Bill C-69

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024

Part 1 implements certain measures in respect of the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations by
(a) denying income tax deductions for expenses incurred with respect to non-compliant short-term rentals;
(b) exempting from taxation the international shipping income of certain Canadian resident companies;
(c) exempting from taxation any income of the trusts established under the First Nations Child and Family Services, Jordan’s Principle, and Trout Class Settlement Agreement;
(d) doubling the volunteer firefighters and search and rescue volunteers tax credits;
(e) extending the eligibility for the Canada child benefit in respect of a child for six months after the child’s death;
(f) increasing the cap on labour expenditures per eligible newsroom employee from $55,000 to $85,000 and increasing, for four years, the Canadian journalism labour tax credit rate from 25% to 35%;
(g) extending eligibility for the mineral exploration tax credit by one year;
(h) providing a refundable tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses in designated provinces by returning a portion of fuel charge proceeds from the province;
(i) providing a refundable investment tax credit to qualifying businesses for investments in certain clean hydrogen projects;
(j) providing a refundable investment tax credit to qualifying businesses for certain investments in clean technology manufacturing property;
(k) amending the definition “government assistance” to exclude bona fide concessional loans with reasonable repayment terms from public authorities;
(l) implementing a number of amendments to the alternative minimum tax;
(m) increasing the home buyers’ plan withdrawal limit from $35,000 to $60,000 and deferring the repayment period by three additional years;
(n) excluding the failure to report under the mandatory disclosure rules from the application of the section 238 penalty;
(o) introducing a $10-million capital gains exemption on the sale of a business to an employee ownership trust; and
(p) implementing a number of technical amendments to correct inconsistencies and to better align the law with its intended policy objectives.
Part 2 enacts the Global Minimum Tax Act , a regime based on the rules of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The global minimum tax regime will ensure that large multinational corporations are subject to a minimum effective tax rate of 15% on their profits wherever they do business. 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 amends the Excise Tax Act , the Excise Act , the Excise Act, 2001 , the Underused Housing Tax Act , the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and other related texts in order to implement certain measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Excise Tax Act by repealing the temporary relief for supplies of certain face masks or respirators and certain face shields from the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Excise Act , the Excise Act, 2001 and other related texts in order to implement changes to
(a) the federal excise duty framework for tobacco products by
(i) increasing the excise duty rates for tobacco products, including imposing a tax on inventories of cigarettes held by retailers and wholesalers,
(ii) changing the process by which brands of tobacco products for export are exempted from special excise duty and marking requirements,
(iii) allowing certain information to be shared for the administration or enforcement of the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act , and
(iv) requiring the filing of information returns in respect of tobacco excise stamps;
(b) the federal excise duty framework for vaping products by increasing the excise duty rates for vaping products; and
(c) the federal excise duty framework for alcohol by
(i) extending by two years the two per cent cap on the inflation adjustment on beer, spirits and wine excise duties, and
(ii) cutting by half for two years the excise duty rate on the first 15,000 hectolitres of beer brewed in Canada.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Underused Housing Tax Act and the Underused Housing Tax Regulations by, among other things,
(a) eliminating filing requirements for certain owners;
(b) reducing minimum penalties for failing to file a return; and
(c) introducing a new exemption for residential properties held as a place of residence or lodging for employees.
Division 4 of Part 3 amends the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act by providing authority, in certain circumstances, for the sharing of certain information amongst federal officials and for the public disclosure of certain information by the Minister of National Revenue.
Part 4 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1 to delay the repeal of the Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act for two years.
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the National Housing Act to increase the in-force limits for guarantees issued by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) in respect of mortgage-backed securities and Canada Mortgage Bonds and for mortgage default insurance provided by CMHC from the temporary $750 billion to the permanent $800 billion. It also amends the Borrowing Authority Act to avoid the double counting of liabilities related to Canada Mortgage Bonds that are guaranteed by the CMHC and have been purchased by the Minister of Finance, on behalf of the Government of Canada, in the calculation of the maximum amount of certain borrowings under that Act.
Division 3 of Part 4 authorizes the making of payments to the provinces for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2024 respecting a national program for providing food in schools.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Canada Student Loans Act and the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to expand eligibility for student loan forgiveness to early childhood educators, dentists, dental hygienists, pharmacists, midwives, teachers, social workers, psychologists, personal support workers and physiotherapists.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Canada Education Savings Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Minister responsible for that Act to open a registered education savings plan in respect of a child born after 2023 who is eligible for the payment of the Canada Learning Bond and is not the beneficiary under such a plan, so that the Minister may pay a Canada Learning Bond in respect of the child; and
