Bill C-59 (Historical)

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.

Similarities Between Bill C-2 and Bill C-12

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although the business of the House will continue in a mere moment's time, the whole House knows that Bill C-2 was a significant overreach. If passed in its current form, Bill C-2 would require law-abiding Canadians to lose important liberties to pay for the Liberals' failures on borders and immigration.

The government, realizing the passage of Bill C-2 would be neither swift nor assured, went back to the drawing board and repackaged the less contentious aspects into new legislation, Bill C-12, the Bill C-2 redo. However, the government has since publicly indicated that the orphaned portions of Bill C-2 not only remain Liberal policy but also continue to be part of its parliamentary agenda, as is.

I share the member's view that Bill C-2, in its current form, cannot proceed further in the House by virtue of the same question rule. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, explains this practice at paragraphs 12.89 and 12.90:

A decision once made cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House. Thus, if a bill or motion is rejected or adopted, it cannot be revived in the same session.... This is to prevent the time of the House being used in the discussion of motions of the same nature, with the possibility of contradictory decisions being arrived at in the course of the same session.

This rule is dependent upon the principle which forbids the same question from being decided in the House twice within the same session. Although two similar or identical motions or bills may appear in the Notice Paper, only one motion or one bill may be proceeded with. Thus, if a decision is taken by the House on the first bill, for example, to defeat the bill or advance it through a stage in the legislative process, then the other similar or identical bill may not be proceeded with.

In the present case, Bill C-12 would be what is described as the “first bill” in Janse and LeBlanc's explanation, because it had been adopted at second reading back on October 23, 2025, while Bill C-2 would be the “other bill” described in that passage and therefore cannot now proceed.

Bill C-12 and Bill C-2 are, in my view, very similar in substance. Indeed, Bill C-12 is effectively a copy and paste of 11 of the 16 parts of Bill C-2, plus one of its two schedules, as the member enumerated in her argument.

Setting aside the marketing-oriented short titles of the two bills, Bill C-12 is composed of 136 of the 197 clauses found in Bill C-2, or 69% of its clauses, adjusted only insofar as necessary to reflect the passage of time between the introduction of the two bills. As such, if the House is called upon to vote on Bill C-2, it would be called upon to vote again for second reading of many legislative measures it has already approved, but it might yield a different result.

The Chair has had multiple opportunities during the previous two Parliaments to rule on these issues, after many Conservative private members' bills have been poached by the government as its own legislation. While we are happy to see a good idea get adopted, often it gets thrown into an omnibus budget implementation bill, or buried, some might say.

I would refer the House, for example, to the following rulings: Mr. Speaker Rota, on February 18, 2021, at page 4256 of the Debates; the Deputy Speaker on May 11, 2022, at page 5123 of the Debates; Mr. Speaker Rota on June 6, 2022, at page 6140 of the Debates; Mr. Speaker Rota on September 20, 2022, at page 7341 of the Debates; the Speaker's immediate predecessor on November 29, 2023, at page 19211 of the Debates, and again on December 12, 2023, at page 19978; and finally, the then Deputy Speaker on June 7, 2024, at page 24627 of the Debates.

In the May 2022 ruling, the Chair held that Bill C-250, the private member's bill proposed by our colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon South, could not be debated and would be rendered “pending” following the second reading of Bill C-19, a budget implementation bill that contained clauses similar to my friend's bill because:

The House should not face a situation where the same question can be decided twice within the same session, unless the House's intention is to rescind or revoke the decision.

In June 2024, the Chair again fashioned a similar procedure, which would have seen the vote at third reading of another private member's bill, Bill C-323, held in abeyance, if necessary, until the budget implementation bill, Bill C-59, had completed its course through Parliament.

This approach to placing pieces of legislation on hold after a similar bill has made progress is not a brand new practice. I would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Michener, who said on March 13, 1959, at page 238 of the Journals, in another situation concerning nearly identical pieces of legislation:

...the House is not going to occupy itself on two separate occasions under two separate headings with exactly the same business. That would not be reasonable, and I can find no support or authority for following such a course. Thus I have come to the conclusion that this bill must stand, as well as the other bill in the same terms, or at least in terms for exactly the same purpose, until the bill which was first moved has been disposed of either by being withdrawn, which would open the door for one of these other bills to proceed, or by way of being approved, which would automatically dispose of these bills because the House would not vote twice on the same subject matter any more than it would debate the same subject matter twice.

To sum up one of my most brief points of order ever, 69% of the content of Bill C-2 is replicated in Bill C-12, making the two bills substantively similar. The House has since passed Bill C-12 at third reading, in another example of the wonderful collaboration that is found in this place, and it is working its way through the procedures of the other place.

Because the two bills are substantively similar, the same question rule precludes the House from voting on the same matter twice, and therefore, Bill C-2 must be placed in abeyance while Bill C-12 remains before Parliament. If Bill C-12 receives royal assent, Bill C-2 then must be discharged and dropped from the Order Paper.

I note that all of the records were from nearly the last 100 years, again a departure from my usual practice in raising the precedents that guide the decisions of the Chair.

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place on behalf of the residents of Portage—Lisgar, those who proudly call south central Manitoba home.

I would like to start today with a glaring example of Liberal incompetence buried in the budget implementation act. The government is sheepishly backtracking on its so-called anti-greenwashing rules in the Competition Act, rules that it rammed through the House just last year in Bill C-59. Do members remember those?

In their ideological zeal to police every environmental claim, the Liberals demanded businesses back up statements with “internationally recognized methodology”, imposing rigid tests that invited frivolous lawsuits. What happened? Reality happened, and it hit hard.

The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board rolled back its own net-zero portfolio commitment, with experts linking it to these changes. The Royal Bank of Canada ditched its $500-billion sustainable finance pledge and stopped disclosing key green metrics, fearing penalties. The rules created a chilling effect as businesses halted legitimate green claims to avoid the red tape nightmare. Even the Competition Bureau's guidelines could not save this mess, as industry feedback poured in about the unworkable burden.

