024, I urge you to consider prioritizing the needs of low-income Canadians.

I just want to thank MP Lawrence for the opportunity to speak today.

Thank you.

[Konstadin Kantzavelos, President, Canadian Fabricare Association]

Honourable Chair and respected members of the Standing Committee on Finance, good afternoon. My name is Konstadin Kantzavelos. I have been operating my business, TSC Wetclean, in the city of Mississauga since 1988.

I am a proud member and president of the Canadian Fabricare Association, where I have sat on the board since 2013. It's an honour to represent and lead an organization rooted in our industry since 1949 that currently represents over 10,000 jobs across Canada.

The CFA is the governing body of professional dry cleaners, wet cleaners, launderers and allied trades dedicated to providing fabric and textile care services and solutions from coast to coast by establishing good management, ethical conduct and proper operating procedures. Today is our association's most important opportunity to represent our interests. Please allow me to shed light on our industry's contribution to the Canadian economy and the challenges we have faced. More importantly, please allow me to illustrate how the Canadian government and the CFA can work together to revitalize and reinvigorate business across Canada.

No industry suffered more than the fabric care industry during COVID-19. We saw up to a 90% drop in revenue across the country for over two years. Over 50% of our fabric care locations closed nationwide. Working from home was the key element in these declining numbers. For many Canadians, suits, shirts, ties, skirts and dresses are the uniforms worn for work, similar to everyone in this room today.

I am here today to celebrate the major contribution of the small business owners of the Canadian Fabricare Association across Canada. We are members of a small business community that constitutes 98% of all businesses in Canada—small companies. Small businesses employ over 10 million Canadians and are responsible for 50% of Canada’s GDP.

According to Statistics Canada, the average person spends approximately 10 hours weekly on unpaid work. The primary work we're talking about here is laundry. An Ipsos Reid poll conducted on behalf of GE Appliances revealed that 30% of Canadians find they only get around to it when they've run out of clean underwear, 25% of Canadians confessed that they've left their clothes in the washer or dryer for days before tending to them and 41% said they simply guess at methods of stain removal.

Most recently, as read in the Financial Post this past March, the Bank of Canada's senior deputy governor, Carolyn Rogers, spoke on the declining state of Canadian productivity. According to Rogers, Canada must tackle weak productivity to inoculate the economy against factors driving future inflation.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development revealed that Canada ranks 29th among 38 OECD countries for labour productivity. To put this in layman’s terms, in the time a Canadian worker produces one dollar's worth of goods and services, an American worker produces $1.30. That's a 30% advantage.

These statistics are important because despite most industries having raised their prices on consumers, the members of the CFA have kept their prices relatively unchanged because of our investment in the proper technology and advanced productivity.

In February 2021, during the height of the pandemic, Swedish consumers who turned their laundry, dry cleaning and clothing alterations over to professional cleaners received a tax deduction of 25% of the cost. The Swedish association put forward a plan to educate its government on how that incentive could work.

The CFA is no different. It looks at our diversity as a strength and at our employees as our greatest asset. We are a green circular industry. We focus on proper textile care, which extends the life of fabrics and removes uncertainty from the consumer. Our members are certified through the CFA, which means they meet the required environmental, economic and social standards. Committee members may be interested to know that all our industry members continually deliver towards the preservation of our environment and our ecosystem by adhering to all federal government guidelines on waste management.

By implementing a tax incentive, the Canadian government will demonstrate its commitment to a greener economy. Considering that we live in times of viruses and harmful diseases, what better way to promote cleanliness to every Canadian household than with a tax incentive to have their fabrics and garments cleaned professionally?

As the president of the CFA, it is my job to inform you of the importance of what our industry stands for in our communities—the preservation of our environment and our economy. What we are proposing is a tax credit of 25% to incentivize using the services of professional fabric care in every Canadian household. This is where Bill C-59 can assist. Just as in Sweden, the CFA can be a resource for the Government of Canada in paving the way for maintaining the stability and economic growth of the Canadian fabric and textile care industry.

We request that this committee make a focused choice to work with the Canadian Fabricare Association and ensure that our proposal for a tax incentive can become a reality and prevent our small businesses from disappearing.

Here are some suggestions for requirements for this tax incentive. You must be at least 18 years old, live in Canada and pay taxes on at least 90% of your total income. The maximum amount of annual cleaning expense to use the tax incentive would be $5,000 per household. The professional garment care provider must be registered with the Canadian Fabricare Association, and you do not need to own your property to receive the incentive.

Which services are covered for this deduction? They include dry cleaning, wet cleaning, laundry wash and fold, clothing repairs and alterations, area rug cleaning and upholstery cleaning.

Thank you very much for the time today.

[David Robinson, Executive Director, Canadian Association of University Teachers]

Great. Thank you, Chair.

I'm very grateful for the invitation to be here today on behalf of the Canadian Association of University Teachers. We represent 72,000 faculty, librarians and professional staff at more than 120 post-secondary institutions in all provinces across the country.

I want to focus my remarks today on Bill C-59's proposed exclusion of public post-secondary institutions from the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The CAUT fully supports these important changes. Corporate insolvency and bankruptcy processes are inappropriate and unnecessary for publicly funded universities and colleges and are counter to the fundamental values and principles of those institutions, including collegial decision-making and academic freedom.

We learned this lesson the hard way. As we heard earlier, in February 2021, Laurentian University in Sudbury was the first-ever publicly funded university to apply for and receive CCAA protection. As the Auditor General eventually concluded in her report on the matter, invoking the CCAA was unnecessary, inappropriate, costly and a destructive decision by the university's administration. It was unnecessary because mechanisms to deal with the institution's financial challenges already existed.

First, the university did not follow the normal, broader public-sector precedent and refused financial assistance that was offered by the provincial government.

Second, it deliberately ignored contractual obligations with the Laurentian University Faculty Association that provides for a process to deal with instances of bona fide financial shortfalls. Virtually every faculty association in Canada has negotiated so-called financial exigency provisions in their collective agreements that specify how the academic community as a whole can manage financial crises, while protecting core educational values. Instead, the administration of Laurentian used the CCAA to ignore the collective agreement and withhold financial information, and turned to an expensive, combative and unnecessary process.

In pursuing protection under the CCAA, the administration also betrayed the fundamental values of the university. Historically, financial exigency clauses arose in collective agreements to protect the principles of collegial academic decision-making and academic freedom. Financial exigency processes ensure that decisions about academic restructuring and program closures are made not by administrative diktat, but with the active participation of the academic community, those who have the expertise on educational matters.

Financial exigency language also protects the foundational value of all universities. That's academic freedom. It grants academic staff the right to teach, research and express views without institutional censorship or reprisal. Academic freedom, as the Supreme Court of Canada has noted, is necessary to “allow free and fearless search for knowledge and the propagation of ideas” and is “essential to our continuance as a lively democracy”. Financial exigency language ensures that administrations do not use a financial crisis as a cover to violate academic freedom by targeting academics they find controversial, difficult or unpopular.

Finally, the CCAA process was also extremely and needlessly costly. Laurentian University spent tens of millions of dollars on lawyers and consultants while nearly 200 faculty and staff positions were lost and 69 programs were cancelled, many of which were unique French-language and indigenous programming, including the only indigenous bilingual midwifery program serving northern Ontario.

In the wake of what happened at Laurentian, CAUT commissioned a report by lawyer Simon Archer and Virginia Torrie, a former professor of law at the University of Manitoba. They concluded:

The policy objectives of public institutions, such as universities, are inconsistent with the core rationale of insolvency law to promote commercial risk-taking. Applying the CCAA to such institutions changes the ground rules on which they operate. This...undermines university governance, internal decision-making, and transparency.

The report concludes by emphasizing the pressing need to amend the CCAA and Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to preclude its use by public universities and colleges.

I therefore urge the committee to support those amendments.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I would like to thank the mayor and all the witnesses for being here and for their testimony. There has been a lot of very poignant testimony today. Time is limited, but we are taking notes, and we'll try to improve Bill C‑59.

My questions are for the representatives of the Union des municipalités du Québec.

Mr. Damphousse, hello again. My colleague Xavier Barsalou‑Duval also sends his regards.

I'll first talk about the gas tax program and Quebec's contribution. Since I was elected in 2015, this is the first time we've received so many copies of municipal resolutions sent to the government to say, as you mentioned, that the funds must be released and that an agreement must be reached quickly. Can you explain to us again the importance of taking action, and of doing so now?

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you. I will share my time.

I'd like to begin with the Laurentian University Faculty Association. I'm not sure which one of you would like to answer, or if you'll both want to come in on this.

Certainly, changes in the bill have been a long time coming, and you know this from your difficult experiences in 2021. Ontario's Auditor General said there was a strong argument that the CCAA is an inappropriate and perhaps damaging remedy for public entities. Bill C-59 moves in the same vein.

How do you see the provisions in the bill protecting institutions like yours in the future and promoting alternative ways of dealing with financial challenges?

[Linda St-Pierre, Executive Director and Chief Steward, Laurentian University Faculty Association]

The CCAA is designed as a remedy for commercial companies, not for our public universities. The public good that universities offer is undermined by an insolvency law designed for private companies that put the interest of big creditors ahead of the mission of our universities.

When Laurentian University filed for protection under the CCAA, it meant that decisions on what happened at a public university supported by taxpayer dollars were made based on a balance sheet and not what is best for students or public education and research.

Post-secondary institutions have commercial elements, but they are not governed by the market interest alone—or even primarily. They meet a variety of socio-economic considerations, such as linguistic and cultural diversity, and regional and equity development. Unless public post-secondary education institutions are removed from being under the CCAA, they are at risk of being defined solely by commercial interests, which is the opposite of what they should be.

In the case of Laurentian University, the use of the CCAA also meant additional costs for a public institution. The process is needlessly expensive compared to the normal financial exigency option, where universities work collaboratively with the provincial government and the faculty association in times of true financial stress.

The Auditor General's report highlighted that Laurentian University administration spent tens of millions of dollars on lawyers and consultants to work through the CCAA process. Instead of using university funds—which come largely from government grants and student tuition fees—to save education programs and mitigate the damage of their financial situation, they went to lawyers and consultants.

Division 7 of Bill C-59 changes the definition of “corporation” and “company” in the CCAA and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to exclude post-secondary education institutions. We were happy to see this included in Bill C-59. This is an essential step to making sure that what happened at Laurentian doesn't happen at another public institution. It creates a more secure future for post-secondary education.

I urge the committee to support this section of the legislation, particularly in light of the harsh lessons learned from Laurentian University.

Marsi. Meegwetch. Thank you.

[Nicholas Schiavo, Director, Federal Affairs, Council of Canadian Innovators]

Thank you.

Good afternoon to the chair, the vice-chairs and members of the Standing Committee on Finance. Thank you for the opportunity to present today on Bill C-59 and the efforts to implement budget 2023 and the corresponding fall economic statement.

My name is Nick Schiavo, and I am the director of federal affairs for the Council of Canadian Innovators, or CCI. I am joined by my colleague Laurent Carbonneau, director of policy and research.

CCI is a national business council representing 150 of Canada's fastest-growing companies. Our member companies are headquartered here in Canada, employ north of 52,000 employees across Canada and are market leaders in the sectors of health, clean and financial technologies; cybersecurity; AI; and more.

There is no denying the tough economic position Canada finds itself in today. For years we've heard about this precarious position, often referred to as the great Canadian slump, as the lost decade or even most recently, by the senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, as a productivity “emergency”. Regardless of the choice of words, the warnings are clear: Canada is facing a rising cost of living, stagnating growth and declining productivity. Taken together, these factors are having a negative impact on our GDP per capita and, by extension, the quality of life that Canadians expect.

Currently this stagnation is predicted to make Canada the worst-performing economy in the OECD from 2030 to 2060. Taken together with a variety of structural challenges facing our country, such as climate change, war and cyberwarfare, health care issues and a lack of competition, the status quo is simply not working. Canada needs to chart a new path forward for sustained growth and prosperity rooted in a strong innovation economy.

Looking back to budget 2023 and the fall economic statement and, more importantly, looking ahead to budget 2024 and beyond, Canada must develop and implement a smart industrial strategy that builds wealth, enhances productivity and aligns with our other strategic priorities. At the heart of this strategic lens must be industry-led reforms to Canada's research and development frameworks and procurement mechanisms at all levels of government, alongside other important innovation levers, including a patent box regime.

In the spirit of the government's central theme of budget 2023 to build a stronger, more sustainable and more secure Canadian economy for everyone, today I'd like to speak to two opportunities to do exactly that.

First is enhancing the scientific research and experimental development tax credit to maximize the full benefits of R and D performed in our country, and second is reforming Canada's outdated procurement processes to spur economic growth and better service delivery for Canadians.

CCI has spent months engaging with Canadian innovators and the tech ecosystem to develop comprehensive research reports to enhance both SR and ED and procurement in Canada. These timely reports are tabled for the committee alongside these opening remarks.

Canada's scientific research and experimental development tax credit, or SR and ED, is the single largest science and innovation policy lever in the federal government's tool kit. For over five years, CCI has called on the government to update this critical innovation program, and we are pleased to see the ongoing consultation at this time. With an expected budget of nearly $4 billion in 2024, it is 10 times larger than any other science and innovation policy tool. Now more than ever, in a constrained fiscal environment, the government should be seeking to maximize the long-term benefits of SR and ED for the national economy.

Unfortunately, despite the long history of SR and ED dating back to the 1940s and other research tax incentives, gross expenditure on research and development and business enterprise R and D, also known as BERD, is low in Canada by the standards of other advanced economies. In 2020, Canada's BERD was the second lowest in the G7 after Italy, despite having more generous tax support for business R and D than all but the U.K. and France. Canadian firms also make less use of intangible assets compared to global firms. For context, intangible assets like intellectual property make up 70% of the value of firms listed on the TSX and over 90% on the S&P 500.

As such, Canada should incentivize early investment in IP development and protection so that firms maintain the ability to export into large markets. This is referred to as the freedom to operate, and it is critical for companies looking to scale, export, compete globally and ensure strong economic growth for the Canadian economy.

Additionally, SR and ED needs more transparency. The net benefits of the program to Canada should be made public on an ongoing basis so that Canadians understand what SR and ED is doing for their economy. Wherever possible, more of the benefits should flow directly to firms performing innovative activities and less to intermediaries such as tax preparation consultants by simplifying administration.

Similarly, the current culture of government procurement, both federally and provincially, is not serving the Canadian economy and is not serving government's own purposes. In fact, in 2021, procurement amounted to 14.6% of Canada's GDP, translating into billions of dollars and a meaningful force that shapes our economy. Canadian governments especially struggle to buy innovative, novel products and services, which does little to help Canada’s other innovation problems.

There is no single solution to improving our performance in government technology procurement. However, the government should begin by tackling the big problems—excessive risk aversion, processes that don’t allow for iterative innovation, low capacity and expertise and a lack of pathways from procurement to the market—and use a variety of tools to address them in tandem.

Ultimately, governments across Canada need to build a culture where an empowered public service can find novel solutions to the problems they face, where innovators are confident that selling innovative products and services to government will be worth their time and will help grow their business and where the public ultimately benefits from more agile, solutions-oriented government.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 137 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, March 18, 2024, and the motion adopted on Monday, December 11, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss 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.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to Standing Order 15.1. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

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

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on, to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of the interpreters. I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and to avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

All virtual witnesses for this meeting have been tested, and everybody is ready to go.

With us today, as we start our afternoon panels, from the Council of Canadian Innovators, we have Laurent Carbonneau, director of policy and research, and Nicholas Schiavo, director of federal affairs.

From the Daily Bread Food Bank, we have Neil Hetherington, chief executive officer.

From the Laurentian University Faculty Association, we have Fabrice Colin, president, and Linda St-Pierre, executive director and chief steward.

From the Union des municipalités du Québec, we have Martin Damphousse, president and mayor of Varennes, and Samuel Roy, strategic policy adviser. They are with us via video conference.

Welcome to all.

With that, we are going to start with opening remarks of up to five minutes.

We will start with the Council of Canadian Innovators.

Go ahead, Mr. Schiavo.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

Members, the meeting this afternoon will be in room 320 of the Wellington Building.

As well, members, with regard to the deadline for amendments, the clerk's email from March 19 explains the process for the amendments. The clerk has indicated that the legislative clerks need a certain amount of time. We're asking that amendments on Bill C-59 be set for 5 p.m. on Monday, April 22, if everybody is good with that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

I want to give my last time to you, Ms. MacEwen. We're debating Bill C-59 now. We have a budget coming Tuesday. What advice would you give the federal government in terms of something you'd like to see done to help spur our economy?

[Fanny Labelle, Administrator, Board of directors, Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi]

Good afternoon.

I am appearing before you on behalf of the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi, or MASSE, which represents 17 groups advocating for the rights of the unemployed workers of Quebec and New Brunswick. We will celebrate our 25th anniversary this year. The organization acts as a kind of collective memory in the unemployment field.

First of all, MASSE truly applauds the addition of 15 weeks of benefits in the case of adoptions because that was lacking. We believe that this measure helps in recognizing many valid parenting models and that it will have a positive effect on the rights of LGBTQ+ persons.

However, since I'm not here just to make compliments, allow me to put these benefits in the specific context of Canadian parents and to discuss the actual role of the employment insurance fund.

Did you know that, when a person—it's usually a woman—loses her job during, or too infrequently after, her maternity leave and parental benefits period, she winds up without an income? We have been requesting a change to this situation for a very long time. It would be easy to do by amending the act to rescind the rule, provided in subsection 12(6), regarding the combining of weeks of benefits to a maximum of 50 and by including, as a ground for extending the benefit period, the fact that the claimant has received maternity, parental or adoption benefits.

Nowhere in Bill C‑59 is any attempt made to achieve the fundamental objective of providing protection in the event of unemployment, which is the purpose of the employment insurance. Parents who take leave to care for their children shouldn't have to worry about whether they'll have an income once their leave is over. These people will often lose their jobs as a result of restructuring or because positions have been cut.

Nearly 3,000 women a year are denied employment insurance because they haven't accumulated enough insurable hours as a result of maternity leave. Our elected representatives are aware of this situation, which is unjust and discriminatory toward women. Press conferences have been held and testimony given in the House of Commons. MASSE condemns the government's refusal to act as long as the constitutional appeal of six women represented by the Mouvement action-chômage de Montréal is before the courts. In our view, this shows a clear lack of political will on the government's part.

We nevertheless wish to note that the employment insurance fund was established to compensate workers who have lost their jobs, not for the purpose of introducing social measures. The government stopped contributing to the fund in 1990. It has denied its responsibility for unemployment and special measures and for special benefits, which are part of the present program. Payments of special benefits continue to increase. In 1999, they represented barely 17% of total benefits paid by the program but have since increased by 36% in 2023‑2324.

It would be impossible for me to complete my remarks without claiming better protection in the event of loss of employment. For us, better protection would mean broader eligibility for the plan. We believe that applicants should be eligible for benefits once they have accumulated 350 hours for 13 weeks of work.

Better protection should also include a 70% benefit rate. A period of unemployment currently triggers a descent into poverty and indebtedness. The 55% benefit rate makes no sense in the current context of inflation and housing crisis.

We also believe that the government would solve the seasonal industry's black hole problem by providing a minimum of 35 weeks of benefits for everyone rather than add pilot project after pilot project, as was announced in the fall economic statement.

I will conclude by saying that we applaud the new measure providing 15 weeks of benefits in case of adoption, but we lament the fact that, for many years now, there have been interminable consultation phases and no genuine employment insurance reform.

Thank you

[Alexander Vronces, Executive Director, Fintechs Canada]

Thank you so much for having us here today. It's always an honour.

Fintechs Canada is an industry association of Canada's most innovative financial technology companies. Our mission is to make Canada's financial sector more responsive to the needs of Canadians.

A few years ago, the White House issued an executive order that would get the whole of the U.S. government to promote more competition in the American economy. Not long afterward, the American financial consumer protection regulator put out a draft rule to jump-start competition in American banking.

“Making banks work harder for you”—that's literally what the government of the United Kingdom said it would do in 2016. The United Kingdom had already set the foundation for a more competitive banking system by modernizing its payment system. In 2016 the U.K. said it would do more—it would implement open banking. It delivered on that promise just a couple of years later.

Canada has yet to do what our peers have done to make banks work harder for Canadians.

In competitive markets, two things are supposed to happen: Prices are supposed to go down, and the quality of services is supposed to go up. In Canadian banking, we're not seeing that. Prices are going up. Our banks are making more money from non-interest income—in other words, the fees they charge Canadians, the service fees on bank accounts, investment management fees, payment processing fees and administrative fees on mortgages and other loans.

We can see, based on public data, that the fee-based income banks are making per Canadian account holder has increased by 8% over the past five years to just under $3,000 in 2023. That's per year, and banking has largely stayed the same. My banking—how I save my money and how I pay my bills—hasn't changed for years. There are Canadians who wonder why they're paying more but not getting more.

High fees aren't the only cost of a banking sector closed off from competition. The lack of competition also hinders Canada's productivity growth. Banks aren't just vaults for our money; they are also intermediaries investing in other sectors to make them more productive—at least, that is what's supposed to happen,. However, a C.D. Howe Institute report from 2019 says that our financial sector's contribution to productivity growth has been underwhelming. To be more productive, we need our businesses to grow. It has been said that Canada is good at getting businesses started but not good at getting businesses growing.

One of the reasons is that small businesses in this country aren't getting what they need from banks to fuel their growth. According to OECD data, loans are more costly for small businesses in Canada than they are in other advanced economies.

According to the CFIB, 15% to 25% of loan applications end up being rejected by the big five banks. In fact, from 2012 to 2022, the total number of loan applications approved for small businesses decreased by almost 30%. The lack of competition in banking costs us not just as customers of banks but as Canadians.

Fintechs Canada believes in whole-of-government approaches to complex issues. Promoting more competition in the financial sector is one part of the broader solution to make Canada a more affordable and productive place to live. That's why we're glad to see Bill C-59 contain amendments to the Canadian Payments Act. These changes will promote competition in banking by giving fintech companies and credit unions access to the new payment system being built by Payments Canada. Industry insiders call this new payment system Real-Time Rail.

These changes are good for competition because you can't operate in the financial sector if you can't access a payment system. Outdated laws give only Canada's biggest banks access to the system right now. These biggest banks in turn resell their privileged access to everyone else. This puts the competition in an untenable position. They have to do business with their competitors in order to compete with them.

Access to Real-Time Rail will level the playing field as it is right now. For that to happen, though, we need Payments Canada to actually launch Real-Time Rail, with no more delays. According to the World Bank, Canada is one of the few countries in the world without Real-Time Rail. We support the amendments to the Canadian Payments Act in Bill C-59, but by themselves they're not enough. Our G7 counterparts have done so much more. If we want to make Canada a more affordable and productive place to live, it's time that we also do more.

Thanks again for having us. It's been an honour to share our perspective with all of you.

[William Robson, Chief Executive Officer, C.D. Howe Institute]

Thank you very much for having me. It's an honour to be invited to present to this group. I apologize for doing it online.

I accepted right away when invited to appear in front of the committee. It's part of my job and, as I said, an honour, but I have to admit that after accepting, I had doubts. You know this already, but I'll stress that Bill C-59 is 524 pages long. The summary at the front alone is six pages. I counted very quickly about 60 bullet points, or bullet-like points, about provisions that are explicitly identified as affecting 20 pieces of legislation. I don't know how many more are not explicitly identified.

The Liberal Party's 2015 election platform contained a plank to ban omnibus legislation, and it's unfortunate that it didn't happen. Critics say that omnibus bills prevent parliamentarians from doing their jobs, and I agree. I don't think parliamentarians should acquiesce in things that prevent them from doing their jobs.

Given the size and heterogeneity of Bill C-59, I think it's better to use the rest of my opening time to underline the scale of the challenge facing Canada’s economy and Canadian living standards.

If you had a chance to look at the Bank of Canada’s Monetary Policy Report yesterday, there was an eye-catching figure showing that real GDP per person has been falling since the third quarter of 2022. The bank expects that decline to continue through the first half of this year. We know people are feeling squeezed and having trouble making ends meet. Eight quarters in a row of declining real output per person will do that. The average Canadian has fewer resources for food, clothing, housing and paying taxes, let alone supporting cultural institutions or donating to charities.

Why is that happening? It's because of low investment. Capital investment creates the tools that make people more productive. It makes people able to earn more for every hour they work, but capital in Canada per worker is falling. Nothing like this has happened since the 1930s and the Second World War.

I want to underline that it's also not happening anywhere else in the developed world, and it's certainly not happening in the United States. At the C.D. Howe Institute, we track business investment per member of the workforce in Canada versus the United States, adjusting for purchasing power. We've never quite been on a level, but 15 years ago, for every dollar of new investment that the typical U.S. worker enjoyed every year, the typical Canadian worker got close to 75¢, about three-quarters as much. Ten years ago, for every dollar of new investment per U.S. worker, the Canadian worker got about 66¢, so we were down to two-thirds as much. By the end of last year, in the fourth quarter of 2023, for every dollar of new investment per U.S. worker, her or his Canadian counterpart got 52¢—barely half as much.

That spells trouble for competitiveness and the future earnings of Canadian workers. My friend and former federal finance minister Bill Morneau warns in his book that a steady erosion of Canadian living standards will make Canada less attractive to talent, and this is a vicious circle playing out as we speak.

What could turn this around? We'll be happy to take questions on that.

To conclude, I want to return to the impossibility of scrutinizing long and heterogeneous bills such as this one properly. Other witnesses have commented on specific provisions they thought were poorly drafted or could stand improvement. I note that the bill itself corrects some drafting problems in previous legislation.

One of the discouragements that I hear a lot about, when it comes to people speculating about why investment in Canada is weak—this includes members of the C.D. Howe Institute’s monetary policy council, who think low investments and low productivity growth are making inflation harder to control and thus keeping interest rates up—is policy uncertainty.

That's true on every level. Some of it is the threat of more populist tax measures, and I think we have a couple in this bill. It's also just sheer incompetence in execution. I'll mention in passing the bare trust debacle. You need effective parliamentary scrutiny to avoid confidence-destroying mistakes, and a bill of this length and heterogeneity precludes effective parliamentary scrutiny.

Thank you for having me here, and I'm sorry to conclude on a down note. I look forward to your questions.

[Angella MacEwen, Senior Economist, National Services, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Thank you for the opportunity to present CUPE's views on Bill C-59.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees is Canada's largest union, with over 750,000 members. CUPE members take great pride in delivering quality services in communities across Canada as they work in a broad cross-section of the economy, including health care, education, municipalities, libraries, universities and colleges, social services, public utilities, emergency services, transportation and airlines.

Bill C-59 has a number of elements related to taxation that we think are important to economic fairness.

Prominent tax economist Gabriel Zucman has estimated that corporations shifted more than $25 billion U.S. in profits out of Canada in 2019 by reporting income that they earned in Canada in a different tax jurisdiction. This cost Canada an estimated $4.5 billion in corporate income tax revenue for 2019 alone.

Implementing a digital services tax is an important part of closing that gap and levelling the playing field for Canadian businesses. CUPE has long advocated in favour of a digital services tax. We followed the negotiations at the OECD on base erosion and profit shifting very closely. We were disappointed when the process on pillar one stalled and when the proposals there were watered down from what's needed.

We think that Canada is smart to move forward with its own digital services tax. Pillar one continues to face roadblocks, and its future remains uncertain. The legislation put forward here in this bill is much more effective than what's currently on the table in the OECD process.

However, the DST as proposed explicitly excludes the sale, licensing and streaming of digital content, as well as the sale of other digital goods and services. This is a giant, glaring hole. It excludes revenues associated with Netflix, Amazon Prime, Apple Music, Spotify and many more services. We believe that a fair tax model is a better approach than other approaches we're taking in that industry.

We're also disappointed to see that the deadline for the implementation has been removed from this bill.

Even if these improvements were made, the digital services tax is not enough to close this gap. We encourage the federal government to go further. Greater transparency of multinationals' tax and financial information is another powerful deterrent to profit-shifting. Australia and the EU are far ahead of us on this.

Requiring multinationals to publicly report country-by-country financial information would give us more insight into how much tax is being paid or avoided. This would assist in the administration of the digital tax.

We also encourage the federal government to welcome the new United Nations process on international tax governance. As part of this process, international labour groups have called for a framework tax convention that would formalize international tax governance at the United Nations under an inclusive, accountable and more effective institutional setting than what we've seen with the OECD.

CUPE is also very interested in the establishment of the proposed department of housing, infrastructure and communities. Much of the preamble located in this bill reflects CUPE's views about the importance of public infrastructure to healthy local communities and our national economy. However, we believe that the clause referring to the use of innovative financial tools to attract investment from the private sector puts all of those benefits at risk. This approach has consistently failed to result in building the type and scale of public infrastructure that is required to foster a healthy, equitable, prosperous economy and society.

Finally, I personally have concerns about employee ownership trusts being used to avoid taxation. However, I was encouraged to see several elements in this legislation that move toward a more democratic involvement of employees in determining the direction of the trust.

Thank you.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you. I think that's an astute observation.

Should Bill C-59 be amended to remove cost awards from the Competition Tribunal Act entirely, in your view?

[Keldon Bester]

Certainly, and it's a great credit to Bill C-59 for really narrowing that window.

I think it not only discourages the bureau from taking cases, but, somewhat perversely, discourages the bureau from taking cases against the biggest companies, those with the biggest legal firepower, and says that if you want to take a less risky approach, we can maybe go after more medium-sized and smaller players. I think there's a chilling effect.

Also, there's then a specific shaping that the bureau is there to go after folks that regular Canadians cannot, and I think this runs counter to that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Bester, in your written submission, the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project said this:

...Canada's competition law treats the Bureau effectively as a private litigant, with the risk of being responsible for a portion of a defendant's legal fees should it lose in court. Most recently, this resulted in the Competition Tribunal ordering the Bureau to pay $13 million of taxpayer's money, nearly a fifth of its annual budget, to multibillion dollar telecommunications firm, Rogers.

C-59 makes progress on this front but does not remove cost awards entirely. Instead, it limits the circumstances where a judge could order the Bureau to pay these costs.

In your view, does the current potential for cost awards discourage the Competition Bureau from bringing cases?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I want to say thank you. You have encouraged us to implement the ITCs ASAP, which means passing Bill C-59 as soon as possible, which we've heard from industry as well.

I'll go to my second question, which is a follow-up.

The Dow group was with us on Tuesday. They've set up a net-zero facility in Fort Saskatchewan. They spoke to us about the importance of having a market-based carbon trading regime and about its revenue generation capabilities for net-zero facilities like theirs. I'm wondering if you would agree with companies like Dow about the profitability that carbon pricing will ensure for businesses well into the future.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for their excellent testimony. I wish I had time for each one of you, but I do not.

I'm going to start off with you, Mr. Bester, for maybe a minute or so. I want to put onto the record that we did have our competition commissioner come before our committee on Bill C-59. He's also been before the Senate, and he was actually before the Senate when he made the following statement:

Fortunately, the changes proposed in C-59, together with the recent reforms made in Bills C-19 and C-56, represent a generational upgrade in our competition law framework. I applaud the Government, Parliamentarians and citizens from across the country for their efforts in shaping this modernization process. It is the product of years of public and expert dialogue and parliamentary debate. The changes deliver on a significant number of the Competition Bureau's recommendations, and will help bring our competition regime in line with international best practice.

I wanted to put that in.

I also want to thank you. You've made some excellent recommendations, and I really appreciated your exchange with Mr. Williams. I actually think there's a lot more we could be doing, but I think we have done a significant amount and I think it's very, very critical that we acknowledge that. I personally would love to see a review right across our whole government around what's stopping competition from happening. I think if we did a whole-of-government review, that would be another excellent step forward.

My next couple of questions are for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I'm a very big fan of the work the Canadian chamber does. You do very important work.

Mr. Detchou, you started off by saying the economic competitiveness in the last 12 quarters has significantly declined. I want to put on the record that in the last three years, from 2021 to 2023, we were coming out of a pandemic, so the whole world was dealing with the after-effects of an economic heart attack. I think, as you will see from a lot of what we've put into Bill C-59, that we are transitioning our economy from competitive, growth and productivity perspectives.

On that, I know the chamber was very supportive when we announced the investment tax credit, so thank you. There are some companies, such as Dow, that are already benefiting from the ITCs, and they are creating significant opportunities for workers. Can you maybe initially speak to how important these are in driving investment, innovation and economic competitiveness?

After that I will have a follow-up question.

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

You can tell by my name tag that I'm not a permanent member, but I'm happy, Mr. Chair, to be here again. It's always nice to be at the finance committee.

Thank you to our witnesses for joining us today.

Mr. Bester, it's great to see you back again to talk about the changes to the Competition Act.

We've had a series of bills to amend the Competition Act in this Parliament. The first was my bill, Bill C-339, to eliminate the efficiencies defence. I had another private member's bill, but that was taken with the last government bill on open banking, which is always great. The government followed our lead with Bill C-56 and Bill C-59.

I know we've had a lot of input from your group into these bills, but I want to start with what's missing. What recommendations did not get included that are really important to this bill and to competition in Canada?

[Fernando Melo, Federal Policy Director, Canadian Renewable Energy Association]

Good afternoon, Chair.

Thanks to you and this committee for inviting me to testify on behalf of the Canadian Renewable Energy Association, also known as CanREA.

As part of this chamber study on Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023, I would like to start by acknowledging that I am joining you today on the traditional and unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people.

CanREA is the voice for the wind energy, solar energy and energy storage solutions that will power Canada's energy future. Our 300-plus members are uniquely positioned to deliver clean, low-cost, reliable, flexible and scalable solutions for Canada's energy needs. With the passage of this bill, they will be able to do so at a pace and scale like never before, thanks to the proposed clean technology investment tax credit.

My members and the whole team at CanREA are very optimistic about the opportunities that the clean technology investment tax credit will create. This measure will allow companies to invest in a variety of low-carbon technologies to recoup between 20% and 30% of their project's capital costs as a refundable tax credit. When the enabling legislation for this investment tax credit is passed, it will rapidly accelerate the deployment of technologies like battery energy storage, solar systems and wind across Canada by strengthening the economics of renewable energy projects and crowding in capital to the sector.

As you well know, achieving Canada's climate goals will require a doubling or tripling of our generation capacity, but this is not the only reason to invest in new renewable electricity generation. The International Energy Agency notes that electricity consumption from data centres, artificial intelligence and the cryptocurrency sector could double by 2026. If Canada wants to stay ahead in a rapidly digitizing global economy, we will need more electricity generation, and the clean technology investment tax credit and the forthcoming clean electricity investment tax credit will enable that.

With these investment tax credits in place, Canada will be a competitive market for international developers of wind, solar and energy storage projects to invest in. Their relatively straightforward design and refundability will put the country in a competitive position relative to the U.S. and other jurisdictions that are looking to decarbonize their electricity systems. Companies looking to invest in renewable energy have also stated that the fact that the clean technology investment tax credit is available out to 2034 gives them confidence that Canada will remain competitive in the long term.

That said, CanREA members and their capital providers have made it clear that without these credits, they will invest in the U.S., the EU and other markets where a path to profitability is clearer. In a world where the demand for electricity is significantly growing, projects and capital will move to the area of highest return.

The reason I emphasize the importance of both the clean technology investment tax credit and the clean electricity investment tax credit, which has not had its enabling legislation introduced, is that the clean technology investment tax credit fails to include CanREA's indigenous members. CanREA and its members are committed to economic reconciliation, and this is why partnership with indigenous communities and companies is the industry norm.

This norm has been institutionalized, with every province and territory that has issued a call for power recently requiring that all projects bidding into these processes have some component of indigenous equity ownership. The exclusion of indigenous entities from the clean technology investment tax credit makes it incredibly difficult for bids into calls for power to be structured and renders the industry's traditional limited partnership ownership structure unworkable.

CanREA has been advocating change since the draft legislation for the clean technology investment tax credit was introduced in the summer of last year. Including indigenous entities as eligible entities to receive the clean technology investment tax credit will resolve the issues I've outlined.

For further details on this, I would encourage members of this committee to refer to CanREA's submission, which accompanies my testimony today.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. I look forward to your questions.

[Jessica Brandon-Jepp, Senior Director, Fiscal and Financial Services Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Moving on to competition policy, we remain concerned by the ad hoc approach to changes to the Competition Act and we encourage the government to carefully review our submission and continue to consult with the business community, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, on changes to the act.

In particular, there are concerns around overwhelming the Competition Tribunal with frivolous claims, and there has been a lot of talk about structural presumptions in merger reviews pointing to misguided interpretations of U.S. merger guidelines as inspiration. These issues, among others, have the potential to make Canada’s competition regime less effective, rather than improving it.

That brings us to new corporate taxes and the digital services tax. The irony is that just as we’re contemplating ITCs and refinements to our competition regime to spur private sector investment, innovation and growth, a range of new and potential business taxes threaten to repel investment, create uncertainty and discourage new players from entering the Canadian marketplace.

Specifically, we call on the government to avoid imposing new taxes on the business sector, which Bill C-59 proposes to do with a digital services tax. A DST is particularly concerning, as it includes a retroactive tax to 2022 on online services that Canadians have come to rely on, even though over 120 countries, including our largest trading partner, the U.S., have agreed to delay imposing such taxes. The DST is the latest proposed tax that violates several critical tax principles of providing clarity, certainty and stability for businesses and help ensure Canada remains a competitive environment for investment.

First, we strongly object to the concept of tax retroactivity, which has been a concern in the latest proposals regarding both the DST and EIFEL. The effective date of proposed taxes should be during the following tax year or, at a minimum, upon proclamation. Retroactivity robs businesses of the certainty they need to make productive investments in innovation and growth, and it has a chilling effect on future investment across the economy.

Second, we oppose any measure that will increase costs for businesses and Canadians when both are facing challenging economic headwinds.

This new tax will affect far more than just large multinational corporations; if enacted, the DST will ripple across the Canadian economy, affecting many small and medium-sized businesses and hurting Canadians. In fact, this tax will disproportionately impact businesses with low profit margins, because unlike corporate income taxes, digital services taxes are levied on revenues rather than profits. As a result, there is a disproportionate tax burden being placed on companies with low profit margins, such as the online travel sector.

Third, and finally, we must sound the alarm that successive administrations in Washington have signalled that enacting a DST could provoke damaging trade retaliation, potentially against key sectors of the Canadian economy. We are hearing directly from business owners in many sectors beyond the digital services space who are concerned that their products may be impacted by retaliatory tariffs.

At a very minimum, we call for the punitive and retroactive application of the DST to be cancelled and for the introduction of a safe harbour for low-margin businesses similar to the OECD's amount “A” of pillar one, in which there is a safe harbour provision.

Bill C-59 and the forthcoming 2025 budget present an opportunity for decisive action. We urge Ottawa to adopt pro-growth policies that will invigorate Canada’s economy, instead of regressive taxes—

[Bryan Detchou, Senior Director, Natural Resources, Environment and Sustainability, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

We are pleased to appear before you on behalf of 400 chambers of commerce and more than 200,000 companies of all sizes from every sector of the economy and every region of the country.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce's main concern today is that Canada's economic competitiveness is declining at the same time as our productivity has shrunk in 11 of the past 12 quarters. This means that Canadians have fewer opportunities to pursue their personal goals and that they have to spend more to maintain the same lifestyle.

The government should treat all businesses, whatever their size, as essential partners in our collective successful endeavours, because they can generate investment and growth, and help meet the productivity challenge.

The committee has already received our formal submission on Bill C‑59, which included seven specific recommendations and proposed amendments. Today we will focus our comments on investment tax credits, competition policy and the digital services tax.

First, on Canada's new investment tax credits, overall the Canadian Chamber of Commerce applauds new investment tax credits such as the CCUS ITC as tools to unlock private sector investment in a low-carbon economy. In order to maximize the impact of the clean technology manufacturing tax credits, we recommend that they be refined to include intangible property and mine development investments.

Further, we believe the clean technology ITC should be expanded to include pension plans, similar to the fall economic statement inclusion of real estate investment trusts. We recommend expanding the eligibility of this tax credit to encourage investment in housing and in commercial real estate that supports the decarbonization of Canada's economy.

Given the current uncertainty around the permitting environment in Canada, we also recommend extending the timeline for phasing out the clean technology manufacturing ITC and the clean electricity ITC in order to secure large investments within the Canadian mining, manufacturing and electricity sectors.

Finally, it is imperative that all the new ITCs be implemented as soon as possible, with clarity on procedure and eligibility, so that the private sector can fuel the next wave of long-term investment in our economy.

[Keldon Bester, Exective Director, Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project]

Thank you so much to the committee for inviting me to speak today on this important piece of legislation.

As you said, my name is Keldon Bester. I'm the executive director at CAMP, a think tank dedicated to addressing the harms caused by monopoly and building a more democratic economy in Canada.

We appreciate the opportunity to return to this committee and discuss improvements to Canada's competition law contained in Bill C-59.

Of the changes to the Competition Act in Bill C-59, I'm going to focus my time in two areas—the opening up of private access to the Competition Act as well as improvements to the merger enforcement framework.

Today, in contrast to places like the United States, where individual companies can bring cases against corporations harming competition, in Canada nearly every competition law case originates from the Competition Bureau. Despite the bureau's best efforts, it's an organization with finite resources and it can't have eyes on every aspect of Canada's $2-trillion economy. A more decentralized competition law enforcement framework is more likely to address harms to competition, especially those affecting small and medium-sized businesses.

Accordingly, a robust private access framework is an important complement to the expert work of the Competition Bureau, and Bill C-59 creates the foundation for this by expanding the scope of private access as well as allowing for damages to be claimed for harms caused by anti-competitive conduct.

I will shift to enforcement against harmful mergers. Today the Competition Act downplays the role that market structure and the number and relative size of players in a market play in determining competition. By removing language that rejects market structure as a potential indicator of the likelihood of competitive harm and by adding increases in concentration as a factor in evaluating a merger, Bill C-59 gives our competition law a better defence against mergers in markets where Canadians already face limited choices.

Bill C-59 also addresses a gap in Canada's law that excludes a core component of our economy from the analysis of mergers. We often talk about competition and the benefits to consumers, but Canadians benefit from competitive markets not just as consumers but as entrepreneurs and workers as well. Competition law has long focused on the effects of consolidation on consumers and businesses, but has largely ignored the potential effects on workers.

Thankfully, this is changing. It's changing at home with the addition of wage-fixing and no-poach agreements to our laws, and it's changing abroad with the inclusion of the effects on workers in a recent U.S. Federal Trade Commission challenge against a major merger in the grocery sector.

Bill C-59 is another positive step in this direction. By including effects on workers as a potential factor for review, Bill C-59 gives our competition law a more complete view of the costs of consolidation to Canadians.

In addition to these changes, the committee should consider the ways in which Bill C-59 could go further to protect Canadians in markets where they already face limited choices. When a market is highly concentrated and is characterized by a few large players, further mergers and consolidation are more likely to harm competition at a cost to Canadian consumers, workers and entrepreneurs.

To recognize this, a bias against mergers and markets with few players, often referred to as a “structural presumption”, should be incorporated into Canada's competition law. With a structural presumption, merging parties must work harder to prove that a merger truly is to the benefit of Canadians, and these presumptions can intensify as markets become more concentrated, banning them outright where a single firm dominates a market, for example.

As others have pointed out, Canada's current competition law has repeatedly allowed mergers that create a near or literal monopoly, killing competition and choice for Canadians. This is a consequence of a competition law that does not take market structure seriously, a trend that Bill C-59 has an opportunity to break with.

Bill C-59 is an important component of comprehensive reform to the law that Canadians depend on to protect competition and affordability in all sectors of the economy, and this committee has a chance to strengthen these reforms to truly protect Canadians.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.

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

Can you repeat the changes you are proposing for Bill C‑59 with a view to further enhancing and supporting the industry?

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you. I think it's very much a link to preventive health care.

This is a historic announcement. How important within your sector is it for this bill, Bill C-59, to be passed and that we ensure that the dental care program goes across the country?

[Marie-Josée Houle, Federal Housing Advocate, Office of the Federal Housing Advocate]

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Marie-Josée Houle. As the first federal housing advocate, my mandate is to take systemic action to ensure that legislation, policies and programs respect people's right to adequate housing. My presence here also falls within a human rights accountability mechanism.

Thank you for inviting me to comment on Bill C‑59. On the subject of the housing-related measures announced in Budget 2023 and the fall economic statement, I will address three elements: first, the government must do more to meet its human rights responsibilities; second, public funds must be for the public good; and third, the government must prioritize non-market housing.

First, the government must do more to meet its human rights responsibilities. Canada recognized the human right to housing in the 2019 National Housing Strategy Act, but housing as a human right was missing from budget 2023, along with a serious lack of tangible resources to uphold it.

Housing as a human right is not recognized in Bill C-59 either. It's absent in part 5 of the bill, related to the department of housing, infrastructure and communities act and the duties of the Minister of Housing. The minister must be responsible for upholding the human right to housing as it is set out in the National Housing Strategy Act. Recognizing housing as a human right means prioritizing outcomes for disadvantaged groups, such as people who are low-income, racialized, veterans, indigenous, or experiencing homelessness, for example.

Budget 2023 did not improve the $82-billion national housing strategy, despite the Auditor General’s finding that it did not decrease chronic homelessness, and the federal government must redesign the strategy so that it results in measurable, evidence-based and human rights-compliant progress.

Second, public funds—precious funds—spent on housing must be for the public good. The 2023 fall economic statement included a GST rebate for purpose-built rental construction. Also in Bill C-59, there is a preamble in part 5, division 11, that says the government will use innovative financial tools to attract investment from the private sector and institutional investors in public infrastructure projects. I want to caution that these measures alone will not create affordable housing. Our research estimates that Canada is short 4.4 million affordable homes, and using public funds to create homebuilding incentives for the private market with no strings attached does not work.

The companies do not use those incentives for the benefit of the public and the housing units are not affordable beyond the first tenant or buyer.

That does not mean that there is no role for the private market. However, all investments of public funds must be for the public good. New housing built using public funds must be affordable, accessible and adequate, permanently.

Investing in non-market housing is the way forward. That is why the federal government must attach safeguards to public money spent on the private sector and attach conditions to federal infrastructure funding to require non-market housing in new housing projects.

Finally, the government must prioritize non-market housing. The 2023 fall economic statement made welcome announcements on non-market housing. It included $309.3 million in new funding for the co-operative development program; $1 billion, with $370 million in new spending, for the affordable housing fund for non-market and public housing providers to build new homes; and it extended the removal of the GST to the development of new co-op rentals, which is a measure that would be implemented by this bill.

However, there's still more to do. Non-market housing is the best investment of taxpayers' dollars. It creates permanently affordable, accessible housing for a wide range of people. Disadvantaged groups will have more money to spend on food and medicine. It has economic value. It benefits everyone because it is non-inflationary, and if you think about it, when people are paying less for their housing, they will have more money to spend on other things, which does bolster economic stability.

Canada needs a short-term plan to double our non-market housing stock, from the current 3.5%, to 8% of our supply, and we need a long-term plan to bring that number up to 20%.

Here's how else the government can prioritize non-market housing that is permanently affordable and accessible. We need to revise the national housing strategy to prioritize non-market housing; to commit long-term funding for the non-market sector, including the rental assistance program for federal co-ops, non-profits and indigenous housing providers, as currently, this program will be expiring in 2028; and to invest in growing the non-market sector’s capacity, including leveraging their assets into capital for development.