(b) increase, from 20 to 30 years, the maximum age of a beneficiary under a registered education savings plan in respect of whom a Canada Learning Bond may be paid on application.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act .
Division 6 of Part 4 amends the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act to increase the maximum financial assistance that may be provided in respect of foreign states.
Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act to increase the amount of the payment that the Minister of Finance may provide to the International Monetary Fund in respect of Canada’s subscriptions. It also amends the International Development (Financial Institutions) Assistance Act and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Agreement Act to provide for new financial instruments that the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister of Finance, as the case may be, may use to provide financial assistance to the institutions referred to in those Acts.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the International Financial Assistance Act to, among other things, provide that foreign exchange losses in relation to programs referred to in that Act must be charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and provide for the making of payments to Development Finance Institute Canada (DFIC) Inc. in relation to programs referred to in that Act out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Export Development Act to lower the limit for total liabilities and obligations referred to in subsection 24(1) of that Act from $115 billion to $100 billion.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Financial Administration Act to broaden the application of subsection 85(2) of that Act to other Crown corporations.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the Financial Administration Act to require certain banks and other financial institutions to disclose prescribed information for federal payments accepted for deposit.
Division 12 of Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to enhance the Canada Health Transfer for qualifying provinces and territories.
Division 13 of Part 4 amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 to require that the Superintendent of Financial Institutions publish certain information relating to pension plan investments. It also amends the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act to require that plan administrators provide specified information by written notice to certain persons when they become members of a pooled registered pension plan.
Division 14 of Part 4 amends the Canada Pension Plan to, among other things,
(a) provide for a death benefit of $5,000 in cases where no other Canada Pension Plan benefit, with the exception of the orphan’s benefit, has been paid in respect of the deceased contributor’s contributions;
(b) create a new child’s benefit for dependent children aged 18 to 24 who are in part-time attendance at school;
(c) maintain eligibility for the disabled contributor’s child’s benefit if the disabled contributor reaches the age of 65;
(d) allow for the deeming of an application for a disabled contributor’s child’s benefit on behalf of a child to have been made at an earlier date under the Canada Pension Plan ’s incapacity provisions;
(e) preclude entitlement to a survivor’s pension if an individual has received a division of unadjusted pensionable earnings in respect of their deceased separated spouse; and
(f) clarify the determination of the payee of the disabled contributor’s child’s benefit.
It also makes a consequential amendment to the Canada Pension Plan Regulations .
Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act to provide for the payment of certain amounts into the Consolidated Revenue Fund by the Public Sector Pension Investment Board.
Division 16 of Part 4 enacts the Consumer-Driven Banking Act , which establishes a consumer-driven framework for individuals and small businesses to safely and securely share their data with the participating entities of their choice.
It also makes related amendments to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act to establish the position of Senior Deputy Commissioner for Consumer-Driven Banking who is responsible for consumer-driven banking matters and to provide for, among other things, the supervision of participating entities.
Division 17 of Part 4 amends the Bank Act to, among other things, clarify the definitions “deposit-type instrument” and “principal-protected note”.
Division 18 of Part 4 amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act to increase to $100,000,000 the maximum amount that expenditures made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to defray the expenses arising out of the operations of the Office may exceed the Office’s total assessments and revenues.
Division 19 of Part 4 amends the Bank of Canada Act to clarify that the Bank of Canada may enter into repurchase, reverse repurchase and buy-sellback agreements.
Division 20 of Part 4 amends the Canada Business Corporations Act to
(a) harmonize fines for a corporation guilty of an offence related to the collection or sending of information regarding individuals with significant control; and
(b) set separate fines and imprisonment terms on the basis of a summary conviction or a conviction on indictment for a director, officer or shareholder of a corporation guilty of an offence related to individuals with significant control.
Division 21 of Part 4 amends Parts I to III of the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) provide that a person who is paid remuneration by an employer is presumed to be their employee unless the contrary is proved by the employer;
(b) provide that if, in any proceeding other than a prosecution, an employer alleges that a person is not their employee, the burden of proof is on the employer; and
(c) prohibit an employer from treating an employee as if they were not their employee.
Finally, it also includes transitional provisions.
Division 22 of Part 4 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things, set out certain employer obligations relating to policies respecting work-related communication and clarify certain employee rights and employer obligations relating to terminations of employment. It also includes transitional provisions.