Now the Liberals are quietly relaxing it to “adequate and proper substantiation” and banning private lawsuits, admitting their overreach without any apology. We were yet again handed another policy straight from the activist ivory tower, which was so divorced from real-world consequences that it is quietly getting tossed in this bill.

The worst part is that these are not harmless daydreams. Every time government chases one of these activist-crafted fantasies, real people are the ones paying the price. While the activists congratulate themselves for a job well done, Canadians are left to deal with higher costs, fewer choices and a government that seems allergic to anything resembling common sense.

Personally, as a strong proponent of getting big projects built in this country, a place where it unfortunately has become next to impossible to get anything done, I am quite upset there were no changes in this legislation to the broken impact assessment process the Liberals created in the first place. Instead of fixing their mess, the Liberals have created a new bureaucracy with the Major Projects Office. It is still too early to tell if this office will succeed in any way, and so far it has only announced projects that basically have already been approved or are already under construction. Out of those 11 projects, the office thinks only two will be deemed projects in the national interest.

At its core, what this office is doing is providing a “concierge” service for the cherry-picked projects the Prime Minister has decided to move forward on. The mere fact that the Liberals need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to hire countless new bureaucrats and probably a bunch of consultants to shepherd projects through this maze of regulations is indicative of how bad things have become in this country.

Make no mistake: The government is picking winners and losers. Whoever has the best lobbyists or friends in the PMO can get their project referred to the Major Projects Office and get it sent to the front of the line. It is basically the Air Canada super elite program, where a select few stroll down the red carpet, breeze through their own priority security line and sail past check-in, while everyone else gets bumped, stranded on the terminal floor and stuck on hold for hours hoping somebody, anybody, just picks up. This is because the Liberals have made it so impossible to get projects built.

If we step back for a second, we will quickly see that hundreds of billions of dollars or over half a trillion dollars of investment has fled the country over the past 10 years. The outflow of capital is simply remarkable and sad. We saw how the Liberals' ill-thought-out emissions cap, which was very much a production cap, was abandoned. We saw their ludicrous EV mandate get put on ice to buy them some time to figure out how to get themselves out of that mess. We have seen ideology trump reality time and time again.

Now we see a Liberal caucus that seems to be ripping apart at the seams as its members struggle to reorient themselves. I will admit that it has been something to watch former Liberal environment ministers get a little hot and bothered as their once-sacred flagship policies are quietly tossed overboard. To be fair, the one who just resigned at least had the decency to walk away from the chauffeured car and the extra salary instead of twisting himself into a pretzel trying to defend all the recent backflips.

Just yesterday, I asked the new Minister of Environment a straightforward question. I asked her if they have given up on meeting their emissions reduction target. Her answer was pure bureaucratic gibberish that was so tangled that members would need a map and compass to navigate their way out of it. She could not bring herself to say what everybody already knows: After a decade of failed policies, they are nowhere near hitting these targets. It has been all pain for no gain.

Members do not have to take my word for it. The environment commissioner himself said that the Liberals now boast the worst record in the entire G7. Just as the Liberals have chased away hundreds of billions of dollars in investment, and nickelled and dimed families for heating their homes and filling up their cars, their policies still fail spectactularly.

Now, the new minister tells us that they will unveil new measures to meet the targets sometime next month. Forgive me for not popping the champagne on this one. We have all seen this movie before, and the sequel is never better than the original. Chances are that this will be yet another round of environmental policies destined for the same shelf, where all their other failures go to die. Let us be honest. When a government this far behind suddenly insists it is still on track, what it is really signalling is a whole heap of new regulations and taxes so heavy-handed that they could bring our economy to a halt.

We know about one of the ideas the Liberals support: the UN's new net-zero carbon tax on shipping. The Liberal Minister of the Environment insisted just yesterday that imposing this UN-backed net-zero shipping tax, potentially hitting $500 per tonne, will not drive up the cost of everyday items for Canadians. Think about that in a Canadian context, where we were not even at $100 per tonne. I live in the real world where businesses do not just eat these taxes out of the goodness of their hearts. They pass them straight down to every Canadian.

If I were expected to take the minister at her word that the Liberals have not abandoned their 2030 targets, whatever else they are cooking up must be an absolute doozy because, my goodness, they have a lot of ground to make up. I ask this not rhetorically but earnestly: What is the point of having a Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act when absolutely no minister, department or government will ever be held accountable for any of their failures?

To move on from the environmental failures of this government, equally important is what has been excluded from this legislation. Fortunately, the Liberal government decided not to proceed with its disastrous idea to strip faith-based organizations of their charitable status. That this idea was even proposed is extremely concerning. I have had hundreds of my constituents write to me and agree with the idea that the government should never be stripping faith-based organizations of their charitable status. These charities support the most vulnerable in our society, filling a crucial gap the state simply cannot. The economic benefit is clear. Cardus Institute research shows that, for every dollar a congregation spends, the local community receives $3.39 in economic benefit. Why even raise the prospect of revoking their charitable status? It is clearly not for fiscal reasons.

The best explanation seems to be that the Liberals want to divide Canadians for political gain. This has become an extremely common trend under this government, and it is happening in real time. Just this week, we learned the Liberals have secured the Bloc's support for their proposed combatting hate act, which is yet another attempt to police the thoughts of Canadians. What is the deal they struck in making amendments to criminalize sections of sacred texts? This is completely unnecessary. The government already has the tools it needs to prosecute those who promote violence and genocide. Adding insult to injury, the same member who proposed policing biblical verses was just now made the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture.

I say this to my Liberal colleagues: Stop attacking our inheritance from our ancestors for their political gain. Canadians are tired of it. Whether it be the Liberals' tacit support of tearing down statues and belittling symbols of national importance or the general pursuit of shaming our heritage, Canadians do not want a government that wages war on their values, their faith and their heritage. They want a government that supports the vulnerable, respects the contributions of charities and unites Canadians rather than dividing them. They want a responsible government that acts with common sense. They are not getting it with the Liberal government. Canadians deserve better.