The federal government must make funding available to address the housing and homelessness crisis. All levels of government have a role to play. The federal government must pave the way.

Thank you. It will be my pleasure to answer your questions.

[Aaron Wudrick, Director, Domestic Policy Program, Macdonald-Laurier Institute]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to the committee for the invitation to appear today on behalf of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

We are a public policy think tank located right here in the nation's capital, and we're here to offer some comments on Bill C-59. I understand one of my colleagues, Philip Cross, has preceded me, but, fortuitously, I don't think we're going to be covering the same territory in the bill.

I'd like to focus my remarks to relate to the competition provisions in Bill C-59.

First of all, I should applaud the government for being seized with the problem of competition. It is obviously a very serious, pressing, bread-and-butter issue for Canadians in this country. I fear, however, that the provisions of this bill, much like Bill C-56 before it, have the wrong focus and risk imposing some well-meaning solutions that will only end up creating other unintended consequences.

In particular, I refer to the changes in the bill that refer to the review of proposed mergers and the right of private action before the Competition Tribunal.

With respect to the merger review, in Canadian competition law, the purpose of the law is to maintain and promote competitive markets.

Why do we care about that? We care about it because we want consumers to benefit. The important thing is that Canadians are benefiting from more choice, more innovation and, most importantly these days, lower prices. That is the purpose of competition law.

The existing merger review process is designed to prevent anti-competitive behaviour, so the focus of the existing law is on bad behaviour. When companies break the law, they should be investigated and punished.

If passed, Bill C-59 would instead repeal sections of the Competition Act that prohibit the tribunal from concluding that a prospective merger is anti-competitive based solely on the size of the parties proposing the merger. This sounds appealing, because in a lot of cases, the size of the market share has an impact on whether or not they have the ability to act in anti-competitive ways. The problem is in treating this as definitive, since it is not the only factor in whether or not a company is acting anti-competitively. Taking this prohibition out and allowing the tribunal to make a finding solely based on market share would have the effect of empowering courts to develop a framework that includes what are known as structural presumptions. In other words, if you are of a certain size, automatically we will not allow a merger. It puts an onus on companies, then, to prove that a merger would not have anti-competitive effects.

In effect, this would shift the focus from behaviour to size. Rather than punishing you if we see you as a company doing something wrong, we're going to presume that you are guilty simply because you are large. I would suggest that this is a problem, for a couple of reasons.

First of all, if you're going to propose this guilty-until-proven-innocent onus, you're going to have to allow a mechanism for companies to prove that they are innocent. This is very difficult to do, because unlike the Competition Bureau, private companies do not have the power to compel information and they cannot compel witnesses. It's a very difficult hill for them to climb. I would suggest that the provisions in Bill C-59 create a structurally unfair asymmetry with respect to mergers.

The news is no better regarding right of private action. This is similar to the concept of a class action lawsuit, which allows private parties who suffer to hold businesses accountable. Again, there is a positive element to this. It allows individual citizens or a group of citizens who are negatively affected to utilize competition law to punish bad actors. That's good. The problem is that they don't have the same guardrails as they do around private class action lawsuits. Right now, if you want to launch a class action lawsuit against a company for bad behaviour, there are certain thresholds you have to meet. Those thresholds are not in place for these measures in Bill C-59. This could open it up to an abuse of process.

I should say, as a former litigation lawyer, that if I were still practising, I would be very happy about these changes because it would be payday for me. There would be a lot of lawsuits and a lot of work. From a consumer's standpoint, though, I suggest that it may end up diverting resources at the tribunal that could be better placed elsewhere. I would suggest that if you're going to keep the provisions around private right of action, there have to be guardrails that are similar to the ones for private class action lawsuits.

That's the thrust of my remarks. I'll leave it there, and I'm happy to take questions.

[Daniel Breton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Electric Mobility Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to pay my respects to the members here today.

My name is Daniel Breton and I am the President and CEO of Electric Mobility Canada.

Founded in 2006, EMC is the national membership-based industry association dedicated exclusively to promoting electric mobility as a means of supporting the Canadian economy while fighting climate change and air pollution.

EMC's wide range of member organizations include manufacturers of light, medium, heavy-duty and off-road vehicles; electricity suppliers; infrastructure providers; research centres; tech companies; mining companies; cities; universities; fleet managers; unions; etc.

Among its 160 members are companies that manufacture off-road electric vehicles here in Canada, such as snowmobiles, personal watercraft, ATVs, pleasure boats, airport vehicles and more.

In October 2022, the economic statement delivered by the Minister of Finance announced a refundable 30% clean technology investment tax credit for zero-emission non-road vehicles. However, Bill C‑32, Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022, did not contain any provision for the tax credit that had been announced.

In November 2023, the economic statement delivered by the Minister of Finance referred to the 2022 economic statement and the legislation concerning the refundable 30% clean technology investment tax credit for zero-emission non-road vehicles, saying that the credit applied to eligible property acquired and available for use on or after March 28, 2023, and before 2035.

Let us now analyze the terminology used in the 2022 statement. It says:

The following types of equipment would be eligible for the credit: ... non-road zero-emission vehicles described in Class 56 (e.g. hydrogen or electric heavy duty equipment used in mining or construction) and charging or refuelling equipment described under subparagraph (d)(xxi) of Class 43.1 or subparagraph (b)(ii) of Class 43.2 that is used primarily for such vehicles.

Regardless of how we may interpret the content of the statement, it is important to understand that this kind of document, just like the announcement of a policy or plan of action or directive, does not have force of law.

Bill C‑59 provides for the addition of section 127.45 to the Income Tax Act. That proposed section contains a new definition of "clean technology property," which refers, under proposed subparagraph (d)(iv), to "a non-road zero-emission vehicle described in Class 56."

It’s important to note that off-road vehicles are a disproportionate source of air pollution. According to ECCC, their combined emissions make up 38%, 15% and 10% of the total emissions of CO, NOx and VOCs respectively. Carbon monoxide and NOx are volatile organic compounds. Emissions come mostly from the household use of gasoline-powered or diesel-powered recreational equipment and lawn and garden equipment and from the operation of agricultural, construction and mining equipment.

Since 2022, however, we have tried without success to get a clear, exhaustive definition of what a non-road zero-emission vehicle is, to the government's mind. After numerous communications with government officials by email, telephone and ordinary mail, we have still not been able to obtain a satisfactory answer.

Since Canada has a growing number of companies that are developing and building these zero-emission off-road vehicles, creating jobs and selling in Canada and abroad a growing variety of them—snowmobiles, watercraft, recreational boats, ATVs, airport vehicles, unregistered vehicles and mining vehicles, all electric and off-road—it’s important to ensure that the definition we propose does include such vehicles so that these Canadian technologies are encouraged that these vehicles and their workers can benefit from the proposed new measures.

What's more, it's vital that the companies purchasing these off-road vehicles be able to obtain this 30% tax credit and that this tax credit be retroactive to March 28, 2023.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Dr. Temper, and thank you, MP Davies.

I want to thank all the witnesses for coming before our committee today and for your opening remarks and testimony. This will help us inform Bill C-59. Thank you so much. We really appreciate it and wish you the best with the rest of your day.

At this time, members, we are going to transition to our second panel. I am going to suspend.

[Tyler Blake Threadgill]

Sure, Derek, I can add to that.

I'd first say we very much appreciate that Bill C-59 highlights that there is a problem. What we would like to see from it broadly is the onus being taken off the consumer or the small shop, so that if they don't get access, they do not need to appeal. We think that the burden should not be on a small shop. If you take your car to your local mechanic and they say, “Give me a couple of weeks. I need to appeal to get this information”, you're going to go somewhere else. We want to avoid that.

We'd like to see it mandated that the car companies will allow the car owner to decide where they take the car and not have to go through that process each time they need an oil change or a brake change or when winter comes and they need to change their tires.

We're seeing instances now in which simply rotating tires requires access to data that some repair shops don't have. Specifically, we'd like amendments to include one to section 75 to make a means of diagnosis or repair available to a person within a specified period and on such terms as the tribunal considers appropriate.

Also, we'd like to have the trade secrets carve-out in subsection 75(2.1) struck down. We think that could just be used as a loophole. Obviously we have no interest in any of the car companies' trade secrets or intellectual property or access to any data other than for repair and maintenance, but we do see that as a slippery slope, in that the car companies could claim that any of that information was a trade secret.

Third, we'd like to see “maintenance and calibration” included in the proposed definition of “means of diagnosis and repair”.

[Derek Willshire]

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

For the fine details, I invite everyone to consult the brief that has been submitted. However, I can provide you with a summary, and I will let Mr. Threadgill add to my remarks afterward.

We know that it is increasingly difficult to access information relating to diagnosing, maintaining and repairing vehicles. Today's vehicles are much more technological, and that information is often transmitted to servers that are owned by the manufacturers, which further complicates repairing or doing basic maintenance on a vehicle. Consumers are increasingly required to go to the dealership, and this may involve travelling long distances for people who live in somewhat more remove areas. That means that consumers will have to pay higher prices as well as wasting their time.

Our reasoning is based on the fact that a car is the second most expensive item any Canadian family will buy. We would like to see more teeth and more specifics in the wording of Bill C‑59.

We hear a lot about the CASIS agreement, which dates from 2009 and was on a voluntary basis. I think my colleague referred to it. However, not all manufacturers are part of that agreement.

In addition, let's face it: today's cars have changed a lot. We are not opposed to technology and all of the safety-related aspects; they are very important and we are very glad of it. What is important to us, however, is to persuade you to reconsider access to that information so that repairs can be less burdensome. The choice should be up to consumers, because the vehicles belong to them.

Let's be clear: as our brief and our recommendations very clearly state, what we are interested in is the technical information related to diagnosing and repairing vehicles. We are not interested in consumers' habits or other information that might be recorded by the vehicles.

What we are asking for does not jeopardize any of the 135,000 jobs in the automotive manufacturing sector. What it does is protect consumers and give them a choice, in addition to protecting the 492,000 jobs in the secondary market. Obviously, I am referring to all the small mechanical repair shops and body shops in this great country, from coast to coast. That is becoming increasingly important.

Tyler, is there anything you would like to add?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to welcome all the witnesses and thank them for being here.

Ms. Temper, I was very happy with your testimony. We will be trying to make amendments to Bill C‑59 to improve it as you would like to see.

Because my speaking time is limited, I am going to reserve my questions for the LKQ representatives, Mr. Threadgill and Mr. Willshire.

It is really important to make sure there is real competition in the automotive repair sector, and so I want to thank you for being here and for your testimony. To my knowledge, unfortunately, the committee has still not distributed your brief. I imagine it is being translated and we will be able to get it. The clerk is indicating to me that this is the case.

Mr. Willshire, I invite you to take my six minutes of speaking time to explain your proposals for amending and improving Bill C‑59 to provide for a real right to repair, real competition, and access to information in the automotive sector.

[Dr. Leah Temper]

There's a list of practices. You cannot use offsets to make claims of carbon neutrality. No generic terms or claims to carbon neutrality and net zero are permitted, and and so on.

One interesting example I would like to highlight is the case of Norway, which actually has a specific rule. As you know, Norway is the world leader in the sales of electric vehicles; I believe more than 70% of the cars sold there are electric. Since 2017, I believe, Norway has had a rule that no green or environmental terminology can be used to sell vehicles. A car cannot be described as “green” or “clean”; it doesn't even matter whether it is electric or not. What they say is that, fundamentally, cars are polluting.

This is another really interesting and useful example of what we can learn about how to market highly polluting sectors. There's no need to use environmental terms and green terms to describe them, and they're fundamentally misleading to consumers. We see in the example of Norway that this has not harmed the sale of electric vehicles.

In Canada, we currently have absolutely no guidance for companies on making green claims. The Competition Bureau had some guidance, but it has been archived since 2021. Right now there is no guidance for companies, and, as I mentioned, that has led to a huge surge in greenwashing.

Of course, we would have liked to have seen even more substantial changes to competition policy to address the greatest challenge to the economy in the coming decades, which will be the transition to a green economy. I believe Bill C-59 is a starting point. If possible, Bill C-59 should also highlight the need for complementary regulations and draw from some of the examples I put forward of what other jurisdictions are doing.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today and for their testimony already.

I want to ask questions of Dr. Leah Temper. I appreciate the joint brief you submitted with the Quebec Environmental Law Centre, particularly on the subject of greenwashing, where Bill C-59 makes some important changes.

I was hoping you might be able to share with this committee what Canada can learn from how other countries have approached this issue. We wouldn't be a first mover in this space and we may be able to take some lessons about how to implement this in Canada from what they have done in other jurisdictions.

[Tyler Blake Threadgill, Vice-President, External Affairs, LKQ Corporation]

Thank you, Derek.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I'm Tyler Threadgill, vice-president of external affairs for LKQ in both Canada and the United States. I'm here today to address the pressing issue of the right to repair in the automotive sector, an important matter for Canadian consumers.

While we commend the steps taken in Bill C-59, they fall short of adequately protecting consumers' rights. We firmly believe that a legislative framework for the right to repair is needed to truly safeguard consumer interests.

Voluntary agreements like the Canadian automotive service information standard agreement have proven ineffective amidst the rapid advancements in automotive technology. As technology continues to advance at an unprecedented rate, it's imperative that legislation evolve alongside it to ensure that Canadians' rights and choices remain protected.

We firmly believe that legislation is the solution for restoring competition and preserving consumer choice within the automotive repair and service industry. This legislation should guarantee access to vehicle repair data and repair tools for independent repair shops and aftermarket parts manufacturers. OEMs must be mandated to provide decrypted data and standardized access to wireless or cloud-based repair data, while also refraining from misleading consumers about their repair options.

Additionally, the establishment of a centralized entity to oversee data transmission is essential to maintaining fairness and transparency. Drawing inspiration from the American REPAIR Act, this legislation should address the evolving technological landscape and align with government commitments to innovation and consumer protection. Failure to address these issues through decisive legislative intervention puts Canadian consumers at risk of falling prey to monopolistic practices that stifle competition, increase prices and impede innovation.

In conclusion, we ask this committee to consider our amendments to improve C-59 while recognizing the urgency of this matter and the profound impact that stand-alone legislation can have on protecting consumer rights and fostering a fair and competitive automotive repair industry in Canada.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Let us seize this opportunity to empower consumers and ensure a level playing field for Canadians.

We will be happy to take your questions.

[Derek Willshire, Regional Vice-President, Canada and New England, LKQ Corporation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the members of the committee for having us here today.

My name is Derek Willshire and I am the regional vice-president for Canada at LKQ. With me today is my colleague Tyler Blake Threadgill, who is the vice-president of government affairs in the United States.

We are sorry not to be testifying in person, but we are very pleased to present our views on this bill, which is crucial for LKQ. We will focus exclusively on the right to repair and the flaws in the bill. Regarding the amendments, please consult our written brief.

LKQ distributes high quality parts for automotive repairs, whether manufacturers' or other parts, and also offers complete diagnostic and calibration services in Canada and the United States. LKQ processes over 900,000 end-of-life vehicles a year in North America and is the largest vehicle recycler in the world.

In this great country, our company employs 1,175 people at 37 sites. Even so, our team represents only a small fraction of the 492,000 people working in the automotive aftermarket in Canada.

The problem is simple: vehicles are becoming increasingly interconnected and complex, and it has become more difficult for independent shops' to access diagnostic data. Manufacturers' refusal to disclose that data limits consumers' choice and increases their costs. Without concrete action, small businesses will find it hard to maintain vehicles, and this will reduce competition in Canada.

We welcome the government's renewed attention to improving the Competition Act, with Bill C‑59, but major flaws remain and require your attention.

We would like to draw your attention to the importance of improving the definition of "means of diagnosis or repair" to include maintenance and calibration of components. Unlike other legislation, Bill C‑59 does not expressly require manufacturers to provide the data needed for repairs.

As well, exceptions such as protection of trade secrets could prevent access to essential repair information. The limits on the tribunal's authority to order remedies could also exclude major players in the automobile aftermarket.

As a final point, Bill C‑59 makes the right of action available only to individuals, and this limits the effectiveness of enforcement measures. It is crucial that the ability to bring an action be extended to include actions by the commissioner of competition.

Consumers deserve a competitive market that gives them the ability to have their vehicle repaired by the repairer of their choice. While Bill C‑59 recognizes this problem, specific legislation is urgently needed to address it.

I will now give the floor to my colleague, Mr. Threadgill.

Thank you again.

[Dr. Leah Temper, Director, Health and Economic Policy Program, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment]

Thank you.

Thank you very much to the Standing Committee on Finance for inviting me to appear today as a witness.

My name is Dr. Leah Temper. I'm the health and economic policy program director at the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. I also hold a Ph.D. in ecological economics, an interdisciplinary field that considers the economic system as a subsystem of the earth's ecosystem.

Today, I'm going to be speaking about greenwashing and clause 236 of Bill C-59. My colleague from the Quebec Environmental Law Center addressed you on Tuesday and outlined four recommendations from a brief we jointly submitted. These include expanding the amendment to include all business interests and entities as well as products; broadening the scope to all environmental claims; and requiring disclosure of the evidence behind any green claims to consumers, as well as disclosure of negative environmental impacts related to products and industries to address cherry-picking.

Julien did a great job, so I would therefore like to take my time today to highlight the urgency and benefits of taking bold and effective action on greenwashing through Bill C-59.

We know that greenwashing is bad for business, that it cheats consumers and that it hinders green innovation, but I'd like to stress how it's bad for all of our health and our shared environment. One example of this is the well-known case of the Volkswagen emissions scandal, which led to the largest environmental fine in Canadian competition history, when it came to public attention that the company was marketing clean diesels that emitted over 40 times more pollution than it claimed.

The company eventually paid out about $40 billion in damages globally, but there's a study in Europe that estimated the excess air pollution emitted as a result of this deception shortened 1,200 lives in Europe by 10 to 20 years each, leading to about 13,000 years of life lost. Customers in Canada were paid out, but the public who was exposed to the toxic diesel fumes and the children who suffered increased respiratory health issues were of course never compensated.

Today, we know that the vast bulk of greenwashing revolves around claims of net zero and carbon neutrality, and these empty words are undermining and derailing the necessary transition to phasing down fossil fuel use. The IPCC clearly said that disinformation from vested interests in highly polluting sectors in Canada is undermining public support for climate change and is obstructing action.

Greenwashing about false solutions to climate change runs the risk of locking us into these false solutions that are neither environmentally clean nor economically viable without ongoing government subsidies. We should learn from a recent report that highlighted how petrochemical companies marketed plastic as recyclable for decades, in order to boost “disposability profits”, when industry insiders knew from the beginning that plastics recycling was uneconomical and was not a viable way to address the plastic waste crisis.

Similarly, oil marketed as net zero is not clean. It of course still emits tailpipe emissions and should never be marketed as environmentally friendly. We know that transport air pollution in Canada remains a major contributor to the over 850,000 children under the age of 14 in Canada who suffer from asthma.

Green claims are also different. They suffer from information asymmetry in a more significant way than other product claims because consumers do not have the tools to verify their truthfulness the same way they can verify the durability or the effectiveness of a product. This highlights the importance of the disclosure requirement we have asked for.

Of even greater concern is what Wren Montgomery, a professor at the Ivey Business School, terms “futurewashing”, which are large, unsubstantiated commitments for the future. Of course, such claims cannot be verified, and they should be considered misleading in almost all circumstances.

She and her colleagues also highlight other features of what they term “greenwashing 3.0”, including how green claims are being used by polluting industries as political strategies for maintaining corporate reputation and social licence and how such messages are being targeted at stakeholders beyond consumers and used to dispute the feasibility of stricter environmental regulations. Greenwashing 3.0 points to the urgency of broadening the testing requirements of section 236 to include all business interests and not only products, and for the need for complementary regulations to those that our trading partners have already put in place.

I will close by saying that CAPE has filed several complaints with the Competition Bureau against fossil fuel interests for deceptive advertising in the last years. However, the process in Canada is exceedingly slow, with an estimated two to three years for a complaint to be resolved. In the meantime, the deceptive ads continue to inundate our airwaves, radios, buses and computer screens. This is, of course, of concern, because the decisions we take today will define our energy systems for decades to come, and because consumer skepticism is setting in whereby soon, any green claim, no matter how genuine, will no longer be believed, seriously undermining consumer confidence. This is why I ask you to strengthen—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Welcome to meeting number 136 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, March 18, 2024, and the motion adopted on Monday, December 11, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss 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.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to Standing Order 15.1. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application.

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

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and can cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when their microphone or their neighbour's microphone is turned on in order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of our interpreters.

I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and to avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

I remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as well as we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

I believe all witnesses appearing virtually have been tested, Mr. Clerk. It looks as though everybody is ready to go.

We welcome, from the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Dr. Leah Temper, economic and health policy program director. Joining us from LKQ Corporation is the vice-president of external affairs, Tyler Threadgill, as well as the regional vice-president of Canada and New England, Derek Willshire. From the Macdonald-Laurier Institute we have a senior fellow, Mr. Philip Cross. He is with us here today in person in the room.

With that, we're going to have some opening remarks by the witnesses. We'll start with the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.

Go ahead, please, for up to five minutes.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Greer, I hear you loud and clear. The ITCs are vital to manufacturing, to jobs and to manufacturers. The Conservatives are holding up Bill C-59 at committee. They are delaying, obstructing, holding up, this vital piece of legislation that contains the ITCs.

Can you tell us what that delay and Conservative obstruction is costing and risking to Canadian manufacturers?

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank you all for being here today.

You just heard from one of the apostles of the do-nothing Conservatives on climate change, but I want to provide you with a different perspective.

I want to especially thank you, Mr. Greer, for being here today, representing the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters.

In my home town of Windsor, there's a saying: “If you want it built right, build it in Windsor.” We have a lot of manufacturers in our community. It's a huge part of our prosperity in our community and of our economy, so I want to say thank you for your tremendous advocacy.

You mentioned the investment tax credit. I read the “Manufacturing Canada's Future” report, and it highlighted the importance of the investment tax credits for helping manufacturers transition to a zero-emissions clean economy.

How important are the investment tax credits that are contained in our federal government's Bill C-59?

[Kate McNeece]

In my personal view, I think Bill C-59, along with a number of other reforms that have come up in the last couple of years, is quite comprehensive and really does represent a sea change in the approach to competition and enforcement.

I think this does go far enough. There are a number of questions that this bill and the collective changes to the Competition Act have raised in terms of how enforcement will play out, how some of these private actions will increase enforcement, what is addressed and how they address them.

I am personally of the view that we should let these amendments sit in place and settle to see if we get some more clarity as to how courts would interpret the law and how the bureau has interpreted the law and to see if we get greater guidance so that our business communities can understand what this new version of the Competition Act means and can ensure that they are modelling their practices to comply with it.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Ms. McNeece.

Bill C‑59 addresses the issue of revising the Competition Act. Do you think we're not going far enough? Could we have gone further in this review? Are there issues that we may have to come back to in another bill because we left things on the table?

Is this bill too late? We all agree that large oligopolies have already been created in Canada. We can think of grocery stores, telecommunications and the oil industry, for example.

Could more vigorous action have been taken to encourage a stronger return to competition in Canada, notably by enabling the dismantling of certain monopolies that disadvantage consumers?

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

Mr. Ross, I'm going to stay with you.

It's interesting that in my riding of St. John's East, there has traditionally not been a lot of co-operative housing, even though this is a model that I support. Since the GST link for the new co-operative builds, there's been energy among the groups in wanting to come together, seize the moment and spread the word on how important co-operative housing is to a full and robust housing strategy that really ensures no one is left behind.

Do you feel that moving this legislation forward, Bill C-59, is important to growing the co-operative movement and building co-operative housing in Canada?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Bill C-59 also enacts the department of housing, infrastructure and communities act, which would transfer part of the federal housing portfolio to the Office of Infrastructure Canada. What impact, if any, do you believe this reform will have on public infrastructure and housing outcomes in your sector?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ross, I'd like to address some questions to you, if I could.

Bill C-59 would make co-operative housing corporations that meet certain prescribed conditions eligible for the 100% GST rebate for new purpose-built rental housing. Can I get your views on whether the conditions that are described are appropriate?

[Kate McNeece]

There are a couple of different topics. I'll take them in turn.

Bill C-59 does change the limitation period for mergers, specifically as it applies to mergers that are not notified to the commissioner. It extends that period from one year to three years, and I think there is some sense in doing so.

In my experience, bureau investigations for mergers that the bureau believes potentially harm competition or lead to an SPLC, which is the legal standard, take quite a bit of time. There's a lot of information gathering. There's a lot of analysis. There are a lot of submissions going back and forth and gathering of that sort of information. In a case where the limitation period is only one year for a non-notified merger, the bureau may simply not have time to conduct that analysis, which may lead to them rushing a case to the tribunal to try to catch it before the limitation period ends. That may not be the most efficient way to address these issues. They may also simply may run out of time.

It's not clear to me how many of those mergers have been missed, rushed or caught. I'd be interested in hearing about the magnitude of this issue, but to the extent that it is perceived as an issue, I think a three-year period is a sensible extension. It's bringing us back to what the limitation period was prior to the 2009 amendments to the act. We wouldn't want it to go too long because as time goes by, it's much harder to pin effects in a market to the merger itself rather than to other structural considerations. I wouldn't want to extend that, but I think that's a fairly limited and sensible amendment.

To my comments about the merger control thresholds, I don't think any merger control threshold is going to be perfect. If you're setting out asset- and revenue-based thresholds, or even the market share threshold that some jurisdictions have, you're always going to capture some mergers that are not problematic and you're always going to miss some mergers that are problematic.

What I would recommend is taking a look at that and trying to figure out whether our thresholds as they currently exist, the $93-million transaction-size threshold and the $400-million party-size threshold, are capturing many mergers. Are we missing a lot of mergers?

As I said in my statement, I think between 65% and 75% a year of the mergers that are notified to the Competition Bureau are non-complex or are characterized as not having any competition issues. With that number being so high, is there a way we can exclude certain non-problematic mergers from notification?

[Kate McNeece]

I think that's a great question.

As Mr. Weiler said, there are a number of changes largely expanding the rights of private access to many of the different provisions under the act. The way our act is set up is it's relatively codified, so there are specific provisions for different types of conduct that could be seen as contrary to competition, and previously, only certain of those provisions have been subject to private rights of action for private litigants. They've been solely the purview of the commissioner in a number of cases, and by and large, Bill C-56 and Bill C-59 together have expanded private rights of action to most of those areas.

As I said in my opening statement, I think private rights of action are an important complement to the commissioner of competition's work. I think, as you say, the bureau is a body of limited resources and there are ways that private litigants can help fill the gap for our competition enforcement, so I'm generally in favour of a lot of these changes.

It's important that the leave test was somewhat lowered in order to make this more accessible, because I think the previous test was very difficult to overcome since all of a business had to be substantially affected rather than part of the business, as it is now. I think that makes a great deal of sense because certain businesses have multiple business lines, and I don't think they should be barred from potentially addressing a harm to one business line if it isn't in all of their business.

I'm generally in favour of the leave test. We'll have to see how it's interpreted. I think the public interest branch of the leave test is a new concept for Canadian competition law. I'd be looking to the Competition Bureau to consider how they might be supporting assessments that certain actions taken by private litigants may be in the public interest, or maybe there's some guidance from the tribunal, through either litigated cases or otherwise, as to how that will be interpreted in light of existing jurisprudence in analogous areas.

I think we're all very curious to see how that's going to work, but overall, I think this will increase the number of means that potentially affected parties may have for addressing competition concerns and, subject to the leave test and appropriate pleading standards, plucking out vexatious litigants. We don't want that, but I do think an expansion of private access is warranted and is a positive aspect of Bill C-59.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

First, before getting into questions, I just thought I'd mention that in the first half of last year, Canada had the largest per capita foreign direct investment of any country in the world and was the third-largest in gross foreign direct investment. Of course, there is more we need to do to increase productivity in Canada and get more investment opportunities. I think a lot of the measures in Bill C-59 do just that.

I want to direct my questions to Ms. McNeece.

Thank you for your testimony to date, particularly some of the suggestions you brought forward.

Many changes are being made to the Competition Act as part of Bill C-59, including private litigation opportunities, a new variety of rights of action, lower leave tests for applications and the introduction of administrative monetary penalties with awards for private litigants. We know that a lot of these changes are being brought in because to date, the Competition Bureau has largely been the initiator of proceedings, but it only has so many resources to go around to do its work and it prioritizes cases of national importance.

Ms. McNeece, I was hoping you could share your thoughts on how these changes might improve competition in Canada overall.

[Kate McNeece]

That's a very 30,000-foot question, and I'm afraid it's a bit above my pay grade. My comments were restricted to the Competition Act, which is covered in Bill C-59. However, I also deal with the Investment Canada Act, which governs the review of foreign investment going into Canada. We've seen a number of changes under the Investment Canada Act as well. Bill C-34 recently received royal assent. It is not yet enforced, but I think it soon will be.

The issue with foreign investment is multifold. First, there's a great deal of regulatory uncertainty for foreign investors who are subject to the Investment Canada Act in terms of what will be required of them. The national security provisions of the act are quite broad and are being applied more broadly. I think there is a lack of transparency in what investors can expect, especially in areas that aren't traditionally thought of as related to national security. You can think of defence and the military, but increasingly we're looking at investments in critical minerals and critical infrastructure as being very important to Canada's national security. Those categories are getting very broad.

The pending amendments that will come into force shortly will implement a mandatory reporting regime for certain investments in critical areas for prescribed businesses that involve prescribed rights. However, those will all be defined by regulations, of which the business community and the bar have not seen any drafts. There's a great deal of uncertainty right now as to where the foreign investment regime is heading.

Separately, I know the Canadian government and a number of people working in the civil service at ISED and other investment-related arms are doing good work in reaching out to foreign entities that may have an interest in investing in Canada. I've worked with a number of clients who have been the subjects of that type of outreach and who have come to Canada. We've worked with them in that context, so I know that work is being done. However, I think the more clarity we can get around the new amendments to the Investment Canada Act, the better, from a foreign investment perspective.

[Tim Ross, Executive Director, Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada]

Good evening, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the members of the committee for the invitation to appear tonight. I would love to be there in person; however, I am in Fredericton for work, so I am appearing from Fredericton today. I represent the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, the national voice of the co-operative housing movement.

As a bit of co-op history for starters, co-op housing is a very well-documented success story in Canada. For over 50 years, co-ops have been providing good-quality, affordable homes owned and governed by the community members who live there. There are more than 2,200 housing co-operatives located in every province and territory, and co-ops are home to more than one-quarter of a million Canadians.

Co-ops offer at-cost housing, meaning housing charges are increased every year simply to cover the costs of maintaining buildings in a good state of repair and investing in the future. That's why co-op homes cost $400 to $500 less per month on average in Canada when compared to similarly aged apartments in the private rental market. Co-ops also offer greater security of tenure: There's no outside landlord who might sell, renovict or unreasonably increase rents.

Co-ops are inclusive by design, as almost all operate on a mixed-income model, administering available rental assistance programs for a portion of households with low incomes. They build strong communities because co-op housing brings people together, and they allow people the chance to have a say in how their housing is run.

Now I have some remarks to offer related to the fall economic statement and implementation.

The first is related to the rental rebate. Bill C-59 proposes to extend the GST rebate to certain co-operative housing. We really appreciate this policy change, as we know it will be directly passed on to households in need that occupy new co-op housing. This is a big part of the power of co-op housing. The non-profit, community ownership model ensures co-op homes are affordable and remain affordable for generations to come.

The co-op housing sector is also ready to build. We're ready to play a larger role in the housing crisis. The fall economic statement also included some resources for the forthcoming co-op housing development program. A budget commitment for this program was first made in 2022 for the launch of a new co-operative housing supply program, and we are very much looking forward to the launch of this program. We heard recently from the minister, at a conference a couple weeks ago, that the program is expected to launch in early 2024. We really hope that is the case, because any further delay in the launch of the program is costly—there is a lost opportunity cost to that.

I'll also to speak to the importance of acquisition in the national housing strategy's set of programs. Between 2016 and 2021, Canada lost 370,000 homes rented at or below $1,000 per month. This happens through demolition, conversion to condo or increasing rents at turnover, which leaves fewer affordable housing options. Unfortunately, we're actually losing more affordable housing supply than we're seeing built under current federal programs.

We recognize and welcome the recently announced Canada rental protection fund, which is meant to stem the loss of affordable housing by enabling co-ops and non-profits to buy rental housing to keep it affordable. We look forward to working with the federal government and our partners to expedite that fund's launch, because so many renters are in precarious situations today and housing co-operatives are ready to help.

Last but not least, it also must be said unequivocally that we need a fully funded “for indigenous, by indigenous” approach to the urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy. It's much needed right away. There's a $4-billion commitment on the table. We know that's not enough. Indigenous people in communities across the country disproportionately experience housing need, and we need to see a robust and dedicated response. This will help to both address the housing crisis and advance reconciliation.

In conclusion, the co-op housing sector is ready to work closely with the public, private and non-profit sectors to build more of the housing we need. The co-operative housing movement in Canada is well established and has proven to be very resourceful, passionate and committed to a vision of co-op housing for all. We believe that a housing system that works for all must include more co-operative homes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I look forward to the members' questions.

[Laurie Marquis, President, Association des psychoéducatrices et psychoéducateurs]

Good afternoon.

For my part, I'm going to tell you why we want psychoeducation services to be tax-exempt, both federally and in Quebec.

As my colleague Ms. Maillette said, psychoeducators carry out psychosocial interventions with a varied clientele, particularly in mental health. In fact, you had the chance to hear about it earlier, from Ms. Woo Dearden, who is a psychotherapist.

Psychoeducation is currently helping to reduce waiting lists for mental health services, which are a primary public health need in Quebec and Canada. However, the taxation of our psychoeducational services represents a real barrier to referral. For example, some professionals, and even some clients, are reluctant to come to our services, precisely because they are perceived as being a little more expensive, compared to the services of other professionals who are not taxed. Examples include occupational therapists, psychologists, acupuncturists and naturopaths. There are plenty of other services that are tax-exempt.

I can attest to this: often, taxes can prompt the client not to sign up for psychoeducational services, even when these would be the preferred services, for example because of adjustment difficulties or the need to develop a certain skill in their development. Professionals also tend not to refer their clients to a psychoeducator. We believe that tax exemption on our services would ease the financial burden on those seeking help. The costs of psychoeducation services are high. So, if we were to remove the taxes, which represent around 15% of the price of the session, it would allow people who need help to save significant amounts.

I'd also like to describe the expertise of psychoeducation. It lies above all in understanding the human being, developing abilities, managing emotions and developing skills. Moreover, our clinical process corresponds to the definition of the work of therapeutic counsellors, which we would like to see added to Bill C‑59, as we have seen. So, we believe that psychoeducation services could fall into the category of therapeutic counsellors.

To proceed in this way, you would first need to amend the Excise Tax Act by including the term “therapeutic counsellor” in the definition of “practitioner”. It should be made clear that psychoeducation is included, so that there is no ambiguity. That way, Revenu Québec, to which we also report, will be able to rely on federal documents to grant us tax-exempt status.

So there's still a long way to go before we can benefit from this exemption.

Thank you for listening.

[Kate McNeece, Partner, Competition, Antitrust and Foreign Investment, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, As an Individual]

Thanks very much.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee.

My name is Kate McNeece, and as the honourable chair just said, I am a partner at the law firm of McCarthy Tétrault, practising in competition, antitrust and foreign investment.

Thank you very much for inviting me to appear before you today.

Before I begin my statement, I want to note that I am appearing today in my capacity as an individual, and the views expressed today are my own, not those of my law firm or any client of McCarthy Tétrault. However, my submissions today are informed by my experience advising clients on the application of the Competition Act to their commercial agreements, conduct and mergers.

In my view, a comprehensive, clear and effective Competition Act is in the best interests of all stakeholders, including consumers and the business community. Bill C-59, along with the amendments enacted in 2022 and 2023, presents a comprehensive vision for the future of the act. I commend the government and this committee for their thoughtful approach to implementing meaningful competition law reform in Canada. In my remarks, I will highlight a few areas that I believe bear additional consideration.

First, I believe there is more work to be done to rightsize the merger control thresholds set out in sections 109 and 110 of the act. Over the past five years, the significant majority of transactions notified to the Competition Bureau have been designated non-complex, meaning they are identifiable by the clear absence of competition issues. Calibrating these thresholds to capture more potentially problematic mergers, while reducing the administrative burden on both merging parties and the bureau by excluding more mergers that clearly do not raise issues, should be a goal of any meaningful reform.

Bill C-59 changes the size of transaction thresholds to capture entities with significant sales in Canada. This is a step in the right direction. However, I suggest additional study to consider further calibration of these thresholds, including in particular an amendment to exclude from the “party-size” calculation assets and revenues of a vendor that is divesting its entire interest in a business. These are plainly irrelevant to the merged party's financial position.

Second, Bill C-59 introduces a disgorgement remedy for civil conduct that has been the subject of a tribunal order under section 75, 77, 79, or 90.1 of the act. I believe private actions under the act will be an important complement to bureau enforcement, and I understand these provisions are likely intended to incentivize use of these provisions.

However, the creation of a new collective redress mechanism from whole cloth risks confusion and uncertainty, when there is a simpler alternative. Section 36 of the act currently allows for collective redress for damages where there has been a violation of one of the criminal provisions of the act. I recommend that this committee consider revising Bill C-59 to remove the proposed disgorgement provisions, and instead allow private litigants to seek collective redress under section 36 of the act for conduct that has been the subject of a tribunal order concerning civil matters.

Third, Bill C-59 introduces private actions, administrative monetary penalties and financial remedies for conduct found to be contrary to section 90.1 of the act. I am particularly concerned that as drafted, these penalties could apply to agreements that would constitute mergers under section 92 of the act. It would cause significant uncertainty in transaction planning if mergers could be subject not only to bureau review and remedies under section 92 but also to AMPs, private actions and, potentially, disgorgement or damages under section 90.1. I urge the committee to explicitly exclude agreements and arrangements that constitute mergers for the purposes of section 92 from the scope of section 90.1 of the act.

Finally, I am concerned by the bureau's recent submission to this committee advocating for the inclusion of structural presumptions based on bright-line concentration and market share tests in the text of section 92. I caution the committee not to incorporate such a significant change into this bill without a careful study of the evidence supporting the magnitude of notified transactions that would be captured by the proposed thresholds and therefore be subject to a reversed burden, without consultation with a wide variety of stakeholders to understand the impact of such a change on merger activity and without consideration as to whether the proposed tests, which are taken verbatim from the new December 2023 U.S. horizontal merger guidelines, are appropriate in the context of Canada's economy.

While bright-line structural presumptions can be useful in providing direction to merging parties on the likely treatment of a prospective transaction and in potentially dissuading problematic transactions, in my view, they are most appropriately placed in enforcement guidelines, as they are in the U.S. The assessment of competitive effects is necessarily a contextual one, and the more balanced approach taken in Bill C-59, which permits but does not require the tribunal to assign greater weight to evidence of concentration and market share, is the more appropriate course.

Thank you very much for your time this afternoon. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax Emergency Meeting

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I am pleased to take part today in this debate on a subject of great importance for the future of our country.

Once again, this motion from our colleagues in the official opposition makes it clear that they do not see the urgency of taking action on climate change. It is unfortunate, since it is very clear that the consequences of climate change are very real and very costly.

This year's strange winter, with record temperatures and barely any snow, reminds us again that climate change is real, and so are its disastrous effects on Canadian communities.

Just in the last year, communities across our country had to deal with historic wildfires, ice storms and tropical storms. The list goes on, as 2023 saw a record fire season in Canada. The area burned was more than double that of the historic record, with hundreds of thousands of Canadians evacuated from their homes as a result. In fact, the total area burned exceeded 18 million hectares, which is two and a half times the previous record set in 1995 and more than six times the average over the past 10 years.

Also, the Canadian Climate Institute has concluded that climate change is already costing Canadian households billions of dollars. These costs are just the tip of the iceberg.

For example, in May 2023, oil companies in Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan were forced to curtail production as a precautionary measure in certain parts of these provinces.

Thankfully, our government understands that making the right to pollute free is not going to save Canadians money, and the days of doing nothing are behind us. Not only would inaction cost Canadians a lot of money, it would put their lives and safety at risk. Moreover, it would obviously compromise the environment we all depend on.

I am pleased to be part of a government that is shouldering its responsibilities and forging ahead to combat climate change. One of the ways we are doing this is through our carbon pricing system. As we know, experts agree that our pollution pricing system is the best tool we have to fight climate change and its devastating effects.

Putting a price on carbon pollution reduces emissions and encourages innovation. It gives households and businesses the flexibility to decide when and how to make changes.

I would also like to remind my hon. colleagues that our pollution pricing system is revenue-neutral. Every three months, the government delivers hundreds of dollars back to families through the Canada carbon rebate. In provinces where the federal fuel charge applies, a family of four will receive up to $1,800 in Canada carbon rebate amounts in 2024-25.

For this fiscal year, residents of the provinces where the rebate applies will receive the first of their four payments next week. Thanks to this rebate, eight out of 10 families receive more money than they pay. We are also making sure that big polluters pay their fair share.

Our government also understands that Canadians living in rural areas face unique challenges because they travel longer distances to get to school, work and the grocery store. We are proposing legislative amendments in Bill C‑59 to double the rural top-up from 10% to 20% of the basic rebate, because we understand their energy needs are greater and they have limited access to cleaner transportation options.

We also understand that some situations call for flexibility.

That is why we took temporary and targeted action to pause the fuel charge on heating oil with the goal of getting consumers off of home heating oil and onto a cleaner and far more affordable alternative. We took action to temporarily pause the application of the federal fuel charge on heating oil, not because it is a source of home heating but because it is the most expensive form of home heating.

It costs two to four times more to heat a home. That means that these costs are taking a big chunk out of the budgets of lower income Canadians.

Heating oil is currently used by 1.1 million homes in Canada, including 267,000 in Ontario and 287,000 across Atlantic Canada. We are committed to continue moving forward with our pollution pricing system while also supporting Canadians who need support to transition to greener options.

As our fall economic statement confirmed, we want to financially help Canadians to make the transition from home heating oil to better heating systems. Heat pumps are a cleaner way to heat and, in the long run, they lead to lower energy bills.

With our oil to heat pump affordability program, we are partnering with provinces and territories to increase the amount of federal funding that eligible homeowners can receive for installing a heat pump from $10,000 to $15,000, by adding up to an additional $5,000 in grant funding to match provincial and territorial contributions via co-delivery arrangements.

This means that heating systems and installation are free for low- and middle-income households, since we keep lowering costs and making access to federal programs easier.

A heat pump is one of the best ways that homeowners can break free from heating oil, save money on their heating bills and help fight climate change. Homeowners who switch from heating oil to heat pumps save an average of up to $2,500 a year on their heating bill.

Without question, we must keep up our efforts to fight climate change. Doing nothing, as the opposition wants, would have a devastating impact on the environment, our economy, our communities and the health of Canadians. Canadians can count on us to keep implementing our actions to fight climate change and support them through this transition.

I firmly believe that this is the responsible thing to do. The cost of inaction would simply be way too high.

Canadians deserve a government that handles this file seriously and responsibly. That is what we will continue to do.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

In the 15 seconds I have left, I'll provide verbal notice of a motion. Out of respect for my new colleague from the NDP and the non-permanent member from the Bloc, I won't move it.

It is the following: In respect of amendments to Bill C-59 ruled in order and substantive by the Chair, that clause-by-clause for these respective clauses be paused until such time as officials present testimony on these amendments; that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, President of the Treasury Board or—it's “or”; I'm not being greedy here—the Minister of National Revenue appear for one hour to answer the committee's questions. However, in order to be expeditious with the bill, this does not prevent other clauses from being reviewed out of order.

If there are substantive amendments coming to this bill, we need to examine them with the proper testimony. We were shortchanged access to the CRA officials and other officials at the very beginning of this study, so this is the motion that has now been tabled in public.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Smith, the title of this provision in Bill C‑59 and the way it's described or referred to is “Excessive interest and financing expenses limitation”. It seems like a pretty positive thing. I don't think any of us are in favour of excessive interest and excessive financing expenses. It seems, as a description, that we would be motivated to want to limit that.

Is that an improper description of this provision, in your view? You clearly don't want it to apply to your particular sector or industry. I'm just curious. Does your industry need excessive interest and excessive financing expenses, or is that just a misnomer, in your view?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to ask Mr. Powell or Mr. Smith from Electricity Canada a question. I'd like them to clarify certain problematic points in the new Bill C‑59 rules restricting excessive interest and financing expenses.

This new regime aims to make it more difficult to use tax havens, and to do so by attacking two schemes: the deduction of interest between subsidiaries, and hybrid arrangements. This is what the OECD, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, recommended to combat tax evasion.

You, on the other hand, would like to see private companies that generate electricity excluded from these provisions, since you consider them to be public utility companies.

Can you give us examples of electricity generation projects that would be at risk if this amendment were adopted?

We're trying to get a clear picture of the consequences and of which companies would be affected. You mentioned Nova Scotia and its small modular reactors. Is it the same for the nuclear industry in Ontario? Would it also be affected?

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

Welcome to all of the witnesses.

Mr. Vichie, I welcome you to committee. I am so pleased with the advancements that you've been able to make in a short period of time. I certainly am pleased with the news out of Newfoundland and Labrador today about World Energy and their green light to keep moving. I think that really speaks to the work that is happening in Canada, certainly in Atlantic Canada, on global green energy, and I feel government always supports that work. Thank you for highlighting that in your opening comments.

If we could just drill down on that for a few moments, certainly as it relates to investment tax credits, could you again speak to why it is so important that we move Bill C-59 forward and why this legislation is so important?

[Trent Vichie, Chief Executive Officer, EverWind Fuels]

Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to present today.

My name is Trent Vichie. I am the chief executive officer of EverWind Fuels, Canada's most advanced green hydrogen development.

For the last two years, we have invested over $200 million in capital to pursue and push our projects forward. Last week, we were pleased to announce the completion of our front-end engineering design, which marked a major milestone in the development of the project and in the development of the technical and engineering requirements to build the project. In short, we are a significant supporter of the government's initiatives to move forward in terms of reducing carbon emissions, and we see hydrogen as a crucial part of this work.

As you will hear in our comments, the swift passage of the investment tax credits—first announced in the 2022 fall economic statement—are a crucial part of bringing these projects to life. The swift passage of ITC legislation is important for two reasons. First, it provides certainty to invest. Second, the passage of legislation also allows other parts of the government that administer the ITCs—namely, the Canada Revenue Agency and Natural Resources Canada—to roll out the administrative aspects, which are crucial to the effectiveness of the investment tax credits. Some of these areas are highly technical and need to be integrated with the engineering work. This leads to a need for speed on that.

Today, I am here to provide our perspective on Bill C-59, which implements certain provisions of the 2023 fall economic statement. Specifically, we will focus our comments on the clean technology investment tax credit.

First off, we are pleased the federal government has introduced a robust suite of policies to ensure Canada remains a globally competitive jurisdiction when it comes to clean energy. The fulsome set of ITCs and other public policy tools gives Canada the opportunity to be an investment destination of choice and a leader in this sector. However, to truly seize this first-move advantage, we must be swift and decisive in our public policy actions. The global race to provide clean energy to the world is on and competition is fierce. We have the opportunity to make Canada a leader in this space. The U.S. Inflation Reduction Act must be met with an equal or more robust policy response, and the ITCs play a key role in this.