Division 23 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to extend, until October 24, 2026, the duration of the measure that increases the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period to certain seasonal workers.
Division 24 of Part 4 amends section 61 of An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages in order to add a reference to subsections 18(1.1) and (1.2) of the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act in subsection 19(1) of that Act, which An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages enacts.
Division 25 of Part 4 authorizes a corporation that is to be incorporated as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Canada Development Investment Corporation to provide loan guarantees as part of an Indigenous loan guarantee program and authorizes the payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund by the Minister of Finance of amounts that are required in respect of those guarantees.
Division 26 of Part 4 authorizes the payment of up to $1.3 million to entities or individuals involved in the government’s engagement in a pilot project for the creation of a Red Dress Alert.
Division 27 of Part 4 provides that the subsidiary of VIA Rail Canada Inc. incorporated with the corporate name VIA HFR - VIA TGF Inc. is, as of the date of its incorporation, an agent of His Majesty in right of Canada and may enter into contracts, agreements and other arrangements with His Majesty as though it were not such an agent.
Division 28 of Part 4 amends the Impact Assessment Act , in response to the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of that Act, to, among other things,
(a) align the preamble and purpose provision with the primary objective of that Act, which is to prevent or mitigate significant adverse effects within federal jurisdiction — and significant direct or incidental adverse effects — that may be caused by the carrying out of physical activities;
(b) replace the definition “effects within federal jurisdiction” with “adverse effects within federal jurisdiction” and, in doing so,
(i) restrict the definition to non-negligible adverse changes,
(ii) limit transboundary changes to those involving the pollution of transboundary waters and the marine environment, and
(iii) include, in respect of federal works or undertakings and activities carried out on federal lands, non-negligible adverse changes to the environment or to health, social and economic conditions;
(c) ensure that the impact assessment process applies only to those physical activities that may cause adverse effects within federal jurisdiction or direct or incidental adverse effects;
(d) ensure that, in deciding if an impact assessment of a designated project is required, one factor that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada must take into account is whether another means exists that would permit a jurisdiction to address those effects;
(e) amend the final decision-making provisions to provide for an initial determination as to whether the adverse effects within federal jurisdiction and the direct or incidental adverse effects are likely to be, to some extent, significant, and then, if so, provide for a determination as to whether those effects are justified in the public interest; and
(f) improve cooperation tools to better harmonize the impact assessment process with the processes for assessing effects that are followed by provincial and Indigenous jurisdictions.
Finally, it also includes transitional provisions.
Division 29 of Part 4 amends the Judges Act to increase the number of salaries authorized for judges of superior courts other than appeal courts. It also reduces in a corresponding manner the number of salaries authorized for judges of provincial unified family courts.
Division 30 of Part 4 amends the Tax Court of Canada Act to provide that, if a party to a proceeding under the general procedure of the Tax Court of Canada is not an individual, that party must be represented by counsel, except under special circumstances.
Division 31 of Part 4 amends the Food and Drugs Act to, among other things, authorize the Minister of Health to
(a) establish rules for the purpose of preventing, managing or controlling the risk of injury to health from the use of therapeutic products, other than the intended use, or the risk of adverse effects on human beings, animals or the environment from the use of a drug intended for an animal;
(b) exempt any food, therapeutic product, person or activity from the application of certain provisions of that Act or its regulations; and
(c) deem, on the basis of decisions of, information or documents produced by, a foreign regulatory authority, that certain requirements of that Act or its regulations are met in respect of a therapeutic product or food.
Finally, it also includes a transitional provision.
Division 32 of Part 4 amends the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act to authorize the provision of customs information to the Minister responsible for that Act for the purpose of the administration and enforcement of that Act and to authorize that Minister to disclose information to other federal ministers for certain purposes.
Division 33 of Part 4 amends the Criminal Code to broaden the criminal interest rate offence to prohibit a person from offering to enter into an agreement or arrangement to receive interest at a criminal rate and from advertising an offer to enter into an agreement or arrangement that provides for the receipt of interest at a criminal rate. It also repeals the provision that requires the consent of the Attorney General prior to commencing proceedings related to the offence.
Division 34 of Part 4 contains measures that are related to money laundering, terrorist financing and sanctions evasion and other measures.
Subdivision A of Division 34 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things,
(a) permit information sharing between reporting entities for the purpose of detecting and deterring money laundering, terrorist financing and sanctions evasion;
(b) authorize, subject to certain conditions, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) to disclose certain information to provincial and territorial civil forfeiture offices and to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration;