Combatting Hate Crime

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians believe in a country where everyone can speak freely, worship freely and live without fear. I believe that all hon. members of the House agree that no one should face threats because of their race, their faith or who they love, yet today, Canadians are confronting an alarming reality. The police tell us that hate crimes have risen sharply since the Liberals came to power, up 258% nationwide since 2015. Within that increase, anti-Semitic hate crimes have jumped 416%, and hate crimes against South Asians are up 377%. Last year alone, police reported a staggering 4,882 hate crimes across Canada, and the number of police-reported hate crimes have increased for six years in a row.

These numbers are real and are deeply troubling. I agree with the minister that the government must act, but we must separate the goal from the method. Legislating against hate is welcome if it minimally impairs free speech and actually makes our communities safer. However, legislation without enforcement is like a lock without a key. It has potential to be useful, but it is far from effective.

I share the minister's concern for the deterioration of civil discourse in our society and for the victims of hate-motivated crime. The Criminal Code already makes it illegal to utter threats, incite violence or harass someone because of who they are. It contains offences related to mischief, to blocking infrastructure and to property damage. These provisions are clear, court-tested and strong. The problem is that police are too often instructed to just keep the peace instead of enforcing the law. When hate crimes are poorly enforced, victims and witnesses often feel like reporting these incidents is futile.

If authorities fail to investigate thoroughly, prosecute offenders or take clear action, people lose faith in the system. This lack of accountability leaves victims feeling isolated, unsafe and skeptical that their experiences will be taken seriously. Over time, communities become less willing to come forward, allowing bias-motivated behaviour to persist unchecked. Weak enforcement therefore not only undermines justice for individual victims but erodes public confidence in the rule of law.

When offenders avoid meaningful consequences, they are emboldened to push boundaries, disrupt the peace and exploit loopholes, and that is what I fear will happen with this legislation. For example, this legislation refers to places of worship but makes no mention of the predominantly ethnic neighbourhoods, hospitals and other settings that have also been settings for protests. They hold significant risk of leading to violence with hateful things being said. There is a significant risk that with this bill, protesting mobs would simply move back into residential neighbourhoods, where they invite escalation and confrontation and instill real fear in families, seniors and children.

Our justice system remains a revolving door thanks to Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. Charges are dropped or pleaded down, trials are delayed and sentences are inconsistent. This bill would do nothing to change that. While the government keeps promising that reform to bail and sentencing is coming, we have yet to see it in this House. People deserve to feel safe in their homes, and they will not without enforcement of the laws currently on the books. New offences are only meaningful if they are clear, enforceable and consistently applied. This bill needs work to pass that test.

While the government claims that the definition of hatred in this legislation simply codifies the language from case law, in fact the definition as articulated sets a materially lower standard. Hatred is defined in the bill as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike”. That is a confusing mouthful.

The minister himself has admitted that the application of this law will be fact-dependent. That means that both law enforcement and ordinary Canadians will have to do some guessing in the moment as to what might be interpreted as a crime. Detestation and vilification are crimes, but disdain and dislike are a part of free speech. One thing I think all of us in the House know is that one person's disdain is another person's detestation, and one person's dislike certainly feels like vilification to others.

In the case law, the standard was higher, requiring the emotion of hatred to be intense and extreme in nature, the extreme manifestation of the sentiment of hate, and far beyond dislike, disdain and simple offensiveness. I fear that the bill, as drafted, will become more fodder for accusations on social media, vexatious complaints to police and aggression between groups.

History warns us about where lowering the standard for hate speech can lead. Laws meant to stop hatred have been turned against political dissenters and minority voices. We should not give the state broader powers to police thought or symbolism without first trying to make our existing tools against hatred more effective.

Like all hon. members in the House, I reject hate in all its forms. Every Canadian deserves to feel safe at home, in their place of worship and on the street, but safety will not come solely from criminalizing symbols or speech. Safety comes from making sure that when someone assaults another person, threatens a synagogue or vandalizes a mosque, the police investigate and make arrests and the court holds a fair trial and enforces the sentence.

The bill removes the Attorney General's oversight before a hate propaganda charge proceeds. That step has provided an important safeguard against politicization and misuse, especially in the case of private prosecutions. Eliminating it without providing another way to prevent vexatious prosecutions leaves the door wide open to the weaponization of this bill.

Right now, our biggest problem is that enforcement is not consistent. Bail is virtually automatic, and charges are often dropped. Serious charges are plead down. That is where Parliament's attention should be: on stronger enforcement, on swifter prosecutions and on support for victims. Unamended, this bill risks punishing the unpopular while the truly dangerous slip through. While I agree wholeheartedly that rising hate crimes demand action, this bill feels more like a Liberal press release than it does like real protection.

Conservatives believe in limited government, in the rule of law and in freedom of expression, even for speech we find offensive. We believe that what is illegal must be clear and tied to real harm, not to subjective feelings of detestation or vilification, however painful they may be to hear. The right response to hateful ideas is not more censorship. It is more debate, more truth and more courage from citizens willing to challenge hate in the open.

If the government wants to protect Canadians, it should start by enforcing the strong laws we already have. Make sure threats, assaults and property crimes motivated by hate are investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the Criminal Code. Give police the resources they need. Support victims, but do not lightly hand the state new powers to decide which ideas may be expressed.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I recently had a chance to substitute onto the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs for the study of Bill C-61 and I appreciated sitting with the hon. member, whose interventions were quite thoughtful. In his speech, he mentioned the need to improve the competitive environment, to improve competition. That is exactly what the government did through Bill C-59. Those changes were, in many ways, aimed at increasing competition in the grocery sector.

I would like to know what the member thinks of those changes in Bill C-59. If he liked them, why did he and his party vote against it?

Oil and Gas Industry

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am back tonight to continue calling on the Liberal government to get serious about the climate crisis, specifically with respect to investing in public transit, which it could do by taxing the excess profits being made by the oil and gas industry.