With this context, we want to highlight two important commitments made in the fall economic statement.

First, a timeline was laid out with regard to the enactment of certain clean investment tax credits. For EverWind, the timeline around the clean hydrogen ITC is crucial, along with the introduction of legislation for the clean technology ITC through Bill C-59.

Second, the fall economic statement proposed clarity regarding the effect of repayable loans from Crown corporations and other public authorities on the investment tax credits. EverWind closed a $125-million loan with Export Development Canada in late November 2023. This proposal provides certainty that the loan will not delay the availability of various clean investment tax credits. We look forward to seeing this measure in the forthcoming bill.

With that background, the introduction of legislation for the clean technology investment tax credit is therefore most welcome, including the mechanisms for labour conditions, which we wholeheartedly support. As a general comment, the refinements from the August draft legislation are welcome and also consistent with the original framework announced in the 2022 fall economic statement.

My message to parliamentarians is simple: We need the legislation that will activate these ITCs to be passed without delay. The clean energy ITC and clean hydrogen ITC will help ensure Canadian green energy projects can develop with greater speed and certainty and can be cost-competitive on a global stage.

As I mentioned earlier, EverWind has invested nearly $200 million in our projects to date, in order to establish North America's most advanced green energy hub in the Atlantic Canada region. We are the only project in the western hemisphere to have completed FEED engineering. This shows Canada can lead the way, but we need all the public policy tools to be fulsome and operational in order to seize this opportunity in front of us.

As we are in advanced discussions on offtake, full certainty and accessibility of the investment tax credits will enable the signing of binding offtake agreements and the financial close—project financing and final investment decisions—on our multi-billion dollar project this year, with production at the end of 2025.

As we indicated in our consultation submissions, we have full certainty in the design and functionality of these ITCs to provide greater commercial certainty and establish Canada as a global green-energy leader.

I'll conclude by saying that the global energy movement towards green energy is rapidly accelerating. It's a critical time for the federal government to determine whether Canada will be a leader or a follower in the future energy economy. That is why we need to ensure that the clean technology ITCs and others are in place as quickly as possible. There's not a moment to waste in this fierce global race.

Thank you again for your time, and I look forward to questions.

[Michael Powell, Vice-President, Government Relations, Electricity Canada]

Thank you, Chair.

Good afternoon. Electricity Canada is the national voice for the electricity sector. Our members generate, transmit and distribute electricity in every province and territory. As the chair said, joining me today is Derek Smith. He's the VP of corporate tax at Emera Inc., and he may be better suited to answer some of your more technical questions because I'm not a tax expert.

Nova Scotia will be impacted by the EIFEL provisions included in Bill C-59.

Since 2005, the electricity sector has cut emissions in half, and today Canada’s grid is over 84% non-emitting. That's among the cleanest in the world. Our sector has been responsible for the majority of emissions reductions in Canada and will be the engine that powers a net-zero economy in 2050. The task to getting there will not be easy. Estimates project that we will need to generate two or three times more electricity than we currently do today. That growth must be done without compromising the reliability of our system or the affordability of energy bills for Canadians.

Bill C-59 is an important piece of legislation that helps enable that balance. In particular, the clean technology and CCUS ITCs in Bill C-59 are essential pieces of the puzzle. To this end, federal investments enable the competitive build-out of electricity infrastructure, while reducing the burden on Canadian ratepayers.

That being said, we've identified a few adjustments to these ITCs that we think would help ensure that they have the maximum intended impact. That includes expanding eligibility to allow commercial trusts to access the clean-tech ITC and ensure the projects held by these trusts are competitive; adjusting the draft definition of SMRs in the clean-tech ITC to those that are no more than 1,200 megawatts of thermal energy per reactor core; and then extending the full 50% value of the CCUS ITC until 2035, recognizing that delays on its deployment and the final clean electricity regulations have impacted project timelines.

It's equally important that other ITCs, including the clean electricity ITC, are moved forward to deployment as quickly as possible. We look forward to more details on that in the very near future. While these are provisions that help enable an affordable, reliable and clean electricity grid, there are provisions that serve as a barrier to these objectives. As outlined in our submitted brief, the excessive interest and financing expenses limitation, EIFEL, will inadvertently impact energy affordability for Canadians in various parts of the country and restrict the capital intended to build projects supporting net zero. The intent of these rules is to align with the OECD’s BEPS project. This is a positive step towards fostering a fair global tax framework and something that we support.

However, as some regulated gas and electric utilities are federally taxable and have some assets outside of Canada, they will be subject to the EIFEL rules while others will not, for example, those that are provincial Crown corporations. Due to this structure and the way rates are set, the utilities impacted by EIFEL will see increased costs passed to customers from interest on all existing and new debt.

We understand that broad sectoral exemptions could run counter to the spirit of the legislation, so we propose a targeted public interest exemption for regulated energy utilities and their holding companies. This approach is consistent with that of our peers, including the United States, Ireland and the United Kingdom, and is consistent with the OECD recommendation that these rules not apply to public benefit infrastructure. Such an exemption is appropriate for our sector as rate-regulated utilities are unique for several reasons.

First, as a highly regulated, capital-intensive industry, we must maintain high levels of debt to ensure that costs to consumers are spread over the life of a project. Debt levels of utilities could be 50% or 60% of their capital structure and are prescribed to the utilities by regulators. Second, regulated utilities are subject to a significant amount of scrutiny and control by provincial regulators in Canada. In this vein, every dollar a regulated utility spends or charges to a customer must go through a transparent and accountable process. Third, due to their regulatory structure, utilities must pass on certain costs to customers, including taxes paid.

Importantly, EIFEL will create a patchwork that will affect Canadians' energy bills differently across the country based on the taxable status and ownership of their local utility—and we've outlined this in a map that was included in part of our submission. You can't choose, as a customer of a gas or electric utility, to move to a different provider without moving. You have no choice about the utility you have; it's based on where you live. Creating winners and losers with EIFEL will create a patchwork of energy affordability winners and losers, and that's not something that anyone wants. We believe a targeted exemption will ensure fairness and avoid increasing energy bills for Canadians at a time when cost of living concerns are on the rise. That's why we'd encourage, in this case, a sectoral exemption on the EIFEL rules.

Thank you. We look forward to taking your questions.

[Stephanie Woo Dearden, Registered Psychotherapist, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello. My name is Stephanie Woo Dearden. I am a registered psychotherapist, practising from London, Ontario.

I'm here to be a witness to the parts of Bill C-59 that pertain to the Excise Tax Act and amending it to expand the GST/HST exemption to services rendered to individuals by certain health practitioners to include psychotherapists and counselling therapists.

I am grateful to be here not only because I get to speak on this issue, but I understand that this moment of this committee considering and researching this legislation means a lot to the psychotherapists, counselling therapists and allies, who have been asking the Canadian government to remove this unfair tax since 2004. I, along with my professional peers and colleagues, am heartened that the Canadian government has listened and finally taken action on this matter after this time.

Firstly, psychotherapy and counselling therapy are the same profession with a different name, based on provincial preference. I call myself a “psychotherapist” rather than a “counselling therapist”, because I reside in Ontario and am registered with the College of Registered Psychotherapists. If I were to move to Nova Scotia, the equivalent professional and regulatory body there would be the College of Counselling Therapists. It's the same profession but a different name.

Our profession has met the criteria of being regulated in at least five different provinces and territories in order to be included in the Excise Tax Act among health care professionals.

I am not an expert in tax law, so I will be commenting based on my experience as a psychotherapist and what I see in my practice.

Psychotherapy and counselling therapy can be an integral part of an individual's overall health. Our bodies don't experience physical health and mental health as separate. There have been documented links between depression and inflammation, implicating the immune system; the HPA axis, which is our body's stress response system, in tumorigenesis in cancer; and cortisol release and Crohn's disease, just to name a few.

A health care system that divides between physical health care and mental health care is what we are familiar with, but health involves supporting and nourishing both aspects within us.

Examples from my practice involve working with individuals living with conditions such as endometriosis, adenomyosis, cancer, Crohn's disease and thyroid disease. I have seen, in sessions, the way psychological and socio-emotional pain contribute to physical symptoms that aggravate my client's experience of these conditions. Addressing this pain in a therapeutic, safe and compassionate way can lead to tension release, the ability to regulate emotions, to step out of isolation, to connect with community, to ask for help and to advocate for oneself in the health care system. It's by no means a cure, but it allows my clients to live with a better quality of life.

Removing this tax on counselling therapy and psychotherapy signals that the Canadian government understands that the health of Canadians encompasses physical health care and mental health care, and that this understanding is written in policy.

From a business and consumer perspective, amending the Excise Tax Act to include psychotherapists and counselling therapists allows choice and fairness for Canadians seeking psychotherapy. Currently, social workers, occupational therapists and nurses are among the practitioners who can provide psychotherapy services and refer to themselves as “psychotherapists”. They are exempt from charging GST or HST. It is ironic that counselling therapists and psychotherapists, who have specifically trained to practise psychotherapy, have to charge tax on their services.

If a Canadian is living in a rural setting, where a psychotherapist or a counselling therapist is their main option for accessing mental health care, they would have to pay HST. This puts them in an unfair situation compared with an urban counterpart, who may have their pick among professionals registered to different professional regulatory bodies and can choose one charging a lower fee and who doesn't charge tax.

This person—in an urban setting in our example—gets to keep an extra $10 to $20 in their pocket per session, compared to someone who's living in this rural setting and seeing a counselling therapist or psychotherapist. If both these individuals see a therapist biweekly, that would be an extra $240 to $480 saved over a year for our urban resident. There are many things they can do with that money—getting more sessions if they need it—so in my view this exemption is also about fairness for Canadians seeking mental health services across the country.

There is more I can say on this, but I am sensitive to my time. MPs from multiple major political parties have written op-eds and made statements declaring this tax to be unfair, so I think that it is straightforward, going forward, that amending the Excise Tax Act to include psychotherapists and counselling therapists is one step the Canadian government can take to make mental health care more accessible to Canadians.

[Lindsey Thomson, Registered Psychotherapist and Director, Public Affairs, Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association]

Thank you, Mr. Davies. I appreciate that. It's good to see you as well.

That is part of the issue, absolutely. For our piece—the current private member's bill, Bill C-323, which is leading into Bill C-59—what we're looking at is a tax exemption for counselling and psychotherapy services. I could chat your ear off for an hour about a more systemic look at ensuring that the two different professions are seen as one and the same and not dealt with separately. For example, the CRA recently released proposed amendments. It had one document for counselling therapy and a separate document for psychotherapy, which indicates to us that there's still some work for us to do in terms of bridging that gap of knowledge across all levels of the public and the government as well.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Well, maybe you don't, but lots of people do. It may not be the experience.... I come from Vancouver, which is very different and a far cry from Cobourg. I tell you, there's a big lack of affordable housing in Vancouver and we do need federal support there.

I'll turn my attention now to the psychotherapy association. It's good to see you again.

In your May 2022 written submission to the Standing Committee on Health, the Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association wrote the following:

The profession of counselling therapy/psychotherapy meets the threshold for tax exemption in the Excise Tax Act because it is regulated in five provinces. However, because the profession does not regulate the same title in all five provinces, the Department of Finance does not accept that counselling therapists and psychotherapists are the same profession and meet the minimum threshold of regulation in five provinces.

I'm trying to understand what we're doing in Bill C-59. Am I correct that this bill would correct that problem and then eliminate the GST/HST in all provinces, whether they're regulated the same way or not? Do I have that correct?

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

Thank you. That is very clear and very useful.

Mr. Castiblanco, this afternoon we will be hearing from representatives of Electricity Canada. They are going to talk to us about tax deductions for interest expenses. Obviously, it is important to do more to combat the use of tax havens and tax avoidance, and those deductions are one of the methods used. We welcome what Bill C‑59 provides in that regard.

That said, I would like to understand better why the electricity sector should be excluded from that. What would Bill C-59 prevent by wanting to more effectively combat the use of tax havens?

[Sara Eve Levac]

In our opening remarks, we talked about the right to repair. We explained that in reality, it can be difficult to repair a lot of products, because you need specialized tools and the parts are difficult to obtain. Our fear is therefore that the provision requiring that a means of diagnosis and repair can be readily supplied might mean that a lot of products are exempted from this new obligation.

Consumers also have trouble getting their property repaired because repairs are very expensive. Sometimes it is better to buy a new product because the cost of repairing is very high and obtaining the parts needed can take several months. The bill does not address those problems for consumers. It might therefore be desirable to consider a provision that the time for obtaining parts and the cost of repairs must be reasonable.

We also talked about applications brought by private parties. Bill C‑59 will expand the possibility of bringing private applications for violations of the Competition Act. We believe that is a positive improvement. The bill will also allow monetary awards to be requested for certain violations of the act, but not for deceptive marketing practices. We therefore recommend that this be made possible.

On the subject of greenwashing, the bill will prohibit false or misleading representations about a product. However, that proposed prohibition would not apply to general representations about the environmental impact of a business. For example, if a business says it is carbon neutral, that is not a representation about a product. We are therefore asking that the prohibition be extended to general representations made by businesses. That exists in the European Union, which has adopted a new greenwashing directive that specifically applies to general representations by a business.

If I may, I would like to talk about one last thing. The bill proposes a new system for the certification of agreements or arrangements related to protecting the environment. We have questions about that provision, however, primarily about the grounds provided by the bill for rescinding certificates. At present, the grounds for rescinding a certificate do not include circumstances in which an agreement no longer serves a purpose. For example, if two businesses agreed to change a chemical component of a product because it would be less harmful to the environment, and scientific discoveries subsequently proved that the component had negative effects, that would not be a circumstance that could justify a request to rescind the certificate, according to the terms currently provided in the bill.

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

It's a sad story.

I'll finish up with the Canada water agency, which was announced in Bill C-59.

Cobourg Beach is an absolutely beautiful treasure. I think it is one of the prettiest places in all of Ontario, but the pier is in need of some repair. Perhaps you could talk a little bit about that.

[Lucas Claveland]

As a business owner, one of our biggest problems is retaining staff, because there are no available rentals in our community. A one-bedroom apartment in Cobourg currently rents for about $1,950, and for two bedrooms, you're at $2,500-plus. At present, our community has to bring in between five and eight school buses of workers, because we have such a booming industrial complex within our community. We have zero square feet of industrial space. Our entire downtown is full of businesses like it hasn't been in 45 years, yet we don't have anywhere for workers to live in our community.

I notice in Bill C-59 that there are a lot of initiatives being put forth. We know at the county level as a service provider that the way we work with the different levels of government matters. I have a variety of recommendations that I will submit to this committee afterwards regarding how we can implement some of these changes in a more meaningful way that will help those service providers, but, Mr. Lawrence, the reality is that when the mayor of the community he lives in, who owns a business, can't afford to live in that community, that's just the tip of an iceberg that clearly is a problem we need to start addressing.

[Sara Eve Levac, Lawyer, Option consommateurs]

Thank you.

Bill C‑59 proposes a number of amendments to the Competition Act.

One of the amendments proposes to provide a form of entitlement to a remedy by allowing the Competition Tribunal to require that a business supply a means of diagnosis or repair for a product, if the means can be readily supplied.

Option consommateurs is doubtful that these amendments will be sufficiently robust to enable consumers to repair their defective devices.

Some devices require specialized tools or have components that are difficult to access. The effect of the design of the devices might therefore be to exempt the businesses from these new obligations because of the difficulty of supplying a means of diagnosis or repair. We believe that the requirement that the means of diagnosis or repair "can be readily supplied" should be removed.

The cost of repairs can also be very high. This prohibitive cost sometimes makes purchasing a new device more attractive than repairing it. The proposed amendments do not allow for counteracting this situation.

In our brief, we also propose certain additional measures. In particular, the Competition Tribunal should be able to make monetary awards in private applications dealing with deceptive marketing practices. The current amendments preclude that possibility, although they would allow it for private applications based on other violations of the act.

As well, the greenwashing provisions should be amended to cover general representations by a business relating to its environmental impact. The bill only prohibits representations relating to a product.

It will be our pleasure to answer your questions.

Thank you for your attention.

[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?

[Julien Beaulieu]

Perfect.

The officials also talked about the fact that certain types of claims were not covered by the present version of clause 236.

Clause 236 requires that when a business makes certain environmental claims it do tests. For example, if a business wants to say that an apple is carbon neutral, it has to do tests. People at the grocery store will then be able to rely on the fact that the business did a test to prove that the apple was carbon neutral.

However, the officials told us that if the business says the apple is green, that is, that it is environmentally friendly, regardless of what colour it is, or if it says that the apple is sustainable, there are no standards in the industry that regulate that claim. There is no standard that regulates the use of words like "green" or "sustainable". In fact, the commissioner of competition said, in the letter that was sent to committee members, that generic representations, like ones that use words like "green", "responsible", "sustainable", and other catch-all words, are not precise enough for people to know what they mean. Clause 236 in its present version would not apply to representations of that nature.

We believe this is a huge problem and that is why we are proposing to compel the disclosure of the tests on which environmental claims, including generic claims, are based. In practice, this means that if it says at the grocery store that an apple is responsible or sustainable, the business will have to explain how it arrived at that conclusion, by way of a label, a QR code or a link to a website. It must therefore explain how it defines the word "green" or the word "sustainable". If it cites an industry standard, it will have to name it.

That approach would therefore give consumers access to information and they would be able to understand what someone is trying to tell them when they say something is "green" or "sustainable" at the grocery store, for example. Requiring disclosure of tests or of the proof to support environmental claims would very significantly improve Bill C-59.

Essentially, what I would like you to take from my presentation is that clause 236 is a step in the right direction, but we want to make it genuinely possible for consumers to recognize greenwashing and have a good understanding of what they are being told. Businesses have to be given a clear regulatory framework. The amendments I proposed in my presentation would be essential to achieving that objective.

I think everyone here is in favour of environmental transparency, regardless of how extensive the environmental policies someone wants to propose might be. No one opposes transparency and truth, and that is essentially what we are asking for by proposing these amendments.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for being with us today.

I particularly want to thank you for asking our committee to move with haste to implement Bill C-59. I think it's a very important message. I think we are trying to move as quickly as we can.

Following that theme, my first question is for Mr. Cameron.

The U.S. Inflation Reduction Act was passed into law within two months of the introduction of the bill. Our bill has been in our House for twice as long.

How important is the quick passage of this bill in your decarbonization efforts as well as investments, and how important is it for Canada to remain competitive in the global market?

[Mark Cameron, Vice President, Government Relations and Public Policy, Pathways Alliance]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable members.

I am pleased to be speaking to you today on behalf of Pathways Alliance.

Pathways Alliance represents Canada's six largest oil sands producers: Canadian Natural, Cenovus, ConocoPhillips Canada, Imperial, MEG Energy and Suncor. Together, our six companies operate 95% of Canada's oil sands production. The oil sands sector accounts for about 3% of Canada's total GDP and supports 255,000 direct and indirect jobs. Last year, the sector contributed over $20 billion in taxes and royalties to all levels of government in Canada.

We are proud of our contribution to the Canadian economy, but we also acknowledge that we are significant greenhouse gas emitters. That's why, in 2021, our six companies came together to make a joint commitment to achieve net zero in our operations by 2050. Our industry has made significant progress in reducing emissions already. We reduced our emissions intensity, or emissions per barrel, by 23% between 2009 and 2022.

To go further in reducing emissions in order to achieve the kinds of ambitious reduction goals Canada has set for 2030 and the ultimate goal of net zero by 2050, we will need not simply incremental improvements but also step changes in new technology. That's why our six companies are not only committed to long-term emissions reduction but also collaborating on what would be one of the world's largest carbon capture and storage networks in northern Alberta. The Pathways project would involve installing carbon capture units on 14 different oil sands projects, building a 400-kilometre-long pipeline from Fort McMurray to south of Cold Lake, and storing the carbon dioxide from those 14 sites deep underground in saline aquifers.

Carbon capture is the only currently available technology to reduce emissions from oil sands operations in absolute terms between now and 2030. Other technologies, whether small modular reactors, increased use of solvents in oil sands extraction or use of hydrogen for steam generation, may be possible in the longer term, but they are not commercially available today.

Unfortunately, carbon capture is extremely expensive and is, frankly, not economical without partnerships between industry and the federal and provincial governments. That is why we are strong supporters of the concept of the investment tax credits for CCS and other clean technologies. We were pleased when the government first announced their intent to move forward with the ITCs in budget 2021 and have followed this proposal closely, until it was ultimately tabled as part of Bill C-59.

We would strongly urge the committee and the House to pass this legislation this spring and allow CCS projects to start not only in our sector but also in other sectors across Canada. However, we need to be clear that the proposed legislation still presents significant challenges.

We have proposed a number of important changes, which we have submitted both to Finance Canada and to this committee. I can't go into all of the issues now, but let me mention a few of the matters that we see as being most critical.

First, in our view, the rate reduction after 2030, effectively reducing the ITCs in half, is too steep and too fast. There are significant schedule risks in being able to get a 400-kilometre-long pipeline and 14 capture projects costing over $16 billion from the drawing board to in-service within six years. If there are delays for any reason—regulatory or legal challenges, labour shortages, supply chain challenges—companies may miss the 2030 deadline and therefore lose half of the available ITC. At a minimum, we think the projects that are under construction before 2030 should be able to receive the full ITC rate until the project is complete.

Second, Bill C-59 states that the ITCs would only become available when equipment is acquired, not when expenses are incurred. Again, given supply chain and other challenges, we think this is a difficult requirement. Companies cannot make hundreds of millions of dollars in expenditure decisions without knowing when those expenditures will be eligible for the ITC and whether they will get the full rate at that time.

Third, we are concerned about the provisions that allow ITCs to be clawed back if the ownership of carbon capture infrastructure changes hands, even if the infrastructure is still being used for its intended purposes. This could pose challenges if oil sands facilities change ownership, or even if we were to bring in indigenous partners as equity owners of CCS infrastructure. We think it should be clear that ITCs will not be clawed back as long as CCS infrastructure is still used for carbon capture.

There are a number of other important issues that we have raised, which are outlined more fully in our brief, such as the definition of “refurbishment expenses” versus “development expenses” and the role of the Minister of Natural Resources versus the Minister of National Revenue in looking at future clawbacks and several other important issues.

I want to make clear that we believe this legislation should still move forward, even if we can't address these issues right now. We believe that, for the ITCs to achieve their intended effect, we will have to deal with these questions, either now or in the future, before projects are able to achieve final investment decisions.

With that, I thank you for your time and look forward to hearing your questions.

[Julien Beaulieu]

Right. I'm sorry.

As I was saying, paragraph 236(1)(b.1) of Bill C‑59 proposes to tackle greenwashing by requiring that businesses that make representations regarding "a product's benefits for protecting the environment or mitigating the environmental and ecological effects of climate change" do adequate tests prior to making their representation. In the English version of the bill, the word "épreuve" is translated as "test". In other words, businesses that voluntarily decide to advertise their good environmental performance are to be required to have proof of what they are asserting.

While this provision is a very important step forward, it has four major limitations and it will miss its target if it is not improved.

First, paragraph 236(1)(b.1) would apply only to representations regarding products, so it excludes representations regarding a brand, an activity or an organization. However, as the Commissioner of Competition acknowledged in a letter sent to all members of the committee, many greenwashing cases, such as those regarding the carbon neutrality targets adopted by businesses, do not relate to specific products. We are therefore recommending that the scope of paragraph 236(1)(b.1) be extended to cover all environmental representations by businesses, regardless of their subject.

Second, paragraph 236(1)(b.1) does not require that businesses disclose the tests on which their representations are based unless there is a prosecution in the courts. However, without disclosure, it will be difficult for consumers to quickly ascertain, for example by reading a grocery product's packaging, whether a business really has proof of what it is asserting or what it means when it says a product is "green" or "sustainable". Other countries or states, like France and California, already impose disclosure obligations on businesses that make environmental representations. We suggest that Canada adopt the same type of obligation.

Third, paragraph 236(1)(b.1) relates only to representations regarding "protecting the environment or mitigating the environmental and ecological effects of climate change". That wording, which we believe to be too restrictive, could exempt some environmental representations from paragraph 236(1)(b.1), like representations relating to "restoring", as opposed to "protecting", the environment, or to mitigating the "causes", as opposed to "effects", of climate change. To correct the situation, we propose that the scope of paragraph 236(1)(b.1) be extended so that it is more inclusive in order to cover all representations about environmental performance.

Fourth, paragraph 236(1)(b.1) does not specifically prohibit cherry picking, which is when a business tries to boast about the positive aspects of its environmental performance without also disclosing its less glowing aspects. For example, a business might advertise its reductions of greenhouse gas emissions but fail to point out that they were achieved by destroying ecosystems. Something good is being done on the one hand, but on the other hand, nothing is said about what is less positive.

It should be noted that businesses are not obliged to advertise their environmental performance. However, the decision to do so comes with a duty to provide a complete picture of the situation and not choose the facts that put us in a good light while concealing those that make us look bad. We are therefore proposing that paragraph 236(1)(b.1) be amended to expressly prohibit cherry picking.

In conclusion, I will say that we believe these four proposals would definitely make Bill C-59 more enforceable and better able to achieve its objectives in relation to combatting greenwashing, a business practice that we are seeing or that could arise in all sectors of the Canadian economy. Sometimes it is difficult to detect this practice. However, we believe that Parliament's jurisdiction in this regard is clear and settled.

Thank you for your attention.

[Julien Beaulieu, Competition Law Researcher, Québec Environmental Law Centre]

Hello everyone.

Thank you for having me here at the committee. I am very grateful.

My remarks today will address the topic of greenwashing, and more specifically clause 236 of Bill C-59.

Those who are not familiar with greenwashing should know that it happens when an organization makes false or misleading representations about the environmental characteristics of a product, a brand, an activity, or the organization itself. Greenwashing can involve several environmental characteristics, such as recyclability, greenhouse gas emissions, and impacts on biodiversity.

We see several forms of greenwashing in the market across Canada. They include flatly false representations, vague or generic representations such as the use of fuzzy words like "green" and "sustainable" that no one really knows the meaning of, cherry picking by making selective representations that highlight positive environmental characteristics without mentioning their negative aspects, representations that are not supported by sufficient evidence, and prospective representations that are not based on a concrete action plan.

This greenwashing has harmful consequences for the public and the Canadian economy. For example, it prevents consumers from making informed choices, it gives the offending businesses an unfair competitive advantage, and it denies the real environmental leaders recognition. Greenwashing also erodes consumer confidence and reduces incentives for businesses to innovate so they can offer products that are less harmful for the environment.

Paragraph 236(1)(b.1) of Bill C-59 proposes to tackle greenwashing by requiring that businesses that make representations regarding "a product's benefits for...

[Michael Hatch, Vice-President, Government Relations, Canadian Credit Union Association]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and honourable members, for inviting me to speak at this committee today.

My name is Michael Hatch. I am the vice president of government relations with the Canadian Credit Union Association.

Our members manage assets worth almost $600 billion, and we serve nearly 11 million Canadians. There are over 2,000 credit union locations. We are, as many of you will know, the only financial institution with a physical presence in nearly 400 communities across Canada, many of which are represented here today.

Credit unions and regional centrals employ over 30,000 Canadians and provide full-service financial services while being fully Canadian owned.

We are pleased to appear today to comment on Bill C-59, which contains many measures of importance to our sector and to Canadians.

First of all, we were extremely pleased to see in last year's budget an update to the definition of “credit union” in the Income Tax Act. The current definition—too often enforced by CRA—dates from the early 1970s, so that makes it older than a lot of people in this room. It's no longer remotely relevant for today's world and has had negative tax consequences for co-operatively owned financial institutions in recent years. Last year's budget proposed language that will solve this problem, and we urge Parliament to pass this as soon as possible.

We were also pleased to see in last year's budget bill expanded membership options for credit unions in Payments Canada.

Furthermore, this bill also contains significant reforms to competition law in Canada, and I gather we'll hear more from my colleagues on that. These are largely necessary, should enhance competition and consumer protection and are part of a broader global shift towards enhanced competition law. However, in our sector, there is an important nuance that must be pointed out.

Credit unions, as many of you will know, provide some of the only real competition that exists in financial services in this country. Bill C-59 contains, among other things, significant reforms to the merger review process. Normally, mergers and consolidation are associated with decreased competition. In our sector, the opposite is true, and I can't underline this enough. Credit unions have been consolidating for decades, and this trend will continue.

Far from reducing competition, consolidation has allowed the sector to continue to provide the only competition that exists for the large banks. The recent acquisition of HSBC by RBC will negatively impact the competitive landscape for financial services in Canada, as these are two massive entities. The partnership of two or more small co-operatively owned financial institutions that come together to share costs and increase scale allows them to continue competing with the RBCs and HSBCs of this world. It is our hope, therefore, that a more robust merger review process will not hinder the further consolidation that will be required in the years to come in the credit union sector.

We urge members of this committee and all parliamentarians to pursue a legislative regime that allows credit union consolidation to continue, as this is consistent with enhanced competition in Canadian financial services. As federal policy-makers, the members on this committee have a key role to play in ensuring a regulatory and legislative environment that fosters the competition the Canadian financial services sector so desperately needs.

Far too often, policy coming out of Ottawa towards our sector takes into account the needs, scale and structure of the large banks. This has had very negative impacts on the credit union sector over the years. By working towards a federal legislative regime that allows credit unions to grow and thrive, we can be part of the solution to the ongoing cost of living pressures faced by millions of Canadians. Passing this bill at the earliest opportunity will help a great deal in this.

Thank you so much again for your attention.

I look forward to the testimony of my fellow panellists and to your questions, Mr. Chair.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Pentland, the Department of the Environment Act presently identifies Environment and Climate Change Canada as the lead federal department on all matters relating to water. It is not assigned to any other department. Bill C-59 enacts the Canada water agency act which would establish the Canada water agency as a stand-alone entity on this matter.

In what ways would the Canada water agency be more effective as the lead on fresh water in comparison to the current situation?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I find it unfortunate that we have spent the last hour debating what the House is considering today instead of asking questions about extremely important topics relating to Bill C-59.

My question is for Mr. Soucis.

Thank you for being with us today, Mr. Soucis and Ms. Landry.

Mr. Soucis, under clause 137 of Bill C‑59, the GST would be eliminated for psychotherapy and counselling therapy services.

You said that in Quebec, because of the professional orders, there is a lack of clarity and a fear that this provision would not apply in Quebec.

The Canada Revenue Agency has published notice 335 which provides that this will apply if a person has the qualifications equivalent to those that would enable them to practise in another province. However, it makes no sense for every professional in Quebec to have to go to New Brunswick to have their qualifications recognized.

You are suggesting that the committee adopt an amendment providing that the spirit of the section should be preserved and ensuring that the GST not apply to those services in Quebec unless what the Canada Revenue Agency is proposing has been done.

Is that correct?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you.

In your response to Mr. Morantz and in your opening, you mentioned the need for a stand-alone money-laundering offence and the reason why. Obviously, in the legislation that we're talking about today, Bill C-59, there are a number of changes made to the money-laundering offence, particularly around recklessness, as well as layering on changes that were brought in in the budget last year on structuring transactions.

I was hoping you might be able to speak to the impact this may be able to have on making it more effective in tackling money laundering.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I apologize to our witnesses. This is the kind of motion that is taking us away from the important business and the wonderful witnesses we have here today. It's a shame that it's being brought forward at this time. This is the kind of thing that could be done in committee business or something like that, when we don't have witnesses sitting in front of us, and people at home watching and waiting to hear what our witnesses have to say.

I will attempt to be very concise in responding to what Mr. Hallan has proposed.

The first concern I have with this motion is that it calls on the Prime Minister to do something. This motion is, first of all, non-binding, so no matter how the committee decides to deal with this particular motion, the Prime Minister will make the decision that he believes is appropriate.

The second point I would make is, if you read the motion, one of the lines—after a series of lines that, I would argue, misrepresent what carbon pricing is about—reads, “That this meeting be publicly televised and held within five weeks of this motion being adopted.”

I want to bring to the attention of members and those watching that this committee is just starting conversations with witnesses about Bill C-59, which is the fall economic statement. Presumably, there will be a budget brought to this committee. We have a packed agenda. We have already extended the sittings of this committee to accommodate that packed agenda. This would inevitably have the effect, if passed and brought to this committee—if that's what I understand this to mean—of delaying the work of this committee.

The third thing I would say is that if the premiers of the provinces want to meet or speak with the Prime Minister, they can do that. They do that all the time. They have phone conversations. They have meetings in person. To the folks watching at home, if you wanted to, you could simply go to the Prime Minister's Instagram or Twitter feed and check it out. Those conversations happen all the time.

I'm not sure why the finance committee would get involved in micromanaging the Prime Minister's and premiers' schedules. They are capable adults who can get together to meet and talk when they need to, and they do it all the time in various forms.

The other thing I would say is what the Prime Minister has said from the very beginning, and this has been the case for years.... In fact, I was a member of the provincial parliament for Ontario when the federal government was in the process of bringing in carbon pricing. At the time, the Government of Ontario, under the Liberal government of the time, had put in place a cap-and-trade system, which the subsequent and current Ford Conservative government decided to cancel.

The way the carbon pricing works federally is it only has an effect in those provinces that don't have their own approaches to fighting climate change. What's happened here is, since the beginning of carbon pricing, when the Prime Minister brought it in, every province has had the option of doing as it sees fit to fight climate change. That would allow them to not have the carbon pricing plan that is in place today. If they object to that, they have the option of bringing in other forms of carbon pricing. They've chosen not to do that.

We heard testimony from Premier Moe at OGGO, one of our other committees. He basically said they looked at other schemes to fight climate change, and the current federal carbon pricing was actually the least costly.

I suppose the Conservatives' opposition to carbon pricing and their desire to have premiers meet with the Prime Minister is a sign that they want, number one, to take us away from the important business of this committee in reviewing the legislation that the people want and that these witnesses have come to speak to.

I would point out that this legislation has a tremendous number of important things in place for businesses and for workers. I'm sure we will hear that from our witnesses throughout the day today. These types of motions that have been put forward today are meant as delay tactics to take us away from that business.

The second thing I would say is that the—

[Félix-David Soucis, Psychoeducator, Grouping of Professional Mental Health Orders of Quebec]

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

Thank you for inviting us to appear before you on behalf of the Grouping of Professional Mental Health Orders of Québec.

My name is Félix-David Soucis and I am the president of the Ordre des psychoéducateurs et psychoéducatrices of Quebec. With me is Josée Landry, president of the Ordre des conseillers et conseillères d'orientation du Québec. We also represent our colleagues in the Ordre professionnel des sexologues du Québec, the Ordre professionnel des criminologues du Québec, and the Ordre des travailleurs sociaux et des thérapeutes conjugaux et familiaux du Québec.

The primary mission of Quebec's professional orders is to protect the public. They carry out that mission through a range of mechanisms that include professional inspection of their members, continuing education, and their respective syndics' handling of complaints from the public. In this way, the orders ensure the quality and rigour of their members' practice.

The orders represented by our grouping have a total membership of a little over 11,000 professionals who offer mental health services and care to the Quebec public and who are affected by this bill. Almost 2,500 of those professionals are in private practice. As is the case for other professionals in Quebec, they are currently required to charge their clients provincial and federal taxes. This interferes with access to services by people who are experiencing rising levels of need, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic. During that period, in fact, the Quebec government formally designated professions in the field of mental health and human relations as essential because of the necessary help they provide the public in relation to psychosocial support and mental health care.

We are pleased with the measures announced in clause 137 of Bill C-59 that would eliminate the GST/HST for psychotherapy and counselling services. We believe that this measure will offer Canadians better access to mental health services and care. In Quebec, our professions have been included in the Professional Code of Quebec since 2012 as professions in the field of mental health and human relations. The legislature has thus reserved to our professions the practice of professional activities involving a high risk of harm to the public.

While some of these professionals hold permits as psychotherapists, the others hold permits issued to them by their professional order. They work in mental health and counselling in their respective field of practice, which is clearly defined in legislation, the Professional Code of Quebec. The care and services they provide, whether as psychoeducators, guidance counsellors, sexologists, criminologists or marriage and family therapists, undeniably fall within the field of mental health and apply to personal, professional and educational situations or to family- or couple-related situations.

If a person is facing difficulties relating to entry into the job market, a guidance counsellor will be able to mobilize the person's resources to enable them to achieve their career plans.

If an adolescent is having difficulties associated with going back home after time spent in a rehabilitation centre as a result of committing offences, a criminologist will be able to support them in rebuilding their social skills.

If a member of a family is in difficulty because of a mental health diagnosis, a psychoeducator will mobilize the adaptive capabilities of the entire family so the person is able to cope again.

If a person is questioning their gender identity, a sexologist will be able to support them in their personal journey.

If a couple is having relationship difficulties because of a conflict, a marriage and family therapist will offer them support to improve their methods of communication in order to foster a better relationship.

As you can see, the professionals who belong to these professions that are governed by the Professional Code of Quebec, and therefore by a professional order, are authorized to provide counselling therapy with the goal of supporting the public's mental health needs, in compliance with best practices in their field of practice.

However, the Canada Revenue Agency's notice 335 concerning the exemption for counselling therapy states that the professional services provided by a person could be exempted if the person "has the qualifications equivalent to those necessary to be so licensed or otherwise certified in another province."

Under this interpretation of the bill, it would be confusing and time-consuming, for all of the authorities that participate in such a process, for a professional to have to ask another Canadian authority to verify a qualification when it has already been attested to by the permit that authorizes the person to practise their profession. In its present form, the bill would require the members of Quebec's professional orders to verify with a regulatory agency that oversees the profession of counselling therapy in another province, as is the case in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, that they have qualifications equivalent to the qualifications of the professionals in the province in question.

We would point out that under the Professional Code, our professional orders have a mandate to be the regulatory and supervisory body for their profession in Quebec and that they are capable of doing that.

I would like to conclude by emphasizing that Quebec has a variety of professionals who are different from those in the other provinces. Quebeckers should not be penalized by having to pay taxes because of that difference. For this reason, we believe that this bill must take into account the unique features of Quebec's system of professions. It needs to be amended so that the services offered by members of Quebec's professional orders are exempted on the same basis as the services offered elsewhere in Canada without professionals having to prove their qualifications to authorities in another province.

Thank you for your attention and we are available to anything further having to do with this bill.

My colleague and I are now prepared to answer your questions.

[Jeffrey Simser, Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual]

Good morning. Thank you so much for inviting me to come and share my expertise with the committee.

For those of you who don't know me, I'm now retired from the Ministry of the Attorney General after over 30 years, and I was Canada's first director of civil asset forfeiture.

I'm here to talk about subdivision A of Bill C-59, which is proposed section 278 and onward, and specifically changes to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Criminal Code. However, before I do, I want to give you a bit of brief context and history.

A company, Silver International, operated out of unit 303 in a nondescript building in Richmond, B.C., called the Pacific Business Centre. When a search warrant was executed on that unit, police found two safes with over $2 million in bundled cash, mostly $20 bills, as well as ledgers chronicling the daily in and out transactions of the enterprise. Silver's video security system was also seized, along with an archive of the previous two weeks, and that surveillance provided investigators with a very clear picture of what was going on at Silver International.

Legitimate customers went in to access the money service business, or MSB, of Silver, but at that time, it was not properly registered as an MSB. It registered later with FINTRAC, after the warrants were executed, something that, thankfully, wouldn't happen now in 2024. The legitimate clients went in and did the standard paperwork, say, to exchange currency. They showed ID, confirmed the exchange rate, counted the money carefully and got a receipt. It's a process that might take 15 minutes.

The video archive, however, showed a second group of customers who stayed less than two minutes each, simply dropping a suitcase off in a secure area and leaving immediately, with no receipts and no counting. After those clients left, Silver staff then opened and emptied the suitcase onto the floor, arraying $10,000 bricks of $20 bills for counting and sorting.

The prosecution against Silver and others collapsed on November 22, 2018, when the Crown entered a stay of proceedings. As with most criminal prosecutions that fail, no public reason was provided. The Crown simply told the court there was no reasonable prospect of conviction, but there was clearly a structural problem with this case. In Canada, prosecutors have a constitutionally mandated duty of disclosure to the defence, and the quantum of that disclosure in a case like this is massive. It's almost hard to conceive of how much there is. There were upward of 300 law enforcement personnel working on that project at any given time.

The disclosure needs to be managed very carefully, both by the police and particularly by the Crown. For example, if there's information that might identify a confidential informant, or CI, it must be carefully redacted. Some of that information will be easy to redact, such as the notebook of the CI's handler, but sometimes it's very difficult. For example, there might be a passing reference in a police officer's notebook.

The need to protect confidential informants was affirmed on September 18, 2020, when shots rang out in the parking lot of an elegant but unassuming Japanese restaurant in Garden City, a neighbourhood in Richmond. The principal of Silver was murdered at that scene. Dead men tell no tales.

The Cullen commission determined that Silver was laundering at least $220 million a year, and it was a small part of a larger money-laundering ecosystem in British Columbia. There is one redemptive glimmer in this case. A civil forfeiture case is still ongoing, so even though all the criminal charges have gone, there's still some justice being had in B.C.

I'll move on to my two comments.

Bill C-59 once again tinkers with the money-laundering offence provisions of section 462.31. I take no issue with this, but the amendments, to me, elide a more fundamental problem. There is no stand-alone money-laundering offence. The code still requires prosecutors to link the laundering activity to a specific predicate crime.

As far as we know, Silver International was a pure third party money-laundering service. It was a professional money launderer. Had the prosecution not failed, I'm absolutely certain that defence lawyers would have built a defence around the operators' lack of direct connection to the drug trade. I'm sure they would have argued that they were simply helping business people evade currency controls from the People's Republic of China, which is not a crime in Canada.

My second point is that civil forfeiture law is critical to the fight against money laundering. We have nine jurisdictions—provinces and territories—in Canada with a civil forfeiture law, and any plan, either legislative or operational, to address money laundering must include civil forfeiture. Provinces and territories need to be encouraged to build and strengthen their capacity in this regard.

I will observe to the committee that Canada's financial intelligence unit, FINTRAC, will not provide disclosures directly to a civil forfeiture unit. If a disclosure comes to the unit through the police, FINTRAC is perfectly fine with it being used, but it will not engage directly. The reason for this has never been clear to me, but I might urge this committee to consider an amendment to the Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act to mandate and enable such information sharing.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 134 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the order of reference on Monday, March 18, 2024, and the motion adopted on Monday, December 11, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss 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.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Pursuant to Standing Order 15.1, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the members. Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to the interpreters and cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on.

In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of our interpreters, I invite the participants to ensure they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged in and to avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

All comments should be addressed through the chair.

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

I believe, Clerk, that all virtual witnesses have been tested and everything is fine. They're ready to go.

With us today, we have, as an individual, Mr. Jeffrey Simser, who is a barrister and solicitor.

Welcome, Mr. Simser.

From the Forum for Leadership on Water, we have Ralph Pentland, a member of that forum.

From the Regroupement d'ordres professionnels en santé mentale du Québec, we have Monsieur Félix-David Soucis, who is a psychoeducator, and Madam Josée Landry, who is a guidance counsellor.

Each of you now will have up to five minutes to make some opening remarks before we get into the members' questions.

We'll start with Mr. Simser, please.

Carbon Pricing

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that we can use all the buzzwords that we want in the world, “spike the hike” or “axe the tax” or whatever fancy words that we can come up with, but that does not lead to common sense. In fact, I am really thinking about former prime minister Brian Mulroney today. He actually was a common-sense Conservative who wanted to fight climate change. He did what was necessary and that is what we need to do today: what is necessary.

I realize that no amount of legislative action or policy is going to eliminate the hot air coming from those Conservative benches, but we do need to take action on what climate change means to Canadians. We know that we need to fight climate change. We need to better protect our communities.

You, yourself, Mr. Speaker, in your community, would have felt and understood the realities of what climate change really is and know the importance of acting now.

I am proud to be a part of a government that is working to fight climate change. We are going to do that with our pollution pricing system. That plan is working. The reality is that we are putting a price on pollution. It is the lowest-cost way to reduce pollution causing climate change. As the member opposite is aware, our system is revenue-neutral. It is well established that the cost to Canadians and the Canadian economy to achieve our emissions reduction goals by other means would be far greater.

As I alluded to earlier, while this system allows us to effectively reduce our emissions, it also makes life more affordable for Canadians by ensuring that they are receiving more money back into their pockets than they paid. Every three months we are delivering hundreds of dollars back to families through the Canada carbon rebate, which gives eight out of 10 families more back than they paid, while ensuring that big polluters are paying their fair share.

In provinces where the federal fuel charge applies, a family of four will receive up to $1,800 in Canada carbon rebate amounts for the 2024-25 fiscal year. Residents of these provinces will receive their first of four quarterly Canada carbon rebate payments starting next month in April.

Our government also understands that Canadians who live in rural areas face unique challenges by having to travel longer distances for school, work, groceries, etc. That is why we are proposing, in Bill C-59, to double the rural top-up to 20% of the base rebate amount in recognition of their higher energy needs and more limited access to cleaner transportation options.

In addition, our government is continuing to implement various financial support initiatives for Canadian households. This includes support for home retrofits, energy-efficient heat pumps and electric vehicles.

Doing nothing to fight climate change is simply not an option anymore. The price to pay for inaction would be way too high and that is why we are acting. Young people in our communities tell us how they want us to continue to invest, to continue to make sure that we are fighting climate change and to make sure that all of us have an opportunity to live in a safe society and a clean society in the future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Morrice.

We want to thank Minister Freeland and Deputy Minister Forbes for coming before our committee for Bill C-59 and for the main estimates. We appreciate your time and your answers to the many questions that were posed here today.

We'll allow the minister to depart. Thank you very much.

I see that MP Blaikie's hand is up, and then we'll go to MP Lawrence and MP Ste-Marie.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister, you and I agree on one thing. I think the officials at Finance are the absolute best in the entire public service. They are very capable folks. I appreciate your appearance earlier on Bill C-59.

I'm going to try to bring this up and Bill C-59 together a bit, if you'll indulge me. How many FTE people will we hire as a results of Bill C-59?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Weiler.

Thank you, Minister Freeland and Deputy Minister Forbes.

That is the hour we had set down for Bill C-59.

We are now moving to another study we have on main estimates, and you'll be here with us for the next half-hour. That will allow us to get through a new full round on this. Each party will have up to six minutes to ask questions.

We'll start with MP Hallan, please.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you for that.

I just want to pick up with one last question in the remaining time on the revenue-driving side.

In Bill C-59, we have legislation related to the digital services tax. I'm hoping that you might be able to explain how this fits into our OECD pillar one commitments to implement this multilaterally.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the minister for being here today to answer questions on Bill C-59.

I want to pick up on the last line of questioning, and thanks, Minister, for sharing the good news about the level of foreign direct investment we're seeing in Canada right now, particularly in the battery supply value chain. I know that Bloomberg has rated Canada the number one country in the world for that, but unfortunately we're not seeing that level of investment in all areas of our economy.

Much of the discussion recently has revolved around the impact of the price on pollution on the cost of things like fuel and gasoline, but we know that it's the global price of energy that has disproportionately impacted people. No rebate is coming with that when the global price goes up. It's the illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine that has disrupted the energy market and is really driving that. That money is going into profit. I saw a recent report that the five biggest oil and gas companies made almost $38 billion in profit in 2022.