(c) authorize FINTRAC to publicize additional information pertaining to violations of that Act; and
(d) extend the application of that Act to cheque cashing businesses.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Cross-border Currency and Monetary Instruments Reporting Regulations .
Subdivision B of Division 34 amends the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act to allow provincial or superior court judges, a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction or a judge as defined in section 552 of the Criminal Code to grant on application by a Canada Revenue Agency official the authorization to use device or investigative technique, or procedure or otherwise do any thing provided in a warrant, for purposes of tax investigations.
Subdivision C of Division 34 amends the Criminal Code to provide for an order to keep an account open or active and for a production order to require the production of documents or data that are in a person’s possession or control on dates specified in an order that fall within the 60-day period after the day on which it is made.
Division 35 of Part 4 amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create new offences in respect of motor vehicle theft, including an offence concerning the possession or the distribution of an electronic device suitable for committing theft of a motor vehicle, and in respect of criminal organizations; and
(b) add, as an aggravating factor, evidence that an offender involved a person under the age of 18 years in the commission of an offence.
It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 36 of Part 4 amends the Radiocommunication Act to, among other things, prohibit the manufacture, import, distribution, lease, offer for sale, sale or possession of certain devices specified by the Minister of Industry. It also amends that Act to establish as an offence or a violation the contravention of that prohibition.
Division 37 of Part 4 amends the Telecommunications Act to, among other things, require telecommunications service providers to provide their subscribers with a self-service mechanism that allows them to cancel their contract for telecommunications services or modify their telecommunications service plan and to inform those subscribers before the expiry of their fixed-term contract, as well as in other specified circumstances, of other service plans that those providers offer. It also amends that Act to prohibit the charging of certain fees.
Division 38 of Part 4 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that the Correctional Service of Canada is responsible for implementing any arrangement — approved by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness — entered into by the Commissioner of Corrections and the Canada Border Services Agency with respect to the support that the Service may provide to the Agency to assist in the exercise of certain powers or the performance of certain duties and functions;
(b) control the access of the inmates of a penitentiary to a designated immigrant station adjacent to the penitentiary and the access of the immigration detainees of a designated immigrant station to a penitentiary adjacent to the station; and
(c) provide that, in exigent circumstances, staff members of the Service may provide additional support to detention enforcement officers of the Agency to assist them in the exercise of certain powers or the performance of certain duties and functions.
It also amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to define the term “immigrant station”, to provide that an area of a penitentiary may be an immigrant station only if it is designated under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to set out the circumstances under which a person detained under that Act may be detained in a designated immigrant station.
Finally, it provides for the repeal of those amendments on a specified date and includes a transitional provision.
Division 39 of Part 4 contains measures related to public debt and the borrowing of money.
Subdivision A of Division 39 amends the Financial Administration Act to clarify that certain regulations and directions do not apply to contracts related to the borrowing of money entered into by the Minister of Finance.
Subdivision B of Division 39 amends the Borrowing Authority Act to increase the maximum amount of certain borrowings.
Division 40 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act , the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to require certain financial institutions to make available information respecting diversity among directors and members of senior management.
Division 41 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act , the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to extend the period during which federal financial institutions governed by those Acts may carry on business.
Division 42 of Part 4 amends the Federal Courts Act to provide that the Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear applications for judicial review of decisions of the Social Security Tribunal on the extension of time to make a request for review or reconsideration under the Canada Disability Benefit Act . It also amends the Tax Court of Canada Act and the Department of Employment and Social Development Act to, among other things, provide the Tribunal with jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions made under the Canada Disability Benefit Act and require that matters related to income raised in those appeals be referred to the Tax Court of Canada.
Division 43 of Part 4 amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to repeal provisions related to the ministerial power to exempt supervised consumption sites from the application of that Act. It also amends that Act to allow for the making of regulations respecting authorizations for supervised consumption and drug checking services and includes transitional provisions.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Continuing on, this costly coalition Liberal-NDP government, which I am allowed to say, blocked their own legislation. Let's not forget that, when those witnesses were here, we were hearing testimony. Mr. Turnbull, the parliamentary secretary, for the first time in the history that I've been here table-dropped a motion to block his party's own legislation on Bill C-69.