This is particularly timely because this very specific call could be included in the government's fall economic statement, whenever that comes out over the coming weeks. It is one of the reasons why this is one of six calls I have been making to the Minister of Finance over the last number of weeks. The stakes, in my view, really could not be higher when it comes to the climate crisis that we are in.

First of all, we need to recognize that we are the only G7 country whose emissions have gone up since 1990. This is at a time when we have already reached about 1.3°C of warming compared to pre-industrial times.

Back at the 2015 Paris climate conference, world leaders all agreed we would do everything possible to limit the increase to 1.5°C. They did this because climate scientists have told us, if we cross that threshold, it will lead to “leading to devastating and potentially irreversible consequences for several vital Earth systems that sustain a hospitable planet.”

What are we on track for? As of now, current pledges by countries around the world put us somewhere between 2.6°C and 3.1°C in global average temperature rise. We must do so much more as a country to do our fair share, to lead and to demonstrate what is possible when it comes to acting on the climate crisis.

At the same time, when it comes to proven climate solutions, such as public transit, there will be no new funding until 2026. That is after the next election. There is funding available, but operations, like a mechanic who needs to fix a bus, is not eligible. The funding being provided is pretty much the status quo.

However, at the same time, for proven climate distractions, such as carbon capture and storage, we are rolling out the red carpet. The government is giving another tax credit in Bill C-59, which is between $7 billion to $16 billion, and most of the Canada growth fund, so there is $15 billion there. If someone wants to expand the pipeline, there is $34 billion for them to do that.

Meanwhile, the oil and gas industry is making out like bandits. In 2022 alone, the five biggest oil and gas companies operating in this country made $38 billion, and that is after the $29 billion in dividends and share repurchases. They are doing it by gouging Canadians at the pumps to the tune of 18¢ a litre.

The solution should be pretty obvious. Number one, stop the subsidies. Number two, tax these excess profits by taking the Canada recovery dividend that was applied to banks and life insurance companies in the pandemic and apply it to oil and gas. Even for just 15% of profits over a billion, that would generate $4.2 billion a year, all of which could be put into proven solutions, such as public transit. They could add more funds, start the fund sooner or direct it towards operating funds. My question to the hon. parliamentary secretary is this: Will they do it?

Credit Unions

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

Mr. Speaker, since 2015, I have had the privilege of working closely with the Canadian Credit Union Association and its members, including IC Savings and Meridian Credit Union, which have locations in Vaughan. Credit unions are a cornerstone of Canada's economy. These 100% Canadian-owned institutions contribute $8 billion annually and employ over 60,000 hard-working Canadians.

Today I rise to welcome over 40 credit union leaders to Parliament Hill for their annual advocacy day. Serving more than 11 million Canadians, credit unions are transforming communities, making home ownership attainable, empowering small businesses and making life more affordable for Canadians.

Through Bill C-59, we are supporting credit unions by modernizing the Income Tax Act, saving them hundreds of millions of dollars in future tax liabilities. We are also expanding membership eligibility in Payments Canada to better integrate credit union locals.

United by their values, credit unions are driving economic growth and empowering Canadians. I thank Canada's credit unions.

Canada Labour Code

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis for her work on this file. The government supports this legislation, and I would like to take a few moments to explain why.

Everyone deserves a healthy workplace where they feel safe. It is a basic right, yet one that many workers are denied. Harassment and violence at work still happen and no workplace is immune to them. No one should face this on the job or anywhere else. The Government of Canada must set an example, and we are. In 2021, we put in place stronger protections against workplace violence and harassment under the Canada Labour Code and its regulations. This historic piece of legislation, Bill C-65, is now better protecting workers from these harmful behaviours, which disproportionately impact women.

To continue improving protections for workers, an important part of this work is monitoring the progress of these new measures. Last year, we published our first annual report on taking action against harassment and violence in workplaces under Canadian federal jurisdiction, which covers harassment and violence reported to employers in 2021. The first report showed that not all workers experience harassment and violence in the same way or to the same degree. This information is critical. With each annual report's findings, we are able to evaluate what is working and identify improvements that will ensure workplaces are safe and healthy across the country.

When occurrences of workplace harassment and violence are reported, it is important that the investigations are truly independent. In 2021, the government set up a registry of workplace harassment and violence investigators to make it easy for employers to identify qualified investigators and better protect federally regulated employees. We currently have 75 qualified investigators listed who can be contracted by employers to lead independent investigations and make a positive difference in the workplace. In March, we launched a selection process to expand our registry of qualified investigators. These additional resources are expected to be made available by June of next year.

We are also investing in partner organization-led initiatives that will help drive culture change in federally regulated workplaces and protect workers from harm. With the workplace harassment and violence prevention fund, we are currently funding seven new multi-year projects and have funded 14 overall since 2019. The three new projects will receive $10.7 million in total funding over three years.

For instance, let us take the project from the Centre for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children at Western University. The project will see the creation of specialized resources and training for unions to inform employees of their rights and build workplaces free of harassment and violence. All of the following groups are coming together to make it happen: the subject-matter experts at the Canadian Labour Congress; francophone representatives from Quebec; and FETCO, an employers' organization comprising federally regulated firms within the transportation and communications sector.

We are also providing funding through the “workplace opportunities: removing barriers to equity” program, or WORBE, to help break down employment barriers experienced by women, indigenous people, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities. Currently, WORBE has a funding envelope of $3 million every year with 11 multi-year projects.

Canada also participates actively in the global effort to cultivate workplaces that are free from fear and intimidation. Earlier this year, the groundbreaking International Labour Organization convention 190 came into force in Canada. Canada played a strong leadership role in the development, adoption and advancement of this convention. It is the first-ever global agreement on ending violence and harassment at work. We joined countries around the world to protect workers and make sure that every workplace is safe and respectful. It is not just a Canadian value that we have promoted. Now it is a protected right.