It's great to hear that companies in that sector are asking us to move ahead with the carbon capture and storage investment tax credit in this measure.

I am hoping that you can share with this committee what you're hearing from those companies. How quickly are they ready to move on making the critical investments that will drive jobs, create economic growth and help reduce emissions from Canada's largest and fastest source of GHG emissions?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

I'll just say two things super quickly.

We all want jobs and growth. The way to get jobs and growth is to pass Bill C‑59. This includes essential ITCs.

I was in Calgary last Friday. Alberta industry leaders said to me, “Why the heck can't you get those measures passed into law?” It makes me quite sad to say it's because of Conservative MPs that we can't do it. Let's just get together on this. Let's pass these measures.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

I know there are certainly revenue ideas that New Democrats support that the government does not. There are revenue items in Bill C-59. I think whenever we're talking about the government books, it's important to talk not just about the spending side, but also about the revenue side.

I wonder if you'd like to take a moment to highlight some of the revenue measures that are here and some of the principles you think underlie those particular revenue items. That might help inform future decisions about government increasing its revenue from those.

We're witnessing a time with giant corporate profits—record corporate profits. Certainly New Democrats feel it's appropriate that some of that profit be brought back into the system and invested back into people.

What are some of the principles underlying these revenue items that may encourage government to go further and ensure that corporate Canada is paying its fair share?

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

Welcome to committee, Minister.

Mr. Forbes, it's good to see you back here.

I'd like to begin by asking you what my constituents in St. John's East can expect from Bill C-59 around supports, in particular supports for families and parents.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Welcome back to committee, Minister.

First of all, I'd like to echo the sense of urgency that Mr. Ste-Marie was giving to the need for comprehensive employment insurance reform. There are a lot of things that need to change and have been promised to change for some time.

One small cost item that I think has a high impact is the double-stacking of maternity and regular benefits, which the social services tribunal at one point did recognize as an instance of gender discrimination in the employment insurance system that has a disproportionately negative effect on women.

In Bill C-59, there is a small proposal for an employment insurance change. That is the measures related to the placement or arrival of children. I think, overall, those are good measures.

I'm aware that there are folks who are concerned that indigenous people were not consulted. There are unique needs within indigenous communities around the placement of their children. There's a lot of very legitimate, historical concern about governments making decisions about the placement of children and how that gets arranged without indigenous people themselves being in the driver's seat.

I'm wondering if the government is prepared to consult on these measures, even as it implements them, in case other changes should come in the future. That's to ensure that this new benefit under employment insurance is properly tailored to the needs of indigenous communities as they take more control—and ultimately all control, I hope—over their own children and where they end up when their parents aren't able to serve them in the ways that we would all hope.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ste‑Marie, for your questions. I'll try to answer them.

For a start, we'd be happy to follow up with more information about our investments in the green economy. Thank you for mentioning those we are making now. It's precisely because these investments are so important that it's essential to have a climate plan. Without a sound plan, it would be impossible for Canada and Quebec to attract investment, and we are currently doing just that. So thank you very much. Bill C-59 is important, because it creates two investment tax credits.

As for the municipalities, my colleague the Hon. Sean Fraser has been monitoring this file carefully, as has Minister Rodriguez, the Prime Minister's Quebec lieutenant. We know that March 31 is rapidly approaching, but we are convinced that we will reach an understanding with Quebec.

Thank you for the question about the cultural milieu, because it gives me an opportunity to congratulate Quebec creators. I'm thinking specifically of Monia Chokri, whose film Simple comme Sylvain, as I am sure you are well aware, won France's César award for best foreign film. This excellent and remarkable film received support under Telefilm Canada's contribution to Quebec's outstanding cultural industry.

My colleague Pascale St‑Onge recently announced the renewal of funds for Telefilm Canada, which amounts to $100 million over two years, with further announcements forthcoming. We understand the importance of culture in Canada and Quebec, and to be perfectly honest, I am very proud of Quebec's creative artists and performers.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Thank you, Julie.

Daniel's children asked me where I live. I can tell them I live in Toronto. Julie—who just asked a question—has a riding right next door to mine.

I absolutely agree with your judgment about the priorities of your constituents. My constituents would say the same thing. It is housing, housing, housing. That's one of the reasons that anyone around this table who purports to care about Canadians needs to act with alacrity to pass this legislation. In addition to the essential two clean tax credits—which are actually of particular value to Alberta, as I heard in Calgary six days ago—the fall economic statement included significant measures, and Bill C-59 will pass them into law to get more homes built faster.

Here are some of the things we're doing.

The housing accelerator fund has $4 billion, which is money to do deals with municipalities across the country. It's going to help build 100,000 homes. As you know very well, Toronto has a deal under that fund.

We are removing the GST from new rental housing, including, in this bill, for co-operative housing corporations. It's so important. It's going to get more homes built faster. I think all of us can support co-ops for what important permanently affordable housing they create and what wonderful communities they create as well.

We have investments in low-cost financing for rental construction. That is going to help build 30,000 more homes per year. The apartment construction loan program, to which the fall economic statement added $15 billion, will help build another 30,000 homes.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to say thank you, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, for being here.

Thank you, Deputy Minister Chris Forbes, for being here as well.

As we all do, I'm constantly going out to the residents in my riding of Davenport. I always ask them, “What are your top priorities?” One of the postcards that came back to my office said, “Housing, housing, housing, and did I say housing?”

I know you mentioned in your opening remarks a few things about how housing is a core part of the fall economic statement, and I know that the fall economic statement includes significant funding to help get more homes built faster. However, for the average person in my riding of Davenport, can you walk us through how the measures we have in Bill C-59 will speed up the construction of new homes, not only in Davenport but across the country?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Certainly. I also have faith in the Calgary business community. I was in Calgary just six days ago, and I met with representatives of the oil and gas sector and of the renewable sector. They told me specifically to get Bill C-59 passed now and that they needed those tax credits.

I know you're an MP from Calgary, so I thought you would like to know that.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

I do know that it will Daniel Blaikie's last day. His family is here. It's nice to acknowledge that they're here. Maybe if you ask me a question, I'll say a few things about him.

I'll just start with a few opening remarks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am very pleased to appear before you and the members of the committee to discuss Bill C-59, Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023 and the main estimates.

Before I begin, I'd like to take a moment to pay tribute to the life of Brian Mulroney. I want to recognize one moment in particular that was really meaningful to me and to many Canadians.

In December 1991, the people of Ukraine voted overwhelmingly for independence in a national referendum. I was there as a reporter covering it. The day afterwards, Brian Mulroney as Prime Minister of Canada took the initiative, and was the first western leader to recognize an independent Ukraine. That was a historic act and a historic decision. It was a great thing he did for Canada.

Since then, Canada and Ukraine have developed deep and significant ties that have steadily strengthened, particularly now, as we stand with Ukrainians in their heroic ongoing battle to preserve their democracy.

On behalf of the Government of Canada, I would like to take this opportunity to extend my deepest condolences to the Mulroney family and commemorate a truly great Canadian leader.

Bill C-59 is central to our economic plan, whose intent is to help make life more affordable, to build more housing and to create good jobs from coast to coast.

I would like to start with a bit of economic data.

Inflation in Canada fell to 2.8% in February. That was down from 2.9% in January, and down from its peak of 8.1% in 2022. Inflation has now been within the Bank of Canada's target range for two months in a row. That is good news for all Canadians and for all members of this committee.

Earlier this month, DBRS reaffirmed Canada's AAA credit rating with a stable outlook. That's a powerful proof point of our government's fiscally responsible approach. All of this is progress, but we know that so many Canadians, especially young Canadians, are still struggling to make ends meet and feel confident about their future.

Our economic plan will change that. That is why I'm so glad to be here to talk about Bill C-59 and why it's so important to pass this bill into law.

Here are some of the important measures in the bill, which I hope will be supported by the members.

It does away with the GST on new residential buildings designed specifically for rentals under eligible co-operative housing projects.

We're making the math work for builders by creating incentives for them to build more homes that would otherwise not move forward to construction.

We are making our generation's most significant amendments to Canada's competition law, a transformation that will help stabilize prices and broaden choices available to Canadians. To make it possible for people to receive the mental health support and care they need, we are eliminating the GST and HST on counselling and psychotherapy services.

We are delivering a transformational investment tax credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage and an investment tax credit for clean technology. These are the first two of our five major investment tax credits. It is absolutely urgent to pass these measures into law as soon as possible. Investors need that certainty.

We're supporting Canadian workers by linking these investment tax credits to historic labour requirements. They will give businesses an incentive to pay a prevailing union wage and to create apprenticeship opportunities.

The swift passage of Bill C-59 would enshrine these two major investment tax credits into law and ensure that companies could create well-paid jobs and attract more investment to Canada.

Bill C-59 presents real, concrete action to address the challenges that Canadians are facing. That is why I'm urging all MPs who are here to support the bill's swift passage.

Thank you.

I would now be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, March 18, 2024, and the motion adopted on Monday, December 11, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss 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.

With us today, we have the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. Welcome, Minister.

Joining the Minister is the deputy minister of the Department of Finance, Mr. Chris Forbes. Welcome.

We look forward to hearing your remarks and answers to questions from members.

Minister, I'm sure you already know that one of our colleagues here at committee and from Parliament, MP Daniel Blaikie, is having his last day here at this committee.

Minister, the floor is yours.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in the House and an honour.

I am splitting my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Beaches—East York, who, I think, asked a question a little bit ago.

As today is actually Father's Day in the heritage country that my family is from, I want to say buona Festa del Papà to my dad back in Vancouver. I actually just spent a few days with my family and parents in Vancouver last week for March break. It was great to see them doing well.

Before I give my formal remarks, today we had the consumer inflation report produced for the month of February in Canada. We had some really good news. As an economist, I saw the consumer price index was below 3%, at 2.8%. Looking at the details, the first headline in that report indicates that “Canadians pay less for cellular services and Internet access services”.

This debate is about affordability and carbon pricing, so we will talk about that. However, to start off, I just want to read two things:

Consumers who signed on to a cell phone bill plan in February paid 26.5% less year over year, following a 16.4% decline in January. The year-over-year decline was driven by lower prices for new plans and increases in data allowances for some cellular [services].

Similarly, prices for Internet access services fell 13.2% on a year-over-year basis in February, stemming from a monthly decline of 9.4%....

Grocery inflation continues to ease.

Prices for food purchased from stores continued to ease on a year-over-year basis in February (+2.4%) compared with January [which was at 3.4%]. Slower price growth was broad-based with prices for fresh fruit (-2.6%), processed meat (-0.6%) and fish (-1.3%) declining....

This is progress and we are seeing it across the board. The core inflation rate was also very well contained. I anticipate and do hope, as an economist and in my role as a member of Parliament sitting on a couple of committees, to see the Bank of Canada take some action to reduce rates later this year, which I think is timely and well needed. Inflation is well under control in Canada, and we have definitely had some good monthly prints.

I will now turn to the debate at hand.

I am very pleased to take part in this debate today.

Climate change is a very serious issue for our country, and I have to say that what we are seeing right now is worrisome. We had a very atypical winter. There is hardly any snow, and temperatures are much milder than we are used to.

Obviously, the impact of climate change is being felt across Canada. We have seen it over the past year with, for example, the storm that ravaged Nova Scotia and the historic wildfires that burned up hectares and hectares across the country. I am sure my colleagues will recall that the air was filled with smoke even right here in the capital. It was hard to breathe, even here in the House of Commons. Obviously, many people with respiratory problems suffered as a result. That is just one of the adverse health effects of climate change.

It is also important for us to realize that climate change is having a major impact on infrastructure in communities across the country. It has an enormous economic cost. I think we need to say it loud and clear: The reality is quite simply that Canada cannot afford to stand idly by and do nothing to combat climate change.

I am pleased to be part of a government that is taking this issue seriously and taking action. Obviously, this is a complex issue and there are no simple solutions. However, experts agree that our pollution pricing system is the best tool for reducing emissions while putting money back in the pockets of Canadians.

In fact, when carbon pollution pricing is applied correctly, as it is here in Canada, it effectively reduces greenhouse gas emissions and makes life more affordable for Canadians by ensuring that they get back more money than they pay in.

Every three months, and on April 15, we give hundreds of dollars back to families through the Canada carbon rebate. It gives eight out of 10 families more money than they pay in, while ensuring that the big polluters pay their fair share. In provinces where the federal fuel charge applies, a family of four will receive up to $1,800 in 2024-25 under the base Canada carbon rebate. I am pleased to say that the first payment for 2024-25 will go out next month. The other quarterly payments will follow in July, October and January.

In addition to paying these base amounts, the federal government is proposing legislative changes with Bill C‑59 in order to double the rural top-up starting this year, increasing it to 20% of the base Canada carbon rebate. It is important to us to recognize that rural residents have higher energy needs and more limited access to cleaner transportation options.

The Canada carbon rebate is just one way our government is helping Canadians pay their energy bills. The Prime Minister announced several new measures last fall to support Canadians. Since November 9, the federal fuel charge on deliveries of heating oil has been temporarily paused. This means that households using heating oil are getting more time and financial support to switch to a heat pump. We estimate that this measure will save a household using 1,500 litres of home heating oil $261 in 2023-24.

We are also moving forward with making the average heat pump free. With this measure, we are helping people with low to median incomes move away from oil heating in provinces and territories that have agreed to support the delivery of the federal government's enhanced oil to heat pump affordability grants. The grant for switching to a heat pump has now been increased to $15,000, on top of provincial or territorial grants of up to $5,000. Our government is also offering an upfront payment of $250 to people with low to median incomes who use heating oil and who sign up to switch to a heat pump through a joint federal-provincial government program.

As members can clearly see, our government is really helping Canadians in the green transition. Of course, that support builds on everything that we are already doing to support families that are struggling to make ends meet. For example, the Canada-wide early learning and child care system that we are in the process of implementing across the country will help many families to save a lot of money. Thanks to this new national system, families across Canada will be able to save up to approximately $2,610 to $14,300 per year for every child who attends a regulated child care facility. There is no doubt that this will make a big difference in families' budgets.

Our government continues to have the backs of Canadians, as it has from day one in 2015 to today. We will always put in place measures that aid Canadians on affordability, help grow our economy and provide a bright future for all families from coast to coast to coast, all those hard-working families that get up in the morning and do the right thing for their families and for this beautiful, blessed country we live in.

I look forward to questions and comments.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the very hon. member for Kings—Hants.

It is my absolute pleasure, as always, to be speaking on behalf of the residents in my riding of Davenport. I will be speaking to today's opposition day motion that was put forward by the Conservatives on affordability and pollution pricing. I will start with a few of my own comments and then I will go into a bit of prepared text.

As members know, climate change is real. Carbon emissions are impacting our climate and causing the climate to change. If Canada does not continue to rapidly move toward reducing emissions now, the cost of waiting will be more expensive for Canadians later. As a result, it will be a world that will be more difficult and more unpredictable to live in.

Last week, I happened to have been blessed to have the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources in my riding, and the question of the carbon tax came up by a Davenport resident, who said that given the fact that Canadians were suffering an affordability crisis and as of April 1 the price on pollution would go up, should people believe the Leader of the Opposition who was trying to convince a lot of Canadians that the price on pollution was a tax that would hurt Canadians?

The minister responded by saying that there were the facts and then there was perception, that putting a price on pollution would be the most economically efficient way to reduce carbon emissions and that if people asked 100 economists, 99 and a half of them would tell them that it was true. He went on to say that the way in which we had structured it was to do it in a way that would make it affordable for Canadians. Therefore, eight out of 10 Canadian families would get more money back than they paid, and it worked directly disproportionate to income. Those who lived on the most modest means would get much more money back than they actually paid. The people who received less money back than they paid were people who lived in 6,000 square foot houses, had a Hummer in their driveway and a boat in the backyard. At the end of the day, the fact that they paid more was because they were polluting more.

It was also noted that the Premier of Saskatchewan had decided that he would stop remitting the price on pollution for home heating. As a direct result of that, the rebate would go down for people in Saskatchewan, and the people who would suffer most would be the those people who were living on modest incomes. The premier was making poor people poorer because of the choices that he was making.

The motion before us is also proposing to do that for Canadians.

In 2023, we saw a record fire season in Canada in which the area burned was more than double that of the historic record, with hundreds of thousands of Canadians evacuated from their homes as a result. The total area burned exceeded 18 million hectares, which is two and a half times the previous record set in 1995 and more than six times the average over the past 10 years.

In its 2020 report on climate risks and their implications for the insurance industry in Canada, the Insurance Bureau of Canada also concluded that “The average annual severe weather claims paid by insurers in Canada could more than double over the next 10 years, increasing from $2.1-billion a year to $5-billion a year, and must be accompanied by an increase in premium income.” It is clear that there are very real costs associated with having one's house burn down or having to flee one's home and job due to an evacuation order.

We also know from experts and research that the most effective and efficient way to address climate change is to put a price on carbon pollution emissions, which are the chief cause of man-made climate change. Putting a price on carbon pollution reduces emissions and encourages reductions across the economy, while giving households and businesses the flexibility to decide when and how to make changes. It creates incentives for Canadian business to develop and adopt new low-carbon products, processes and services, and when it is done right, and we are doing that in Canada, it is both effective and affordable for Canadians.

On the Canada carbon rebate, the bulk of the proceeds from the federal pollution pricing system goes straight back into the pockets of Canadians in provinces where the fuel charge applies, with eight out of 10 households in these provinces continuing to get more money back through their quarterly Canada carbon rebate payments than they pay as a result of the federal pollution pricing system.

The federal government understands that we need to maintain the price signal that, over the long term, is necessary for carbon pricing to work and bring emissions down, but at the same time we have also shown that we are willing to be flexible and innovative in supporting options that will go even further to cut down on climate pollution in the long run.

We took temporary and targeted action to pause the fuel charge on heating oil with the goal of getting consumers off home heating oil and onto a cleaner and far more affordable alternative solution that will save them thousands of dollars and lower carbon emissions over the long run.

Measures such as this will make life more affordable in the right way, while supporting the goal of achieving a prosperous, low-carbon future for all Canadians.

We know that there are better ways to make life more affordable for Canadians, ways that do not involve destroying the environment and incurring more devastating costs further down the road. We are delivering this support where it is most effective, including with the oil to heat pump affordability program, which will increase the amount of federal funding that eligible homeowners can receive for installing a heat pump from $10,000 to $15,000. It includes proposing, under Bill C-59, a doubling of the Canada carbon rebate rural top-up rate, increasing it from 10% to 20% of the base rebate amount starting in April 2024. People who live in rural communities face unique realities, and this measure will help put even more money back in the pockets of families that are dealing with higher energy costs because they live outside a large city. We have been very clear that we will continue to implement our pollution pricing system while ensuring that we continue to put more money into the pockets of Canadian households and families.

More recently, through Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act of 2023, we introduced measures to advance the government’s fiscally responsible plan to build a cleaner, stronger economy. It introduces measures to create well-paying jobs, generate growth and build a cleaner economy that works for everyone by advancing Canada’s competitiveness through the implementation of investment tax credits. Investment tax credits are a key part of the government’s broader plan to work with industry towards the goal of decarbonization. This includes the carbon capture, utilization and storage investment tax credit, which is also known as CCUS.

CCUS is a suite of technologies that capture carbon dioxide emissions, whether from fuel combustion, from industrial processes or directly from the air, either to store CO2, typically deep underground, or to use it in other industrial processes, such as mineralization in concrete. These technologies are an important tool for reducing emissions in high-emitting sectors, where other pathways to reduce emissions may be limited or unavailable. In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency each include CCUS deployment as an important element of scenarios in which the world achieves net-zero emissions. For its part, the CCUS investment tax credit will not only help Canadian companies adopt clean technologies but will also create jobs, ensure Canadian businesses remain globally competitive and reduce Canada’s emissions at the same time.

In conclusion, making life more affordable for Canadians while protecting the environment has always been a priority for the federal Liberal government, and it remains a priority today. I have outlined over the last 10 minutes just a few examples of how we are making targeted and responsible investments to help Canadians find an affordable place to call home. We want to ensure that Canada remains the best place in the world to live, work, go to school and raise a family. Making life more affordable is a key part of that.

It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport on this opposition day motion about affordability and pollution pricing.

I am now very happy to take any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That is the time, MP Thompson. Thank you.

We want to thank our very knowledgeable and hard-working officials who have answered many, many questions here for us today. I know you're going to answer more, because we're going to be sending you some emails.

I know, MP Blaikie, that you have your hand up.

I also want to say to members while I have you here that we have talked about how hard working our clerk is. He's the best clerk on the Hill. To help our clerk, when it comes to witnesses as we get into Bill C-59, I'm asking members to get the preliminary list of witnesses to the clerk by, let's just say, Tuesday of next week. Would that work? Okay. Get that list in by Tuesday, please. That would help the clerk to reach out to them, and we can have them all prepped and ready to come before committee. Thank you for that.

Now we'll go to MP Blaikie before we conclude.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Still on the subject of the Competition Act amendments, I'm interested in repair capacity rights, particularly in the automotive sector. We have to make sure that people can get their car repaired wherever they want. However, we see that filing a complaint would be a complex affair.

My question is more specifically about clarity in the bill. In my opinion, Quebec's and the U.S.'s right to repair legislation is clearer. For example, both acts stipulate that manufacturers cannot withhold information from the outset. However, it's getting harder and harder to demand access to car repair diagnostics. The data are often stored in the cloud.

Why was this not addressed more clearly in Bill C‑59, following the United States' and Quebec's lead?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I want to thank everyone here today. I think often it takes a room where you see a lot of people who've done a lot of hard work to know that there are a heck of a lot of people working in our government doing really important work, so I just want to say a huge thanks to all of you. I know all of you won't get a chance to speak today, but I thank you for being here. Thanks for your hard work.

Since our competition team is here, I might as well ask a question of them. I know that we've been working really hard as a government to try to improve our competition within Canada, and I know there have been elements in Bill C-56 in addition to Bill C-59 around modernizing our competition regime.

If you could, maybe talk to how the measures in Bill C-59 build on those measures that we've introduced in Bill C-56, which was, I believe, our budget. Thank you.

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

Thank you very much.

I just want to follow up with Mr. Hallan. I understand Mr. Hallan's questions, and I understand that there are frameworks, legislation and actions that have to be put in place, but presumably those actions are put in place to achieve results.

Certainly, in the private sector, if an investment is made, if a change is made, there's nearly always a calculation as to the return and what will be achieved. With respect to the changes in the fall economic statement and its implementation act, Bill C-59, what can consumers expect in terms of a reduction in prices?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

I've never been interrupted by the chair before like that, but I'll move on.

I know we have more than 35 officials here. Have any officials done any analysis on Bill C-59 to see if the measures would lower grocery prices and what the exact number is?

Is there anybody?

I can see officials getting up and leaving.

I just need a number on how much this legislation would lower the grocery prices.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

The reason I ask is that the finance minister said that with Bill C-59 or the FES, they were putting billions into building new homes. That's what the point of this was, according to her.

She also said that they will “unlock billions of dollars” to unlock more homes and get more homes built faster.

Are you saying that this legislation doesn't do any of that?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Can I call up the department of infrastructure, please?

Thanks, folks.

I just want to continue the questioning by my colleague, Mr. Lawrence.

I'll ask this one more time: For this legislation, Bill C-59, on the FES, is there any analysis on how many homes this legislation will build?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions are still on amendments to part 5, division 6 of the Competition Act.

Having said that, first I'd like to thank the clerk of the committee, Mr. Roger, for getting the commissioner's letter to us so quickly. We have the best clerk of all the House and Senate committees.

Mr. Simard, I expect that a gag order will be issued on the study of Bill C‑59, which would limit the length of our study. We're going to invite the commissioner and representatives of other organizations to appear. We may propose amendments to the bill. After the commissioner and the other witnesses have testified, if you have any additional information for us before we vote on the amendments, send it to us so that we can make a well-informed decision.

I want to come back to the second recommendation, which concerns greenwashing. My colleague Daniel Blaikie mentioned it. A number of organizations are telling us that prohibition of greenwashing products as part of the amendment to the Competition Act should also apply to environmental statements in general made by companies, such as allegations about the sustainability of their operations.

Can you comment on this amendment that could be proposed?

[Erin Cassidy]

Thank you, Erin.

Thank you for the question.

Bill C-59 proposes three types of amendments to the Criminal Code that are intended to address operational aspects of the anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime.

The first proposed amendment targets the laundering of proceeds of crime offence. What we have heard through our consultations and our engagement with provincial and territorial partners is that this offence is particularly challenging to prosecute and to obtain sufficient evidence on to go to prosecution. This is because, among other things, the offence requires that the accused have the knowledge or belief, or be reckless as to whether the property was obtained or derived from the commission of a designated offence.

In the case of money laundering committed by third parties—persons who are not engaged in the underlying offence that gave rise to the proceeds—it can be particularly challenging to establish that mental element, which is that knowledge or belief, or recklessness.

The amendments proposed some changes specifically to address third party money laundering. They establish a statutory inference—

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you for that.

Beyond the changes you mentioned to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Customs Act, there are some changes being made to the Criminal Code, particularly because these are offences that are very difficult to prove when you need to prove knowledge of some of these things.

I was hoping you might be able to speak a bit to that and how those standards are going to be addressed through Bill C-59.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no one can really explain this. No sane person in Quebec thinks that climate change is not real. We are living it. I am living it in my riding with coastal erosion. It is a scourge and we need to do more to fight it.

One of the first things we can do is put a price on pollution, but we also need to stop subsidizing oil companies, which pollute enormously.

In Bill C‑59, which we voted on yesterday, there are still billions of dollars in tax credits for these oil companies that make billions of dollars in profits. If we took all that money and helped Canadians cope with the rising cost of living, it seems to me we would be further ahead. It seems to me we would be further ahead if we invested in green economies and green energy.

I will stop here. I hope the NDP will support these measures.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Chair. I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. I'll ask some questions of our witnesses who are sitting here.

I really appreciate the renewed interest of our Conservative Party members on this committee to look into money laundering. Unfortunately, it was the budget cuts that Stephen Harper brought in that cut $500 million from the integrated proceeds of crime unit. That helped create the conditions we see today with money laundering. It's actually mentioned by the Cullen commission, which identified that as one of the factors that led to the amount of money laundering we're seeing in real estate.

Obviously, there have been many changes since then. It's great to see that the Province of B.C. has brought in a land ownership registry, and, just recently, announced it's going to make it free for individuals to access it.

Of course, over the last four years, there have been many very important changes made to our anti-money laundering regime, including in Bill C-59. I was hoping that the witnesses might be able to share with this committee how Bill C-59 will improve the operational effectiveness of our AML regime, and, specifically, how is it going to address some of the ongoing enforcement issues that have been identified within the regime?.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all our officials.

While Ms. Hunt is getting ready and prepared, I want to apologize on behalf of the government for delaying the budget. I know it takes a lot of time and effort to do it, and work expands to the fill the time available. An extra few weeks is very difficult, I know. I'm sorry. Hopefully, in the future, we will have fixed budget dates, and we can all know when they will be.

Ms. Hunt, thank you very much. It's nice to see you again.

Do you remember Bill C-289? It was a private member's bill that proposed to amend the Criminal Code, and it was related to money laundering.

You're nodding yes.

One of the arguments that the government used to defeat that bill was that it did not enjoy or did not recommend making changes to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Criminal Code outside of the five-year review of that legislation.

My first question is this: Does Bill C-59 amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act?

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

Good morning. My name is Martin Simard, and I report to Mark Schaan.

There are six recommendations. I don't know how much time we have, but I can quickly explain why the government introduced this bill. The rest will be up to the committee.

First, the commissioner is proposing an amendment regarding drip pricing or last-minute price changes. That's not necessarily within the scope of this bill. This recommendation came from a [Inaudible—Editor] two years ago. The commissioner suggested changing what was done two years ago, because there was an oversight. However, in Bill C‑59, we simply reproduced what had been done, because we wanted all provisions on equal footing. That's why the amendment proposed by the commissioner is not in Bill C‑59.

Next, with respect to greenwashing, as Mr. Schaan mentioned, this just recommends that greenwashing be considered as a factor. Therefore, it doesn't suggest a specific amendment.

In terms of the ordinary selling price of products, the commissioner suggests reversing the burden of proof. In Bill C‑59, the government seeks to correct a concordance error between the English and French versions. This meant that, to prove that someone was posting a sham discount, people had to look at the entire marketplace to determine the average price of the product in question. The bill corrects that by requiring instead that the past prices posted by sellers themselves be used to determine whether a discount is genuine. So the government wants to clarify that.

However, the commissioner wants us to go further and make companies responsible for keeping a price list and proving that they offer genuine discounts. The government didn't go that far. All the government said was that it had to be based on the prices set by the seller. Here, we're taking into account the fact that not all SMEs have a price list, and that could be a burden for them. Currently, the commissioner's power of examination gives him access to large companies' price lists. That's why the government didn't go any further.

Furthermore, with respect to mergers, the commissioner suggests setting a percentage by default and reversing the burden of proof there as well. Currently, the Competition Tribunal cannot prevent a merger solely on the basis of market share. In Bill C‑59, the government removes this barrier, which would allow the tribunal to make intuitive presumptions if market share has become very high. Once again, the commissioner wants us to go further and set a percentage in the act. To our knowledge, no other countries are doing that. Bill C‑59 is in line with what the United States is doing, which is allowing the courts and jurisprudence to evolve.

Basically, in order for a merger to be challenged before the Competition Tribunal, it has to significantly reduce competition. The commissioner proposes requiring that the solutions put forward in the event of a challenge, such as the sale of a company's shares, be used to fully restore competition. The government didn't go that far because a merger can only be challenged if it has a significant impact on competition. It's therefore not clear why the solution to a problematic merger should mean that it has no effect on competition. That's why the government didn't go as far. Once again, the commissioner will be able to present his view on this.

Finally, the commissioner expressed doubts about the new environmental certification process established in Bill C‑59. I can tell you why the government wants to establish the process. A number of companies and environmental groups have told us that getting together to stop the sale of certain toxic products to protect the environment could be considered a cartel and therefore a criminal offence under the Competition Act. The government therefore recommends that a pre-authorization system be set up within the Competition Bureau. That way, people will be able to tell the Competition Bureau that they want to agree not to sell certain toxic products to protect the environment, and the commissioner will then be able to issue a letter saying that they are not at risk of criminal charges. The commissioner will be able to explain why he has doubts. I think his concern is that people will hide behind fake environmental concerns to create a cartel.

However, in the government's view, all the bases are covered. The commissioner has full discretionary powers, so when in doubt, he can simply not issue the letter.

However, we've heard from businesses and environmental groups that criminal penalties can deter companies from engaging in environmentally friendly collaborative efforts. That's why, once again, the system that allows for these collaborative efforts is administered at the commissioner's discretion.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

Welcome to committee.

I'm going to switch and speak about bereavement and pregnancy loss, if I could. I'm not sure which team it is for this shift.

Clearly, this is very important to many people. Certainly, having experienced both, I was very grateful to see some of the changes.

Could you discuss how the changes in Bill C-59 better support parents with parental benefits not available to those who experience pregnancy loss, what the current leave options are, and what benefits they're currently using in place of the specific pregnancy loss benefit?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

They're approved. Thank you for that.

For Thursday, I know we had sent out an invitation letter to the DPM to appear. The DPM has accepted and will be appearing before our committee this upcoming Thursday.

I do see your hand, MP Dzerowicz. I'll just go through a few opening remarks quickly first, so that we can get all our officials set up.

Today, to discuss part 5 of Bill C-59, we welcome 36 departmental officials. I know many of them were outside the room, going through security. I hope everyone has made it in. They are from the departments of finance, employment and social development, environment, health, industry, justice, Canada Border Services Agency, Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat, and the Office of Infrastructure of Canada and Service Canada.

Please note that all these individuals cannot sit at the table. A number of them are at the table. The rest are here in this room.

For the officials, as the members ask their questions, if the question pertains to your department within part 5, we would ask that you come to the table to answer those questions. We need you before a mic to be able to do that, so we may have some rotating chairs in the room as we go through today's questions from the members.

We do not have any opening remarks today from our officials, so we will go right into questions from the members.

If someone is not in the room yet and you have a question for that particular department, we'll have to get that in another round as it comes up, and then maybe one of those officials can come up to the mic.

Now I will go to MP Dzerowicz.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 132 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the order of reference on Monday, March 18, 2024, and the motion adopted on Monday, December 11, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss only part 5 of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to Standing Order 15.1. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for members.

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to the microphone. Therefore, we ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when the microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on. In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of the interpreters, I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and to avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Members, before we get to our witnesses today, there are a couple items.

One is that you would have received a couple of budgets. I'm looking around for approval for those budgets.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be sharing my time with the member for St. Catharines.

I am thankful for the opportunity to once again clarify how having a price on carbon is the most effective way of addressing climate change and curtailing its devastating effects on the health and safety of Canadians. I have had an opportunity to go on television a couple of times with my colleague, the failed Conservative leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. He and I have had a couple of debates on this issue, and I am proud to say that Canadians deserve action that addresses the horrific costs associated with climate change.

Also, today in the news, inflation numbers are in, and inflation is down around 2.8% from the high of at 8.1% in June 2022. Over the last three months, food and goods inflation have actually been negative. Groceries are going back down to normal. This is a really encouraging trend, and it is worth noting that it is happening in the context of our fighting climate change and lowering our emissions at the exact same time.

In 2023 we saw a record wildfire season here in Canada. More area was burned, more than double the historic record, and hundreds of thousands of Canadians were evacuated from their homes as a result. I remember that when I was kid, we used to talk about global warming, and there were always images of polar bears and the Amazon rainforest. However, climate change is not in some far-off place; it is right here. It was in the skies of Ottawa last summer when we were working here. There were people with asthma who could not come to work. People were not leaving their homes. There were respiratory distress alerts. In total, the area burned was 18 million hectares, which is two and a half times the previous record set in 1995 and more than six times the average over the past 10 years.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada also concluded that the average annual severe weather claims paid by insurers in Canada could cost more than double over the next 10 years, increasing from $2.1 billion a year, which is what they are at right now, to over $5 billion a year, and that must be accompanied by an increase in premium income. Climate change is not free, and pollution should not be free either. There are very real costs associated with having one's house burn down or having to flee one's home and job due to an evacuation order.

We also know from experts and research that the most effective and efficient way to address climate change is to put a price on carbon pollution emissions, which are the chief cause of man-made climate change. The Conservatives on the other side might bellow at me and deny the existence of climate change, as they always do, but it does not change the fact.

Emissions are on their way down in Canada. We have reversed the disastrous Harper legacy of rising emissions up until 2015. We have done that by putting a price on carbon pollution. We have reduced our emissions, and that encourages reductions right across the economy while giving households and businesses the flexibility to decide what changes they are going to make. It also creates incentives for Canadian businesses to develop and adopt new low-carbon products, processes and services.

However, members do not have to believe me that it is being done right, as we are doing here in Canada. There is a gentlemen, William Nordhaus, who has a Nobel prize in economics that he was awarded in 2018 for his work on carbon pricing and macroeconomics. He said that Canada is getting carbon pricing right, that it is both effective and affordable for consumers and it lowers emissions right across the economy.

This is because the bulk of proceeds from the federal pollution pricing system go straight back into the pockets of Canadians. In provinces where the fuel charge applies, eight out of 10 households continue to get more money back through their quarterly Canada carbon rebate payments than they pay as a result of the federal pollution pricing system. For the fiscal year starting on April 1, a family of four will receive, under the Canada carbon rebate, $1,800 in Alberta, $1,200 in Manitoba, $1,120 in Ontario, $1,504 in Saskatchewan, $760 in New Brunswick, $824 in Nova Scotia, $880 in Prince Edward Island and $1,192 in Newfoundland and Labrador.

When I was on one of the TV programs I mentioned earlier with the failed Conservative leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, I asked the member whether he had cashed his cheque, which would have been around $1,300 as he has a family of more than four in Saskatchewan, and he refused to answer. The Conservatives repeatedly refuse to acknowledge that the rebate program is an effective way to combat the affordability crisis and it is an effective way to lower our emissions. More importantly, for eight out of 10 households, these amounts represent more than they will pay as a result of the federal pricing pollution system. Remember, the federal government does not keep any proceeds from the federal fuel charge. They are all returned to the jurisdiction in which they are collected.

Carbon pricing works and climate change is real. It does not matter how much the Conservatives yell and repeat their slogans and lines written by their campaign team; we know that there are many ways to make affordability a reality in Canada. That is why we have seen the inflation numbers come down. We have seen groceries become a bit more affordable in the last couple of months. That is really positive news.

According to economists, the inflation on food and other goods, like telecommunications, was actually negative over the last couple of months. This is in the context of pricing carbon. If Conservatives are going to say that pricing carbon leads to inflation, then how have we seen a rising price on pollution over the last three years associated with a decrease in our inflation? We know that there are many ways to make life more affordable, and affordability has been a top concern of the government since we got elected in 2015. Serious governments need to have a plan to fight for affordability, the environment, reducing emissions and to fight climate change at the same time.

Conservatives have been talking about food banks a lot lately, which is important. I volunteer at food banks. I support a lot of poverty reduction and poverty elimination agencies, and I meet with officials from those organizations on a frequent basis. They have a lot of really good recommendations for our government. They have recommendations for a universal basic income and how to expand programs like the Canada child benefit. They have recommendations such as making sure that child care is affordable. Pharmacare is on their agenda. They want to make sure that Canadians can access their vital health care without having to make a decision between paying their bills and paying their medical expenses.

That is why we have been there. None of those food banks, food rescue organizations, poverty elimination experts or economists have pointed to a price on pollution as a cause for inaffordability or inflation, so we are delivering the support where it is most effective, to those who need it most.

People who live in rural communities, like many of my constituents in Milton, face unique realities. The measures we have introduced help to put even more money back into the pockets of families dealing with higher energy costs because they live outside large cities and have more expensive home heating and transportation costs. We have been very clear that we will continue to implement our pollution pricing system while ensuring that we continue to put more money into the pockets of Canadian households.

Most recently, through Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, which we voted on last night, we introduced measures to advance the government's fiscally responsible plan to build a cleaner, stronger economy. It introduces measures to create well-paying jobs, generate growth and build a cleaner economy that works for everyone by advancing Canada's plan to both fight climate change and lower our emissions, as well as to ensure that families can pay their bills. Making life affordable for Canadians while protecting the environment will always be a priority for our government, and it remains a priority today.

I would like to talk about two things. The first is about following through on a campaign commitment. The government was elected three times on a commitment to fight climate change and lower our emissions. Three times we campaigned on a promise to price pollution. In the hypocrisy of Conservatives, in their 2021 platform they planned to put a price on carbon with their then leader Erin O'Toole, but their failed Conservative leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, went back to his 2019 campaign promise of saying that Canada should be allowed to increase its emissions. He said it again yesterday on television. He has repeatedly said that Canada should be allowed to increase its emissions, which would make climate change worse; it would make sure that Canada is not a leader in fighting climate change on a global scale.

Integrity requires us to follow through on our commitments, and all of the Conservatives ran on a commitment to price carbon. Unfortunately they have taken their jackets off, flipped them inside out, tossed Erin O'Toole to the curb and are back to their 2019 campaign commitment of the failed leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, to ignore climate change altogether.

The second issue I want to address is political maturity. In 2015, emissions were on their way up. We campaigned on a commitment to reverse that trend, lower our emissions and be a leader in fighting climate change around the world. Conservatives, on the other hand, ran on a commitment to do nothing on the environment. They do absolutely nothing on the environment. Their party's official statement on climate change is that there is no human cause for inflation. It requires us to look in the mirror and ask what our plan is.

For two and a half years, Conservatives have said they would like to axe the tax. They have made bumper stickers and hoodies. It is their brand now: Axe the tax. Political maturity requires them to come up with an idea or a plan to replace it with something. If they want to axe the tax, then what are they going to replace it with? I would ask Conservatives what their plan is to tackle climate change.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I declare these clauses carried.

The House has agreed to the entirety of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, at the second reading stage.

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

It being 11:44 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 11:44 p.m.)

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C‑59.

The question is on the amendment. May I dispense?

The House resumed from January 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I do think that we require a written answer, but I also think that it's very timely, because if you're not willing to change legislation when you're talking about child welfare systems that will essentially exclude 90% of the kids in care, it's probably not a very effective piece of legislation.

I know that the government currently has a bill in place—I believe it's Bill C-59—around adoptive care. I'm wondering if the government has any plans to ensure that they uphold the rule of law and make sure it's consistent with Bill C-15 and articles 19, 20 and 21 in terms of adoption care. Are there any plans for that?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone.

I agreed to sign the letter requesting that this meeting be held pursuant to Standing Order 106(4). I'll be supporting the proposed motion, because the situation is deeply concerning.

However, the committee is short on time. We need to study Bill C‑59. I urge my colleagues to take the time to do the job properly, even though closure was invoked. We must take the time to listen to witnesses and improve the bill implementing last year's budget and last fall's economic statement. Later this spring, we need to study the other budget implementation bill coming up on April 16. That alone will keep us fully occupied. Furthermore, there are many other extremely important files. I would particularly like to know the status of the study that we began on green finance.

The situation currently under discussion was foreseeable. As Jasraj Singh Hallan said, while referring to the Equifax report, high interest rates and continually rising real estate prices are starting to lead to skyrocketing mortgage and credit card delinquency rates, along with an increase in bankruptcies. It's deeply concerning. However, it was foreseeable.

During our two weeks in our constituencies, I think that we should hold at least one meeting a week to discuss this deeply concerning matter. We can invite the experts, as proposed in the motion, to find out whether the situation is as alarming as reported. We can ask the experts. We can make a plan. Given the continually high interest rates, increasing property prices and the current situation, we can ask the government about its response and strategy. We must also have the chance to suggest proposals. I obviously don't agree with the analysis of Mr. Hallan or the Conservative members of Parliament regarding the carbon tax. However, the issue raised here, meaning the increasing delinquency rates and rising number of bankruptcies, is deeply concerning. It significantly affects the economy. We can try to see what can be done.

In short, we must focus on analyzing and improving the budget implementation bills, meaning Bill C‑59 and the bill associated with the budget in April. I also support the idea of reviving our study on how inflation and interest rates affect mortgages. The situation is changing. We need to look at the next steps.

I agree that we should hold at least one meeting a week during the last week of March and the first week of April, when we'll be in our constituencies. That way, we can study the matter.

Bill C‑59—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have good news today. We have announced a whole bunch more homes being built in Canada. We have reduced taxes on the middle class and increased them on the one per cent, and those guys voted against it. The budget is the best in the G7, and we have a great record on reducing poverty. All these things are well in hand without the bad track record of the previous government.

Later today, we will have the final vote on the motion regarding the Senate amendment to Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. Tomorrow will be an allotted day.

When we return following the constituency weeks, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023. On Wednesday of the same week, we will continue debate on the motion relating to the Senate amendments to Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. Tuesday, March 19, and Thursday, March 21, shall be allotted days.

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

Thank you very much, your answer was very clear. If I understood it correctly, you could tell the psychoeducators who are asking us today whether they are covered by Bill C-59 that it will depend on how Revenu Québec's guidelines are interpreted.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I'd like to welcome all the officials and thank them for being here. It's rather awkward that we've had to suspend our work for half an hour, as we have a lot of questions to ask them and we're running out of time. I would also like to thank them for the documents they have provided. The briefing book on Bill C-59, which is some 800 pages long, is very useful, as are the other documents they have provided us with and those provided by the analysts. It's high-quality work that helps us a great deal in our work.

Since I have a lot of questions to ask and I'm running out of time, I'm going to hurry, even though it's difficult for elected officials.

First of all, I'd like to know if there's been an update of the table you provided when you appeared before us on March 30, 2023, which showed a breakdown by year and by item of the $83 billion granted in the form of environmental tax credits. I had also asked you to provide a breakdown of these expenditures by province. If the data has changed from the table you provided, I would like you to send a written update to the committee, and I would be very grateful if you could provide a breakdown of these expenditures by province, if possible.

[Lindsay Gwyer, Director General, Legislation, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm Lindsay Gwyer, director general, legislation, at the Department of Finance. I'm here to talk about part 1. A number of my colleagues are also here to answer questions on part 1.

Part 1 contains the income tax measures in the bill. There are about 20 measures, so I won't be able to describe them all, but I'll just do a very high-level summary of several of the key ones.

First, there are a number of integrity measures in part 1. The first two relate to recommendations from the OECD's base erosion and profit shifting project. The first would limit the deductibility of net interest and financing expenses by certain corporations and trusts to a fixed ratio, which in most cases would be equal to 30% of tax EBITDA. The second OECD-related measure would implement rules to deal with hybrid mismatch arrangements, which are cross-border tax avoidance structures that exploit differences in income tax laws between two countries.

The bill contains other integrity measures, including an anti-avoidance rule to prevent private corporations from avoiding the refundable tax on passive income, as well as new rules to facilitate true intergenerational transfers, stemming from Bill C-208. Bill C-59 also includes a change to deny the deduction for dividends received by Canadian financial institutions on certain shares held as mark-to-market property, as well as changes to strengthen the general anti-avoidance rules. In addition, the bill will introduce a 2% tax on the net value of equity redemptions by certain Canadian corporations, trusts and partnerships whose equity is listed on a designated stock exchange.

The bill also includes a number of incentives and changes to tax credits. First there are two new refundable investment tax credits. The first would be available to taxable Canadian corporations on investments in eligible equipment used in carbon capture, utilization and storage projects. The second is another refundable credit available to taxable Canadian corporations and real estate investment trusts for investments in certain clean technology.

Other incentives and credits in part 1 of the bill include changes to the flow-through share rules to allow expenditures incurred in the exploration and development of all forms of lithium to qualify for the critical mineral exploration tax credit, changes to extend the phase-out by three years and to expand eligible activities for the reduced tax rates for zero-emission technology manufacturers, and changes to facilitate the creation of employee ownership trusts. Part 1 would also double the rural supplement for the Canada carbon rebate tax credit.

Those are the major measures in part 1. There are also a number of other more technical measures.

My colleagues and I would be happy to provide more detail on those or any of the measures I mentioned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 130 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting only to discuss parts 1 to 4 of the subject matter of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023. Part 5 will be studied at a future meeting of the committee. Just for members' sakes, we're doing parts 1 to 4 today, and we'll do part 5 at a future meeting.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to Standing Order 15.1. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the members. Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters, causing serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. Therefore, we ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on. In order to prevent incidents and to safeguard the hearing health of the interpreters, I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table, away from the microphone, when they are not in use.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. Members in the room, if you wish to speak, raise your hand. Members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Now I'd like to welcome our witnesses today for the study of the subject matter of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023. We have a number of officials from the Department of Finance who are joining us. Please note that all of these individuals will not be able to sit at the table. If questions arise for those individuals who are not at the table, they will be called and will exchange seats with those who are at the table to answer those questions.

I request that all officials clearly state their name and department before answering a question, please.

At the table, we do have a few individuals who will give us some opening remarks, and those will be on the different parts that we will be looking into today. We have Lindsay Gwyer, who will be addressing part 1; James Greene, who will be addressing part 2; and Amanda Riddell, who will be addressing parts 3 and 4.