What would Chrystia Freeland think about that? Is it that maybe Mr. Turnbull supports Mark Carney in his bid to become Liberal leader? He recently tweeted him, which could be an endorsement, but we don't know. Maybe out of that he tried to trick Chrystia Freeland. We just don't know. That's why it's important for Mark Carney to be here and for Chrystia Freeland to be here at the same time.

Let's not forget that Don Davies and Ryan Turnbull came here at the same time. It seems like they already had an agenda preset before they got here and have been trying to stiff-arm and use a heavy hand since they got here.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to my colleague, Mr. Jivani, for his very eloquent speech and recap of today's reality of what Canadians are facing after nine years of this Liberal-NDP government.

Other colleagues have tried to recap how we got here today, and it's important to find out why we are where we are today. Let's not forget that as a committee we tried to get Mark Carney to this committee. It was actually Mr. Davies who blocked that proposal, in whatever deal he brokered with the Liberals. We're just not sure yet, but whatever it was, it worked. Mr. Davies was the first to jump on that. He tried to block that, and he was successful. Let's turn to why we are where we are today.

This was the first time in my entire parliamentary experience I'd seen a parliamentary secretary, Mr. Turnbull, block the government's own legislation on Bill C-69. Let's not forget we had witnesses in this room, and Mr. Turnbull decided to table-drop a heavy-handed motion, which was not discussed beforehand. We know for a fact that the NDP got that motion the night before. The rest of us from the Conservative side and the Bloc side, as far as we know, did not get it, but Mr. Davies knew about it. They tried to use a heavy hand, as they always do. They have been doing that for the last nine years with their costly coalition. They've tried to stiff-arm us—

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I'm ready to vote on that subamendment any time the Conservatives would like to allow us to vote on it. We're happy to do so.

I was talking about small businesses because I know they're anxious for any type of support from our federal government. We've already provided them with a number of supports. Many of them that I talked to are very happy that our federal government has negotiated with Visa and Mastercard. Starting this September, they will be getting a 27% reduction in the credit card fees they're paying to Visa and Mastercard.

When I tell them about the Canada carbon rebate, they're very happy to hear about it. What's also great, as many people might not know, is that we're proposing that this rebate be retroactive for up to three years. That is a game-changer for a lot of small businesses, and I will tell you that any small businesses listening right now are saying to get on with it: “Stop wasting time, finance committee. Get on with passing Bill C-69 because we need that money. We need to invest back into our businesses, back into our local economies.”

We also have some additional support and additional information around the clean hydrogen investment tax credit and the clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit. This builds on the investment tax credits that we had in the fall economic statement.

One of the key messages we heard from industry, which I would say was unanimous, was to get going on the investment tax credits. Businesses need reliability. They need an idea about when these tax credits will be available or they will not be able to move forward on planning—planning for today, planning for tomorrow, planning for jobs and planning for how they can ensure their companies are competitive and prosperous, both today and tomorrow. If we heard through the fall economic statement that the timeline and implementation were critical and urgent, then I bet they would say the same about the clean hydrogen investment tax credit and the clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit. However, to be honest, I would prefer to hear from them directly, and my biggest fear is that we'll continue to waste time, because the Conservatives are forcing us to have this filibuster, and we won't hear from any of the witnesses. I would love to hear directly from witnesses.

I also want to relate to this committee, and remind particularly my Conservative friends, what else we are holding up right now that would be very helpful to all Canadians. Indeed, we have an affordability crisis in our country after a massive global pandemic and subsequent inflation, and a lot of transitions are happening in our world. I'm very proud that in this budget we have introduced a number of measures that are going to be very helpful to Canadians.

What's been mentioned before is the national school food program. There's rarely a day in the House of Commons that a Conservative doesn't talk about how there are families and kids who are struggling. We have a very direct additional measure that we are planning to put in place through the national school food program. I can tell you that it is absolutely lauded unanimously as a positive program. It has been much asked for by Canadians of all political stripes right across the country. By us filibustering, by us not moving forward on Bill C-69, we are holding up the implementation of the national school food program.