We have also made progress in supporting the mental and physical health of women at work. We are improving the well-being of nearly half a million workers who may require menstrual products during their workdays by making sure these products are treated like the basic necessities they are. Since December 15, federally regulated employers are now required to provide access to free menstrual products to their employees. This is a big step toward creating a healthier and more inclusive workplace, and we are on our way to accomplishing much more.

In December 2021, we passed a bill to give workers in federally regulated private sector workplaces 10 days of paid sick leave. That bill passed with unanimous consent, because no one should ever have to choose between getting paid and getting better.

Through Bill C-59, we are proposing changes to the Canada Labour Code to create a new three-day leave for federally regulated private sector workers following a pregnancy loss. In the event of a stillbirth, employees would be entitled to take eight weeks off. For most employees, the first three days of this leave would be paid. Dealing with pregnancy loss is hard for employees who experience it and they need support. This new leave would provide employees with greater job security while they recover. It would be available to the individual who is pregnant, the spouse or common-law partner and any person who is intended to be the legal parent of the child.

As everyone can see, we have been working on many fronts to protect workers and make sure that every workplace is safe, healthy and respectful. We have made great progress, but a lot more remains to be done, whether it be through training programs, efforts to eliminate the stigma that prevents workers from speaking up or better resolution processes.

We are all in this together: employers, unions, labour experts and different levels of government. We will continue to work hand in hand to confront, prevent and eradicate harassment and violence in the workplace. When workplaces are safe, it is a win for all of us. Workers can be at their best, employers thrive and the economy benefits.

Excise Tax Act

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that I was not entitled to display the logo. I apologize.

I was saying that this bill helps highligth the importance of our social services and mental health services. The need for these services can arise at a very young age. In fact, it is not just individual adults who may need such services. Children, youth, parents and families may need them too. I think that COVID-19 exacerbated the tensions that may have already existed in this regard.

The bill's merit lies in the fact that it exempts professional mental health services from the goods and services tax. In other words, patients obtaining these services in the private sector will no longer have to pay the tax, which will make these services more accessible.

I do, however, have doubts as to whether exempting a private sector professional from the tax will make these services more accessible. We all know that the cost of these services in the private sector is onerous and that few people have access to them. That is why it is important to work toward making access to these services virtually universal in the public sector. In Quebec, work is under way to do precisely that.

There is also the matter of the definitions. What is psychotherapy? If we define it in simple terms, it is the psychological treatment of a person. What is mental health counselling? That is less clear, in our eyes. For example, psychological treatment services for individuals in Quebec are regulated by professional associations. We call these services “reserved”. There is a reserved title for those practising such professions. Things are less clear with mental health counselling, however. What type of profession are we talking about here?

The Ordre des psychologues du Québec cautioned us about mental health counselling, because that can be pretty much anything. There is little in the way of training, and it is not regulated. If mental health counselling is not better defined, we are not certain that this legislation will strengthen what we are trying to strengthen, which is why we were so interested in studying this bill in committee. As it turned out, though, it was not possible to study it in committee.

This bill should have been studied in the Standing Committee on Finance, but because of economic omnibus bills, such as Bill C-59 or the current Bill C-69, which deals with the budget, the usual 60-day deadline for committee study, after referral of a private member's bill, was not met. Despite a request for an extension, this bill could not be studied.

That is quite troubling. It makes us think about the process of studying bills. We should ensure that a bill passed at second reading in the House also passes at the committee stage. Had that happened, we would have heard from experts and witnesses who could have better defined what the bill seeks to do, especially in terms of psychotherapy and mental health counselling services. That would have been important.

Aside from Quebec, I do not know how mental health services are regulated in the Canadian provinces. What are the definitions for the provinces? Are these regulated professions, or do those professionals have the authority to provide psychotherapy services? In any case, the committee process would have been very important.

Since we were not able to study it in committee, we are now here in the House to pass this bill. The Bloc Québécois nevertheless supports it. We know there is currently a certain inequity in terms of the excise tax exemption. We know it applies to doctors and psychologists. It should apply just as much to these mental health professionals─ and I say “professionals” because, for us, that is important─at least when we see the growing number of services in this sector.

I have to say that when it comes to mental health, Quebec was a pioneer in terms of psychotherapy legislation. This also inspired several provinces. We recently saw that the Quebec plan d’action interministériel en santé mentale 2022‑2026 outlined a framework for mental health by focusing on seven specific areas, namely, the promotion of mental health and prevention of mental health problems, services to prevent and respond to crisis situations and actions aimed at youth, their families and their loved ones, in particular.

I do not have the time to list them all, but want to say that mental health is a priority for our social services, which, as we know, have a very strong role and presence in our society. That is also why, with the modernization of legislation on professions, the Ordre des psychologues du Québec has been entrusted to deliver licences to practise to other professionals such as school counsellors and psychoeducators, as well as nurses.

If we had had time to study Bill C‑323 at committee, we would have been able to add other types of professionals to the list. That was not possible, so we have to leave it at that. I would remind the House that the definition of “mental health counselling” really needs to be clarified to ensure that we have regulated services by professionals, which is the case in Quebec.

As I said at the beginning, I will close by saying that it is all well and good to address inequity when it comes to the GST, but that is not going to guarantee universal access, which is what people really want when it comes to the services provided by mental health workers and professionals. That will take a major investment in our public services, because Quebec's education sector, its health and social services sector and its community organizations do require significant funding.

The problem is, the federal government is going to fix things by removing a tax while it continues to chronically underfund our health and social services. If the private sector is given a bigger role in our system, which I find unacceptable, I think we really need to ask ourselves how much the federal government needs to invest in health and social services to enable Quebec and the provinces to strengthen their public systems.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity to take part in the debate at third reading of Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act on mental health services. As we all know, this bill would exempt supplies of psychotherapy and mental health counselling services from the goods and services tax and the harmonized sales tax, or the GST/HST, something which we already support.

In fact, we proposed our own legislation, Bill C-59, which, alongside other affordability measures, would achieve the very same goal of making counselling services more accessible.