Government Business No. 35—Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Maybe on another day, Madam Speaker.

I am pleased to talk about the motion we have before us, which one would think every member of the House of Commons would support. People who are following the debate should have an appreciation of what the motion would do, which is fairly straightforward.

On the one hand, we are seeing a lot of legislation. The government has a very healthy and progressive legislative agenda, and there is a limited amount of time during normal work hours, because the hours are set. The motion would give the opportunity, where there is a great level of interest, to have more debate on specific legislation or an agenda item from the government by allowing an extended sitting. This means we would have the evenings to continue debate.

Why would anyone believe having more debate is not a good thing here on the floor of the House of Commons? When we factor in all the whining and complaining we hear from the Conservatives at times about wanting more debate time on legislation, we would be giving them what they want. However, I suspect the Conservatives are likely going to be voting against that. When they take their time to stand or register their vote on the hybrid system, they will likely be voting against having more time for debate.

This is one important thing that the legislation would do.

The other thing it would do is provide the opportunity for us to prevent 24-hour voting sessions. The last time this happened, back in December, I can recall coming into the House early in the morning, starting debates and so forth and then the Conservatives saying that they wanted a standing vote and were going to force everybody to vote for the next 20 hours or so. I am going to go into this in a bit and talk about some of the things we voted on.

At a workplace where one is literally dealing with billions and billions of tax dollars and is expected to be aware of the content being voted on, or at least I would like to think members are aware of what they are voting on, it would be reasonable to expect one would not have to vote around the clock.

I had seen a nice graph provided by the member for Kingston and the Islands. If one looks at the graph, one sees there is fairly good participation until it became bedtime for the Conservatives. All of a sudden, instead of having 90% participation, it starts to drop. Once 11 o'clock hit, or getting close to midnight, it really plummets on the Conservatives' side. The good news is I think they stayed just above the 50%. I am not 100% sure of that, but I think it was just above. It might have dipped below, but I do not know for sure.

The point is the Conservatives saw the light back then, because at least half of them did not have a problem taking a health break so they could be more awake for the remaining votes. What we are proposing is to put in place a rule that would enable not only the Conservative Party members to have their sleep time but all members of the House to have a health break. I see that as a good thing. At least half of the Conservatives should be voting in favour of that one; otherwise, they may have a tough time looking in the mirror because that is exactly what they did the last time we had a voting marathon.

The other thing it provides for is for third reading to take place on the same day for which report stage is approved. That is an important aspect. Let me make it relevant to something that happened today where we had a sense of co-operation. There was, for example, a Conservative private member's bill that came up for report stage. All it would have taken was for any group to stand up when report stage was called, and say they would like a recorded vote. In fact, that happens. As a direct result, debate ends, or technically, does not even start, and then it is dropped until the next time it appears for third reading.

Instead of doing that, because we understood that the member wanted to have the private member's bill, Bill C-318, debated, we agreed, and then debate started at third reading. If we as a government recognize the value of that, and if private Conservative members recognize the value of it, then one would think there has to be a good percentage of Conservatives who would agree that the government should be able to have the same sort of treatment. It is a common courtesy. It was in the best interest of all concerned to have that take place.

From my perspective, those are the three big things taking place in the motion. It begs the question why any member of the House of Commons would vote against the measures being proposed. The short answer is that there is, I will not say a hidden agenda, because it is actually quite obvious, but a tactic that the Conservative Party has been using for years. I often refer to it as a destructive force here on the floor of the House of Commons. There are some people, especially from the far right, and we can call them the MAGA element or whatever we want, who at times have a disdain for institutions like the House of Commons. They want to show as much as possible that it is dysfunctional, believing they benefit by that.

I want people to think about this: There is an opposition party that criticizes the government for not getting its legislation through, but the reason we cannot get it through is that the Conservative Party, the opposition party, is playing games and preventing it from going through. It does not take much to prevent legislation from going through in the normal process. We could allow 12 students from Sisler High School, Maples Collegiate, R.B. Russell, Children of the Earth or St. John's High School, any school in my riding, to sit in the chamber, and that could prevent legislation from passing. It does not take much at all.

I remind my Conservative friends to realize what a majority of members in the chamber have realized, and that was that in the last election, a minority government was elected. That means that the government has to, as there is no choice, work on consensus and build with at least one willing partner in order to get things through. Otherwise it is not going to happen. That is one of the things the government should take away from the last election.

The official opposition also has a role to recognize. The official opposition, in particular its current leader, has not recognized the responsibility given by the people of Canada back in 2021. That member has a responsibility that I have not witnessed. I have seen the games by members of the Conservative Party. They do whatever they can to prevent legislation from passing and then criticize the government for not getting legislation passed. There are so many examples of that. We just finished an hour of debate on Bill C-318. In fact, I was the last to speak to it. There is no doubt that Bill C-318 is a very important piece of legislation. Listen to what people actually say about Bill C-318. Is there anyone in the chamber who does not support the principles being proposed? I would argue no.

We understand the value of Bill C-318. That is why, as a political party, with the Prime Minister, we made an election promise to follow through with the principles of Bill C-318. Let us look at the last budget. There was some preliminary work a year ago on this same issue about adoptive parents and how we could ensure they would get EI benefits. If we look at the mandate letters the Prime Minister gives to ministers, we can see that those principles are incorporated in them. Everyone knows that the government is moving forward on the issue.

The kicker is that it is actually in legislation today, Bill C-59, the fall economic statement. It is a very important piece of legislation that would support Canadians in a very real and tangible way. Where is that legislation today? It is still in second reading. The Conservatives refuse to pass it. When we call it forward, they come up with games. They do not want that legislation to pass.

Let us look at what happened during the previous fall economic statement. We were debating the budget of 2023-24 while we were still on the 2022 fall economic statement. That is bizarre. The Conservative Party members refused to pass the legislation. They would rather filibuster, knowing full well that there is a limited amount of time. Any group of grade 12 students would be able to do what they are doing, so it is no great achievement, unless, of course, they are trying to prove something. They are trying to say that the government is ineffective because the institution is broken.

The problem with this institution is that we do not have an opposition party that recognizes its true responsibilities. Conservative members' major objective is to be a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. What is the impact of that? Let us go back to the private member's bill, Bill C-318. If they had passed the fall economic statement when it should have been passed, then Bill C-318 would be virtually redundant and not be a necessary piece of legislation. In fact, it would have provided even more for adoptive parents in a family unit than Bill C-318.

However, it is not the first time, if we think of the types of legislation we have brought through. Sometimes, Conservatives will even filibuster legislation they agree with, as well as legislation they oppose. I remember my first speech on the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. I was very generous with my comments. I honestly thought everyone was going to support it. It is a trade agreement that even the NDP, the Bloc and the Green Party supported. For the first time ever, Conservatives voted against a trade agreement and slowed down the debate on that legislation. Here we have a country at war, whose president came to Canada in September to sign the first trade agreement for Ukraine, sending a powerful message during a time of war, and the Conservative Party turned their backs on Ukraine and ultimately prevented the bill from passing as soon as it can—

Employment Insurance Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to what is a very important issue. I trust there are many people following this debate, and for good reason. Our young people and children today are in fact a treasure. The member referred to love at the end of her speech, saying we cannot legislate love, but there are certain things we can do to provide supports that would enhance the relationships that are so critically important.

Many of the comments that have been made with regard to Bill C-318 are really good, and all members of the House, no doubt, would support them. When I listen to many members talk about the importance of the legislation, I cannot help but reflect on the last election. When we spoke with our constituents and voters, one of the issues that people enjoyed talking about was our children and how we can improve the system.

The government has demonstrated in that past a commitment to look at ways we can make changes to the EI system. We would love to be able to do more, and we constantly look at ways to improve EI and the resources affiliated with it. During the election, we as a political party made a commitment to do what is, in essence, being proposed by the member through her private member's bill.

What surprises me is that there is legislation today on this very topic that is at second reading. If the member proposing Bill C-318 were to look at the fall economic statement, she would find that there would be even more of a benefit for those who are adopting. It talks about having supports even before the date on which the family is united. I would suggest it is healthier legislation all around.

When the member introduced the bill for third reading, I posed a question with regard to what she and others are saying. Why would we not support that aspect, at the very least, of the fall economic statement? I would argue that there are lots of wonderful things in the fall economic statement, but that one is specifically there. The discussions and debates on the floor here should be a good indication of support for Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, and although I was not at the committee, I suspect there were good, healthy discussions there also. We know the bill is going to pass.

Because Bill C-318 was at report stage today, we could have very easily played a game and said we wanted a recorded voted, but we did not do that. We supported the Conservatives because they wanted to get to third reading today. There will often be recorded votes on private members' bills, but we did not request one because we recognize it was important for the member to have the debate, and it allowed us to have the discussion we are having right now, which is a good thing.

The changes, which are even greater and more beneficial for adoptive parents, are in Bill C-59. Today, where is Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, which was introduced last year? It is still at second reading. Why is it? It is because the Conservative Party is playing games with it.

Her own party is actually preventing Bill C-59 from passing. If Bill C-59 were to pass, then I suggest that the type of benefits that we are all talking about would be there, because it was not only an election platform issue for us as a government but was also supported by all members of the House. It was also in the mandate letter. It was referenced indirectly through the budget of 2023 a year ago and then brought in through the fall economic statement, so it is there. People can open it up and read it. The real issue is, why did it not pass in December 2023, or even earlier this month? The answer to that question is that the Conservatives, as we are going to find out shortly when we get into the next step after Private Members' Business—

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to participate in this debate on the bill introduced by the hon. member of Parliament for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

I want to thank the member for bringing attention to an issue that matters to Canadians. Adoptive parents have been telling us that they want a new employment insurance benefit that provides them with the same number of weeks as birth parents. Currently, under the EI program, workers who are pregnant or have recently given birth, including surrogates, can receive 15 weeks of maternity benefits to support their recovery from pregnancy and childbirth. This is in addition to the 40 shareable weeks of standard benefits, or up to 69 shareable weeks under the extended option.

Adoptive parents also have access to support under the EI program. However, parents of adopted children are eligible for only 40 shareable weeks of standard benefits, or up to 69 weeks of support. In short, the difference lies in the fact that adoptive parents do not have access to the 15 weeks of benefits that parents who give birth do.

In 2024, this needs to change. That is why these improvements to the EI program are included in Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023. The measures in Bill C-59 would create a new 15-week EI benefit that would add flexibility and better address the needs of adoptive parents and parents of children through surrogacy during the weeks surrounding the actual placement of the child.

The comprehensive measures in Bill C-59 reflect what we heard during our consultations with Canadians on the EI program in 2021 and 2022. They reflect the diverse and inclusive way families are formed today, and they provide needed flexibility.

Before I go into more detail about Bill C-59, let me outline how it resonates with the consensus we heard at the EI consultations on the issue of an inclusive program. In particular, the government absolutely acknowledges in Bill C-59 that adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy have income support needs that are related to their unique processes. Time devoted to a child helps create a family bond. This is true for birth and adoptive parents.

In the case of adoptive parents, it can help the child make up for any developmental delays or health setbacks and give that child a better chance to reach their full potential. Every extra week spent with an adoptive child in the first year after adoption has an impact on their development and their lifelong relations with others.

There is no question that for any new parent, having the time and resources to welcome and care for their child or children is precious and requires support. Also, additional time for adoptive parents to be with their children can be beneficial for their employers, as it would put these parents in a better state of mind when they return to work.

There is no doubt that what the member opposite proposes, and what we propose, is important. Leave with income support for adoptive and intended parents, so they can welcome and care for their children, needs to be part of a modern and inclusive El program.

The proposal in Bill C-318 does this in part, but we consider our approach in Bill C-59 to offer the better, more flexible and more responsive solution to address this important need.

We expect that each year, the government's proposed benefit would provide approximately 1,700 Canadian families with additional time and flexibility as they welcome a new child in their home. Parents through surrogacy, including 2LGBTQI+ families, would also be eligible for this benefit, and rightly so.

The government's proposed El adoption benefit would make El benefits inclusive and reflective of families in Canada. It would support parents going through adoption or surrogacy by providing temporary income support before the child arrives at home, for example, while they are finalizing the placement or travelling abroad to bring the child or children to Canada. That support would also extend to the early weeks of the child's arrival into the new family.

This equalization was a key ask by our stakeholders. It is the right thing to do, and it is an idea whose time has come. All of this will happen if Bill C-59 receives royal assent.

I also want to note, as we were told during the EI consultations, that the profiles of children and youth being adopted are often unique. Adopted kids are typically older, have sibling groups and have special needs. Cathy Murphy, chairperson of the Child and Youth Permanency Council of Canada, told us this during the consultations:

Even if a youth is joining their family at age 12 or 13, it's really important for that parent or caregiver to be there, to be able to meet them after school or to maybe take them out to their favourite lunch spot over lunch hour once a week, because that's usually the only way you're going to get them out to lunch.

By continually showing up and being actively involved in their life, they are going to realize after an extended period of time that their parents are there for them.

For the past eight years, we have been busy improving important programs so that life is more affordable for Canadians. From day one, the government has kept its promise to protect all Canadians, and we are using all the tools at our disposal to do so.

Canadians want an EI system for the 21st century. The government has heard these calls. It is a long-haul commitment, but we are taking the time to get it right, and we are not waiting for a grand reveal to make improvements along the way. Let me reassure my colleague opposite that the Government of Canada is taking a thorough approach to EI to ensure its continuous improvement for the benefit of all Canadians. Adoptive parents have asked for equal treatment. They deserve equal treatment, and the government has answered.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for all of her hard work on this file and this bill. As a mom of four herself, she has done incredible work.

My question for the member is this: What is different in the member's bill versus what was in the Liberals' Bill C-59? Why is it still really important that this bill get passed and get royal recommendation, so that intended and adoptive parents will get the leave they deserve?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, as all parents know, the arrival of a new child is life-changing. It comes with great joys and excitement. It is a precious time of bonding and many firsts, but it also comes with added expenses, time constraints and new challenges. While we all know that Canada’s employment insurance program helps to ease some of those pressures, we must confront the fact that not all families are treated equally. It is not a fair program, and it does not reflect the diversity of families here in Canada.

Families formed through adoption and surrogacy continue to be entitled to 15 fewer weeks of leave, and this is a disadvantage that must be rectified. My private member’s bill, Bill C-318, does that through the creation of a new 15-week time-to-attach benefit for adoptive and intended parents. It also adjusts entitlement leave accordingly in the Canada Labour Code. It is a common-sense bill; addressing the inequity in our EI system should truly be a non-partisan issue.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government has instead chosen to politicize it. While it claims to support equal access to EI leave for adoptive and intended parents, the Liberal government’s actions suggest otherwise. At second reading, the member for Winnipeg North indicated that this was not a priority for the Liberal government when he said, “We might have had to put some limitations on some of the things we wanted to do as a result of the pandemic”. The member for Kingston and the Islands said that this bill would not get a royal recommendation because his own bill did not get one. Of course, this was followed by all but a handful of Liberal members of Parliament voting against the bill at second reading.

Following the committee’s consideration of this bill, the Liberal government challenged amendments that sought to remove any ambiguity around parental benefits for indigenous peoples. The opposition to this from the Liberals raises concerns about their intentions around achieving equal access to EI benefits for indigenous families with customary care arrangements.

Now, at third reading, this bill risks being dropped from the Order Paper altogether if a royal recommendation is not provided by the Liberal government. By all indications, unfortunately, this does not seem to be forthcoming. The Liberal government’s decision to include a benefit for adoptive and intended parents in Bill C-59 was a clear declaration that it does not intend to collaborate on this issue and that it is more focused on political games than rectifying the discrimination in our EI system in a timely manner.

Bill C-59 is an omnibus budget bill that would not course correct the harmful policies of the NDP-Liberal government, which are fuelling the affordability crisis in this country. The Liberal government not only tied its proposed benefit to a costly and convoluted omnibus bill but also did not even make this legislation a priority. It is the Liberal government that sets the agenda in this place, and it has not brought Bill C-59 up for debate since January. Frankly, it has just not been a priority for the Liberals. In fact, they have never made it a priority to address the discrimination in our EI system.

They have been promising this to adoptive parents since 2019; they extended this promise to intended parents last year, after I introduced Bill C-318. Providing equal access to EI leave for adoptive and intended parents should not be a complicated problem to solve, especially with the agreement of all opposition parties. However, the Liberal government has voted against Bill C-318, failed to provide the royal recommendation needed, refused to work collaboratively and failed to exercise the political will necessary to just get the dang job done.

Shamefully, the Liberal government’s broken promises, delays and political games are happening at the expense of families. These families are hopeful and anxiously waiting to know if they will get the time they need and deserve with their child. The children who do not get the time they need with their parents are the greatest victims.

Adoptive and intended parents are not less deserving, and they certainly do not need less time with their children. It is often the case that these families face additional challenges in bonding and attachment. Access to equal leave can go a long way to support them.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities heard compelling testimony from adoptive parents and adoptees about the challenges they experienced attaching. We heard repeatedly how meaningful additional time to form strong and secure attachments would have been for their families and how 35 weeks was not enough time.

We need to listen to those voices and act in a timely manner. Cassaundra Eisner, an adoptee herself, shared with the human resources committee: “Moving in with people who were recently strangers is intimidating and very scary. Time to attach is something that would have helped that 11-year old little girl.”

Shelley Rottenberg, also an adoptee, shared that, if there had been more time early on, her mother would not have had “to worry about going to work and leaving me with someone else” and that it “would have sped up that process of growing and building that trust and the bond to have a more secure attachment.”

Cathy Murphy shared that it took three and a half years for her son to call her mama instead of “Hey, lady.”

Julie Despaties shared that she ultimately did not return to work after her leave, because she needed more time to support her three adopted children.

Erin Clow wrote that, near the end of her leave, she felt “a weight which is difficult to articulate, laden with the emotions of sadness, fear, guilt, and grief, knowing that we as a family need more time to attach.”

There are many more examples.

Providing adoptive families with an extra 15 weeks of leave is not only fair but will also help improve their long-term outcomes and help set these children up for success.

I have also heard from a lot of intended parents who are growing their families through surrogacy. These parents need to make a decision about their leave options in the immediate term; many are expecting their child and are hopeful that they will have access to an additional 15 weeks of leave.

I have also heard from parents who have made the decision to take the extended parental leave, at a significant financial disadvantage. Often it is not because they want to take a two-year leave, but rather because they want the same opportunity to be home with their child in the first year of their life. Canadians growing their families via surrogacy face a lot of added costs, and the disparity in benefits add to those financial pressures.

Child care is another consideration. It is more costly to get child care for an infant under a year old, and the reality across the country is that there are limited infant child care spaces. These added costs are made even worse given the growing affordability crisis.

Baden Colt shared with the human resources committee: “Having a child through surrogacy poses challenges that are not faced by most new parents, and these financial obstacles are compounded by the inability to access the same 15 weeks of maternity leave that most new parents get.” She said that children like her daughter “deserve every opportunity that her peers have in life and that begins with having the same amount of time to bond with her parents as any other Canadian child.” Her daughter does deserve the same time with her parents that is afforded to other children.

The Liberal government needs to set aside the partisanship and the political games that are costing families across this country the time to attach and bond with their children. It is well past time that all families, including adoptive and intended parents, get the time they need and deserve with their child.

Carbon Pricing

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to fighting for Canadians, we will take no lessons from the Conservatives.

Today, I just appeared in front of the agriculture committee. It was shocking to see that one of the members was defending the profit margin of a foreign food processor, at a time when we should all be fighting for Canadians in this House. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to do something for Canadians, he should vote for Bill C-59 to increase competition in this country.

More competition means more choice, better prices for Canadians and more innovation. Canadians understand that. Will he understand?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I appreciate that.

The key message is that we have your back. Canadians have seen that during the pandemic. Is that easy? No. Are the questions that were asked complex? Yes. Is it worth the fight? Definitely.

We know that grocery prices are one of the main concerns for Canadians on a weekly basis. We have taken more action, I would say, in the last six months than any government has. Sometimes when I hear the opposition questioning what I've done in six months, it's probably more than what has been done in 10 or 20 years in terms of reforming competition, making sure that we have a strong consumer affairs office, strengthening the enforcement tools of the Competition Bureau, calling on the CEOs to take action, and making sure that we have federal, provincial, and territorial colleagues all working in the same direction. It's almost unprecedented in our nation's history to see so much being done to tackle one specific issue for Canadians.

I would also say to my colleagues in the opposition that we are all here to serve Canadians. This is not a partisan issue. Food pricing is not a partisan issue. Competition is not a partisan issue. Offering more tools to consumers is not a partisan issue. I would really hope that what Canadians take out of this meeting, Mr. Chair, is that everyone recommits to work for them.

Families are faced with high food prices across the country. There's no magic solution. It's not like I could flip a switch that would immediately provide relief; however, it's trending in the right direction.

Do we need to do more? Definitely, and I appeal to the best judgment of all my colleagues in the House. to pass to Bill C-59, for example, and give more power to the Competition Bureau. I hope that Canadians will see that all of us who have been sent to Ottawa are fighting for them every single day. That's what they expect from us.

We want to be fair. We want to be constructive. We want more choice, more competition and better prices for Canadians. That's what I commit to do. That's what I will continue to do with your support, Mr. Chair.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Well, I'm very happy for Canadians watching, because we've already done it. It's in Bill C‑59. We took the good ideas that were put forward and we added to that. The reason we say that we don't need a private member's bill is that we have a government bill that goes further. Canadians want to make sure we go further. That's the reason.

For folks at home, it's very simple: It's because the bill we had as a government was going further, incorporating a lot of the things that you were mentioning, but going even further. I mean, experts would say that it's the largest reform on competition that you've ever seen. We're going to lengthen the limitation period for non-notified mergers, we're going to have more private enforcement and we're going to make sure that the competition commissioner will not face cost awards like we've seen last time, in the Shaw-Rogers transaction. I would say that we're going full out to make sure that we'll have more competition in this country, and I appreciate the help and the support of the NDP in that.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

We have made a proposal: Bill C-59. I see your colleagues smiling, and I will take that as a sign that they will support this bill.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you for your very relevant question.

The reform of the Competition Act is a three-pronged process, which began with the 2022 budget. Second, there was an update in Bill C-56 and, third, other measures are set out in Bill C-59. It has been said that this is the biggest reform in the past 40 years, since the Competition Act was passed. This law needed to be modernized. For example, under the old version of the act, witnesses could not be subpoenaed. When the committee and people saw that there was a study without—

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Chair, on that note, you know, we're all going to be..., but I want to thank colleagues who are here.

Colleagues from both sides of the House, thank you for being here. I think that this is a committee where we can have one of the most important discussions. We know that grocery prices and the cost of living are a day-to-day concern for Canadians.

I'm really very pleased to be here with colleagues whom I interact with on a daily basis.

Food affordability is a critical issue. It's facing all Canadians. That's why this committee is probably one of the most important in the work because of the work it's doing. Our government, as you've seen, is really committed to stabilizing food prices in Canada. You've seen over the last month and, I would say, the last year that we've been taking decisive action to do so, and we're starting to see results from that.

Last summer our government launched the grocery rebate, which delivered a payment to eligible Canadians, alongside the quarterly GST/HST credit payment. Then, last fall, our government held a series of meetings with the major players in the food supply chain, both grocers and suppliers, to encourage them to take appropriate measures to stabilize grocery prices in Canada. I was told that this was one of the first times that the CEOs of the five major grocery store chains met in Ottawa. On behalf of 40 million Canadians, I expressed our frustration and asked that they take meaningful action to stabilize grocery prices in Canada.

Indeed, in September of last year, I met with the leaders of Canada's five largest grocery chains to stress the government's expectation that they take action to stabilize food prices in Canada.

Then, in October, you will recall that I announced the tripling of our investment to support consumer advocacy organizations, from $1.6 million to $5 million for the next five years. That was really to create a consumer advocacy culture, I would say. You find it in some parts of the country but not everywhere. I would say that in Quebec that culture is very well ingrained. Monsieur Perron, I'm sure, will be able to talk about that. We need to do that nationally far more to make sure that consumers' interests are well represented.

By providing this additional funding, we are ensuring that consumer interest organizations have the support they need to advocate for consumers and address pressing issues like shrinkflation, which, as you know, Professor Charlebois addressed in this committee. Shrinkflation and dequaliflation are big issues facing consumers.

A few weeks later, in November of last year, we launched the food price data hub to improve the availability and accessibility of data on food prices. That's something we've heard from a number of constituents in the supply chain. You want to establish better leverage between different market participants, and access to information is key to that. The food price data hub provides Canadians with more detailed information on food prices and helps consumers make informed decisions about their food purchases.

As part of our efforts to stabilize grocery prices, we are taking into account the pivotal role that the provinces and territories play, and we understand the need for greater co-operation between Ottawa and our provincial and territorial counterparts. I know that you've had the opportunity to hear from many stakeholders in this sector.

That's why, in December 2023, my colleague, Minister MacAulay, and I met with our provincial and territorial counterparts to discuss the next steps in stabilizing food prices across the country. I want to recognize the work of those counterparts. There is a lot to do. For example, unit price is a measure that exists only in Quebec. What can we do to make that a national thing?

We spoke about several large initiatives during that important meeting. I was told that the last meeting took place around 2017. You see how important it is to hold these kinds of meetings. It is not very often that we have big meetings like this that bring together our provincial and territorial partners. I think that this is the right thing to do to work together.

As you're well aware, federal, provincial and territorial governments have been hard at work with industry partners on the grocery code of conduct. This is a substantial measure that will bring fairness, transparency and stability to our grocery sector and supply chain.

That being said, following three years of negotiations and missed deadlines, we are extremely disappointed that some supply chain partners, including two of the five major retailers, have still not signed on to the grocery code of conduct. That is why the government is currently having a hard look at all the options, including legislative options, to ensure fair and transparent practices in the grocery industry.

Let me be clear. There will be a grocery code of conduct in Canada, one way or the other. I think those who are listening—I'm sure that there are a few folks listening today—should take these words very seriously. We demand action. We judge the action taken, and then there are consequences.

You saw that when we amended the Competition Act. We are looking at all of the tools in the tool box to make sure that we have a code of conduct.

We also recognize that maintaining and enhancing healthy competition in the grocery sector is paramount to stabilizing food prices.

This is why our government introduced and passed Bill C-56, the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act. Among other things, this new law provides the Competition Bureau with subpoena powers to conduct effective and complete market studies. I would say, Mr. Chair, that this was demanded by most market actors. It was unthinkable that in 2024 our main enforcement agency would not have subpoena power, so we fixed that.

We also removed the so-called efficiencies defence to ensure that anti-competitive mergers can now be challenged. It gives the bureau more powers to challenge business practices by large, dominant companies that harm competition and drive up prices.

Mr. Chair, these new powers will not lie dormant. Just last month, I think it was in front of this committee that a representative of the Competition Bureau testified. I also sent a letter to the competition commissioner commending the work done by the bureau in its 2023 retail grocery study report. That report clearly identified important barriers to competition and made helpful recommendations to address this issue.

In that letter, I took the opportunity to express how disappointed I was to learn that the Competition Bureau's study did not benefit from the full co-operation of large grocers. I am hopeful that the new powers provided by Bill C-56 will be a useful tool for the Competition Bureau in countering potential abuses in the marketplace.

Additionally, we are committed to further enhancing competition in Canada through targeted reforms in Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act of 2023. This comprehensive proposal is designed to encourage more competition in all markets, including in Canada's grocery sector.

I want to take this opportunity in front of colleagues in this committee to once again call on all parliamentarians to support this much-needed reform to support Canadian consumers. One concrete action that every member can take is to vote to make sure that we continue our reform of the Competition Act.

Among other things, the proposed measure will modernize the merger review regime. I would think that all colleagues would agree to that. It would strengthen the enforcement framework with respect to collaborations that harm competition. I could not imagine any member being against that. Also, it would broaden recourse to the Competition Tribunal by private parties, which we have heard about from witnesses.

Mr. Chair, beyond modernizing Canada's competition regime, we of course continue to encourage more choice for Canadian consumers. That's why we are engaging with international grocers that have played a key role in improving affordability in markets around the world. If you have questions, I'll be happy to report on that.

Mr. Chair, in conclusion, let me say this. When it comes to grocery prices in Canada, our government is taking decisive action. We are committed to stabilizing food prices across the country and we will continue to work with all levels of government to make sure Canadian consumers get the much-needed relief they deserve at the checkout counter.

I want to thank all the members of this committee. I know, Mr. Chair, that you sent a letter recently to ask for action. I think everyone on this committee has a role to play to make sure we work for Canadians.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Can I follow up in terms of guardrails?

If we look at the Shaw-Rogers deal and the Vidéotron takeaway of assets that happened and the guardrails in place if certain promises weren't met, what guardrails are in place right now or after the fact from Bill C-56 and Bill C-59?

[Anthony Durocher, Deputy Commissioner, Competition Promotion Branch, Competition Bureau Canada]

I think Bill C-56 and what's proposed in Bill C-59 are very important changes and very much welcome. Many of the changes are in fact entirely in line with recommendations the Competition Bureau had made to government in the context of consultation.

I would flag this: If we look at the merger regime in particular, merger is the first line of defence in protecting competition in the economy.

There are a couple of other areas where we believe this can be strengthened. One relates to the adoption of structural presumptions in the merger review process, while the other relates to the remedial standard when there is harm to competition. What needs to be fixed? These are issues we will continue to advocate for.

However, by and large, Bill C-56 and Bill C-59 have been very significant in moving Canada forward in having a robust competition regime.

[Jeanne Pratt]

Maybe I'll start and talk from the mergers perspective. I'm going to defer to my colleague to talk about the larger changes in the acts.

We are incredibly welcoming of the changes in Bill C-56 and Bill C-59. I do think that these are the first significant changes to our act since 1986. The merger provisions are affirmed. That is transformative. The repeal of the efficiencies exception, as well as the addition of being able to consider concentration under the merger provisions, is very different from a world where the tribunal explicitly could not do that, and adding that is a factor.

It is also very helpful when we're talking about sectors like telecommunications, which tend to have fairly stable oligopolistic market structures, that we have an explicit provision to deal with tacit and explicit coordination in section 93, the merger provisions, as well. We're very welcoming of all of those changes to the merger provisions.

Mr. Durocher can speak to the larger view of the other changes in the act.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the committee, witnesses.

For Ms. Pratt from the Competition Bureau, in terms of the teeth of the Competition Bureau, if I can use that analogy, I believe that what's in Bill C-34 and what's in Bill C-59 currently have been probably two decades overdue in terms of the changing competitive environment we operate in and also the nature of a number of industrial sectors in Canada where concentration is an issue. You can chalk it up to geography, capital requirements, investment and so forth.

I want to get on the record how important the changes were to the Competition Act in Bill C-34 and now in Bill C-59, from your point of view, in looking at combinations, mergers, acquisitions, inverse deals or whatever term you want to use.

[Jeanne Pratt]

What I can say is we are very welcoming of the proposed amendments in Bill C‑59, which would immunize the commissioner from cost awards when we are bringing a case in the public interest. I think that goes a long way to addressing any potential chilling impact that the cost awards could have on our bringing cases before the tribunal.

[Jeanne Pratt]

It's really difficult to say what impact it would have had, because we did our entire investigation, all the litigation, under the existing framework, which included section 96.

What I can tell you, though, is that with Bill C‑56 and the end of the efficiencies exception in addition to the proposals in Bill C‑59, I do think there would have been a difference, particularly through Bill C‑59, since concentration levels will now be a factor that the tribunal can consider.

For example in the Rogers-Shaw case, we would have seen that the four largest firms would have held a market share of 95% collectively. The repeal of the provision that says the tribunal can't look at concentration as well as the addition of a factor that says that they can actually consider it, in addition to coordinated effects—a specific factor being added for that—definitely would have changed some of the analysis in the Rogers-Shaw trade talks.

[Jeanne Pratt, Senior Deputy Commissioner, Mergers and Monopolistic Practices Branch, Competition Bureau Canada]

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

My name is Jeanne Pratt. I am the senior deputy commissioner of the mergers and monopolistic practices branch at the Competition Bureau. Joining me today are my colleagues Anthony Durocher, who is the deputy commissioner of the competition promotion branch, and Laura Sonley, who is the associate deputy commissioner in our mergers directorate.

The Competition Bureau is an independent law enforcement agency that protects and promotes competition for the benefit of Canadian consumers and businesses. We do this because competition drives lower prices and innovation while fuelling economic growth. We administer and enforce the Competition Act by investigating and taking action to address anticompetitive business practices that harm consumers, competition and our economy.

The Competition Act’s merger provisions are the first line of defence against harms to competition. They are a preventative tool that guard against harmful concentration of market power.

Competition in the telecom sector has been and continues to be a priority for the bureau. It's the backbone of commerce in the digital age and a critical service for businesses and consumers alike. This committee is well aware that the bureau filed an application to the Competition Tribunal seeking to block the proposed merger between Rogers and Shaw. While we were unsuccessful in our attempt, we stand by our decision to bring the case and our reasons for it. We are continuing to monitor the markets since the transaction closed.

The bureau will continue to prioritize our work in this sector through both our enforcement and our advocacy roles. Just two weeks ago, Ms. Sonley participated with other bureau personnel in the ongoing CRTC hearings on the review of the wholesale high-speed access service framework.

Recent amendments to the Competition Act, notably those made in 2022 and more recently through the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, have given the bureau more tools to protect and promote competition in Canada. The committee will also be aware that Bill C-59, which is currently before the House and is being prestudied in the Senate, contains several other amendments that, if passed, will further strengthen the Competition Act.

We are committed to using the new tools wherever necessary to protect competition. We also look forward to updating our guidance to Canadians and Canadian businesses on how the bureau will enforce these amendments.

The Bureau strongly believes that competition can play a greater role in the concentrated telecom sector, with Canadian consumers, businesses, and the overall economy reaping the benefits. More competition unlocks innovation and productivity, and helps us to maintain a high standard of living.

We share the committee’s interest in enhancing competition and working to ensure that high quality telecommunications services are reliable and affordable for all Canadians.

Before fielding your questions, I would note that the law requires the bureau to conduct its investigations in private and to keep confidential the information we have. This obligation may prevent us from discussing certain facets of our investigation.

I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear today. We look forward to your questions.

[Helena Sonea, Director, Advocacy, Canadian Cancer Society]

Thank you very much.

Hello. My name is Helena Sonea, director of advocacy at the Canadian Cancer Society. With me today is Ciana Van Dusen, manager of prevention, and our colleague Rob Cunningham, senior advocacy adviser.

Cancer is the leading cause of death in Canada and is responsible for 26% of all deaths. In 2023, researchers estimated that there would be over 200,000 new cancer cases and nearly 87,000 cancer deaths in Canada, about half of which are expected to occur in women.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of death in women. About 72% of lung cancer cases in Canada and 30% of all cancer deaths are due to smoking tobacco. A comprehensive strategy is needed to reduce tobacco use among women and girls to achieve Canada's objective of under 5% tobacco use by 2035.

We recommend that tobacco taxes be increased by six dollars per carton; that Bill C-59's legislative measures for a cost-recovery fee be adopted with strengthening amendments and subsequent regulations to cover the full cost of the initiatives in Canada's tobacco strategy from tobacco and vaping companies; that tobacco legislation be strengthened by banning all remaining tobacco promotion and banning flavours in all tobacco products; that measures be adopted to reduce youth vaping, including banning flavours in e-cigarettes; that cessation and other programs be enhanced; and, finally, that action be taken on nicotine pouches, which can be sold to children of any age and are advertised in places where youth are exposed to them.

Cancer does not solely touch the person who lives with it. It takes a community and a society to care for them, and no one understands that better than caregivers. Caregivers provide vital, unpaid, practical, physical and emotional support to loved ones with complex health conditions, including cancer. Half of the people in Canada will be caregivers in their lifetimes.

In 2018, caregivers provided 5.7 billion hours of care work, the value of which is estimated to be between $97 billion and $112 billion annually. Women disproportionately bear the challenges of this work.

The Government of Canada has tried to recognize the tremendous role of caregivers; however, substantial unmet needs remain. We recommend the federal government improve support for current and future caregivers by implementing or enhancing accessible, refundable federal tax credits to compensate these families.

I will now turn it over to Ciana to speak to cervical cancer.

Amendments to Bill C-318 at Committee Stage

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to intervene on a point of order raised by the member for Winnipeg North this morning respecting Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, adoptive and intended parents.

My colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, mentioned the committee process, where I tabled crucial amendments to this legislation that would bring the bill into compliance with Canadian law, specifically with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Let me remind the government that it is the government that passed Bill C-15, which affirms that all legislation going forward has to be compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Not including these important amendments means that the legislation now is not compliant with articles 19, 21 and 22 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The member of Parliament for Winnipeg North talked about the amendments being out of scope, but even the sponsor of the bill said that the amendments were absolutely within the scope of what Bill C-318 was trying to do.

My colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, also pointed out the need for a royal recommendation for these amendments. I would like to encourage him to reconsider this, considering he has the highest number of kids in care in an urban area in the whole country, 90% who are indigenous.

What my colleague failed to mention is that the Liberal government has the power to allow the amendments to proceed by giving notice of a royal recommendation for Bill C-318. In fact, Bosc and Gagnon, at page 839, states the following:

...since Standing Order 79 was changed in 1994, private Members’ bills involving the spending of public money have been allowed to proceed through the legislative process on the assumption that a royal recommendation will be submitted by a Minister of the Crown before the bill is to be read a third time and passed

The only ones who can act right now are the Liberals. On their watch, they are not upholding Canadian law, which includes Bill C-15. We are meeting about the red dress right now, about murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. The child welfare system is called the pipeline for becoming murdered and missing. The government's failure is not addressing the 90% of kids in care.

It is only the Liberals who can save the lives of indigenous children who are being dropped off at shelters, separated from their families and communities. I am asking them to table a royal recommendation to do the right thing to ensure that Bill C-318 can go to a vote at third reading with the amendments adopted by committee. Although they have mentioned they are putting forth Bill C-59, a similar bill, once again it is not consistent with upholding Canadian law and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

It is in the hands of the Liberals. Lives are in their hands. They need to put forward a royal recommendation. This is a life and death matter. They have to stop playing with indigenous lives and do what is needed now.

[Anthony Durocher]

I think it's fair to say that some of the Competition Act changes proposed in Bill C-59 are certainly desirable and are in line, frankly, with some of the recommendations that we made in the government's consultation on the bill.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

At this committee, we're looking at grocery prices. There has been progress, but we want them to come further and we want stability.

From your perspective, would it be useful in this study to recommend that the changes in Bill C-59 be adopted? Would that be useful in addressing some of the concerns you have?

[Anthony Durocher]

The way we're going to approach Bill C-59 is that if and when we're called to committee, we will certainly provide our views.

As I mentioned, and as was in our opening statement, there are important improvements to the Competition Act contained in the bill, and what we really want to do is help inform parliamentarians and provide whatever evidence we can in committee to help deliberations.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

We've been trying to get Bill C-59 passed since the fall, and the Conservative Party has been very against Bill C-59. Recently we found out that Jenni Byrne, who is advising the Conservative Party and joins their caucus advising their leader, is actually a consultant or a lobbyist, we could say, for Loblaws. I'm wondering.... It sounds to me as though Loblaws might not be in favour of some of these changes, but it seems that Bill C-59 is very important. Would you recommend, from your perspective in the Competition Bureau, that Bill C-59 should be passed so that we can get these measures in place?

[Anthony Durocher]

One of the most important changes flowing from Bill C-59 is opening up the Competition Act to more private enforcement so that it's not just the Competition Bureau as the sole authority that can bring cases. There are changes there that I think are capturing a lot of interest from stakeholders in the competition space. The role of private enforcement and the test for obtaining leave have been clarified, so what we might see emerge there is a more robust space where private actors, not just the Competition Bureau, can bring cases directly to court.

As I mentioned, in respect to mergers there are certain important changes. One is to allow greater emphasis on market share and concentration evidence as well. As another, there are important changes to section 90.1—which is the competitor collaboration provision of the Competition Act—with an ability to look at past conduct, which allows for a broader range of remedies too. These are examples.

Also, to give an example, one very interesting change relates to reprisal actions. It adds a new civil provision that would prohibit a party from taking reprisal action against another person for their co-operation under the act. That is a very interesting change and potentially important, because whenever companies complain to us, there's always the concern about reprisal. If you're complaining about the actions of one of your business partners, obviously confidentiality is paramount to our work. It's something we take extremely seriously and protect, but additional protections and peace of mind about lowering the risk for reprisal action are important.

These are just a few examples, but there's a lot to cover with Bill C-59.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much for being here, and indeed it's good news to hear the pendulum's swinging and that food prices are coming down more in line with general inflation and that Bill C-56 did help.

We also have Bill C-59 right now under consideration, and you mentioned that there were aspects of that bill that you thought would be very helpful in continuing to combat the concentration and issues around competition. What, in particular, would those aspects be?

[Anthony Durocher]

We would want to give that some careful thought. If and when we appear at the INDU committee for the study of that bill, we want to be as helpful as we can with the interpretation.

Part of these issues come to something that we've advocated, which is the potential benefit of structural presumptions. This is how the U.S. jurisprudence around antitrust has evolved. It's basically the notion that past a certain increase in concentration and threshold, the onus should shift to companies to prove that they are not anti-competitive. That's certainly a discussion worth having.

There are changes in Bill C-59 that are important in that regard. We're removing a requirement that existed in section 92 so that we could not challenge mergers on the basis of market shares or thresholds. There might be a greater role to play in looking at market share and concentration in our work.

Of course, there are other factors that are always going to be relevant, such as looking at barriers to entry, effective remaining competition and the role of innovation in the marketplace. We hear there are significant concerns about concentration in the Canadian economy. We think it's important to debate these issues, especially when we look at our merger review framework and the law.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I think you're right. As a case in point, Loblaws had to climb down from its tone-deaf decision to reduce discounts from 50% to 30%. Of course, we then had the Manulife and Loblaws climbdown because of the intense scrutiny, I think, that exists at the moment.

You made mention of a couple of pieces of government legislation: Bill C-56, which has received royal assent, and Bill C-59, which is still in the works. There is another bill that received a second reading vote yesterday, which is Bill C-352 from NDP leader Jagmeet Singh. There are some similarities, but one of the interesting aspects of his bill—I know this is primarily with the Competition Tribunal—is that it would require the Competition Tribunal “to make an order dissolving a completed merger or prohibiting the merger from proceeding if the merger would result in excessive combined market share.”

I would just like to understand the Competition Bureau's understanding of that term “excessive combined market share.” How would you interpret that particular phrase in the law?

[Anthony Durocher]

A number of recommendations that aren't covered in Bill C-59 come to mind.

I think provisions pertaining to mergers are important, which ties in with the discussion with Mr. Williams. Specifically, I'm talking about provisions to ensure that mergers don't harm competition.

I'll give you an example: the remedy standard for transactions that have an anti-competitive effect on the market. Currently, when a transaction lessens competition substantially, the remedy standard in the case law merely requires that the lessening of competition cease to be substantial. It's fine if competition is lessened, because there's no remedial requirement that competition be restored to pre-merger levels. That's one of the recommendations we provided during the consultations.

We also submitted recommendations pertaining to concentration thresholds and the importance of building concentration-related presumptions into merger reviews to ensure that the merger does not exceed a certain concentration threshold. The burden would be on companies to prove that it was not an anti-competitive merger, which is similar to the practice in the U.S.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you.

You said that you're happy with Bill C-56 and that Bill C-59 will be helpful. You made recommendations to the government. Can you give us your top two or three recommendations, the ones that are crucial to strengthen the act? We could include them in our report to the government.

[Anthony Durocher]

Bill C-56 has been very significant for us. It has brought about major changes that will help bring Canada in line with other countries as far as enforcing the law is concerned.

In our view, the Competition Act can always be strengthened in order to ensure a modern and effective regime. Bill C-59 also includes significant changes to the act. Through the government's consultation process, the bureau made over 50 recommendations to improve the act. Considerable progress has been made.

[Anthony Durocher, Deputy Commissioner, Competition Promotion Branch, Competition Bureau Canada]

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

My name is Anthony Durocher. I’m the deputy commissioner in the competition promotion branch. Joining me today is my colleague Brad Callaghan, associate deputy commissioner in the policy, planning and advocacy directorate.

I would like to begin by recognizing the importance of your study. We believe it has been invaluable to shaping and advancing the public discourse around food affordability, and the testimony at this committee has benefited the Competition Bureau in our efforts to protect and promote competition in the grocery sector.

The Competition Bureau is an independent law enforcement agency that protects and promotes competition for the benefit of Canadian consumers and businesses.

We do this because competition drives lower prices and innovation, while fuelling economic growth. We administer and enforce the Competition Act by investigating and taking action to address anti-competitive business practices that harm consumers, competition and our economy.

In June 2023, the bureau released its retail grocery market study report. Our report found that grocery prices have been increasing at their fastest rate in more than 40 years and since late 2021 have been significantly outpacing the general rate of inflation in the Canadian economy. Additionally, the retail grocery industry has become much more concentrated over time. Today most Canadians purchase their groceries from only a few grocery giants that operate most grocery store banners, including the top discount chains.

Our report makes a number of principle-based recommendations to federal, provincial and territorial governments to improve competition in the grocery industry. They include stimulating innovation and supporting the growth of independent grocers, as well as the entry of international grocers through government policies and programs; limiting—and potentially banning—property controls; and lastly, introducing accessible and harmonized unit pricing requirements.

We continue to be actively engaged with policy-makers on our report's findings and its recommendations.

We recognize that food price inflation remains a significant issue for Canadians and that we need to approach our work in the grocery industry with heightened vigilance and scrutiny to ensure that Canadians benefit from greater choice and more affordable groceries. This includes by thoroughly and quickly investigating allegations of wrongdoing. To that end, we are actively pursuing an enforcement investigation in the grocery sector relating to the use of property controls.

Recent amendments to the Competition Act, particularly through Bill C-56, have given the bureau more tools to protect and promote competition in Canada and mark a key step in modernizing Canada's competition law. The bureau is committed to using the new tools made available through these amendments wherever necessary to protect competition. Further, as you know, Bill C-59 contains several other amendments that will, if passed, further strengthen Canada's Competition Act.

Before fielding your questions, I would note that the law requires the bureau to conduct investigations in private and to keep confidential the information it has. This obligation may prevent us from discussing past or current investigations.

I would like to thank the committee very much for the invitation to appear today, and we look forward to your questions.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to be able to resume where I left off back in December.

Just to refresh the memory of everyone in this place, we were discussing the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

I have been a proud member of that committee for six years now and I would say that it is the best standing committee out of any committee of the House, because we often arrive at our decisions on a consensus model. We certainly have our differences, but the collegiality stems from the fact that, no matter what political party we represent, we all represent farmers in our respective ridings and have a great deal of respect for the work they do.

This particular study is unusual, if we look at the long list of studies the agriculture committee usually embarks on, in that we are dealing more with a retail issue, which of course is the subject of food price inflation. I am happy to say that this 10th report was the result of a unanimous vote on my motion for a study. The study was also backed up by a unanimous vote in the House of Commons when the NDP used our opposition day to move a motion backing up the committee's work.

Given the brutal food price inflation rates that many Canadians have been experiencing over the last couple of years, the political and public pressure of the moment, I think, really helped focus parliamentarians' efforts on this important issue in making sure we were paying it the attention it deserved, given what many of our constituents were telling us they were suffering through. Therefore, it was nice to see that unanimous vote and the fact that we were able to get into this study.

If we look at the news these days and the experts who research this particularly brutal problem, we already know that a record number of Canadians are having to access food banks. I certainly hear from my constituents in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford that they are having to make those difficult decisions every single week. It has affected not only the quality of food they have been able to buy, but also the quantity of food.

I think that is an enduring shame on our country, given that we pride ourselves on being an agricultural powerhouse. If we look at our standing vis-à-vis other nations around the world, we are a very wealthy country, but what we have seen over the last number of decades is that wealth is increasingly being concentrated in fewer hands, and too many of our fellow citizens are struggling to get by on the basic necessities of life.

I think this is a call to action for all parliamentarians. It is obvious that the policies we have put in place over the last 40 or 50 years and this sort of obscene corporate deference we have seen from successive Liberal and Conservative governments and the neo-Liberal orthodoxy that exists are not serving our fellow citizens right. We need to take a critical look at why that is.

This report contains a number of recommendations. I want to focus on a few of them, particularly on recommendations 11 and 13. Recommendation 11 is something that we heard not only in the course of this study, but also in other studies. It deals with the fact that many people who work in the food value chain, particularly the ones on the other side of the ledger from where the retail grocers come into play, have long been calling for a grocery code of conduct.

Initially, the calls were for a voluntary code. I think there was a tremendous amount of goodwill and a bit of leeway given to the industry to figure this out on its own and to come up with something whereby all players could develop the issue and have faith in it. However, what we have seen recently is that some of the big grocery retailers, namely Loblaws and Walmart, are now indicating they are uncomfortable with the direction the code is taking. In my humble opinion, this code simply cannot work if it is going to exclude major players like Loblaws and Walmart, so we may be arriving at a point at which the government needs to step in and enforce a mandatory code. That way, the rules are clear, concise and transparent, and all players in the food supply value chain can understand what they are and abide by them.

What we are seeing is that there is a complete lack of trust in the grocery retail sector, and for good reason. Grocery retailers have been accused and found guilty of fixing the price of bread. They have engaged in practices that, on the surface, look a lot like collusion. They have often followed each other's leads in setting prices and so on. Recently Loblaws was forced to climb down from its decision to reduce the discounts. There used to be a 50% discount on items that had to be sold that day. Often people are looking for those kinds of bargains. Loblaws was going to reduce that to 30%. That company consistently shows that it is unable to read the room and that it is completely tone deaf to the public environment in which it is operating.

Not only have consumers lost trust in grocery retailers, but on the other side, the suppliers, the food manufacturers and the hard-working men and women who work in primary production and farming have also lost trust, because when they are trying to get their goods put into a grocery market, and let us understand that 80% of Canada's grocery retail market is controlled by just five companies, which is a brutal situation and a totally unfair stranglehold on the market by those five companies, they were often subjected to hidden fees and fines for which they had no explanation.

As such, I am glad to see that recommendation 11 calls for a mandatory and enforceable grocery code of conduct.

I am also happy to see in this report recommendation 13, which asks the Government of Canada to strengthen the Competition Bureau's mandate and its ability to ensure competition in the grocery sector. The first two bullet points were about giving the Competition Bureau more legislative muscle through the Competition Act and making sure the competitive thresholds the Competition Bureau uses to evaluate mergers and acquisitions ensure that competition does not suffer.

I think, based on the hard work of this study and the recommendations of this report, we have actually seen legislative change come to this place, and it was great to see, in particular, Bill C-56 receive a unanimous vote in the House of Commons. It has passed the Senate, and it has now become a statute of Canada by virtue of the Governor General.

There are more measures contained in Bill C-59, and our leader, the member from Burnaby South's private member's bill also includes a number of very important changes. Of course members of Parliament are going to have the opportunity tomorrow, after question period, to vote on that bill, and Canadians will be watching to see which members of Parliament are serious about stepping up to fix that particular problem.

I also want to talk about the supplementary report that I included as the New Democratic member of the committee, because committee reports reflect the majority view of the committee. In the case of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, that is almost always the unanimous view of the committee. I do not think I have ever really seen a dissenting report, but sometimes some recommendations that some members would like to have seen added to the report do not get in there.

I agree absolutely with the main thrust of the report. I think the recommendations were very strong. There were some additional ones, some supplementary ones, that I would have liked to see added. We heard from a number of witnesses who asked our committee to recommend that the government embark on legislative recognition of the right to food, so one of our recommendations would have been:

that the Government of Canada acknowledge its obligation as a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights to respect, protect, and fulfill the human right to food by adopting a framework law that would enshrine this right in Canadian law and require the federal government to legislate binding, specific, and measurable targets toward realizing the policy outcomes it set out in 2019 in “The Food Policy for Canada”.

Again, when so many in our population are going hungry, it is incumbent upon us as legislators and policy makers to really step up to the plate and meet that need in the moment with specific action. I think that, given that this recommendation came from people who are directly involved in the national food bank network and are dealing with this issue every single day, we would do well as policy makers to listen to that on-the-ground expertise and follow through.

I also want to take some time in the final four minutes that I have to really recognize two witnesses who appeared before our committee. They are both economics professors who go against the prevailing orthodoxy of corporate deference that so many economics professors practise. They are, particularly, Professor D.T. Cochrane and Professor Jim Stanford, who I think offer a refreshing and alternative view to the dominant orthodoxy, to look critically at why systems are the way they are.

I just want to quote Dr. Jim Stanford:

Greed is not new. Greed long predates the pandemic, but greed has had a good run in Canada since the pandemic. After-tax profits in Canada during the pandemic or since the pandemic have increased to their highest share of GDP in history. Amidst a social, economic and public health emergency, companies have done better than they ever have.

In response to one of my questions, he went on to say:

At the top of the list, there's no doubt about it, is the oil and gas sector. The excess profits earned there since the pandemic account for about one-quarter of the total mass of profits across the 15 sectors I identified in that work. The increased prices that embody those huge profit margins then trickle through the rest of the supply chain. Food processors have to pay that, so they have higher costs, nominally, but then they add their own higher profit margin on top of that. The same goes for the food retail sector. By the time the consumer gets it, there's been excess profits added at several steps of the whole supply chain. That magnifies the final impact on consumer price inflation.

Two things have been true over the last number of years. Canadians have been suffering through brutal inflation. They have seen the cost of almost everything rise to almost unsustainable levels, in fact, to unsustainable levels for too many of our fellow citizens. That is one truth of which we can see empirical evidence.

The other truth we are dealing with is that since 2019, many corporate sectors have been raking in the cash. Those two facts exist side by side, and we know for a fact that when profits are increasing in many different corporate sectors that Canadians rely on, that money has to come from somewhere, and it has been coming directly from the wallets of the constituents that I represent, the constituents that every MP in this place represents from coast to coast to coast.

I will wrap up my speech there by saying that this was an important report and these are important recommendations. I am glad to have been a member of the committee that produced this report. Of course, I will be voting to concur in it. With that I will conclude my remarks.

Public Safety

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-59 will do little to combat the problem of organized crime and money laundering in this country, which by the government's own estimate is $133 billion a year, equal to 5% of GDP. The government has ignored numerous reports and protected lawyers from money laundering and terrorist financing law and failed to crack down on Canada's big banks and their funnelling of money laundering and terrorist financing through our financial system.

When is the government going to subject lawyers to federal law and start cracking down on our big banks and the gobs of money laundering going through our financial system?

Opposition Motion—Auto theft

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this very important issue. Auto theft is a critical one that impacts Canadians.

As a GTA resident, and as a GTA member of Parliament, I have heard from my constituents, friends and neighbours about fear of theft and increased risk in their communities. I can assure each and every one of those individuals right across the country that I take these concerns very seriously and I am determined to address this problem alongside the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Transport and other colleagues.

What is not helpful is spreading disinformation and stoking fear even in this very chamber. It is disappointing, but unsurprising, that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues across the way have taken this very tactic.

To start, let us discuss what we have done to address the issue of auto theft.

In December, we increased funding to fight organized crime. Last week, we redoubled our efforts by announcing $121 million for the Ontario police forces to combat guns, gangs and organized crime.

Let me open a parentheses here; that is guns and gangs funding. On the night of a marathon vote initiated by the opposition, the Leader of the Opposition, in his infinite wisdom, returned to cast a direct vote against guns and gangs funding. Let the record be clear about which side of the House actually supports guns and gangs funding to keep our communities safe.

I was delighted to attend the announcement a week ago in York region in the GTA alongside the Minister of Public Safety, Premier Doug Ford, and other key players who will help prevent auto theft by organized crime.

We are also holding a meeting in Ottawa this Thursday that will bring together the provinces and representatives of cities, ports, insurers, automakers and other key stakeholders to discuss and develop a coordinated approach to combatting auto theft.

While Conservatives are busy tweeting out videos, as a result of a news release by our government that they decided to read, and repeating childish slogans, we have a plan to keep communities safe.

I want to point out the very bill the Leader of the Opposition has weaponized on this issue, a bill I was pleased to work on as the parliamentary secretary at the time to the then minister of justice, Bill C-75. It raised the maximum penalty on summary conviction for motor vehicle theft from 18 months to two years. For everyone who is watching right now, let that sink in. Either the Leader of the Opposition does not understand the Criminal Code or he is purposely misleading Canadians. Either way, his objective is to repeal Bill C-75 and therefore lower the maximum penalty for motor vehicle theft. If it sounds a bit illogical, it is.

Additionally, a pillar of his so-called plan is to add an aggravating factor on sentencing to this issue. As I said yesterday in the House, and as I will repeat today, the Criminal Code already includes this provision. Section 718.2(a)(iv) specifies as an aggravating factor, allowing for a more increased sentence, involvement with organized crime.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge, Mr. Speaker.

This is a critical measure. We know that the majority of auto thefts are not one-off crimes committed by first-time offenders. Auto theft is most often coordinated through an operation of organized crime networks. What are we doing with respect to those organized crime networks? We are cracking down, as the police agencies have asked us to do, on organized crime and the financing of it.

How are we doing that? We have the fall economic statement being debated in this very House, Bill C-59. That bill contains provisions to crack down on money laundering to stop the organized criminals who are making our communities unsafe.

What has the Leader of the Opposition done in his infinite wisdom? He has directed every one of his Conservative colleagues to vote against this measure, to vote against measures that would keep our communities safe and to basically empower organized criminals. Is this illogical? Yes, very illogical.

In a video posted just this morning, the Leader of the Opposition threw the CBSA under the bus for failing to solve the issue of auto theft. What he conveniently failed to mention, in a very polished video that was very professionally done, is that under his watch, when he was part of the Conservative government at the cabinet table, the Conservatives cut 1,000 jobs from the CBSA.

If one of the problems with this, which we will be discussing at the auto summit, is border security, I am not sure how we keep the borders safe when we are cutting employees working at the border. Is it illogical? Indeed, very illogical.

In addition, the Conservatives routinely vote against bolstering CBSA funding. They talk out of both sides of their mouths on this issue. Canadians watching right now deserve a heck of a lot better.

I am always open to good-faith suggestions for improving the Criminal Code. I take my mandate to keep our streets and communities safe very seriously. I look forward to working with the leaders on Thursday.

What I do not see from members of the official opposition is any sort of leadership on this issue. Instead, I see trifling slogans and redundant suggestions about how to amend the Criminal Code with provisions that are already there. Canadians deserve a lot better from that opposition.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McCann, this committee has been involved in this study for quite some time, and I'm very thankful that I got the unanimous support of my colleagues when I proposed the original motion for the study. I think one of the great benefits of this study and the increased focus on food price inflation has been recent amendments to the Competition Act. Bill C-56 got unanimous support in the House of Commons. It's now part of the statutes of Canada. There are other provisions in Bill C-59 as well.

I put that in the context of your opening remarks about how sometimes we suffer from a bit of a data gap in Canada. Can you add any more to the conversation about these increased legislative powers for the Competition Bureau and what you hope they will result in, particularly now that the Competition Bureau has more legislative muscle when it comes to market studies and the ability to compel that information?

Public Safety

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the increase in auto theft affects us directly. The reality is that organized crime is connected to this type of theft. Here in the House of Commons, we have tabled a bill that tackles money laundering.

The Conservatives are opposed to Bill C‑59. If they are really serious about fighting auto theft, I invite them to change their mind about how they are voting.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition purports to be tough on crime. Who do I listen to about crime measures? Police officers. What do they tell me? They tell me that this is not an individual crime; this is backed by people who are organized criminals. How do we deal with that? We get tough on money laundering.

When he is asking me to read the law, I would ask him to read Bill C-59, which has measures that deal with money laundering, which you are voting against.

Lowering Prices for Canadians Act

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to address the chamber with respect to Bill C-352, which would amend the Competition Act.

I think we all agree in the chamber that a stronger competition enforcement regime would be good for all Canadians. The bill proposed by the New Democratic Party, while receptive to the need for change in competition law, and generally aligned with the government's overall direction to date, must, however, be examined in light of the vast number of changes that overlap with and have already been introduced by Bill C-56 and Bill C-59.

Bill C-56 became law in December 2023, while Bill C-59 remains under consideration by Parliament at the present time. Bill C-56 implements, and Bill C-59 would implement, an overhaul of the Competition Act following the extensive consultations undertaken in 2022 and in 2023. The government received a great deal of input throughout its consultations, bolstering the knowledge gained over the years of stewardship over this law. The amendment packages assembled in its two bills address most of the issues identified in the law that historically made it weaker than regimes of Canada's closest partners. That would no longer be the case.

Modernizing the Competition Act is a necessary step in making Canada's economy more affordable for consumers and more fair and accessible to business. The government's extensive commitment to competition law reform was led by Bill C-56, the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, followed by Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023. Both of these bills are directed at enhancing affordability and competition, and together they represent the most comprehensive reform package to the Competition Act in decades. They respond to the submissions of hundreds of very different stakeholders, including businesses, legal experts, academics, non-governmental organizations and the commissioner of competition himself.

Bill C-56 implemented a set of targeted but critical amendments, following especially from the Competitions Bureau's market study on Canada's retail grocery sector. As members already know, Bill C-56 brought much-needed changes such as allowing information to be compelled under court order in the course of a market study, helping to remove barriers when diagnosing potential competition issues.

Bill C-56 also repealed the efficiencies exceptions for anti-competitive mergers and collaborations, and in so doing eliminated what many observers consider to have been the single biggest contributor to corporate concentration in Canada. The bill further allowed for better prevention and remedy of the abuse by larger players of their dominant position by requiring only proof of anti-competitive intent or effects to prohibit certain forms of conduct. This more appropriately allocates the burden of proof, as compared to the previous test, which significantly limited the number of instances where the bureau could intervene.

Finally, Bill C-56 addressed harm from collaborations between non-competing parties that are designed to limit competition. Once this provision is in effect, the bureau would be able to review any type of collaboration whose purpose it is to restrain competition and seek a remedy, including an order to prevent the activity where competition is being substantially harmed or is likely to be. This would be especially impactful on restrictive covenants between grocers and landlords, allowing more grocers to set up shop near competitors.

Bill C-56 was, of course, amended in committee through a multi-party effort, incorporating several of the elements in Bill C-352 that now no longer require consideration.

Bill C-59 represents an even more substantial overhaul in our competition enforcement regime, addressing a large variety of aspects of the Competition Act. The amendments would give the Competition Bureau a longer period to detect and address anti-competitive mergers that are not notified in advance, helping to address “killer acquisitions” in the digital market. The bill would broaden the bureau's review of competitor collaborations to include those that harmed competition in the past, and would allow for financial penalties to be sought when necessary.

Importantly, Bill C-59 would facilitate private actions against a broader range of anti-competitive or harmful practices and empower those affected to seek financial compensation in many cases. This improvement would complement the bureau's work in protecting the marketplace. The bill would also ensure that costs awards would not be ordered against the commissioner of competition in the vast majority of circumstances, another element addressed by Bill C-352.

The bill also includes anti-reprisal provisions, which would ensure that co-operation with the bureau or participation in legal proceedings could not be punished by stronger businesses. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that Bill C-59 would strengthen the law's testament of greenwashing the false advertising of sustainability claims while also facilitating environmentally beneficial collaborations that would not harm competition. Moreover, it would ensure that a means of diagnosis for repair could not be denied in a way that would harm competition.

All in all, little remains in Bill C-352 that has not already been addressed. On the contrary, Bill C-59 includes several elements missing from this private member's bill. The government's consultation saw over 130 stakeholders raise over 100 reform proposals. All submissions made by identified groups are publicly available, and the government published a “what we heard” report synthesizing them. This public process has been a key source of input to help us develop reform proposals. We are confident that the measures included in government bills comprehensively address the needs expressed by Canadians.

In conclusion, I think it is fair to say that the ambition of Bill C-352 correctly reflects the importance Canadians place on having a strengthened competition law framework. However, all of the major issues it raises have been or are being substantially dealt with through Bill C-56 and Bill C-59. As such, I would encourage members of the House interested in advancing competition reform to prioritize the rapid passage of Bill C-59.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Quebec. I assure him that the House of Commons is in for a good time. There will always be interesting things to debate because we keep introducing good bills in the House.

Tomorrow, Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, will be the subject of debate.

When we return on Monday, we will call Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023.

I would also like to inform the House that Tuesday and Thursday will be allotted days. On Wednesday we will begin debate on Bill C‑62 on medical assistance in dying, which was introduced earlier today by my hon. colleague the Minister of Health.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023.

This legislation, which would deliver on key measures from our fall economic statement, would advance our plan to make life more affordable, build more homes faster and develop a cleaner economy that works for everyone.

This is the next step in our economic plan that, since 2015, has supported people in Halifax West and across the country through the Canada child benefit, enhanced benefits and pensions for seniors, stronger public health care and a Canada-wide system of affordable early learning and child care. These investments have helped bring us to today, when we have seen a strong recovery with a million more jobs in Canada than before the pandemic, a record number of working-age women in our labour force and, just last month, wages growing at the fastest pace in three years. In fact, wage growth has outpaced inflation for 11 consecutive months now, but we are not out of the economic woods yet.

Inflation is still high, higher than where we would like it to be. Elevated prices continue to put pressure on Canadian families. I hear about that every day from my constituents.

Over the past year, the federal government has taken more steps to make life more affordable for people in this country who need it.

It is no secret that we need to do much more.

This bill is part of that work.

There are a number of things I can talk about that Bill C-59 would do for Canadians. It would remove the GST and HST on counselling and psychotherapy services to make mental health care more affordable. It would extend employment insurance benefits to parents who adopt, better supporting those families.

Right now, adoptive parents are entitled to EI parental benefits, but not to the 15 weeks of maternity benefits.

It would create new, paid leave for federally regulated workers to support families who experience pregnancy loss.

A truly strong economy and labour force are built upon compassion and an understanding of the difficult situations some families encounter.

Bill C-59 would also introduce new measures to further our economic plan and continue supporting a strong middle class. It would achieve that by enshrining our suite of clean investment tax credits in law, all while providing businesses with an incentive to pay a prevailing union wage. That is huge.

This is the first time in Canada's history that investment tax credits are contingent upon such labour requirements.

Let us bring this back to my own community in Halifax West. The two things I hear about most these days, especially since we signed our transformative health care deal with Nova Scotia, are affordability at the grocery store and the need for more housing. This bill would introduce both.

On housing, Bill C-59 would remove the GST on new rental home construction for co-op housing, complementing the action we took in the fall and spurring new construction. Let us recall just how much we have done to increase housing supply over the last several months, because it is major. We are investing $1 billion more in affordable units like non-profit, co-op and public housing. We are helping build 30,000 more rental units by extending $15 billion in additional low-cost financing to builders. We are reforming the apartment construction loan program to offer low-cost loans to build more student housing on and off campus, a move that I know Dalhousie, Mount Saint Vincent and St. Mary's universities are all looking at closely.

We are launching a home design catalogue so pre-approved designs, including modulars, that can benefit Atlantic Canada specifically can be used to build more homes faster. We are funding 222 new units of public housing in Nova Scotia, the first expansion to our public housing stock in decades. We are unlocking 9,000 more units in HRM over the next decade by funding Halifax's housing action plan through our housing accelerator.

While Conservatives pick fights with elected mayors and councils, we work with them, providing the right incentives and getting major changes made so we can build homes faster in Canada. That is the way forward: collaboration.

We are going to get more homes built for Canadians, and we are also tackling the problem of high grocery prices head-on through a generational change to competition law in Canada. Bill C-59 is part of that. How is it? By amending the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act, building on changes we have proposed in Bill C-56, we would help stabilize prices and improve consumer choice. This includes supporting Canadians' right to repair; further modernizing merger reviews; enhancing protections for consumers, workers and the environment, including improving the focus on worker impacts and competition analysis; empowering the commissioner of competition to review and crack down on a wide selection of anti-competitive collaborations; and broadening the reach of the law by enabling more private parties to bring cases before the Competition Tribunal and receive payment if they are successful.

I know I welcomed this week's news that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry is calling on the Competition Bureau to use its new powers to take another look at the cost of groceries in Canada. This is how we crack down on tactics that big corporations use to raise costs for Canadians.

Is there more we need to do to act on these two top voter priorities? The answer is yes, absolutely.

On this side of the aisle, we are going to stay focused on them both, fully in solution mode.

All members will have the opportunity to take part in this work, and that starts by supporting Bill C‑59.

Let us support the swift passage of Bill C-59, and let us keep working together on solutions to the challenges Canadians are facing at this time.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to rise on behalf of the residents and businesses of Barrie—Innisfil to speak to Bill C-59, the fall economic statement.

When my four kids were growing up, there was a TV show with Barney, the purple dinosaur, and the lyrics of one of its famous songs went:

If all the raindrops were lemon drops and gumdrops
Oh, what a rain that would be!

If we were to listen to the Liberals debating the fall economic statement, or anything to do with their economic policy, we would think that Canadians had never had it any better and that things are rosy across the land. I can tell members that, after spending the last six weeks in Barrie—Innisfil speaking to residents and businesses, things are dire right now. They are dire for many reasons for a lot of families, and I will focus on what I heard from my residents and the businesses of Barrie—Innisfil over the last six weeks. In fact, I have been hearing from them for a long time because many of the economic policies that the government has implemented have disproportionately affected Barrie—Innisfil residents and businesses in a way that many may never recover from.

The first thing I will focus on is the carbon tax. We live an hour north of Toronto and do not have access to mass transit like they do in the city of Toronto. We have a Barrie transit system and a GO transit system that gets us where we need to go for special events in Toronto, for example, or from point A to point B in Barrie. However, the difficulty for many people who live in Barrie is that they drive, so they are being impacted by the cost of the carbon tax on their gas bills as they go to work, visit family and take their kids to hockey.

In many cases, hockey does not just happen in Barrie, but all over Ontario. I know that first-hand from having two kids who played AAA hockey. My wife and I often talk about the circumstance where she would be in Belleville and I would be in Peterborough, separately, each with one of our kids playing hockey, and the impact the carbon tax would have had on us as a family at that time. We could barely afford to put our kids in hockey then. I cannot imagine what families are going through right now having to pay the carbon tax on their fuel and everything else, such as heating, whether that is residential or for a business.

I had a bill sent to me today from a local business owner, who runs a restaurant, and his carbon tax, just last month, was $1,431. Members can assume for a second that this restaurant works off of 10% margins. They would have to sell an extra 14,000 dollars' worth of goods or services just to pay for the carbon tax. The fact is that the carbon tax is going to quadruple, so they would have to pay more. Certainly, the business would not get any of that back in a rebate.

Many families are showing me their gas bills, as I have asked them to, and they are saying the same thing, which is that they are not getting back in total what they are paying for gas, for natural gas or for groceries. They are not getting back from the carbon rebate, as the government claims, an equal amount to what they are paying in the carbon tax. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer spoke about exactly that. Many more families are getting less back in the rebate than they are paying in carbon tax, and it is disproportionately affecting low-income Canadians. Many of them are in my riding of Barrie—Innisfil.

I have, as we all have, sent out newsletters and mailers, and we have the ability to ask a question on the back of a mailer. There has been no other issue that I received more responses on than the issue of the carbon tax. The question was simple: Do you support the carbon tax?

I can say that, out of the hundreds of responses I got back from Barrie—Innisfil residents and businesses, 82.5% said that they do not support the carbon tax, 15% said they did, and 2.5% had no response. This was out of the hundreds of responses that were sent back. Also, there was an option to give comments, and here are some of the responses:

“What are they doing with the tax?” asked D.B. in Barrie. Another said, “I would be interested about what improvement our carbon tax collected has made on the climate change so far.”

We have already heard, through various reports, that our emissions have not been reduced significantly, save and except during COVID. That stands to reason because nobody was driving or doing anything at that time. The economy was effectively shut down.

We need to do much more to stop climate change, but I do not believe that the carbon tax in Canada is doing anything to change it.

H. H. in Innisfil wrote, “The carbon tax on home heating is unfair”, while another said, “Don't believe it effectively encourages less fuel consumption”.

D. Morrison from Barrie wrote, “The Government has no idea what goes on in the real country for the average person.” Another constituent wrote, “I pay 62% of my pension in tax. It is obvious to me that this money is not being spent in my best interest”.

Now we hear that the government, because it feels that it has a narrative problem with respect to the carbon tax, is effectively going to try to put lipstick on a pig. It is going to change that narrative. It is going to try to advertise it in a way that more people understand it.

I can tell members that people do understand. They understand when they see their gas bill, go to the grocery store and put gas in their car that the carbon tax is costing them more. When we tax the farmer who produces the food, the shipper who moves the food, the producers and wholesalers who look after the food for distribution and the grocery stores, who ends up paying more? It is the consumer. How bad is it in this country? There are two million people using food banks.

I had an opportunity last week to visit the Barrie Food Bank. It told me that its utilization was 150% greater in December than it was the December before. It is seeing people using the food bank like it has never seen before. It is multi-generational as well. Families are coming in utilizing the food bank as though it were a grocery store because they cannot afford to buy food.

I was also at the Innisfil food bank. What precipitated my visit, in addition to donating $1,312.50 as a result of some fundraising that we did specifically for the food bank, was an email from its director, who wrote:

I finished the yearly report for the Innisfil Food Bank so am sharing some of the stats here. We have seen an overall increase of 29% over the course of the year. The majority (43%) of our visitors attended the food bank between 2 and 5 times this past year. 24% of our clients came 6-12 times/year. Our busiest months were October (our highest ever) and January (which is pretty standard). Over 55% of our people are supporting dependants.

The food bank's increase is consistent, or even less, than what we are seeing across the country, and there again is that multi-generational use. The email continues:

We are seeing an increase in multi-generational homes. This means that someone is supporting both children and parents or grandparents are supporting their own kids but also their grandkids.

This is in a G7 country where we are supposed to have abundance, where people are not just simply supposed to scrape by, but have the dignity of work, producing a paycheque and providing for their family. That is sadly not happening.

What we have seen with this fall economic statement is the government commit to another $20 billion in spending with no fiscal guardrails. We have debt and deficit increasing like we have never seen before in this country. Interest rates are continually at a level where they become unaffordable.

The other thing I heard about was the impact of mortgage rates and how it is affecting Barrie—Innisfil homeowners.

I was doing the Salvation Army kettle in Stroud. I had a self-employed person come up to me who said their bank would not provide them with a mortgage. That person had to go to a secondary lender, not at 4% or 5%, but at 9%, and will be at risk of losing their home. Mortgages are up for renewal for 900,000 homes in this country over the next three years, and as a result of the fiscal policy of the government, many are at risk.

Conservatives are going to be focused on four things in this session of Parliament: axing the tax; building homes; making sure we help the government fix the budget, with suggestions that are going to do that; and stopping crime. There is only one alternative to govern in this country, and that is Canada's Conservatives, so we can have common sense for everyone and restore common sense and decency for people in this country.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement and certain provisions of the 2023 budget.

The last two years have not only tested our resilience but have also set the stage for an economic transformation, one that is responsible and forward-thinking. One million more Canadians are employed now compared to when the pandemic started. This remarkable recovery is not just a number. It represents families sustaining themselves and a nation moving forward.

Our unemployment rate at 5.8% is quite low by historical standards. After peaking at 8.2% in June 2022, the inflation rate is trending downward and was at 3.4% in December 2023. Wages have consistently outpaced inflation for many months, which is a trend that speaks volumes about our economic health.

On January 24, the Bank of Canada announced it would hold the key interest rate at 5%.

Governor Tiff Macklem said:

With overall demand in the economy no longer running ahead of supply, Governing Council's discussion of monetary policy is shifting from whether our policy rate is restrictive enough to restore price stability, to how long it needs to stay at the current level.

With softer growth this year, inflation rates in most advanced economies are expected to come down slowly, reaching central bank targets in 2025. As I have been saying for a long time, we can see the possibility of interest rate reversal starting mid-2024.

At the macro level, we are on the cusp of a new era, an era defined by rapid global changes particularly in how we address climate change. Today we stand at the brink of a global economic transformation driven by the shift to a clean economy. This is not just a change; it is an unprecedented investment opportunity. The transition to renewable energy, sustainable practices and green technologies is reshaping markets worldwide and unlocking new avenues for economic growth and innovation.

By 2030, the global market for clean technologies is projected to exceed trillions of dollars, offering vast potential for countries and investors that are proactive in this space. This shift promises not only environmental benefits but also substantial economic gains, with millions of new jobs expected. Embracing this change means positioning ourselves at the forefront of a green economic revolution, attracting international investment and establishing global leadership in a rapidly evolving market. This is an opportunity we cannot afford to miss.

As we pivot toward renewable energy sources, electric vehicles and energy-efficient technologies, we are tapping into a market that is rapidly expanding globally. On renewable energy, as we look toward the next decade, the global economic potential of renewable energy is immense and transformative.

According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, renewable energy could account for around 60% of the world's power by 2030, which is up from about 25% in recent years. This shift represents an investment opportunity of up to $10 trillion by 2050.

For Canada, the prospects are equally promising. The Canadian Renewable Energy Association predicts significant growth, with renewable energy potentially contributing up to 40% of Canada's electricity by 2030. This transition, which aligns with Canada's commitment to a net-zero economy by 2050, could stimulate billions in investment and create thousands of jobs, which would position Canada as a leader in the renewable energy sector.

This transition is expected to create millions of jobs worldwide, offering diverse opportunities in sectors like manufacturing, technology and services. Moreover, investing in a clean economy positions Canada as a leader in green technology, attracting global investment and fostering economic resilience.

As we embark on this journey, we are not just safeguarding our involvement but also fuelling a dynamic, future-oriented economy. Our economic plan is not just a response to this global shift but a proactive strategy to ensure that Canadian workers and businesses are not just participants but leaders in the clean economy.

Our plan is not just a blueprint; it is already yielding tangible results. In just over three years, we have initiated more than 90 clean-growth projects worth over $40 billion, including private investments. These projects span across Canada, bringing economic growth to every region and offering quality jobs to the middle class.

The world has taken notice of Canada's potential. The OECD ranking, which places Canada third globally for foreign direct investment in the first half of 2023, is a clear indicator of our competitive advantage. We have what it takes to thrive in the 21st century's clean economies from our rich natural resources, like critical minerals, to our competency in research and innovation, to our skilled and diverse workforce.

Our stable political and economic institutions further cement our position as a prime destination for global business. Canada's clean economy jobs plan is more than a policy. It is a commitment to leveraging our unique advantages. It is about attracting investment and creating jobs across the country, ensuring that every Canadian benefits from this economic shift.

I want to highlight a cornerstone of Canada's future: our critical minerals strategy. The demand for critical minerals, essential for low-carbon technologies, is set to skyrocket. Canada, a global leader in mining, is rich in these minerals. Our mining sector, with a presence in nearly 100 countries and a market capitalization of over $500 billion, is not just an economic powerhouse; it is a testament to our sustainable and responsible approach to resource management. Our critical minerals strategy is more than just an economic plan. It is a vision for sustainable growth and innovation.

Canada is uniquely positioned with abundant resources in critical minerals like lithium, cobalt and nickel; elements essential for the clean energy transition. Our approach is twofold: sustainable extraction and global leadership in supply chains for technologies like electric vehicles and renewable energy. We are not just extracting minerals; we are building partnerships, ensuring environmental stewardship and creating high-quality jobs. This strategy is an integral part of Canada's commitment to a greener future and economic resilience.

We are leveraging our natural wealth responsibly, ensuring that Canada plays a pivotal role in the global low-carbon economy. One of our most ambitious goals is building Canada's electric vehicle battery supply chain. The next decade heralds a transformative era for electric vehicles, marking a significant shift in both global and Canadian economies. According to BloombergNEF, the electric vehicle market is projected to grow to 54 million vehicles globally by 2040, up from three million in 2020. This surge represents a potential market value of $2 trillion.

In Canada, with government commitments to ban sales of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035, the electric vehicle market is expected to expand exponentially. As per Statistics Canada, the shift could generate over $3 billion in electric vehicle sales by 2026, stimulating job creation and technological innovation.

This electrifying transition not only signals a green future but also an economic catalyst for sustainable growth. As the world moves toward electric vehicles, Canada is uniquely positioned to be a leader in this industry. Our skilled workforce and comprehensive supply chain, from mineral extraction to battery manufacturing, set us apart.

To support this growth, the federal government has secured significant investments in the electric vehicle and battery supply chain. These investments, totalling over $34 billion since 2020, are not just about economic growth, they are about securing the future for Canada's auto supply chain workers and their families.

Major projects like Volkswagen and Stellantis-LG Energy Solution in Ontario, and Northvolt in Quebec, represent a new era for Canada's electric vehicle industry.

The House resumed from January 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House this evening and speak for a few minutes about the fall economic statement and Bill C-59. Of course fall has turned to winter, and yet the topics we have been debating in this piece of legislation are as relevant as ever, particularly the topic of housing. That is where I will focus my remarks this evening.

The need for affordable housing is an issue in every single community in northwest B.C. I know many members in this House are familiar with what is going on in northwest B.C., particularly the level of investment in industrial development. That has brought opportunity for many people. There are many people making good incomes in various industrial industries, but not everyone.

I remember, months ago, talking to a fellow on his doorstep in the city of Terrace. He was a carpenter. He was working on the construction of the new hospital in the city, a much-needed and much-awaited project. He told me about his struggles affording rental housing. He was renting what I believe was a modest two-bedroom townhouse. He had two kids with a third on the way. He said that he and his partner needed more space but they just could not afford it.

There are many people in that situation and people who are earning even less. When we think about people working in the service industry, there are many people who are struggling to make ends meet and struggling with the cost of housing. What we have heard in this debate is that both the Liberals and the Conservatives are relying almost solely on the market to provide housing solutions. As for the ideas that they have presented, whether it is the idea of browbeating what they are calling municipal gatekeepers or building density near transit hubs, northwest B.C. does not have transit hubs. It barely has public transit. These are not ideas that translate to rural British Columbia.

We need different ideas. We need a government that is committed, in particular, to building the infrastructure that our communities need. In cities like Prince Rupert, that means a major investment in water infrastructure. In the city of Terrace, in the town of Smithers, in the small community of Port Clements, people are struggling, and communities are struggling with the cost of infrastructure, like waste water and drinking water. That is what is needed in order to facilitate the expansion of housing development. These communities would welcome private sector development, public sector development, but they cannot do it without the infrastructure.

I will leave it there, and look forward to continuing my remarks at a future date.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I also expect, as someone who has advocated so strongly and so successfully for the removal of HST on psychotherapy services, that the member will be supporting Bill C-59. I expect that it is in Bill C-59 because of the member's advocacy.

There is no denying that we are in tough economic times. There is absolutely no denying that and that is the reason for the measures that are in Bill C-59. That is the reason for $10-a-day child care. These measures are working. There is a lot of work to do; I acknowledge that. There are people who are hurting and we will continue to be there for them.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the residents of Charlottetown, the birthplace of Confederation, in support of Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, as tabled by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

These last few weeks, I have had the privilege of spending time in my constituency and having meaningful conversations with residents about their priorities, their concerns and their hopes. In doing so, I have heard their message loud and clear: Canadians want their government to manage the needs of today while having a solid plan for tomorrow. That is why I am pleased that our government’s fall economic statement reconciles these equally urgent demands through a fiscally responsible plan that addresses the concerns of Canadians and lays a foundation for the future.

The statement focuses on several key areas, the first of which is housing. We know that housing is top of mind for Canadians of all ages, from young first-time homebuyers to seniors looking for accessible housing that would allow them to stay in their communities as long as possible. In 2019, this chamber recognized that, in Canada, housing is a human right. Our government is making sure that this right is within reach for everybody, regardless of income or region.

In Prince Edward Island, our housing supply is currently increasing at only a third of the necessary pace for all Islanders to have a place to call home. It is critical that we build more homes, faster. The housing initiatives in Bill C-59 include an additional investment of $15 billion for the apartment construction loan program, which would provide low-cost financing to builders and developers and would speed up financial approvals to federal housing construction programs. These initiatives would directly address the need to increase our housing supply. Indeed, along with existing programs, they would create over 200,000 new homes in the next eight years.

I would like to take a minute to celebrate one of these existing programs, the housing accelerator fund. Since September, our government has signed agreements with municipalities to build over 21,000 new homes from coast to coast. By working with local governments, we are ensuring that we are meeting the unique housing needs of each town and city while also laying the groundwork for long-term housing sustainability.

In Prince Edward Island, one of these agreements has been signed with the City of Summerside. The City of Charlottetown is in the final stages of negotiations to conclude an agreement with the Government of Canada. It has been a long process because the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities has, basically, pushed a hard bargain, but it appears that we are very close to being able to make an announcement. I look forward to that day.

Our government is also increasing access to the existing housing supply by cracking down on non-compliant short-term rentals. Bill C-59 would deny tax deductions for those short-term rental operators who do not abide by the proper provincial and municipal licensing requirements. We would also invest $50 million over three years to support enforcement of municipal restrictions on short-term rentals. I am particularly pleased by this measure as short-term rental regulations came into effect in my riding in the city of Charlottetown just last November, and proper enforcement would bring hundreds of units back into the long-term rental market and would make it easier for Islanders to find a home.

Just to give a little local context, Prince Edward Island is a place with 180,000 people, who receive 1.5 million visitors a year. Therefore, if someone is in the short-term rental market, it is a pretty lucrative business. Because it is a pretty lucrative business, it has a significant impact on the housing stock. That measure contained in the fall economic statement would be a very significant aid to ensure that short-term rental operators stay within the established rules. Those rules have been thoughtfully put together by Charlottetown city council to address the challenge we have around short-term rentals, around the housing stock, which is all tied into how lucrative it is because of how popular Prince Edward Island is during the tourist season.

When we look at housing, our government is addressing not only supply but also affordability. I would like to quote the PEI Fight for Affordable Housing, which advocates for safe, affordable and accessible homes. “Governments must be ready and willing to intervene in the market in order to preserve existing affordable housing which is at risk.”

This is the political leadership that Bill C-59 shows, by removing GST from new co-op rental housing and investing $1 billion over three years to support non-profit, co-op and public housing providers in building more than 7,000 affordable homes by 2028.

These are welcome initiatives that will allow middle- and low-income Canadians to access safe, stable homes to live and thrive in. Again, just in the riding of Charlottetown, a city of 45,000 people, under the national housing strategy we have received more than $80 million and have built or are in the process of building 430 homes. About half of those are deeply affordable under the national co-investment fund or the rapid housing initiative, and the other half are below market rents.

These are not just photo ops. All but one of those projects are built and fully rented. When I say fully rented, I mean no vacancy. That is the case right across Prince Edward Island, with the challenge we have with supply.

For current homeowners, Bill C-59 introduces the Canadian mortgage charter, which looks at new measures for tailored mortgage relief and ensures that Canadians are informed of their mortgage relief options at a time when interest rates are high. This is a crucial initiative that will help homeowners keep their homes through financial difficulty.

Through Bill C-59, we are demonstrating the commitment to support all Canadians, be they renters, potential homebuyers or mortgage-holders, in meeting their housing needs for generations to come.

The fall economic statement also recognizes the challenges facing seasonal workers. Included in the fall economic statement is something called pilot project 22. Pilot project 22 will provide four additional weeks of EI benefits for the regions of this country that have the most seasonal workers. That includes all of Prince Edward Island. This will be a significant benefit to all seasonal workers on P.E.I. It is, however, a band-aid.

It is a band-aid that has been proven necessary by a cynical political manoeuvre that happened to seasonal workers in Prince Edward Island in the dying days of the Harper government, in October 2014, when Stephen Harper split P.E.I. into two zones and, in so doing, favoured one part of the island, pitting islanders against one another. People working beside one another in the same seasonal operation were treated differently at the end of the season.

This is compounded, quite frankly, by the last eight years of our government, during which we have not reversed this cynical manoeuvre. I am here, on behalf of the people of Charlottetown, to say that Stephen Harper should never have done it to us, but it should be fixed by now.

That has been a recommendation from the Standing Committee on Human Resources on a couple of occasions. It has been in the mandate letter of the relevant minister, this one and the previous one, but we are still in a situation in which we are putting a band-aid on this problem. That band-aid will help those who are eligible for EI, but it does not help those who are not eligible and who are on welfare because their period ran out because of what Stephen Harper did.

That is the situation. It is a good thing as far as it goes.

Over the last eight years our government has introduced a Canada child benefit, which has lifted over 400,000 children out of poverty since 2015. We have worked with the provinces to deliver $10-a-day child care, which will deliver 250,000 new affordable child care spaces by 2026. Through these measures, we will continue to support families.

The measures I have highlighted, as well as all others contained in the fall economic statement, build on the work that we have already done and set the stage for the next few years.

I am, again, pleased to speak to this ambitious, fiscally responsible statement and how it will address the needs of hard-working Canadians. I encourage every member of this chamber to support the statement and vote in favour of Bill C-59.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Charlottetown.

I am thankful for the opportunity and privilege of rising in the House to participate in today's debate on Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023. The legislation would deliver key measures from the 2023 fall economic statement, as well as budget 2023, to help the middle class by stabilizing consumer prices and making housing more affordable by supporting the construction of homes that Canadians very much need.

Our approach to tackling the housing crisis is multi-faceted. On that note, the federal government is collaborating with the provincial and territorial governments across Canada to do a number of things, such as cutting red tape, speeding up permitting approvals, lifting zoning restrictions and, consequently, building more homes much faster. This collaborative effort has already yielded substantial results, as evidenced by the following. There is the construction of more than 71,000 new rental homes through the allocation of over $25 billion in low-cost financing via the rental construction financing initiative. This is an initiative on which I received a lot of calls in my constituency from the developer, who is very interested in participating in it.

We are targeting the construction of over 12,000 affordable homes for those with severe housing needs or those experiencing homelessness through the rapid housing initiative. There will be 12,000 more homes for those who are homeless and 71,000 new rental homes for those looking to rent. We are also providing housing providers with low- or no-cost options to build 4,500 new homes by utilizing over $200 million through the federal lands initiative by repurposing surplus federal lands and buildings. We are now getting involved by providing those surplus federal lands and allocating and working with partners to build homes. In addition, we are investing $6.7 billion in housing for first nations on reserve, as well as Inuit, Métis and first nations self-governing and modern treaty communities.

To maintain pace with our expanding communities, we recognize that rental housing supply must also increase. Builders need access to low-cost financing, which would enable the construction of more new rental units much faster. The federal government has already made significant strides in this direction, but, naturally, there is more to come.

The 2023 fall economic statement announced an additional $15 billion in new loan funding for the apartment construction loan program starting in 2025-26. This supports the construction of an additional 30,000 new units across Canada by bringing the total loan funding to over $40 billion. By 2031-32, this program will have contributed to the support of over 101,000 new apartments for people to live in.

Affordable and community housing also plays a critical role. We were talking about providing housing and rentals and now we are talking about providing affordable and community housing for the most vulnerable Canadians that they can call home. To build more affordable housing for the most vulnerable Canadians, an additional investment to support non-profit co-op and public housing providers has been announcement in the 2023 fall economic statement to build more than 7,000 new co-op homes.

To help build more homes faster, the 2023 fall economic statement also removes the goods and services tax from new rental home construction for co-operative housing corporations providing long-term accommodations, as well as apartment buildings, student housing and seniors' residences. This move, alongside the formal establishment of the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, underscores our commitment to support the construction of homes across Canada.

I am particularly proud of the recent initiative in my riding of Richmond Hill. On Monday, November 27, I joined my hon. colleague, the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities; my neighbour, the member of Parliament for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill; and the mayor of Richmond Hill, His Worship Mayor David West, in announcing an agreement to fast-track over 780 housing units over the next three years in my riding.

This initiative is part of a broader vision to create over 41,500 new homes in the next decade, supported by a $31-million investment from the housing accelerator fund for Richmond Hill.

I am also proud to witness the government's substantive investments in our community that demonstrate what can be achieved with innovation, collaboration and a steadfast resolve to address the housing needs of Canadians in Richmond Hill and across Canada. I congratulate the Municipality of Richmond Hill for its innovative housing action plan and the broader community in Richmond Hill, as well as other municipalities within the York Region that are the recipients of this fund.

In addition to addressing housing needs, the government is acutely aware of the challenges posed by global inflation, particularly the high cost of food, and is actively working to alleviate the burden on Canadians. Recognizing the importance of affordability in daily life, we implemented new measures last fall to make groceries more accessible and more affordable. Key among these initiatives is the amendment of the Competition Act, through Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. This amendment aims to enhance competition in the grocery sector, thereby helping to lower costs and offering Canadians more choices in their grocery shopping.

Furthermore, we are actively working on securing commitments from Canada's five largest grocery chains, which constitute 76% of the market, to assist in stabilizing prices for Canadians. The establishment of a grocery task force further bolsters these efforts. This task force is not only supervising the efforts of major grocers to stabilize prices but also actively monitoring and investigating other practices in the sector, such as shrinkflation. As we move forward, the government remains vigilant and committed to ensuring that Canada's largest grocers uphold their promise to stabilize prices.

The bill would also advance the government's fiscally responsible plan to build a cleaner, stronger economy. It would introduce measures to create well-paying jobs, generate growth and build a cleaner economy that works for everyone by advancing Canada's competitiveness through the implementation of investment tax credits. The government has been in the position to be the third-largest recipient of foreign investments, which is the envy of the world. Investment tax credits are a key part of the government's broader plan to work with industry toward the goal of decarbonization, which includes the carbon capture, utilization and storage investment tax credit.

It is evident that Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, represents a comprehensive approach to some of the most pressing challenges facing our nation, namely affordability, the environment, housing and security. In essence, supporting Bill C-59 means endorsing a strategy that balances economic growth with environmental stewardship and social responsibility. It is a step toward not only addressing the immediate needs of our citizens but also securing a healthier, more prosperous future for Canada.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑59 mentions the creation of a federal department of municipal affairs, to be known as the department of housing, infrastructure and communities. This could open the door to more interference, more disputes and more delays, despite the urgency of the housing crisis.

My colleague also talked about removing the bureaucracy. What are his thoughts on the creation of a federal department of municipal affairs?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, good afternoon to you and to all my hon. colleagues in this wonderful and esteemed House. It is my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-59, the fall economic statement. Before I begin my formal remarks, I will say that it is really great to share our thoughts and be the voice of the residents of our ridings, whom we get to represent with much privilege and honour.