We welcome and applaud any initiative that helps make mental health supports more affordable for Canadians, but Bill C-59 was introduced on November 30, 2023, seven months ago. If the Conservatives truly cared about making life more affordable for Canadians and offering support to those seeking psychotherapy and counselling and therapy services, they would have easily supported Bill C-59. Instead, the obstruction and delay tactics have delayed that critical bill, subjecting Canadians to paying the GST/HST on these services for an additional seven months.

I look forward to discussing this impactful legislation, as well as our government's ongoing work to support the mental health and well-being of Canadians and help save lives.

Our government's economic plan is about building a strong economy, one that works for everyone, and Bill C-59 would deliver critical pieces of the 2023 fall economic statement, so we can make life more affordable, build more homes and create good jobs from coast to coast to coast.

A key pillar of this plan is ensuring that Canadians have the mental support they need to thrive and to build a better life for themselves and their family, which is why Bill C-59 also proposes to exempt professional services rendered by psychotherapists and counselling therapists from the GST/HST.

How will this work? Services that assist individuals in coping with an illness or a disorder will be exempt from the GST/HST in a province if they are provided by a person who practises the profession of psychotherapy or counselling therapy and is licenced to practise in that province. Similarly, if a province has no such licensing requirements, psychotherapy and counselling therapy services will also be exempt from the GST/HST model in that province if the services are provided by a person who has the qualifications equivalent to those necessary to be so licensed in another province. Straightforwardly, this measure will change and, quite frankly, save lives.

Bill C-323 was passed unanimously at second reading and has the support of the House, which recognizes the importance we all place on mental health. The provisions included in Bill C-59 would improve on the already interesting proposals put forward by the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.

Notably, Bill C-323's proposal raises concerns because “mental health counselling” is not a defined term in some provincial regulations. As a result, if that term was added to the GST/HST definition of “practitioner” for GST/HST purposes, which is what Bill C-323 proposes, it is not clear which mental health counsellors, or even whether any of them, would actually meet the requirement to be licensed or certified to practise in this profession. This could result in the amendment having no practical effect, and mental health counsellors may continue to be required to collect the GST/HST on a supply of mental health counselling services.

To address this risk, the references to “mental health counselling” and “mental health counselling services” would have to be replaced by “counselling therapy” and “counselling therapy services”, so that the amended text of Bill C-323 would be identical to the text in Bill C-59.

In addition, Bill C-59 is likely to provide real tax relief to individuals with mental health issues sooner than the measure under Bill C-323. Even if Bill C-323 were to receive royal assent before Bill C-59, the relief under Bill C-59 would begin to apply before the relief measures under Bill C-323, as the measures in Bill C-323 would only apply six months after the date on which it receives royal assent.

That said, I would like to acknowledge and thank my hon. colleague for this important work and for giving us all an opportunity to talk about mental health services that are necessary. Together, we are taking steps in the right direction when it comes to breaking down the barriers to mental health care still faced by so many Canadians.

This brings me to our government's achievements and the focus we have put on mental health supports.

Since announcing our historic $200-billion health care plan last year, we have reached agreements with all provinces and territories to strengthen Canada's universal public health care system, including funding for mental health care. These agreements are delivering $25 billion in new funding to provinces and territories over the next decade to improve health care for all Canadians.

We are also investing $2.4 billion to help provinces and territories bolster mental health and substance use services, so help gets to those who need it quickly and effectively. Last fall, we improved access to suicide prevention supports by launching the 988 suicide crisis helpline, which was advanced by my colleague across the way. It is available to Canadians wherever and whenever it is needed, and I am glad that has been done.

More recently, as part of our plan to ensure fairness for every generation, budget 2024 proposed a suite of new investments aimed at improving mental health care for Canadians, including the creation of a new youth mental health fund, which will support community health organizations that provide mental health care to young Canadians. We will also equip those organizations with the tools and resources they need to refer youth to other mental health services in their communities. When we invest in our youth and their mental health, we also invest in helping them reach their full potential. That is so needed at a time when millennials and gen Z feel as if the cards are stacked against them.

Budget 2024 also includes supports that provide continued access to mental health services for indigenous people, including approaches to mental health that are culturally appropriate for first nations, Inuit and Métis.

These transformational investments build on the significant actions that the federal government has taken over the past years to expand access to community-based mental health and addiction services for all Canadians. This includes investing $359 million over five years in support of the renewed Canadian drug and substance strategy, which is now guiding our government's work to save lives and protect the health and safety of Canadians.

It includes providing $5 billion over 10 years to provinces and territories, as announced in budget 2017, for mental health and addiction services. It includes providing $14.25 million in annual funding to the Mental Health Commission of Canada to advance mental health in the priority areas of suicide prevention, mental health and substance abuse, engagement with Canadians and population-based initiatives.

It also includes supporting the mental health promotion innovation fund with another $5 million in additional funding to support the delivery of innovative community-based programs in mental health promotion for infants, children, youth and their caregivers, as well as funding to support priority groups susceptible to mental health inequities, like LGBTQ2+ members, and newcomers and refugees.

We are doing all of this because we know that a strong and effective public health care system is essential to the well-being of Canadians and because we know there is simply no health without mental health.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to commend the member for Cumberland—Colchester on his bill. I had the chance to mention this earlier, but I think that mental health is an important issue. It is something we do not talk about enough. It is often taboo. The purpose of this bill is to give a little help to those who use mental health services by removing the goods and services tax from these services. This will help them out budget-wise. Some are in a good financial positions, but there are others whose finances are very tight.

What is more, there is an injustice here. I will share a few examples. There is a long list of professionals who offer services that are tax-free: optometrists, chiropractors, physiotherapists, podiatrists, osteopaths, audiologists, speech language pathologists, occupational therapists, psychologists, midwives, dieticians, acupuncturists and naturopaths. However, a psychoeducator or a sexologist has to charge tax. That is discrimination.

That is also problematic because we know that the pandemic and other things have put a major strain on people's mental health. In a way, society has grown or has at least become more aware of the fact that mental health is sometimes fragile. It is obvious that, when people are put in lockdown, they miss having social interaction, and that can impact their mental health, which can trigger issues.

The situation has not necessarily improved since the pandemic. There has been inflation and rising interest rates. That means that households are really struggling financially, which can also have an impact on everything else. Traditional services, such as those of a psychologist, are already tax-free, but the others are not.

However, there is a shortage of psychologists and professionals offering mental health services. We cannot rely solely on psychologists, who are overworked. There are other professionals who can meet these needs. There are social workers, psychoeducators and sexologists who can help. Why not enable these professionals to receive the same benefits as the others, given that they provide the same services?

I would also like to point out that Bill C‑323, which we are debating at the moment, is interesting, even if, at the end of the day, we may not get to vote on it. It does, however, deserve credit for having triggered a debate. In a way, the bill forced the government to realize that this is a problem. The government included it in its economic update, in Bill C‑59, which is currently being studied by the Senate. Since it is being studied by the Senate, we can assume that there is a good chance that it will be passed. Since Bill C‑59 is likely to pass, Bill C‑323 will lapse.

In any case, I took the initiative yesterday to submit an amendment to the Clerk's office. Unfortunately, it will not be voted on. The purpose of my amendment was to add a clarification to Bill C‑323. Let me explain. The amendment would have clarified that guidance counsellors, psychoeducators, criminologists, sexologists and couples and family therapists would indeed be included among the professions covered by this bill.

I submitted this amendment because the bill, which the government copied word for word, is vague. If we examine the exact words used in the bill, we see that psychotherapy and mental health counselling are the proposed additions. Since these are not professions per se, but services, we do not know how will this ultimately be interpreted by the people responsible for enforcing the legislation. In parliamentary committee, my colleague from Joliette asked certain officials some questions. He asked how Bill C‑323 would work in practical terms. However, this was more in the context of the study of Bill C‑59.

I say this because Bill C-323 has been pushed through somewhat quickly, since it was Bill C-59 that was studied in committee. The response was that those professions would be considered. In theory, they should therefore be among the professions that will be exempt, especially since they are already eligible for the tax credit in Quebec. Not only are they eligible for the tax credit in Quebec, but they are also regulated professions.

Psychoeducation, unlike psychology, is not aimed at making a diagnosis. Other people can practise it, including guidance counsellors, criminologists, occupational therapists, nurses, psychoeducators, sexologists and social workers. These are all people who can practise psychoeducation if they have received the necessary training, completed the internships and hold a licence from the Ordre des psychologues du Québec. This involves roughly 765 hours of university courses, 600 hours of practical training and a master's degree in mental health. Not just anyone can practise this. These are serious people who have completed the necessary studies. They are professionals who are fully qualified to do this work.

To us, there was still some uncertainty. The fact that a public servant tells us that they should be covered is not a strong guarantee. What is more, some psychoeducators contacted us to say that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's analysis of the changes to the excise tax used occupation code 621330, “Offices of mental health practitioners”. It would seem that is not exactly the same code that psychoeducators use. Since it is not the same code, the psychoeducators wondered if that meant they would be excluded, since the Parliamentary Budget Officer's analysis did not specifically talk about their profession. Is there a mistake here? I would like to know.

We wanted to be sure that these people did not slip through the cracks. We wanted to be sure that everyone was covered, that everyone could benefit from not having to charge these taxes for services that are essential, that people need. I proposed the amendment, but unfortunately it was deemed out of order. I am not necessarily discouraged. I am disappointed, obviously, but I do hope that at the end of the day, the interpretation will go our way. If we could have at least ended the uncertainty, that would have already been something.

That is why I wanted to point it out in my speech today. I think it is important for every profession where people do serious, professional work to be recognized. I understand that psychoeducation and sexology are two professions that are not as common in English Canada as they are in Quebec. That is because Quebec is ahead of the curve. Quebec launched the first such programs and also ensured that the profession is regulated, which is not necessarily the case in the rest of Canada.

I recognize that it can sometimes create legal issues when a legal framework is set up at the federal level but will not be exactly the same in Quebec. Credits and subsidies will be recognized but will not be eligible in Quebec. In fact, if there is one reason why we would like Quebec to be independent, it is so that there are no more problems, no more being penalized by the federal government every time Quebec innovates. We know our stuff. There are many other areas where Quebec is at the forefront and ahead of the curve in Canada. Just think of child care. Quebec is at the forefront of all sorts of issues compared to Canada. Unfortunately, we are still being somewhat held back by the federal government.

All that being said, I want to once again commend the work of the member for Cumberland—Colchester and the work of all members of the House. Everyone seems to have realized how important it is to support mental health care.

In closing, I would like to add that the federal government's approach is predatory. We know that the federal government likes to give lectures and to tell Quebec how to manage its jurisdictions, but we also know that it is making cuts to health care funding. One of the consequences of those cuts is that Quebec sometimes does not have the money to hire the staff it needs to provide the services that people need. I hope that the federal government will hear that. I hope that, one day, the federal government will finally listen to the needs of Quebec and increase health transfers, at least before Quebec becomes independent. I especially hope that, when it comes time to implement Bill C‑59 or Bill C‑323, if it is passed, the federal government will have listened to the opinions of professionals in Quebec and will understand the reality in Quebec, which can be a bit different from the reality in the rest of Canada, so that these professionals will not be penalized compared to other professionals and so that they can provide quality services to Quebeckers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to approach this bill in a couple of ways.

First, I want to deal specifically with Bill C-323 and the issue of mental health, and to pick up on the point I put forward to the member in the form of a question. Over the years, we have seen a substantial change in attitude towards the issue of mental health.

Back in late 1980s, I can recall a wonderful doctor. He was my favourite doctor. Every so often I talk to him, and I still call him my favourite doctor. Dr. Gulzar Cheema was a health care critic back in the day, in the late 1980s. I would like to think that he was one of the pioneers in trying to raise the importance of mental health. He worked very closely with Sharon Carstairs, the leader of the Liberal Party at the time, where there was a great deal of emphasis on this.