When we look at Canada today, the country we are blessed to call home whether we were born here in this generation or prior, like our parents and grandparents, however we ended up here, we are very fortunate as Canada is a land of opportunity for its residents, our constituents and our children. We are going to keep it that way. All 338 members of the House aspire for this country to be the best it can be, and to provide opportunity and fortune for our children and our prosperity.

Today the International Monetary Fund came out with its economic growth outlook projections, and the growth outlook for Canada looks quite impressive. In fact, in 2025, out of all of the G7 countries, Canada will have the fastest economic growth rate forecast for real GDP. We will grow at almost 2.5%. It is 2.3% to be exact. In 2024, we will be a snick behind the United States and will be the second fastest-growing country in the G7.

That does not happen by accident; it happens through the hard work of all our residents and entrepreneurs. It also happens through collaboration with government, labour and industry. That is how we grow an economy. That is how we create prosperity, by collaborating and working together.

As I was reading through the fall economic outlook today, it was great to see that the choices we have made and continue to make as a government are creating economic growth, jobs and prosperity for all Canadians, not only the wonderful residents in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge but also those across this country.

In the fall economic statement there is talk of the $4-billion housing accelerator fund. I was proud to stand with the Prime Minister of Canada and my mayor, the Hon. Steven Del Duca, to announce a $59-million investment into the city of Vaughan to streamline the processes to build housing to ensure that we prioritize housing near transportation infrastructure, much like is being done at the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre and all along the Highway 7 corridor along York Region in the city of Vaughan.

We will continue to make those strategic investments in our communities. Why will we? It is because we believe in Canadians, and a confident government invests in its people, its entrepreneurs and its country. That is what we continue to do.

There is one measure I think we must all look at and applaud, which is the first-time homebuyer savings account. This account has been taken up by over 500,000 Canadians. It combines the best of the tax-free savings account and an RRSP account. It puts them together: tax-free in, tax-free out. People get a tax deduction for investing in the account, and when they use it to purchase a home, it is tax-free: tax deduction in, tax-free out. It is a powerful measure that 500,000 Canadians have taken advantage of.

On the building side, we put in place a 100% GST rebate with respect to new purpose-built rental housing. I know this is something that, for many years, rental builders across this country have asked for, and we have delivered that.

We brought in the Canada child benefit and an early learning and child care plan, which I know the Province of Ontario, under a Progressive Conservative government, is celebrating day in and day out, but the opposition apparently criticizes.

I would say “shame”, because we know, and the member opposite knows, that my riding, York—Simcoe, and all the ridings across this country are benefiting from the agreement we have signed with the provinces.

We know that Canadians are facing high consumer prices, which is putting pressure on their families.

Over the past year, the federal government has taken other measures to make life more affordable for those who need it most in our country. Those measures include doubling the GST credit for six months in the fall of 2022 and providing a new one-time grocery rebate in June 2023, which enabled us to deliver hundreds of dollars in targeted inflation relief to 11 million Canadian households.

On July 28, 2023, the government began distributing the first quarterly payments of the enhanced Canada workers benefit, a measure designed to help Canada's lowest paid but often most essential workers. A family could receive up to $2,461 this year.

The Canada workers benefit is like the unsung hero, the grinder on the ice, doing its job. This benefit has lifted millions of Canadians out of poverty. Almost two and a half million Canadians have been lifted out of poverty since 2015. The poverty rate has been reduced by more than half, 650,000 children. We will continue doing what is right. When the government does what is right, when a parent does what is right, when an entrepreneur does what is right, they know they are going in the right direction. We are certainly doing that.

These are just a few examples of how our government continues to support Canadians at a time when some prices are still too high.

Bill C-59 builds on these efforts by introducing new measures to further the government's economic plan and continue to support a strong middle class. We are seeing it. We have a AAA credit rating, and that is not by fluke; it was by hard choices made many years ago to keep that under all governments. We celebrate it. We maintain it. We have a strong fiscal foundation.

Our deficit-to-GDP ratio, across the board, is one of the lowest, if not the lowest, in all the G7 countries, and it continues on the right path. We know that Canadians are feeling elevated prices, but we have made the right choices to support them, and we will continue to do so.

We will support Canadians' right to repair, preventing manufacturers from refusing to provide the means of repairing devices and products in an anti-competitive manner. We have further modernized merger reviews and enhanced protections for consumers, workers and the environment, including putting the focus on worker impacts and competition.

We empowered the commissioner of competition to review and crack down on a wide selection of anti-competitive collaborations.

Finally, we are broadening the reach of the law by enabling more private parties to bring cases before the Competition Tribunal and to receive payment if they are successful.

Bill C-59 and Bill C-56 would provide generational changes to the competition laws for Canadians.

Again, on competition, I love capitalism and I love the creation of wealth. That is what creates jobs. That is what drives prosperity, not only here in this beautiful country but across the board. However, we can do that only when we have a regulatory regime in place that ensures that anti-competitive practices, abuse practices on pricing, collusion and drip pricing, and all those of types of measures are looked at and examined, and folks are held to account.

We need to do that, whether there are circumstances like a few years ago with bread or in any circumstance today. We need to ensure that the commissioner of competition and the Competition Tribunal have teeth. We need to ensure that the law with regard to competition is on the side of Canadians, not on the side of corporations. Believe me, I want all companies and corporations to succeed, whether it is a limited partnership, whether it is a CCPC, whether it is publicly listed or a family business, or whether it is one of the 18,000 or 19,000 small businesses that exist in the city of Vaughan, literally the economic engine of York Region, the largest economic centre, with almost 1,300,000 residents.

Our government also recognizes the importance of enabling Canadians to access the mental health services and support they need when they are at their most vulnerable.

For example, therapy and counselling services play a critical role in the lives and mental health of millions of people in Canada, but they can also be costly. To ensure that Canadians can get the help they need, the federal government is taking the necessary steps to make these essential services more accessible.

We removed the GST-HST when an individual needs to go see a therapist of any sort. We know how important the mental health of our friends, families and loved ones is, especially in this world today, where we are so interconnected yet millions of people still feel alone. They need the help.

I see I have about a minute or 30 seconds left. I would like to say that I look forward to answering questions or comments from my hon. colleagues. I hope they and their families are doing well. Let us make sure that all the climate action incentive payments are received by all Canadians out there, including all the wonderful seniors in my riding, who I know are better off for receiving the climate action incentive payments.

I look forward to receiving and answering questions from the hon. opposition, as well as my colleagues.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, when his leader was attacking all the mayors in Quebec over the holidays, my colleague went into hiding.

Sometimes we have to bug them a bit to get a reaction.

I will take just a few seconds to tell my colleague that Bill C‑59 provides two years' worth of equalization payments in subsidies for the oil companies. I will give him a chance to think about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish you a happy new year. I know it is a little late, but people say that it is like RRSPs: We have the first 60 days of the year to offer our best wishes. I wish all my colleagues a very happy new year.

I find it fascinating that we are starting this new session with a debate on the economic statement. It is curious, because during the holidays, the Conservative leader was very interested in budget issues; he spoke of them often. Since we are starting off nice and slow and we seem to have a pretty good atmosphere, I thought I would tell a joke. What is the difference between Quebeckers and the leader of the official opposition? Well, they are both in the wrong country. At some point, we Quebeckers will need to get our independence. The Conservative leader is living in a conspiracy theory. We heard him over the break. The glasses have come off. All he needs now is the orange tan and the blonde hair.

The dictionary says that a conspiracy is someone who thinks there is a secret agreement against someone or something. The Conservative leader toured Quebec saying that the Bloc Québécois supports 100% of the Liberals' economic policies. The Conservative leader's tone, the unpleasant, disrespectful tone he had over the holidays, which he has here in the House, and his gratuitous attacks on everyone that have no basis in fact, clearly show us that the Conservatives' best strategy is to say that offence is the best defence. Why? There is one party in the House that supports each and every Liberal policy. I am not talking about the NDP, whose members are Liberals by definition. I am talking about the Conservatives. It is even worse for Quebec Conservatives.

A Conservative member from Quebec is basically just a Liberal. Both parties have a fetish for oil. Some people have a foot fetish, while others, like the Conservatives and the Liberals, have an oil fetish. Bill C‑59 gives oil companies $18 billion in subsidies, or what the Liberals are referring to as tax credits and clean investments. How do they define “clean”? For them, clean means building nuclear reactors paid for with Quebeckers' tax dollars—both the Liberals and the Conservatives are compulsive taxers—so that we stop cleaning up the oil sands with gas and so that we can export gas. I hope that the Conservatives and Liberals get cleaner than that when they shower. It is all the same.

The carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. They sounded so foolish that they stopped saying it. There is a reason why they are against the carbon tax in the other provinces. If there is no more carbon tax, then emissions will rise, and they will be able to impose more taxes on Quebeckers and give more subsidies to oil companies with Quebeckers' tax dollars. Those are their equalization payments. The Quebec Conservatives, like the Liberals, are people who live only for western Canada and dirty oil.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, has said that the storage tax credit is an illusion. It has no role to play in any structured solution to global warming. Bill C‑59 provides $12.5 billion in carbon storage investments. Who is in agreement about these subsidies? The Liberals and the Conservatives are. The Conservatives have supported the Liberals' economic policies at every turn.

That is interference in Quebec's affairs. It is funny, though. Trampling all over Quebec, meddling in its affairs and engaging in interference are practically Liberal hallmarks. The Liberals have a lot of experience in this regard and, as the bill shows, unique expertise too. They tell us that they are going to put together a department of municipal affairs, an undertaking that has failed before. To listen to the Liberals, it would almost seem that no stop sign or speed bump could possibly be installed in any residential neighbourhood without the federal government's help. Complicating existing structures, picking more fights and adding more phases to negotiations, only to build no housing and make no progress, is classic Liberal behaviour. As the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert aptly said, it is what Liberals do.

We thought the Conservatives were different, but no. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition may have had a little too much time on his hands during the holidays. What did he do? He managed to outdo the Liberals when it comes to meddling. He went to Longueuil, Montreal and Quebec City to insult the mayors and demonstrate his total lack of knowledge of how the system works. Quebec municipalities receive their funding from Quebec City and the transfers go to Quebec City. This king of meddling, the Conservative king of meddling, is the guy who, when he was a minister, built nothing but housing slabs—no deliverables, no construction. The Leader of the Opposition could not even recognize a two-by-four in a hardware store. Who supports the Liberals' economic policies? The Conservatives do.

Here is something surprising. When half of Quebec was being insulted during the holiday season, where were the Quebec Conservatives? Were they off buying turkeys by the dozen and attending tons of New Year's Eve parties? They were absolutely nowhere to be seen.

Let us move on to the Liberal policy on asylum seekers. Ottawa owes Quebec $470 million. Why is that? Quebec welcomed 65,000 asylum seekers in 2023, or 45% of all asylum seekers, even though we represent only 22% of the Canadian population. We welcome them with open arms, as best we can, with all the resources at our disposal. When Quebec asks to be compensated for its contribution, the Liberals reply that they are not an ATM, as if Quebeckers do not pay taxes to Ottawa.

How many Conservatives from Quebec rose to defend the Premier of Quebec when he made this request? Not a single one, because the Quebec Conservatives are red from head to toe. They could almost run for the NDP; there would be no difference.

That is what is happening in the House. Only one party is worthy of Quebeckers' trust. We see that on the ground; we feel it. Only one party is consistent, only one party stays true, only one party does not spend its time flip-flopping, sloganeering and campaigning two years ahead of an election: the Bloc Québécois.

The Bloc Québécois is the only party that will always stand up for seniors and demand an OAS raise for everyone over 65 so as to put an end to the two classes of seniors the Liberals created.

Only one party is demanding an end to fossil fuel subsidies. Not even the NDP is calling for that; only the Bloc Québécois is.

Only one party called for the CEBA repayment deadline to be extended to keep small and medium-sized businesses afloat. That was us. Even the Conservatives did not join our efforts to save businesses and innovators, the people who make up the industrial and commercial fabric of our cities, our towns and our regions.

Only one party is calling for a media fund. The Conservatives want to shut down the media, and the Liberals are staying mum.

Only one party is calling for an emergency homelessness fund. The only thing the Conservatives want to do about homelessness is speed up global warming so that the winters are not so hard on the homeless. Only one party is doing that. As the member for Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert says, only one party is calling for an affordable housing acquisition fund for our non-profit organizations in Quebec.

Bearing all that in mind, who really supports the Liberals' economic policies in the House? The Conservative members from Quebec do. Quebeckers will remember that.

Quebeckers can see that and they are smart. We appeal to Quebeckers' intelligence, and that is to our credit. We will continue to do so. We will continue to be trustworthy. When the election comes, Quebeckers will understand that we have been steadfast and consistent, and that we have worked for them.

Should a day come when Quebeckers grow tired of making agonizing choices about which bad party they should vote into power in Ottawa, there is a solution: We can vote for independence, pack up and leave, and let the other provinces and territories resolve their issues as a family.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Mirabel, whose remarks are always intelligent, relevant and even amusing, although I would not want to put any pressure on him for his 10-minute speech.

I read Bill C‑59 and looked in vain for any substance. I looked for any tangible measures that would help Quebec and Canada to deal with the problems we are facing right now, but I could not find anything. In fact, I am rather discouraged because Canada is currently facing various crises.

There is the language crisis in Quebec. We have often mentioned the fact that the French language is in the process of disappearing. There is only one solution to this problem, and it is an independent Quebec. We will get there. We think that the stars are aligned for the election of a separatist government in Quebec within three years. That means there could be a referendum within five years. We could be saying “so long, pals”. We will not be here anymore. Most members of the House will be happy not to have the Bloc Québécois underfoot anymore. They find us annoying. They wonder what the Bloc members want. They complain that we do not even want to form government, that we just want to defend the interests of Quebeckers, that we are revolutionaries, that we are so annoying, that we are nothing but trouble. If all goes well, in five or six years' time, we will not be around anymore to fix the language crisis.

Then there is the climate crisis. We saw all the forest fires and floods last summer, yet Bill C-59 grants $30 billion in direct and indirect assistance to the oil industry. Why are my Conservative friends always complaining? I would like to remind my friends that, in 2022, the five largest oil companies collectively made $200 billion in profits. Now the government is giving them $30 billion for carbon sequestration, despite the fact that no one can say whether that technology really works. It is investing $30 billion in that.

There is the housing crisis as well, obviously. How can we not mention that? Canada needs to build 3.5 million housing units by 2030. That is a colossal project. One would think that a bill like Bill C‑59 would have some meaningful measures. One would think the government would have come up with a plan to address this crisis. Too bad there is no plan. All the government is going to do is change the name of the department. It is just a propaganda operation. The government is just going to change the name of the department. That is the only thing Bill C-59 has to offer.

I toured Quebec over the last few months. I wanted to see what was happening on the ground. The figures that CMHC has given us on vacancy rates are insane. We know that homelessness in Quebec has doubled since 2018. My colleague was talking about spending earlier. He said that this government has spent more on housing since 2015 than any other previous government. If that is true, then why did homelessness in Quebec double over the same period? I do not think this spending has worked. Quebec needs to build 200,000 housing units a year. Do my colleagues know how many were built last year? Only 39,000 were built, and there was a 7% reduction in housing starts across Canada.

Let us be serious. If the Liberals' strategy were working, we would know. Someone would have said so at some point. Someone would have said, “Wow! Well done!” We are not the only ones criticizing the government on this point. There are organizations, people in the field working with struggling Canadians, and they see it. The only thing I heard on my tour of Quebec was that the $82‑billion federal strategy is not working. In life, it is important to have the humility to say that we tried something and failed. Now we need to use that money differently. We need to invest it in social housing and truly affordable housing. Why are we still spending millions of dollars to build apartments in Montreal that cost $2,000 a month?

No one can afford to rent the units offered under the national housing strategy right now. We just need to stop and think about what we do next.

I also learned something else. The government is not investing enough, but that is not all. Earlier, I spoke about the 10,000 people experiencing homelessness. There is a federal program called Reaching Home that assists organizations and people experiencing homelessness. Not content with knowing that we are getting nowhere and that people all over Quebec will die this winter and are already dying because the federal government has underinvested in housing for the past 30 years, the government is going to reduce that program's budget by 3%. Three per cent may not seem like much, but how can the government even think of doing such a thing at a time when homelessness in Quebec has doubled? Half of these people are in Montreal.

One thing struck me during my tour of Quebec. We used to see homeless people in Quebec City, Montreal and major Canadian cities like Toronto and Vancouver. My colleague was saying earlier how dire the situation is in Edmonton. Right now, however, we are seeing something we have never seen before: tent cities in small towns across Quebec.

I visited the Lower St. Lawrence, where cities have sprung up in places they have never been seen before. There are homeless people on street corners and living in tent cities next to the town hall. There are seniors sleeping in tents. How can we allow such a thing to happen? There are tent cities in Saint‑Jérôme and Longueuil as well. Granby has decided to do something about the situation and set up a shelter. How can something like this be allowed to happen in a G7 country? How can we institutionalize tent cities and allow people to sleep there in wintertime when it is -30 degrees out?

I do not know how that can be allowed. I feel like we are going in the wrong direction. I feel like we have been saying that for years. Naively, I always believed that, in a democracy, people work together to find solutions. Naively, I believed that if the government realized something was not working, it would be willing to try a better solution suggested by someone else. I thought a government was supposed to work for people in need, not pose for photo ops. Ultimately, we have been talking about this for four years. I am not the only one. Many people in the House are concerned about housing and homelessness. Unfortunately, the system is stuck.

There is one basic issue to consider when it comes to homelessness. Obviously, we have to prevent people from freezing to death, but what is the ultimate problem? In the past, there used to be a continuum of services for people experiencing homelessness. Quebec, for one, understood that. There were 24-7 emergency shelters where people could sleep and eat a good meal. There were also shelters where people could stay for up to 90 days, to take the time to reintegrate into society, overcome drug addiction, rejoin the workforce and get back in touch with family. There used to be 90-day shelters. It worked because, at the end of the 90 days, people had access to social housing. They could return to work and get their life back on track. Today, in Quebec, these resources are overwhelmed. Since there is no social housing anymore, people end up staying in the shelters for longer, anywhere from six to nine months, so no new people can get in. We have work to do on a lot of fronts, but we especially need to build housing units.

I have criticized the national housing strategy a lot, and we will continue to do so. I am writing a report on my tour of Quebec, which I will present around February or March. We will make very specific recommendations. All I hope is that someone across the aisle will hear us. During my tour, I was often asked why I, a member of the opposition, was touring Quebec. I was asked why the minister himself was not sitting down with people in Saguenay, Saint‑Jérôme, Rouyn‑Noranda and Gaspé. People wanted to know why the minister and the government were not coming to see how difficult things are on the ground. Instead, it was I, a member of the opposition, who went. My colleagues can be sure that the findings from my report will help us make progress on this issue.

We have solutions that we are going to put forward.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from across the floor who represents LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, and I wish him all the best in his future endeavours and all the best to his family.

Further, I will be splitting my time with the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

It is an honour to speak to Bill C-59, the government's fall economic update, 2023.

In my time as a member of Parliament, I have focused on priorities that matter to the constituents of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan. Sadly, those priorities are not in the government's update.

People in Saskatchewan will be disappointed but not surprised that Saskatchewan is not even mentioned in the finance minister's fiscal update, outside of a few tables in the annex, but this is something we should all expect in Saskatchewan and in the west in general. We have never been a priority for the government.

Agriculture is one of the industries, if not the largest, in my riding. Again, it is a topic that is ignored altogether in this update. Farmers are struggling. Conservatives have put forward Bill C-234 that would axe the punitive carbon tax on fuel used on farms. I have heard from farmers in my riding who are paying thousands of dollars a month on that tax. Instead of supporting this common-sense idea, the government is quadrupling that tax in April, which puts the burden of a punitive policy directly on the shoulders of the people who feed our country.

If the minister cared about lowering grocery prices for Canadians, that would be a tremendous first step. The adage, if one does not want to be questioned about what one is doing, one should look busy by walking around with a clipboard, looking important and pretending to do something, is being replaced by the minister having weekly photo ops to pretend to Canadians that he is doing something. That does not impress or fool the constituents of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, where we have seen a rise in food bank usage by a whopping 39%.

If agriculture is not the largest employer in Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, then mining and its related industries are a close second. Potash has become one of Saskatchewan's prime exports. I am privileged to represent a riding that has several of the largest potash mines in the world, if not in Canada. As we all know, Canada is the world's largest producer of potash, an important fertilizer that is in huge demand globally. At a time when other large producers, mainly Russia and Belarus, are waging an illegal war in Ukraine, Canadian potash is even more important. While it is already a massive Canadian success story, it is sadly another key industry ignored by the government's fiscal update.

During this period of global instability, the world is looking to Canada for help. Time and time again, we are turning our backs on good trading opportunities with other nations in need, whether it is LNG or potash. During unstable global times, Canada has always been a nation the world can rely on to come to those in need. Time and time again, we have, as a nation, called upon our Canadian Armed Forces to answer the call. It is important work and a priority to support our armed forces and veterans.

As I hope everyone here knows, 15 Wing Moose Jaw is home to Canada's iconic Snowbirds, so the air force is an issue close to my heart. As we look around the world and see conflicts erupting everywhere, we should be investing in the Canadian Armed Forces. Instead, we are hearing top commanders say that they cannot meet basic requirements. Recently, the Department of National Defence's own report stated that the military's operational readiness is strained. It said that the military is not ready to conduct concurrent operations and is not meeting the requirements of Canada's defence policy from 2017.

I quote:

Readiness of [Canadian Armed Forces] force elements have continued to decrease over the course of the last year aggravated by decreasing number of personnel and issues with equipment and vehicles.

Adding to this, Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee, commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, has said that “the RCN faces some very serious challenges right now that could mean we fail to meet our force posture and readiness commitments in 2024 and beyond”. He added that the Harry DeWolf class, the navy’s new offshore patrol vessels, can currently only be deployed “one at a time” due to personnel shortages. Clearly, the Canadian Armed Forces is in a crisis and needs urgent investment, not vague commitments that government budgets will not affect the Canadian Armed Forces.

I have had the pleasure to serve on the veterans affairs committee since I was elected in 2021. I found it to be a tremendous committee that does some very important work that is, sadly, generally ignored by the current government. The fiscal update's sole mention of Canada's brave veterans is the statement that their benefits are indexed to inflation. Veterans on a fixed income are dependent on those benefits and, as we know, with all government payments, they are slow to reflect the inflation we are seeing now. Even if they do, the cost of many of life's necessities, namely groceries and housing, is easily outpacing the official inflation rate.

We are seeing more and more veterans turn to charities and not-for-profits to help feed themselves. It is heartwarming to see these organizations do this important work. Many are created by veterans for veterans; however, they should not be needed. Canadian heroes should never have to go to a charity to feed or house themselves because Veterans Affairs is not providing them with sufficient benefits.

The government's fall economic update falls short of the mark, and it has a negative trickle-down effect on other levels of government. There is only one taxpayer. School boards are realizing the effects of inflation. I recently received a text that the local school board is over-budget by $1 million because of the current government's inflationary spending and punitive carbon tax, which directly impact its operational and capital budgets. Next year, this school board will be another half a million dollars short, totalling $1 million in funds that local taxpayers will have to pay or find cost savings and measures.

Municipalities and police services are also being impacted. In Saskatchewan, the impact of inflation and the carbon tax is directly affecting its budgets, which are now increasing in double digits in communities in my riding, in my province and in this country.

The impacts will be negative. School budgets will be cut. Ten-dollar day care cannot help. Water, roads and other important infrastructure required to keep communities thriving will be cut, and that single taxpayer will receive less service for more dollars, which is a familiar theme with the current government. The future of our country is bleak if we continue to be held hostage by a coalition NDP-Liberal government. That is right. We are being held hostage by the government.

However, I have faith in the people of Canada to elect a Conservative government that is listening to our people. My faith in the next generation is being restored. I met Ashton, an 18-year-old university student studying accounting, and he is working at a local grocery store. His parents have traditionally been Liberal supporters, which is a rare thing in Saskatchewan. Ashton shared with me that he has overheard customers in the grocery store where he works say that this will be the first time they will need to visit the food bank in order to feed their families.

Ashton told me these stories are breaking his heart. He is a critical thinker and has made the choice to not vote Liberal in his first election and to break the family tradition. He sees that the current Liberal government is doing nothing concrete to help families struggling to feed themselves. Ashton knows that a Conservative government would axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Let us hope, for everyone's sake, including Ashton's, that it comes sooner rather than later.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, before I get started I would like to say that I am splitting my time with the hon. member from the soup-and-salad bowl of Canada, Mr. Lake Simcoe himself, the hon. member for York—Simcoe.

Thomas Jefferson reportedly said that democracy would cease to exist when you took away from those who were willing and able to work and gave to those who were not.

Speaking from my own experience, coming as an immigrant to this country, my family, like many, came here looking for that Canadian dream that so many are coming to Canada for still. However, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, we know it is not worth the cost. We see now, more than ever, that it is harder, whether for a Canadian or for a newcomer, to survive in this country. It is so much so that more than 400,000 people left Canada just last year. That is not a good sign for any country to think that it can prosper when 400,000-plus people are leaving. I look at the reasons that people are leaving or wanting to leave, and the number one cause is the cost of living. Number two is that their credentials are not being recognized. Both are issues that Conservatives have plans for.

I do not believe that anyone moves to this country thinking that their government will work against them, but when they get here they are proven wrong, time and time again, by the Liberal-NDP government. Their paycheques are attacked; their civil liberties are attacked; their freedom is attacked, and their freedom of speech is attacked over and over again by the Liberal-NDP government. It makes them rethink why they came to this country in the first place.

This is because everything does feel like it is broken here. People are getting taxed more. Their paycheques do not go as far as they used to. They are working harder. They are working so much that many people I have talked to are working two or three jobs. If I talk to anyone in any riding, one thing I am seeing as being more and more of a trend is that more people are picking up Uber jobs or Uber Eats jobs or Skip the Dishes jobs on top of the jobs they are already working. I remember, when growing up, that people would pick up taxi jobs or a job on the side just to make extra money above and beyond whatever their savings were. However, it is sad to see that after eight years of the current Liberal-NDP government, that is a must now, even to pay for the basic necessities just to live here in Canada.

The inflation that was caused by all the spending by the Liberal-NDP government, which continues to spend, made interest rates go up in the last 19 months at the most rapid pace seen in the last 20 years. In fact, the intensity of those rate changes is actually the highest in Canadian history. Because the government spent and wasted so much money, the Governor of the Bank of Canada had to tackle that inflation by raising interest rates.

The government's own housing department officials say that they have no faith in the current government to build the homes that are needed today. In fact, CMHC said in a recent study that homebuilding was actually down 7%. When we look at some of the factors, we see that builders are not building and buyers are not buying, because of those high interest rates. They went up once again, because of the overspending of the Liberal-NDP government.

When we look at Bill C-59, we see that the only thing the government has included with respect to housing is that it changed the housing department's name and increased the funding for more photo ops. There is no concrete action that would be taken to help with housing affordability. After eight years, we have seen rents double and mortgages double, and even the down payment needed for a house has doubled in just eight years.

Canadians pay today over one-third of their income in taxes, and the rest goes to housing, with little or nothing left for groceries, gas and home heating. This is very concerning. People are making their shelter payments, but all the other payments are starting to go more and more onto Canadians' credit cards. Utilities and groceries are going up. Even though people are paying more for groceries, they are getting a lot less in groceries than they used to.

This is because of high taxes, like the carbon tax that made the cost of gas, groceries and home heating go up, which the Liberals plan on quadrupling this year. The household debt in Canada, in totality, is more than the Canadian economy. This is not a good sign for a country where we want people to come and be successful and prosper. We are missing out on a lot of talent that could come here, with new energy and new investment, because Canada is not affordable anymore. It is not a place where people can come and be successful.

Canadians have record credit card debt, and over half are only $200 or less away from going bankrupt. The fact is that more and more people are putting more onto their credit cards. We are hearing horrific stories where students are living under bridges. Working people are living in their cars because they cannot afford housing. Mothers are putting water in their children's milk and parents have to choose less nutritious food because they cannot afford groceries. We are hearing about seniors who are having to wear blankets inside their houses because they cannot afford heat them and have to turn down their heat. That is how they have to get by because of this punitive carbon tax the government continues to raise.

Bankruptcy and insolvency are up. All the increases for small businesses are crippling owners, who are the backbone of our country. The IMF also warns, because of the interest rate hikes, that Canada is most at risk in the G7 for a mortgage default crisis. More than 70,000 mortgages a month are now being renewed, sometimes at double the rate. That could mean anything from a $400 increase to a $1,200 increase. This is not sustainable. With the recent inflation numbers, where inflation is above the target rate, the Governor of the Bank of Canada has been clear that there is a fear of these rates staying higher for longer, which means the pain will be higher for longer. There is no hope in sight. There is no light at the end of this inflationary crisis tunnel we see right now.

When we look at the economy today, after eight years we are in a worse position than we have ever been before. In fact, Canada's economy has contracted, whereas our U.S. partner's has grown. This is because of the bad restrictive policies of the Liberal-NDP government, which have stifled any type of economic growth in our country, let alone productivity or any type of investment that should be made in Canada. Canada is a lot less competitive because of its tax regime, which has held back the country.

The GDP per person is a determining factor for how successful each person is in Canada, and it has been declining since September 2022. Canada is last in the OECD for GDP per capita. GDP per capita today is lower than it was in the last half of 2018, which means five years of the wealth of Canadians has been completely wiped out.

Taxes are high. The tax code is too complicated. Taxes have been taken from working Canadians and their families for Liberals to give to their insider friends, consultants, bankers, bondholders, Liberal Bay Street buddies, bureaucrats and woke multinational corporations to advance the Liberal virtue signalling and its unjust job-killing transition.

Canadians are being forced to go to food banks more than ever because of the productivity gap and more taxes. While the Liberal-NDP government thinks the government is the solution, we believe people are the solution, and we need to give them the freedom to spend and to earn the way they want to, not restrict them.

Once we have a strong Conservative government under our Conservative leader, we are going to bring home those powerful paycheques again and an economy that is strong like it once was before, where the GDP per capita works for more and more people and where powerful paycheques will become a reality, because what people earn, they will be able to keep more of it in their pockets. We are going to keep it simple by doing four things to bring it home. We are going to axe the tax, we are going to build the homes, we are going to fix the budget and we are going to stop the crime.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the opportunity. I guess my definition of squirming and the member opposite's definition are a little different. When I see someone trying to shift around in their seat, and their arms are moving, their legs are moving, their head is moving and their mouth is moving, I think they are squirming in their seat.

Let us get back to this very important speech that I am making on Bill C-59. What we are doing, in terms of competitiveness, is taking a historic step. We are cracking down on the abuses and the dominance of bigger companies and on predatory pricing. This is going to help so many families.

In the meantime, while we are introducing that legislation and making that crackdown to save money on grocery bills for Canadians, we are giving them an affordability allowance. A family with two children, for example, would have received about $430. That allowance can go up to $640 per family. While we are dealing with the Competition Act and making historic changes to regulate and ensure that there is fairer pricing and competition on groceries in Canada, we are paying out an affordability allowance to families to help them through this difficult time.

This is another incentive that the Conservatives voted down, yet they talk every single day about families that are out there struggling. We talk every single day about the same families that are out there struggling, but we are doing something about it. That is the difference. What they are doing is voting down every concrete initiative that we are bringing forward, whether it is the Canada child benefit, dental care for families who cannot afford it, an affordability allowance being paid out, or a rural rebate on carbon pollution to help people who are going through a difficult time to heat their homes in parts of Canada.

It does not matter how much the benefits are that are going to Canadians. The Conservatives vote them down because they have one strategy in mind: catering to the far right, catering to the wealthy and making sure that they slash good programs and good benefits, like the ones we are bringing to seniors and what we are doing under the Canada pension plan. These are concrete, fundamental programs for Canadians.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, members have challenged the Chair, and we just bore witness to it right here in the House again. I am not raising a point of order. I am giving a speech on Bill C-59. It goes without saying that in the House there is a lot of tension. Members are really not very restful in their seats, and every single little word motivates them to jump to their feet and challenge someone else who is in the chair.

I want to speak today about Bill C-59, a wonderful piece of legislation crafted by the Government of Canada in response to the people of Canada, who have continuously raised with us, in very eloquent and fundamental ways, the issues confronting them every single day in their lives and their communities, how that impacts them, and suggestions on how we can make life easier. That is what we have been doing. While the opposition has been playing political games in the House and outside the House, we have been attentive to what Canadians are saying.

Even in my home riding in rural Canada, we know that the issues around affordability have become much more challenging for people. We know that families are working harder to meet the demands of continuing with the quality of life they have enjoyed and want to have, and we are helping them along the way.

However, it is unfortunate that, every time we have proposed good legislation, good, creative ideas in listening to the people of Canada, we have had Conservatives vote it down. In the fall economic statement, under Bill C-59, the supports for Canadians under affordability are very important. They are very important because they come at a time when Canadians need them.

We have talked a lot about the Canada child benefit here. I visit families every day, and I know that, without that Canada child benefit going into their accounts every month, they could not provide the quality of life they want for their children. That is why I am proud of what we are doing under the Canada child benefit, a benefit Conservatives want to get rid, have voted against, and have campaigned on saying that it is not adequate for Canadians. What we know is that, without this benefit, without that monthly income going to families all across Canada, there would be so many children still left in poverty. This benefit alone has lifted children and families out of poverty, and I can cite case by case, community by community, family name by family name, how it has benefited them over the time we have implemented that benefit.

I also want to talk about what we have done around affordability today because the key pillar of our fall economic statement is really built around boosting the economy, as well as making life more affordable for Canadians. We have seen the inflation rate in 2022 go from over 8% down to 3.2%, which I think were the last numbers. We know that, while the inflation rate has fallen, the cost of living has not really shifted downward. The price of goods is still higher than people would like it to be. There are many reasons for that. Conservatives will tell us that it is because of the Liberal government, but the world will tell us a very different narrative. That narrative is really about supply chains, wars that are ongoing in countries, the self-sufficiency of countries around the world and how they are trying to meet their needs at a very challenging time.

The other thing we have noticed is what has been happening with competitors. Canadians have been very strong about this. We need to make changes to the Competition Act. We are doing that in the fall economic statement. As members know, ministers have called together leading competitors in the grocery chains to talk about affordable groceries for Canadians and how, with the co-operation of the business community, they would be able to make better, more affordable choices.

Many in the opposition mock that idea. They did not see it as a generational change that could occur within the competition laws in Canada, that could make it more affordable for people across the country. They just mocked the idea of even having the conversation, because that is what happens when there is a far right-wing government agenda. It is about getting rid of laws, regulations and fairness. It is about the competitors and businesses reaching a higher model and greater profits.

That is not the direction the Liberal government is going in. We are going in a direction that is bringing costs down and making life more affordable and sustainable for Canadians. We are not looking at a far-right agenda that caters only to the wealthy, the business communities and large-scale businesses, and where profit is the driving feature of the day. We have seen it. We have seen it here in Canada, and we continue to see it today.

My colleague opposite can shout all he likes, but it is not going to stop me from saying what I have to say today. The truth hurts. We all know how much the truth hurts. He is over there squirming in his seat right now, because he knows that what I am saying is 100% factual, and—

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and to the Minister of National Defence (Northern Defence)]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-59 this morning. I waited very patiently for my turn as many in the House were unfortunately challenging the Speaker's decision. We have been here a long time. I think the rules are quite clear.

I would like to speak—

The House resumed from January 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Bill C-59—Proposal to Apply Standing Order 69.1—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on December 12, 2023, by the House leader of the official opposition, concerning the application of Standing Order 69.1 to 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.

According to the House leader of the official opposition, Bill C‑59 is an omnibus bill and therefore he asked the Chair to apply Standing Order 69.1(1), which provides as follows:

In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.

The member relied on Speaker Regan's decision of November 8, 2017, to argue that Bill C-59 should not benefit from the exception provided by Standing Order 69.1(2). This exception stipulates that section 1 does not apply if a bill “has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation.”

The House leader of the official opposition contended that the implementation of measures announced in the economic statement of November 21, 2023, is not enough of a common element to justify grouping them for voting purposes. He also asserted that an economic statement is not, properly speaking, a budget. The member said that Bill C-59 should be divided in 16 for the purpose of voting. He further stated that two of the 16 pieces, which are similar to bills C‑318 and C‑323, should simply not be put to a vote at all, given that the House has already passed those bills at second reading.

In response, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader pointed out that Bill C-59 mainly contains provisions implementing measures announced in the 2023 budget, along with some measures announced in the fall economic statement, whose common theme is addressing the affordability challenges facing Canadians. Consequently, he concluded that the measures included in the budget and those announced in the fall economic statement should be voted on together.

The Chair must first determine whether the main purpose of Bill C-59 is to implement the budget and whether it therefore falls within the exception provided by Standing Order 69.1(2).

The Standing Orders place very specific conditions on the consideration of budgets. For instance, a particular order of the day must be designated. Debate lasts a certain number of days, and votes take place at certain points in time. From start to finish, budgets are an integral part of the business of ways and means.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, defines financial statements as follows on pages 901 and 902:

On occasion, the Minister of Finance makes an economic statement to the House, generally referred to as a ‘mini‑budget’, that provides basic economic and fiscal information that will be the subject of policy review and public debate leading up to the next budget. Unlike a budget presentation, these statements are delivered without notice and do not precipitate a budget debate. Notices of ways and means motions are also tabled on these occasions.

Budget presentations and economic statements are therefore related concepts, but each has its own unique characteristics.

Both the economic statement of fall 2023 and the budget of spring 2023 are very long and complex documents. As indicated in its title, “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”, Bill C-59 indeed contains many measures; some stem from the budget documents, others from the economic statement.

However, some measures are not to be found in either. The Chair takes the view that the main purpose of the bill is not the implementation of a budget, and the exception provided in Standing Order 69.1(2) does not apply in this case.

The Chair must now determine whether a common element connects the various provisions of Bill C-59 and, if not, to what extent all or some of the provisions are closely related. A broad common theme is not sufficient. As explained on November 7, 2017, at page 15095 of the Debates, the Chair must decide “whether the matters are so unrelated as to warrant a separate vote at second and third reading.”

In deciding whether a link exists, the Chair may consider several factors. Different measures may have a single objective or common elements, as the Chair found in its decision on Bill C‑4 on September 29, 2020, whose common element was a public health crisis. Cross-references between parts of a bill, or a lack thereof, may also be an indicator.

After completing this analysis, the Chair believes that Bill C‑59 should indeed be divided for the purpose of voting. As my predecessor noted on November 28, 2022, on page 10087 of the Debates, “[t]he objective here is not to divide the bill for consideration purposes, but to enable the House to decide questions that are not closely related separately.”

First, the measures in clauses 1 to 136, 138 to 143, 168 to 196, 209 to 216, and 278 to 317 appear in the 2023 budget. Since their purpose is to implement certain budget proposals, they would be grouped based on this unifying theme and voted on together.

Second, the measures that can be grouped under the theme of affordability, clauses 137, 144, and 231 to 272, will be subject to a different vote. Clauses 197 to 208 and 342 to 365 will also be grouped for voting because they amend the Canada Labour Code. Clauses 145 to 167, 217 and 218 will be subject to a separate vote because they relate to vaping products, cannabis and tobacco.

The remaining divisions of Bill C-59, consisting of clauses 219 to 230, 273 to 277, 318 and 319, 320 to 322, and 323 to 341, will each be voted on separately because they are not linked to any of the common themes mentioned earlier. In all, nine votes will be held. The Chair will remind members of this division when the bill comes to a vote at second reading.

Finally, I would like to remind members of the Chair's ruling on December 12, 2023, which also dealt with Bill C-59. The Chair found that Bill C-318 and Bill C-323 can continue through the legislative process.

I thank all members for their attention.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and again, I really do appreciate the work of my colleague Ms. Gazan, who has brought this amendment forward.

This is an important issue. It's an important issue that we absolutely take to heart. I can tell you that every one of my colleagues at this table takes this amendment and this issue very seriously.

But simply put, we want to study it further. We want to understand it better so we can act on it. We need to understand it. First and foremost, I do believe that the principle of “nothing without us” is absolutely paramount. We want to hear from first nations, Inuit and Métis here around this committee table and on Parliament Hill on this very issue, and I think it is an important issue.

It's important for those watching at home to understand that our government is bringing forward a bill that will introduce 15 weeks of EI for adoptive and intended parents. That bill is already in front of the House of Commons in the form of Bill C-59. That bill will introduce 15 weeks of EI for adoptive parents. It builds upon the works of this committee. There will be an opportunity with the government bill that's moving forward, and hopefully, with the support of our opposition members, Bill C-59 will pass in the House quickly. Right now it's facing some headwinds from our opposition colleagues, but we hope to see it pass quickly so that we can get those benefits into the hands of adoptive parents as quickly as possible.

That bill will have an opportunity to come before committee, and there will be opportunities for first nations, Métis and Inuit members to come to Parliament Hill to talk about kinship and customary care relationships to provide members of Parliament with information and with deeper understanding of what that means and of how it fits into this EI policy framework.

It is an important issue, and we feel that it is so important that we want to hear from indigenous partners and communities. There will be an opportunity as this bill is debated at committee, as Bill C-59, which contains the EI provisions for adoptive parents, is debated in committee.

The principle of “nothing without us” is absolutely paramount, and on an issue as important as this one, we believe that it is absolutely imperative that we hear from indigenous partners, indigenous communities. There will be an opportunity to do that as Bill C-59, our government bill that will introduce 15 weeks of EI for adoptive parents, is brought before committee very shortly.

With the help and support of our opposition partners, it will come before committee very quickly.

Thank you.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you very much, Chair.

The substance of the amendment we are debating right now is to ensure that kinship and customary care will be added to this bill.

I find it very frustrating when MP Kusmierczyk makes the accusation that consultations weren't done, that they weren't completed and that the committee didn't hear. I've met with many stakeholders in the drafting of this bill. We also had many witnesses come here to testify. Does the excuse of an abstention due to lack of consultation mean there was no consultation put into Bill C-59? That would be my question.

We're voting in favour of this amendment to ensure that it is put into Bill C-318.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to begin by thanking the committee for bringing this debate forward on Bill C-318. I specifically want to thank the MP for Battlefords—Lloydminster for her work in bringing this study forward. I also want to say thank you to all the witnesses who testified and to all the parents and the adoptive parents for the incredible love and commitment they demonstrate. I believe the discussion we're having here....

The government bill that will be coming forward as well, which has already been tabled under Bill C-59, also recognizes that selflessness, commitment and love of adoptive parents.

I also want to thank my colleague Ms. Gazan for bringing this very thoughtful amendment forward. We want to do everything possible to make sure not only that the federal laws and policies that we bring forward align with and are consistent with UNDRIP and our responsibilities under UNDRIP, but that our policies, programs and laws also reflect the priorities of first nations, Inuit and Métis people in our country.

This is an important amendment that has been brought forward, and I believe it's an amendment that ought to be studied further. I believe it requires additional research and thoughtful conversation, and above all careful and considerate consultation with first nations, Inuit and Métis across Canada. This is important.

Obviously, children are at the very centre and heart of the work of this government, and so for that reason I do believe there are questions about this amendment that need to be answered. There is information that needs to be brought forward. I believe that there ought to be a process in place whereby that information can come forward to members of this committee as well as to members of government in designing these policies.

I do believe we are skipping an important step of consultation here, first and foremost, as well as deliberation and information, and so for that reason I will be abstaining from voting on this amendment.

Carbon Pricing

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader likes to talk about the challenges Canadians are facing around the cost of living, but he refuses to take action and support them. He chose to delay the passage of Bill C-59, which is also hurting his own caucus.

Does the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster now suddenly oppose maternity leave for adoptive parents? Surely, the member for Cumberland—Colchester will not back down on his advocacy to remove the GST on therapy and counselling services.

While the Conservative leader is muzzling his own caucus and putting himself first, we will keep putting Canadians—

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, happy new year to you and to all colleagues in the House.

Today, we have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-59, which is the legislation that would implement the initiatives in the fall economic statement before Christmas.

Before I get too much further, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Nepean.

One of the things I contemplated over the Christmas break was the decorum in this place. I know that will be something on which those who sit in the chair will be focused. I will commit to those who are here today, and indeed to the House, that we will have robust debate but we should try to keep it within the confines of respectful debate at the same time.

The fall economic statement from this government was focused on two core issues: affordability and housing. Those are top-of-mind issues at home in Kings—Hants. I want to talk first about the economic context, because affordability is a top-of-mind issue, but it is important for my constituents, and for Canadians across the country, to understand where we are at in the current economic context. If all they did was listen to the Conservative opposition bench, they would never really understand some of the positive things that are happening vis-à-vis Canada's economic growth and particularly our investment climate right now.

Inflation is a global issue. The last statistic by Statistics Canada shows that Canada had a 3.4% inflation rate in the month of December 2023, and we are working to try to help bring that under control. However, where does Canada rate in a global context? I pulled out some statistics from around the world: Germany, 3.7%; France, the same; U.K., just over 4%; and United States is on par with Canada. I would submit that Ireland, India, Australia and New Zealand are all comparable countries and they have higher inflation rates than Canada right now.

I know that is cold comfort. I do not say this to Canadians and to my constituents to suggest that this government will rest on its laurels, but it is important, because when we hear the opposition members talk, they suggest that Canada is a laggard in the world with respect to the affordability question. We have work to do and we will continue to do that work. However, make no mistake, it is important to contextualize that as we move forward.

How about our debt-to-GDP ratio? When we listen to the member for Carleton and the opposition, they would suggest that Canada is in a terrible situation vis-à-vis its debt-to-GDP ratio. That is not the case. Canada is actually a leader in the G7 with respect to net debt-to-GDP ratio and it also has the lowest deficit in the G7. Again, we do not hear that being said very much from the opposition benches. It is important for Canadians to understand that.

The number that I thought was quite important is investment in the country. Yes, we want Canadian equity firms and Canadian businesses investing in our country, but we know that in a globalized economy we want other countries and companies around the world to come to Canada and invest in our economic success as well.

A number that is quite striking is foreign direct investment in 2023. Canada was third overall in the entire world. We are 40 million people. We are a relatively small country with respect to population in the world, but of course rich in resources and ingenuity. We are third in the world, not per capita but over all, behind U.S. and Brazil. That is an incredible feat. It is something of which every Canadian, and every member of Parliament in the House, should be proud. It is being driven by this government's view of investing and driving future growth, particularly in a transition to a lower-carbon economy. This is a significant number that Canadians should understand.

However, when we talk about affordability, we have to also balance spending with responsibility. We are in an environment now where we saw the Bank of Canada, through the governor, Tiff Macklem, hold interest rates at 5%. His indication to the Canadians, to the public, and to this government is that we will expect to see decreases in the benchmark interest rate over the next couple of months. That is extremely important.

I am proud of the way in which this government has walked a very careful line between putting out supports to vulnerable Canadians, but at the same time being mindful that we do not want the spending that does take place to further drive inflation. The Bank of Canada has been very clear that this has not happened to date, and it is important that this government continue to do this. I for one, and I know my colleagues in all corners of this place, will be focused on that question as well.

With respect to housing, I want to tell a story. I represent Kings—Hants, a rural riding in Nova Scotia, just outside Halifax in the beautiful Annapolis Valley. Come see us sometime. Indeed, that invitation is to all Canadians. I remember knocking on doors during the 2019 election, as a new candidate. I would go to rural areas of my riding, where there would be a for sale sign on a property. I would go in and talk to the homeowner, and I would note, of course, that they were trying to sell their house. They would say they were concerned they would never be able to sell their house. They had had it on the market for two years and were worried they would never be able to get the equity to be able to retire or move on with their life.

If one were to come to my riding right now, there is little to no real estate available whatsoever. I want people to understand that, in fact, in Nova Scotia, that is a good thing because for years, we were concerned about our demographic trends. In fact, for my generation, as someone who is 33 years old, when I was coming out of university, there were a lot of folks who were actually moving elsewhere in the country. We have reversed that trend in Atlantic Canada. That is a good thing.

Economic growth and population growth are good things, but we need to have the housing to keep pace. We have heard commentary in this place about past iterations of federal governments, both Liberal and Conservative, that have not invested in housing, particularly social housing. I am pleased to say that this is something that has changed under the current government. The philosophy is to invest in public housing, along with market housing, which that the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona mentioned. Both have to happen at the same time. I would point Canadians to the fact of our most recent investment, which is removing the HST on purpose-based rental housing.

Again, owning one's own home is extremely important, and we will want all Canadians to have that opportunity. However, some people are in a situation where affordable rentals are also extremely important. I have seen the cost of rentals go up, in the community of Kentville, for example, from being in the range of $1,200 a few years ago to now upwards of $2,000, because of the pressure we have seen.

All three levels of government have to be part of this.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Terrebonne.

Before I begin, I want to wish you, Madam Speaker, and all my colleagues, a happy new year. This is the first opportunity we have had to do so. I also wish a happy new year to everyone in Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

I would like to mention that today I am wearing a small green square, like many other members, because January 29 is the National Day of Remembrance of the Quebec City Mosque Attack and Action Against Islamophobia. This small gesture is made in support of the families and loved ones of the victims of the Quebec City mosque attack.

We are here to debate Bill C‑59, which seeks to implement the budget. This bill can be described as an omnibus bill. It is a bit of a hodgepodge. There is a tremendous amount of items in there that affect many different topics. Today, I will be talking about the environment, housing, pregnancy, vaping, business transfers, psychotherapy and tax havens. Why will I be focusing on all these topics? It is because Bill C‑59 addresses them all and many more, but these are the ones that interest me the most.

When I was in my riding over the holidays, I kept hearing the same thing when I met with constituents. Based on what I was told, people sometimes get the impression that they have no idea what we do in Ottawa or what measures we are working on. When they listen to the radio and watch television, they hear slogans from the different parties geared to the next election. The election is not due for another year and a half. In the meantime, we have work to do as parliamentarians, as elected members. That is what people elected us for.

There are bills that are currently before Parliament, including this economic statement. I think that we need to analyze them. Even though it may be a rather tedious job, we need to analyze everything in the bill and determine what is good and what is not so good. Obviously, as with any omnibus bill, there are some things that are good and some that are less good, and we need to strike a balance between the two.

Unfortunately, there are two key measures in Bill C‑59 that make it impossible for the Bloc Québécois to support it. Because of those two measures, we cannot vote in favour of the bill, despite the fact that, as I was saying, it does contain some good and important measures, although some of them could use a bit of tweaking. Quite simply, voting in favour of the bill would fly in the face of our party's values and those of Quebeckers. I am talking about our environmental values and the importance that we place on protecting the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec. What poses a problem for us is the measures that the government describes as environmental, which I would say are more pseudo-environmental, and one of the housing measures.

I want to start with these two measures. First, the government is offering a total of $30.3 billion in subsidies, in the form of tax credits, primarily to oil companies. This means that taxpayers will be paying oil companies to try and pollute less. That is essentially my understanding of the tax credits that are being offered.

As for the second measure I was talking about, the government is going to create a federal department of municipal affairs. A similar department already exists in Quebec and the provinces, and it manages municipal affairs. The federal government has decided to legislate in this area and create a department of housing, infrastructure and communities. This means more interference, more disputes and more delays. Why is it taking so long for Quebec and the federal government to agree on certain projects? It is because the federal government wants to impose conditions, and that delays the process. I fail to see how creating another department will help facilitate that process.

Let us begin with the much-discussed tax credits for oil companies. Quite frankly, they do not need any handouts. According to the Centre for Future Work, the oil and gas extraction sector has raked in record profits in recent years, to the tune of roughly $38 billion over three years. Everyone heard me correctly. I said the government wanted to add another $30 billion to that $38 billion, as though they needed it. When I look at those astronomical amounts, I think about all the other areas where the federal government could invest money, for example to help people cope with the rising cost of living.

It is being reported that roughly 70% of shareholders in the oil and gas sector are foreign. In other words, that money is going to leave the country. In the last two budgets, the government announced its plans to introduce no fewer than six tax credits largely for oil companies. According to information and figures provided by the Department of Finance, these investments will total a whopping $83 billion by 2035.

People talk about the climate crisis and say that we need to do more to fight it. This government's solution is to give the oil companies more money to create more pollution. I have a hard time following that logic.

This bill will amend the Income Tax Act by creating two tax credits. The first is a tax credit for investments in clean technology. We are talking about a $17.8-billion investment in clean technology. That sounds promising and desirable, but on closer inspection, it becomes clear that the tax credit is tailor-made for increased bitumen extraction and gas exports.

The oil sands are essentially tar mixed with soil. Extracting it is energy-intensive. Hot water or steam has to be injected into the ground to liquefy the tar, which then floats on polluted water to be recovered. Oil companies currently use gas to heat this water.

However, the industry would rather export its gas than use it to extract oil. That is timely, since there is a new liquefied natural gas terminal being built on the coast of British Columbia. It is a gateway to Asia. TC Energy has almost completed the Coastal GasLink pipeline and the Shell and LNG Canada liquefied natural gas terminal should be operational in about a year. The only thing left is to make more gas available for export and that is where the clean technology investment tax credit comes in.

Under Bill C‑59 the oil companies would be paid to buy small nuclear reactors. That nuclear energy, which would replace the gas they are currently using, would allow them to extract more bitumen and make more gas available for export, all at taxpayers' expense. I am not going to get into that today, but we have already talked about how small nuclear reactors are not such a good idea, for various reasons.

Yes, the tax credit can be used for other purposes, such as a real transition to renewable energy. Some good examples are in the manufacturing sector, including the use of biomass by paper mills and the development of carbon-neutral aluminum. I think that would be a good way to use this tax credit. However, given the enormity of the investments needed for the oil companies to use nuclear energy to extract more bitumen, we can expect the oil companies to pocket most of the profits.

As for the second tax credit, the one for carbon capture, utilization and storage, we are talking about an investment of $12.5 billion. Since I have only two minutes left, I will unfortunately not have time to talk about the positive aspects. That is too bad, because I really wanted to explain to my constituents all the little measures I mentioned at the beginning. I will therefore continue to talk about the tax credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage, because I find it quite interesting that the government is touting this as an environmental measure when, once again, the government is merely helping the oil companies perhaps pollute a little less. Rather than accelerating the transition to renewable energy, the government would rather help them in that way. Oddly enough, this tax credit is only available to businesses in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.

Carbon capture and storage is an experimental technology through which big polluters would recover some of the carbon dioxide that they emit and store it underground, usually in old empty oil wells. That is a key element of the oil companies' and the government's pseudo-environmental strategy, even though the International Energy Agency, which is part of the OECD, believes that countries would be making a serious mistake if they were to make carbon capture the focus of their environmental strategy. The International Energy Agency believes that such technology is smoke and mirrors, that it is as of yet unproven and that, if it were to one day be used on an industrial scale, it would produce only marginal results at an exorbitant cost.

Even knowing all that, the federal government wants to move forward with this technology. Why? To pander to the oil companies, of course. Independent media outlet The Narwhal released a document obtained though the Access to Information Act that shows that Suncor helped to write the government's environmental policy, particularly the section on carbon capture found in Bill C‑59. In December, we learned that the government met with oil and gas lobbies at least 2,000 times between 2022 and 2023.

That shows just how involved the oil companies are in writing the Liberal government's strategies. This will do nothing to help Quebeckers and Canadians fight the climate crisis. That is why we will be voting against this bill.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity on at least two separate occasions to listen to the Conservative leader speak at length to Bill C-59. It will come as no surprise to folks in the House and to many Canadians that there are certainly many things about which I disagree with the Conservative leader, and there are some things on which we may find some agreement.

However, one thing that continues to surprise me is that we hear an analysis from the Conservative leader about the hardships Canadians are facing and the problem of inflation, but nowhere is there a mention of the fact that over 25% of the inflation Canadians have been subjected to over the last while, according to some credible economists who have published studies to this effect, has to do with outsized price increases by corporations that are well above the increases in costs they have faced.

The fact is that corporate greed is playing an important role in the inflation Canadians are experiencing, but that is nowhere in the analysis from the corporate-controlled Conservatives. It is not a coincidence, it seems, because by glossing over this incredible contributor to inflation, the Conservatives are doing a solid for their corporate pals.

I would like to hear the Conservative leader talk about the role of corporate greed in inflation and what he would propose to do about it.

The House resumed from December 12, 2023, consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-59—Proposal to Apply Standing Order 69.1

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in fairness, there was a point when I talked about the water agency, and I did go a little off-script. I said that was something that was happening in Winnipeg, which was somewhat spontaneous on my part, to try to liven it up a little. I will stick to my script so I can get right to the point. I am very close to being done.

Clauses 278 to 317 relate to amendments to address anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism, and the threats they pose to the safety of Canadians and the integrity of our financial system. These threats have real costs for the Canadian economy and for Canadians. Not only will these amendments help keep Canadians hard-earned money safe, but also keep our financial system sound. These measures were announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in the budget documents, so they should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages.

Clauses 318 and 319 would require the publication of information relating to the transfer of payments to the provinces. The federal government provides transfers to the provinces and territories that help deliver the services Canadians rely on, such as child care, which is a key measure to ease Canadians affordability concerns with respect to the care of their young children, and importantly to help deliver the health care that Canadians need when they are at their most vulnerable state.

Clauses 320 to 322 would amend the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act to ensure that workers are represented in the governance of the public sector pension investments by giving a voice to labour representatives in making investment decision for workers' retirement benefits. These amendments would contribute to stronger investments that would support jobs for middle-class Canadians.

The final clauses referenced by my colleague are clauses 323 to 341, which would clarify the department mandate of Infrastructure Canada to include powers, duties and functions of the department to take a lead role for improving housing outcomes, and to enhance its activities and powers in relation to public infrastructure. These proposed amendments will assist the department in helping to deliver on Canadians' desire and need for housing in a more efficient and effective manner.

In conclusion, I submit that a significant majority of the provisions in Bill C-59 were announced in the 2023 budget and, as such, these measures should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages. The minority of amendments in Bill C-59 that were announced in the fall economic statement were designed to ease Canadians' concerns about affordability. These provisions, which seek to advance measures that address affordability concerns, represent a common theme and should be grouped as such. as provided for under Standing Order 69.1.

I thank the Speaker and all members for their patience in getting through that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, with the patience of the House, I have a point of order. It is in response to the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-59, better known as the fall economic statement.

I am rising to respond to the point of order raised on December 12, 2023, respecting the application of Standing Order 69.1 to the provisions in Bill C-59 that were announced in the fall economic statement but not referenced in the 2023 budget.

Let me quote the standing order in question, which reads:

(1) In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.

(2) The present standing order shall not apply if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation.

The legal title of the bill reads, “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”. I can confirm to the House that the significant majority of provisions in Bill C-59 would implement measures announced and articulated in the 2023 budget. The fall economic statement was designed to respond to affordability challenges facing Canadians, and these measures reflect a minority of provisions in the bill.

The key to the standing order is the ability for the government to provide a compelling rationale as to why there is a common element or theme that connects the various provisions. In my intervention on that matter last week, I stated that the provisions to implement the legislative measures announced in the fall economic statement were linked to a common theme of affordability for Canadians. This intervention therefore allows me to provide in greater detail how these measures demonstrate a clear link to addressing the affordability concerns of Canadians.

Before I review the measures that were only referenced in the fall economic statement, I would like to point out that many of the measures identified by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle were referenced in the 2023 budget.

Clauses 1 through 95 relate to proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act that in principle would ensure the robustness of Canada's tax system to provide benefits to Canadians, to create good-quality jobs and to build an economy that works for everyone. There is only one measure in these clauses that was not announced in the budget, that is, the information-sharing provision between departments to facilitate the provision of the government's dental benefit program. I would note that the dental benefit was a budget 2023 measure, and this provision was a technical fix to ensure the smooth operationalization of the benefit. This measure, along with the corresponding technical fix, is clearly a measure to address affordability challenges faced by Canadians who are eligible for the benefit.

Clauses 96 through 128 would establish a digital services tax, which was announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in budget documents. Therefore, it should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages.

Clauses 129 to 136 relate to proposed amendments to the Excise Tax Act that are designed to ensure that businesses in Canada and Canadians are fairly and properly affected by the excise tax, to enhance Canada's reputation as an investment destination and a great place to do business, and to support Canadians' participation in the labour market. All measures contained in clauses 129 to 136 were announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in budget documents, so they should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages.

Clauses 136 to 144 also relate to proposed amendments to the Excise Tax Act, which would ensure that businesses in Canada and Canadians are fairly treated by the excise tax. These measures would enhance Canada's reputation as an investment destination, which not only creates excellent job opportunities for Canadians, but also contributes to the revenues to strengthen Canada's social safety net. A significant majority of these measures were announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in the budget documents, so they should not be subject to a separate vote at the second and third reading stages.

There are three measures that were not announced in the 2023 budget, but their purpose is clearly designed to address affordability challenges for Canadians. These include a measure that would exempt psychotherapy from federal tax, which would not only reduce the cost of therapy for Canadians, but also contribute to their well-being so they can productively contribute to the labour market. The second measure involves provisions to ensure that co-operative housing units are eligible for the 100% GST rebate on purpose-built housing, which is a real and significant investment to help build homes for Canadians and address affordability challenges for Canadians to find a place to call home.

Clauses 145 to 167 concern the taxation of vaping products and cannabis products in Canada. These revenues provide investments for Canada to strengthen our social supports, and provide a price signal to Canadians of the health effects of the abuse of these products, while also providing for a fair and stable taxation of vaping and cannabis products.

Clauses 168 to 196 would amend the laws governing financial institutions, which are designed to strengthen the governance of Canadian financial institutions. They are important to keeping Canadians' money and investments, as well as our financial institutions, safe and secure. All of these measures were announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in the budget documents, so they should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages.

Clauses 197 to 208 relate to proposed leave entitlements related to pregnancy loss and bereavement leave, which are designed to support workers. Canadian workers are the backbone of the economy, and anyone who faces the tragedy of pregnancy loss deserves rightful access to bereavement leave. Ultimately, this measure would ensure that Canadians who are dealing with this tragedy are not also burdened by the loss of income. Again, all of these measures were announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in the budget documents, so they should not be subject to separate votes at the second and third reading stages.

Clauses 209 to 216 relate to the establishment of a Canada water agency, which would create good jobs for Canadians and protect Canadians' access to fresh, clean water. It would also restore, protect and manage bodies of water of national significance. Canadians should be able to count on access to clean water. In an era of increasing climate disruption, an independent Canadian water agency, which would be located in Winnipeg, would help to protect our bodies of water. This measure was announced in the 2023 budget and articulated in the budget documents, so should not be subject to a separate vote at the second and third reading stages.

Clauses 217 and 218 relate to the proposed amendments to the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act, which would provide the government with the authority to develop and implement tobacco and vaping cost recovery frameworks. It would also limit the cost burden on taxpayers for the funding of federal tobacco and vaping activities. In essence, these measures would ensure that Canadians are not on the hook for paying for the development or regulatory frameworks related to vaping, which would not only free up funds that could otherwise be spent on the investments and supports Canadians rely on, but also provide Canadians who use such products with additional disposable income to spend on the essentials of life.

Clauses 219 to 230 propose amendments to the Canadian Payments Act to make the Canadian banking system safer and more secure while delivering more innovative services for Canadians. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that Canadians hard-earned money is safe in the financial institutions they rely upon.

Clauses 231 to 272 would amend the Competition Act to help increase competition, most notably in the grocery sector where Canadians have experienced rising prices that have impacted their ability to feed their families with healthy and nutritious foods. These amendments are designed to make life more affordable for Canadians by lowering prices and providing more choice, which in turn stimulates competition to compete on pricing and encourage the development of more innovative products and services for Canadians.

Clauses 273 to 277 would exempt post-secondary education institutions from the laws governing bankruptcy and insolvency. By educating our young people and conducting world-leading research, post-secondary educational institutions play a critical role in Canada's social, scientific, and economic development. These amendments would help protect the solvency of Canadian post-secondary institutions.

Clauses 278 to 317 relate to amendments to address—

[Matthew Hatfield]

Certainly. My apologies.

To me, this hearing's topic seems to be pinning down what's wrong with tech platforms and what our government can do about it. I'll try to answer that question very precisely for you.

What's wrong with tech platforms and their influence on society? It's three things: their size, their vast asymmetrical data compared to regulators and citizens, and the engagement algorithms that drive their business model.

Let's talk size. Platforms like Amazon and Google have a stranglehold on a huge share of Internet commerce, app purchases, advertising and more. They often use that power to set unfair terms vis-à-vis smaller businesses and consumers. I'll note, though, that Bill C-18 misunderstood the specific dynamic around news. It assumes that news has inherent value to platforms that, for Meta at least, it does not.

The good news about the size problem is that Canada is opening new possibilities to do something about it through competition reform in Bill C-56 and Bill C-59. In the U.S., several bills were proposed last year aimed at regulating how tech giants treat small businesses and consumers. They include the American innovation and choice online act and the open app markets act, both of which OpenMedia campaigned for. In Canada, the Competition Bureau has never had the legal basis to study platform power effectively, let alone change it. Soon they will.

My second point is about data asymmetry and privacy. Platforms like Meta and YouTube have an endless volume of sensitive data about each and every one of us. They use it for advertising and to feed recommendations, but not for much else. Partly that's to respect our privacy, which is a very good thing. Their data in the hands of a spy agency or law enforcement would be a dystopic surveillance nightmare and one that we must guard against. However, that lack of curiosity on the platforms' part is also self-serving. It makes it easy to bury accurate study of what may be going wrong for some of their users and, in the worst case, lead that minority to harm themselves or others. The limited research that exists on how platform models may sometimes amplify harms is done with very incomplete data or with crumbs of researcher data access, which platforms are quick to withdraw if their interests are threatened.

Here we need both an individual and structural remedy. The strongest possible privacy bill, Bill C-27, giving Canadians meaningful and unalienable control of our personal data, is one solution, but another must be a very strong provision for both regulator and approved academic researcher access to perform studies on platform data in our upcoming online harms bill. We can't intelligently regulate platforms if we don't understand how any harms they help produce actually occur.

Last but not least, let's talk about the algorithm. Without even noticing it, we've become a society in which most information we get is delivered because it keeps us scrolling and clicking, not because it is nuanced, well researched or true. For music or hobbies, that can be a wonderful tool of self-exploration. People are not passive consumers of our feed. We curate it heavily, pruning the algorithm to serve us what we like most. However, for facts and reporting, that same process is making us a less-informed, angrier and more polarized society. We all feel the impact and very few of us like it. That doesn't make solutions easy, although I would say that Bill C-292, Peter Julian's bill, is something worth considering here.

I'll give a couple of signposts for what might help. We welcome this committee's interest in a dedicated study of how to create a viable news sector in Canada that continues producing vetted information. There's a case that Canadian news needs permanent government support, but the more involved government becomes, the more urgent it is that funds move through a system that is fully transparent to the public, has clear and fair criteria for who gets what support and prioritizes funds where they're most needed, in local news deserts and public accountability journalism, not shovelling funds indifferently toward Bell or the CBC. The alternative of stacking complex funding band-aids one on top of the other until they represent the majority of news funding is not going to build public trust in truthful journalism.

We would also welcome a Canadian study of how social media algorithms are impacting society. However, regulating the algorithm, if it comes, must be aimed at expanding transparency and personal control over how it works for Canadian Internet users, not manipulating it for what the government thinks is best for us.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

moved that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Ways and Means Motion No. 19—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am now ready to provide the House with an explanatory ruling on the admissibility of Ways and Means Motion No. 19. On November 29, 2023, I ruled that the order for consideration of the motion, and the subsequent bill based thereon, be allowed to proceed further.

On November 28, 2023, the House leader of the official opposition challenged the admissibility of the motion. He pointed out that Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents), and Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services), both currently in committee, were substantially the same as provisions covered in Ways and Means Motion No. 19, tabled earlier that day.

Concurrence in a ways and means motion constitutes an order to bring in a bill based on the provisions of the motion. This is indeed what happened with the subsequent introduction of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

The House leader argued that the two private members’ bills had already been the subject of decisions of the House at second reading. The ways and means motion and Bill C-59 would violate a procedural concept, the rule of anticipation, which he described as the “same question rule”. Quoting from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 568, the member seemed to suggest that a ways and means motion could not anticipate a matter already standing on the Order Paper and which was contained in another form of proceeding. He asserted that Bill C-318 and Bill C-323 were more effective tools to accomplish the desired intent than Ways and Means Motion No. 19. As such, both these bills should have priority over the motion.

He also cited precedents in relation to bills that could or could not proceed further, based on the fundamental principle that the same question cannot be decided twice within a session.

The member further suggested that Ways and Means Motion No. 19 be put in abeyance pending the outcome of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, based on the rule of anticipation.

For his part, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader countered that further consideration of Ways and Means Motion No. 19, as well as subsequent proceedings on an associated bill, was in order. He referenced past precedents about similar bills. He made the point that the provisions in Ways and Means Motion No. 19 contained numerous elements that are not found in Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, which indicates that the principle and scope of the ways and means motion are broader than what is found in either of the bills. As such, Ways and Means Motion No. 19, and the bill based thereon, constituted different questions.

In his intervention, the House leader of the official opposition quoted from page 568 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on the rule of anticipation. The Chair would like to read, from the same page, prior to the quoted passage. It states:

The moving of a motion was formerly subject to the ancient “rule of anticipation” which is no longer strictly observed.

Further down on the same page it says, “While the rule of anticipation is part of the Standing Orders in the British House of Commons, it has never been so in the Canadian House of Commons. Furthermore, references to past attempts to apply this British rule to Canadian practice are inconclusive.”

Even though the notion of anticipation is described in our procedural authorities, and the expression is sometimes colloquially used in points of order and even some past rulings dealing with similar items, it is indeed a very difficult concept to apply in our context.

Establishing a hierarchy between bills and motions, or between categories of bills, and giving precedence to some, may prove difficult, except in very specific cases, detailed in House of Commons Procedure and Practice. Bills and motions are different by nature and achieve different ends.

What the Chair is seized with in reviewing the current matter is the rule forbidding the same question from being decided twice in the same session. It is different from the concept of anticipation and, in the view of the Chair, the one that should apply.

In his submission, the House leader of the official opposition cited various recent precedents, and the Chair thinks it pertinent to describe some of their procedural subtleties.

The first example, from the last Parliament, pertained to two bills not identical, but substantially similar: Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding sports betting, a private members' bill, and Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding single event sport betting, a government bill. Both were at second reading and both were very short bills touching the same section of the Criminal Code.

By adopting Bill C‑218 at second reading, the House had agreed to the larger principle of repealing the very portion of the Criminal Code that Bill C‑13 also sought to amend. This sequencing left the House with a situation where Bill C‑13 could not move forward as long as Bill C‑218 continued its course.

The second example, from earlier this session, described a budget implementation bill, Bill C-19, and a votable private members’ bill amending the Criminal Code regarding the promotion of anti-Semitism, Bill C-250. The latter, introduced on February 9, 2022, contained provisions that were subsequently included in Bill C-19, introduced on April 28, 2022. However, of the two bills, the government bill was the first to be adopted at second reading and referred to committee. One of the key differences was that the two bills were not substantially identical. Bill C-19 was much broader in scope than Bill C-250. By agreeing to Bill C-19, the House de facto agreed with the principles presented in C-250. No decision having yet been made on Bill C-250, the Chair ordered that it be held as pending business until such time as royal assent be granted to Bill C-19.

Finally, the member referenced rulings dealing with two votable Private Members’ Business items, Bill C-243, an act respecting the elimination of the use of forced labour and child labour in supply chains, and Bill S-211, an act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to amend the Customs Tariff. The two bills had the same objective and only one was allowed to proceed further. The Chair indicated at the time that the case involved an unusual set of circumstances, since normally one of them could have been designated as non-votable by the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business had the sequence of events been different.

The House leader's main argument hinged on the question of whether provisions contained in Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and therefore Bill C-59 are similar or identical to Bills C-318 and C-323.

Bills C‑318 and C‑323 have been both read a second time and referred to committee, while no decision has yet been made on Bill C‑59. An exhaustive review of its provisions shows that it does contain some similar provisions found in the two aforementioned private members' bills. However, Bill C‑59 cannot be described as substantially similar or identical to them.

Its scope is vastly broader, containing many more elements than what is included in Bills C-318 and C-323, including taxation legislation and provisions requiring a royal recommendation

The bills are similar in part, but are not substantially the same. The principles of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, as adopted at second reading, are indeed included in the broader Bill C-59, but the reverse is not true. Therefore, the decision the House will take on Bill C-59 will not be the same. Accordingly, there is no procedural reason to stop the bill from continuing its journey through the legislative process.

To be clear, when a government bill and a private member's bill or when two private members' bills are substantially similar, only one of them may proceed and be voted on. Once one of the two has passed second reading, a decision cannot be taken on the other within the same session. Where bills are only similar in part, the effect of adopting one might have a different impact on the other depending on their principle, scope and, of course, which bill is adopted first.

I note that the House leader of the official opposition rose earlier today on a different point of order considering the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-59. I wish to inform the member and the House that I am reviewing the matter closely and I do intend to come back with a ruling in a timely manner.

Nonetheless, for the time being, the Chair sees no reason to rule that Bill C-59 be put in abeyance. As for the two Private Members' Business items currently in committee, it seems premature for the Chair to intervene at this time.

I thank all members for their attention.

Bill C-59—Proposal to Apply Standing Order 69.1

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order pursuant to Standing Order 69.1, to ask that you treat 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, as an omnibus bill, and divide it for voting purposes at the second and third reading stages.

This argument is, of course, without prejudice to the arguments which were made last week by me in respect of the rule against anticipation and Ways and Means Motion No. 19, which preceded the introduction of Bill C-59, for which the House is still awaiting a ruling from the Speaker.

Section (1) of Standing Order 69.1 provides that “In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting". Section (2) of the same standing order makes an exception for budget implementation bills, stating, “if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation”.

As Speaker Regan ruled on November 8, 2017, at page 15143 of the Debates, where a budget bill contains measures which were not part of the budget, this budget bill exemption applies only to those elements which were in the budget itself. The non-budget elements can be divided under the provisions of Standing Order 69.1(1).

In the case of Bill C-59, calling it a budget implementation bill would be exceedingly generous. While reference to the March budget can be found in the long title, the short title ignores this, calling the bill the “fall economic statement implementation act, 2023”. Not even the government House leader, the manager of the government's parliamentary program, used it as a budget implementation bill, judging by her remarks in the last two weekly business statements. On November 23, she told the House, “it is the intention of the government to commence debate next week concerning the bill relating to the fall economic statement”. This past Thursday, she said that priority will be given to the second reading of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement. Therefore, I would argue that the evident treatment given to Bill C-59 by its own proponents, would mean that its main purpose is, indeed, not the implementation of a budget. Accordingly, it would follow that the exemption found in Standing Order 69.1(2) cannot apply here.

I would further argue that Speaker Regan's November 2017 ruling can be distinguished from the facts at hand today, namely that he dealt with a budget bill with a few extra add-ons. Here, we have a bill that is not even being treated, in the main, as a budget implementation bill and that, therefore, cannot even benefit from a partial exemption, since the main purpose of Bill C-59 is not to implement a budget.

Having addressed that matter, I now wish to turn to the matter of treating the bill as an omnibus one, “where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked”. In my respectful view, the fact that a series of measures may have been previewed in a fall economic statement does not amount to a so-called common element. Given that fall economic statements are often popularly dubbed “mini-budgets” and that the House itself recognizes that budgets often string together otherwise unrelated things by creating the budget implementation bill exemption in Standing Order 69.1, it is my submission that the mere inclusion of an item in a fall economic statement cannot be sufficient to overcome the treatment required for an omnibus bill.

Even if the Chair might be persuaded that all of the measures are, in one form or another, a matter of broad economic policy, I would refer you to Speaker Regan's March 1, 2018, ruling at page 17551 of the Debates:

In presenting arguments relating to Bill C-63, the hon. member for Calgary Shepard raised an interesting concept from the practice in the Quebec National Assembly. Quoting from page 400 of Parliamentary Procedure in Québec, he stated:

“The principle or principles contained in a bill must not be confused with the field it concerns. To frame the concept of principle in that way would prevent the division of most bills, because they apply to a specific field.”

While their procedure for dividing bills is quite different from ours, the idea of distinguishing the principles of a bill from its field has stayed with me. While each bill is different and so too each case, I believe that Standing Order 69.1 can indeed be applied to a bill where all of the initiatives relate to a specific policy area, if those initiatives are sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate decision of the House.

In this particular instance, I have no trouble agreeing that all of the measures contained in Bill C-69 relate to environmental protection. However, I believe there are distinct initiatives that are sufficiently unrelated that they warrant multiple votes.

Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton dealt with another similar situation when he ruled on June 18, 2018, at page 21163 of the Debates, in respect of a former Bill C-59, stating it:

...does clearly contain several different initiatives. It establishes new agencies and mechanisms for oversight of national security agencies and deals with information collection and sharing as well as criminal offences relating to terrorism. That said, one could argue, as the parliamentary secretary did, that since these are all matters related to national security, there is, indeed, a common thread between them. However, the question the Chair must ask itself is whether these specific measures should be subjected to separate votes.

He goes on to state, “In this particular case, while the Chair has no trouble agreeing that all of the measures contained in Bill C-59 relate to national security, it is the Chair's view that there are distinct initiatives that are sufficiently unrelated as to warrant dividing the question.”

Therefore, I would suggest that today's bill, Bill C-59, should also be divided for voting purposes at second reading and, if necessary, at third reading.

After a brief review and analysis of the bill's contents, it seems that it could actually be divided into several groupings: clauses 1 to 95, proposing amendments to the Income Tax Act and consequential amendments to other enactments, as well as the bill's short title; clauses 96 to 128, proposing the creation of a digital services tax; clauses 129 to 136, 138 to 143 and 145 to 167, proposing amendments concerning the excise tax, other than the exemption of GST for mental health services, which is also contained in Bill C-323, a matter to which I will return later; clauses 168 to 196, proposing amendments to the laws governing financial institutions; clauses 197 to 208, proposing to create a leave entitlement related to pregnancy loss and to amend the law concerning bereavement leave; clauses 209 to 216, proposing the creation of a Canada water agency; clauses 217 and 218, proposing amendments to the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act; clauses 219 to 230, proposing amendments to the Canadian Payments Act; clauses 231 to 272 proposing various amendments to competition law; clauses 273 to 277, proposing amendments exempting post-secondary schools from the laws concerning bankruptcy and insolvency; clauses 278 to 317, proposing various legislative amendments concerning money laundering, terrorist financing and sanctions evasions; clauses 318 and 319, concerning the information which is published by the government respecting certain transfer payments to the provinces; clauses 320 to 322, proposing amendments concerning the Public Sector Pension Investment Board; and clauses 323 to 341, proposing the creation of a department of housing, infrastructure and communities.

Additionally, I would propose that clauses 137 and 144, concerning the exemption of GST for mental health services, mirroring the provisions of Bill C-323, as well as clauses 342 to 365, creating employment insurance and job protection benefits for adoptive and surrogate parents, replicating the substance of Bill C-318, should also be separated out from Bill C-59. However, in this instance, I would suggest that, instead of a separate vote, these provisions would simply not proceed further given that the House has already taken a decision on the principle of those matters when it adopted the common-sense Conservative private members' bills at second reading.

Approaching it in this fashion might be an elegant solution to squaring the circle in the ruling that remains pending on Ways and Means Motion No. 19.

In short, Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation bill, is an omnibus bill under Standing Order 69.1. It qualifies in no way for the budget bill exemption in that rule. It can and should be divided into separate votes, about 14 or so based on the thematic groupings of the bill's clauses. It would, if so divided, offer an elegant solution for a pending Speaker's ruling to reconcile the long-standing rules and precedents of the House respecting multiple decisions on the same question that, for reasons we are awaiting, did not apply to Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and that saw the House vote, yet again, on the principles found in two Conservative private members' bills that had already been adopted at second reading.

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows that the Senate is independent. If he really has questions as to why that amendment passed, he should ask the one-third of Conservative senators who sit in his caucus and did not show up for the vote. I will note that the amendment only passed by one vote, so he should not take out the entire Conservative Party of Canada's frustration with its own caucus on the House of Commons or on Canadians.

I would also remind the member that, when it comes to the price on pollution, we learned this week, in fact, that 94% of low- and middle-income Canadians are better off with the rebate than without it. Again, in typical Conservative fashion, they are looking to take from the poor and give to the rich; the only folks who would benefit are the highest income earners, but that is typical Conservative policy.

However, I would be delighted to answer the usual Thursday question, because that was slightly out of character. Normally, this is not something we debate.

As we approach the adjournment for the holiday season, our priorities during the next week will be to complete second reading debate of Bill C-58 on replacement workers; Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act; and Bill S-9, which would amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

We will also give priority to the bills that are now in their final stages of debate in the House, including Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement; I would remind the House and, indeed, all Canadians that the Conservatives have obstructed this bill at every single opportunity. We will also put forward Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, and Bill C-29, which provides for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

We will consider other bills reported from committee, such as Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. Moreover, I would invite any Canadian to watch the shameful proceedings of the Conservative members of Parliament at the natural resources committee last night. The House deserves better respect, but we will be here to stand up for Canadians every single day and to stand against bullies.

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

Right, thank you. In fact, it was an election promise made by the Liberal Party that we are still waiting to see come to fruition.

I asked the minister a question about this earlier. I think Bill C‑59 contains a lot of things relating to housing that seem to me to be similar to those we find in Bill C‑356 introduced by the Conservative Party leader. Could you tell us today, or else in writing, what similar items there are in the two bills?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The government had announced that it was going to pay $1 billion to the Breakfast Club. Since that announcement, we have not seen the money. I was sure that payment of the money would be announced in the fall economic statement. I looked for it in Bill C‑59, but I will admit that it is complicated and I did not find it.

Can the department tell me? Is the billion scheduled for sometime soon, or is it a forgotten promise?

Oil and Gas Industry

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the numbers do not lie: The Liberals have met with fossil fuel lobbyists 2,000 times since last year.

The Prime Minister's Office has met with oil and gas companies twice as often as environmental groups, and the Department of Finance has met with them four times as often. Is that having an impact on policy?

Let us follow the money. The Liberals' flagship environmental measures in Bill C‑59 amount to $30.3 billion in subsidies for oil and gas companies.

When will the Liberals finally base their policies on the climate crisis rather than the oil and gas companies' whining?

[Dr. Jennifer Quaid, Associate Professor and Vice-Dean Research, Civil Law Section, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair. vice-chairs and members of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, I am very pleased to be here once again, this time to talk about Bill C‑27.

I am grateful to be able to share my time with my colleague Céline Castets-Renard, who is online and who is the university research chair in responsible AI in a global context. As one of the preeminent legal experts on artificial intelligence in Canada and in the world, she is very familiar with what is happening elsewhere, particularly in the EU and the U.S. She also leads a SSHRC-funded research project on AI governance in Canada, of which I am part. The project is directed squarely at the question you are grappling with today in considering this bill, which is how to create a system that is consistent with the broad strokes of what major peer jurisdictions, such as Europe, the U.K. and the U.S., are doing while nevertheless ensuring that we remain true to our values and to the foundations of our legal and institutional environment. In short, we have to create a bill that's going to work here, and our comments are directed at that; at least, my part is. Professor Castets-Renard will speak more specifically about the details of the bill as it relates to regulating artificial intelligence.

Our joint message to you is simple. We believe firmly that Bill C-27 is an important and positive step in the process of developing solid governance to encourage and promote responsible AI. Moreover, it is vital and urgent that Canada establish a legal framework to support responsible AI governance. Ethical guidelines have their place, but they are complementary to and not a substitute for hard rules and binding enforceable norms.

Thus, our goal is to provide you with constructive feedback and recommendations to help ready the bill for enactment. To that end, we have submitted a written brief, in English and in French, that highlights the areas that we think would benefit from clarification or greater precision prior to enactment.

This does not mean that further improvements are not desirable. Indeed, we would say they are. It's only that we understand that time is of the essence, and we have to focus on what is achievable now, because delay is just not an option.

In this opening statement, we will draw your attention to a subset of what we discuss in the brief. I will briefly touch on four items before I turn it over to my colleague, Professor Castets-Renard.

First, it is important to identify who is responsible for what aspects of the development, deployment and putting on the market of AI systems. This matters for determining liability, especially of organizations and business entities. Done right, it can help enforcers gather evidence and assess facts. Done poorly, it may create structural immunity from accountability by making it impossible to find the evidence needed to prove violations of the law.

I would also add that the current conception of accountability is based on state action only, and I wonder whether we should also consider private rights of action. Those are being explored in other areas, including, I might add, in Bill C-59, which has amendments to the Competition Act.

Second, we need to use care in crafting the obligations and duties of those involved in the AI value chain. Regulations should be drafted with a view to what indicators can be used to measure and assess compliance. Especially in the context of regulatory liability and administrative sanctions, courts will look to what regulators demand of industry players as the baseline for deciding what qualifies as due diligence and what can be expected of a reasonably prudent person in the circumstances.

While proof of regulatory compliance usually falls on the business that invokes it, it is important that investigators and prosecutors be able to scrutinize claims. This requires metrics and indicators that are independently verifiable and that are based on robust research. In the context of AI, its opacity and the difficulty for outsiders to understand the capability and risks of AI systems makes it even more important that we establish norms.

Third, reporting obligations should be mandatory and not ad hoc. At present, the act contemplates the power of the AI and data commissioner to demand information. Ad hoc requests to examine compliance are insufficient. Rather, the default should be regular reporting at regular intervals, with standard information requirements. The provision of information allows regulators to gain an understanding of what is happening at the research level and at the deployment and marketing level at a pace that is incremental, even if one can say that the development of AI is exponential.

This builds institutional knowledge and capacity by enabling regulators and enforcers to distinguish between situations that require enforcement and those that do not. That seems to be the crux of the matter. Everyone wants to know when it's right to intervene and when we should let things evolve. It also allows for organic development of new regulations as new trends and developments occur.

I would be happy to talk about some examples. We don't have to reinvent the wheel here.

Finally, the enforcement and implementation of the AI act as well as the continual development of new regulations must be supported by an independent, robust institutional structure with sufficient resources.

The proposed AI data commissioner cannot accomplish this on their own. While not a perfect analogy—and I know some people here know that I'm the competition expert—I believe that the creation of an agency not unlike the Competition Bureau would be a model to consider. It's not perfect. The bureau is a good example because it combines enforcement of all types—criminal, regulatory, administrative and civil—with education, public outreach, policy development and now digital intelligence. It has a highly specialized workforce trained in the relevant disciplines it needs to draw on to discharge its mandate. It also represents Canada’s interests in multilateral fora and collaborates actively with peer jurisdictions. It matters, I think, to have that for AI.

I am now going to turn it over for the remaining time to my colleague Professor Castets-Renard.

Thank you.

Motions in amendment

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise at report stage to speak to Bill C-56.

Some important amendments were made at the committee stage that were based on the good work of the NDP leader in his own private member's bill in respect of the Competition Bureau. Those amendments give the commissioner the ability to launch their own investigations without having to get permission from the minister first. They also raise the penalties and make it easier to show an abuse of market dominance.

Right now we have to show there is a dominant market player, that harm has been done by their activity and that they had the intention to do harm. Getting all of those three things together is often very difficult, particularly in respect of intent, because traditionally the commissioner has not had the authority to subpoena documents. Lowering the threshold so that we have to prove market dominance and either harm or intent means that it will be a lot easier to address anti-competitive behaviour. Of course, there are a number of amendments, again based on the work of the NDP leader in his private member's bill, that will be coming to the budget implementation act, Bill C-59, which was tabled not long ago.

The New Democrats are very proud to be working at improving the powers of the Competition Bureau to try to protect Canadian consumers by ensuring that in markets where competition is possible, companies are not abusing their market position to reduce competition.

We are likewise pleased to move forward with getting rid of the GST on purpose-built rentals. We know there is a housing crisis. I have talked a lot about it in this place. Many others are talking about it today, and rightly so. One component of that crisis and addressing it is to get more purpose-built rentals of any kind, including market rentals. However, what we have said all along, and ever since Bill C-56 was tabled, is that it has to be accompanied by direct action to build more non-market housing, because that is housing that can be built and sustained at rents that people can truly afford.

There are Canadians who have the means to pay for market housing but are struggling to find it. There can be a salutary effect on the price of rent, driving it down if there is more supply than there currently is. We know it is a pretty tight market. However, we cannot kid ourselves into thinking that this alone will be sufficient to address the housing crisis.

That is why direct investment in non-market housing is so important. It is why in the budget implementation act that was tabled recently, Bill C-59, which I just made reference to, there is also an amendment that would see the GST rebate extended to co-operatives, which were left out of the government's initial drafting of Bill C-56, something that New Democrats think is very important.

I also want to take a moment to express our disappointment. I had a conversation with the Minister of Finance when she appeared at the finance committee on Bill C-56. The government still refuses to extend the GST rebate to projects with secured funding under the national housing strategy that are led by non-profits, whether through the co-investment fund, the housing accelerator fund or any number of funds available. We would encourage the government to do this as soon as possible by whatever legislative vehicle is required. We are certainly willing to help pass it.

We know there are non-profit organizations that started things out when they looked promising and interest rates were low. They secured government funding and were going to build either affordable or social housing in their community. Then interest rates started going up, and the projects were put on hold because those organizations no longer had the money they needed to make those projects a success. Our point is that, even though those projects may have started prior to September 14, if the GST rebate is extended to those projects, it could be the difference they need to accommodate higher interest rates and nevertheless be able to proceed with projects and get those units built.

We know the government is out there talking about those units as part of the total number that its national housing strategy has funded, even as it knows those units have stalled out and even as there is a mechanism, the extension of the GST rebate to those projects, to get them to move ahead. I think it is inappropriate for the government to be out there talking about those units as if they are going to get built, when it knows full well that the changes in the interest rate have meant those projects are not going to go ahead, even as it refused NDP calls to extend the GST rebate to those projects so they could move forward in any event.

Unfortunately quite unlike the Liberals, New Democrats are not satisfied with the announcement. What we are looking for, and this is the metric of success for New Democrats, is when a family moves into a new unit. The fact that the announcement was made just means the work has begun; it does not mean the work has ended. If we are going to follow through on units that have already been announced, it means extending the GST rebate to non-profit organizations' projects that started in advance of September 14 so that real families can move into units they can afford. That is really important, and I exhort the government again to take another look at it. It is a drop in the bucket cost-wise, and it is going to mean a lot of units getting built for families.

It is an example of the kind of intentional policy we need to adopt and that is absent not only in the Liberals' national housing strategy but also in the Conservative leader's so-called plan for housing. He attached affordability conditions in his plan to the GST rebate. It is not that New Democrats do not endorse affordability, but one of the challenges of that is the GST rebate is meant to make market projects pencil out. If we give a GST rebate but attach an affordability criterion that also stresses the budget, then we end up with the net effect that developers who want to build market rental housing do not necessarily see the financial incentive to move ahead, because the GST rebate is offset by the fact that they have to offer more affordable rent.

That is why we think it is acceptable to have a blanket GST rebate for purpose-built rentals, because it is going to incent market housing, but we need a real policy that addresses the need for properly affordable non-market housing and social housing. That is simply not in the leader of the Conservative Party's plan. It is just not there. He talks about releasing federal land in order to build more housing, but he does not talk about requiring any of that housing to be affordable or social housing.

We talk about the major levers the federal government has at its disposal beyond its ability to tax and spend. One of the big levers the federal government has in order to incent more affordable and social housing is land. Attaching conditions to the release of land is one of the best things a federal government can do from the point of view of developing more affordable and social housing.

This is remarkable, particularly in light of the controversy around another Conservative government, Doug Ford's government in Ontario, taking rules off the development of the Greenbelt, which his government subsequently had to put back on because it was scandalous and because developers were set to get rich, including a lot of developers who showed up at the wedding of the premier's daughter. None of that looked right from the outside, and apparently now not from the inside either.

That is why it is really important, when we talk about freeing up land for development, that the process is transparent and that there is a lot of accountability in that process. If part of the idea of releasing federal land, as it should be, is to create more affordable and social housing, it is all the more important that this be talked about up front, which is not done in the Conservative leader's bill.

What is talked about in the Conservative leader's bill is withdrawing resources from municipalities that do not meet an Ottawa-set target. That is problematic because we know Canada has many different kinds of communities with many different kinds of needs. I, for one, do not believe as a rule that people who are elected to public office at the municipal level are plotting how to kill development in their community. It is quite the opposite. They are looking at how to develop, whether it is businesses, the housing needed for businesses or the underlying infrastructure, such as waste water, sewage and electricity. These are all things people need access to in order to build housing on any particular lot. The idea that municipalities already struggling to get enough housing built in their own community need their resources cut, which will make it harder for them to build the underlying infrastructure that nobody else is going to pay for, makes absolutely no sense. It is a recipe for failure.

What can we do? We can pass Bill C-56. We can extend the GST rebate not only to co-ops but to non-profits with units that were already in the pipeline before this announcement, and a lot more. Hopefully I will get a chance to speak to some of those things during questions and answers.

Alleged Breach of Speaker's Impartiality

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, yes, this is a new issue.

I am rising on a point of order, pursuant to Standing Order 69.1, to ask that you treat Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic—

The Economy

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

Madam Speaker, we are advancing the government's plan to grow the middle class, build more homes faster and build an economy that works for everyone. Meanwhile, the Conservatives have become this one-issue party claiming that axing the tax will solve all the country's problems. It will not.

This week, we introduced Bill C-59, our fall economic statement, which is going to help deliver on key measures of this economic plan. In this legislation, we are modernizing competition laws to help stabilize grocery prices, doubling the rural top-up on the pollution pricing rebate, and removing the GST on new rental home construction and co-ops, which the Conservative stand against, calling co-ops Soviet-style—

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will debate the Senate amendments related to Bill C-48 on bail reform.

Tomorrow morning, we will call Government Business No. 31, which concerns Bill C-50, an act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy. Tomorrow afternoon, we will call report stage and third reading of Bill C-57, which would implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine.

Next week, priority will be given to the motion relating to Bill C-50. We will also call report stage and third reading of Bill C-56, the affordability legislation, and second reading of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement, which was introduced earlier today. Thursday will be an opposition day.

For the following week, I will circle back to the member opposite.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

moved for leave to introduce 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.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Motion No. 19

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

moved that a ways and means motion to introduce a bill entitled An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be concurred in.