One thing that he had advocated for was the need to recognize mental health to the degree that the province should actually establish a mental health department. That was to amplify just how important mental health is to our health care system. He went on to run as an MLA in British Columbia and was elected. That is where the first mental health department was actually established, from what I understand. I could be corrected on that, but I believe it was one of them, if not the first one at the provincial level.

Fast-forward to today, and we have a government that has recognized the importance of mental health, from a department perspective. The member made reference to a substantial commitment of literally hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars that, as a government, we have not only talked about but also put into place. We are talking about somewhere in the neighbourhood of $5 billion over a set period of time to encourage provinces to look at ways in which we could ultimately see better mental health care services.

In fact, the creation of the youth mental health fund can be found in the most recent federal budget. It is substantial fund of money, somewhere in the neighbourhood of approximately $500 million. Again, it is there to support young people and organizations and to assist in dealing with the important issue of mental health.

The budgetary measure, a way in which we can contribute to mental health, is something we have been very aggressive on. I have often made reference to the $200-billion investment in health care that we have announced for the next 10 years. When we break down the investment, a considerable percentage of that is going to go towards the issue of mental health, either directly or indirectly. I believe that speaks volumes in terms of the way the national government can ensure that we have some form of standards and can encourage all the different provinces and territories, in our own way, to see more delivery of mental health care services.

It is one thing that I think distinguishes us from the Bloc and the Conservative Party. They do not see the benefits of the national party playing a stronger role in health care, in terms of the Canada Health Act and the type of programming we can put in place. It would ensure that, no matter where Canadians live, whether it is in British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia or anywhere in between, or up north in the Yukon, there would be programs throughout our different communities. That is really important. It is one of the differences between the political parties here today.

When we think of Bill C-323, we think of psychotherapy and mental health counselling, and the fine work these people perform day in and day out in addressing such an important issue. We need to provide direct support to them, and one of the ways we can do that is by exempting them from having to pay GST and HST.

I am grateful that the member recognized that and brought it forward in the form of a private member's bill, even though, as the member made reference to, it was incorporated into the fall economic statement. I am not going to get into what came first, the chicken or the egg, in regard to this issue. However, I can say both sides agree that it is the right thing to do.

To that end, I am grateful because we do know that one of two things will happen. Either Bill C-59 will pass, and the psychotherapy and mental health counselling exemption for the GST and HST will take place, or the member across the way and I will be knocking on doors, because Bill C-59 is a confidence vote. That means it will be passing.

In that sense, it is a good thing. It is only a question of time. We might differ a bit in terms of the timing because there are a number of initiatives within Bill C-59, and if we dig a bit deeper than just the number of the bill, it is the fall economic statement. That is a piece of legislation that we were hoping to pass long ago.

One of the problems with having a substantive legislative agenda, as we do as a government in trying to support Canadians, is that time is a scarce commodity on the floor of the House. As a result, we are not necessarily able to pass as much legislation as we would like in the limited amount of time we have. It does not take too much to throw things off, unfortunately. Hopefully, Bill C-59 will pass relatively shortly through the Senate. When that happens, the psychotherapy and mental health counselling exemption will take effect. I think members on all sides of the House would recognize that as a good thing. No one owns a good idea. Let us just appreciate it for what it is worth.

There was another area I wanted to make reference to, and I wanted to talk about it in the spirit of what has been proposed. The government, along with the opposition, has been also talking about the 988 suicide crisis line. It has been an initiative that both the official opposition and the government have been very supportive of. As a result, we now have that suicide crisis line in place. I think that having that 988 number today does make a very positive impact, both directly and indirectly. The primary purpose for having the line is for those who will be using it, and that is stating the obvious. There is also a great deal of benefit because it raises the importance of mental health issues.

That is where I will do the full circle in terms of my comments today on the legislation that we are talking about. Mental health is a part of good health. It is not just being in a hospital with a broken arm. Mental and physical health are equally important.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague on his bill. Whether it passes or not, it will be a victory because it will have been incorporated into Bill C-59.

I wanted to put forward an amendment in the House to ensure that Quebec's specificity and the expertise that Quebec has developed, particularly in the fields of psychoeducation and sexology, would be recognized in this bill. Unfortunately, that was not possible.

Does my colleague believe that these professions should also be exempt from taxes and that, when it comes time to interpret Bill C-59 or his bill, these professions should be included and considered as part of the wording of his bill?

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The Chair wishes to draw the attention of the House to a particular situation concerning Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act regading mental health services, standing in the name of the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.

The bill was previously the subject of a ruling on December 12, 2023. The Chair addressed the similarity between Bill C-323 and 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.

Both bills would amend sections 1 and 7 of part II of schedule V of the Excise Tax Act in order to exempt psychotherapy from GST, along with “mental health counselling services” in the case of Bill C-323 and “counselling therapy services” in the case of Bill C-59.

As explained in a ruling regarding Bill C-250 of May 11, 2022, which can be found on page 5123 of the debates:

The House should not face a situation where the same question can be decided twice within the same session, unless the House's intention is to rescind or revoke the decision.

Government and private members' bills belong to different categories of items and are governed by different sets of rules and precedents. Standing Order 94(1) provides the Speaker with the authority to “make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of Private Members' Business”.

The House passed Bill C‑59 at third reading and sent it to the Senate on May 28, 2024. To comply with the principle that the House should not face a situation where the same question can be decided twice within the same session, the Chair may not put the question on the motion for third reading of Bill C‑323 unless, of course, the House takes other measures to substantially amend the bill before that stage is reached.

For now, the Chair will give the House the opportunity to do so and allow the member for Cumberland—Colchester to move the motion for third reading of Bill C-323.

If no changes are made to Bill C‑323, the Chair will delay the vote on the bill at third reading until the process surrounding Bill C‑59 has been completed by the Senate. If Bill C‑59 is passed by the Senate and Bill C‑323 is still in its current form when the time comes for the question to be put on the motion for third reading, the House will not be able to vote on it.

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.