It isn't just the school food program that we think is going to help support Canadians. It will be the continued implementation of the national child care program, the dental care program, phase 1 of our pharmacare program and phase 1 of our disability tax credit. The disability tax credit, which is in phase 1, and phase 1 of our pharmacare program are also being held up by us not moving forward with Bill C-69 and discussions here at the finance committee.

Regarding the student loan forgiveness program, there are a number of measures in Bill C-69 that are going to provide some additional supports to students. Specifically, what Bill C-69 has, which I'm really happy about, is Canada student loan forgiveness for family doctors and nurses. Essentially what we're trying to do is provide a student loan forgiveness program to health care professionals if they work in a designated or underserved rural or remote community. The benefits act as an incentive to graduates who are paying back their federal student loans to work in underserved communities that have challenges accessing care services.

Too many Canadians do not have access to primary care in this country, and we desperately need to provide incentives for nurses and doctors to go into rural and hard-to-serve communities across this country. By not moving forward with Bill C-69, that is another big program that we are slowing down and stopping from being implemented that will help Canadians, particularly in rural and hard-to-serve communities.

On the Canada Education Savings Act, many of us who come from immigrant families know—and I think that's all of us in some generation—that education is the salvation to create better lives for ourselves and for our families moving forward. I was really pleased to see that we have made some adjustments to the Canada Education Savings Act. Essentially what we are proposing in Bill C-69 is automatic enrolment in the Canada learning bond, which I think is really fantastic. We're trying to make sure that children are automatically enrolled in the Canada learning bond. It is a way for us to help families save for their children's education, and that really bodes well for Canada's economic prosperity both now and moving forward.

I could go through many other sections, but I'm going to go through one other one: “Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing, Sanctions Evasion and Other Measures”.

One thing that I've been very disappointed in our Conservative colleagues about is that they seem to give the impression that our federal government does not care about money laundering or about terrorist financing. Indeed, we have been investing in anti-money laundering heavily since 2017 in subsequent budgets, and we've taken a number of steps. I'll be reading through the steps we've taken because I think they're important.

There seemed to be a concern from the Conservatives that we're not doing very much and that whatever we're doing is not very effective. I'd like to say to my Conservative friends that not only have we done quite a bit—and I think they'll be very proud to hear the list of all the things we are doing—but there's a significant section on money laundering, terrorist financing, sanctions evasion and other measures in Bill C-69. They continue to force us to do this filibuster, which I do not want to be a part of. I would rather hear from witnesses. I would rather be considering the different sections of the the budget implementation act, and I would rather be asking questions that would make sure this budget is accountable and responsible to Canadians.

I'll read some key sections, just because I think they are relevant.

What we indicate as part of the budget implementation act is that since 2017, our government has undertaken significant work to crack down on financial crime. We've invested close to $320 million since 2019 to strengthen compliance, financial intelligence, information sharing and investigative capacity to support money laundering investigations. We are creating new integrated money laundering investigative teams in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, which convene experts to advance investigations into money laundering, supported by dedicated forensic accounting experts. We launched a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry for federal corporations. It was launched this year, on January 22, 2024. Our government continues to call upon provinces and territories to advance a pan-Canadian approach to beneficial ownership transparency.

We're modernizing Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing framework to adapt to emerging technologies, vulnerable sectors and growing risks such as sanctions evasion. We're also establishing public-private partnerships with the financial sector, which are improving the detection and disruption of profit-oriented crimes, including human trafficking, online child sexual exploitation and fentanyl tracking.

In federal budget 2024—and it's covered by the budget implementation act—we take further action to protect Canadians from financial crime. Here's what we're doing.

In budget 2024, the government intends to introduce legislative amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act—the PCMLTFA—the Criminal Code, the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act. Proposed amendments to the PCMLTFA will enhance the ability of reporting entities under the PCMLTFA to share information with each other to detect and deter money laundering, terrorist financing and sanctions evasion, while maintaining privacy protections for personal information including an oversight role for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner under regulations.

We're also proposing, in budget 2024 and under Bill C-69, to permit the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, FINTRAC, to disclose financial intelligence to provincial and territorial civil forfeiture offices to support efforts to seize property linked to unlawful activity, and permit Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to strengthen the integrity of Canada's citizenship process. We'll enable anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regulatory obligations to cover factoring companies, cheque-cashing businesses, and leasing and finance companies to close a loophole and level the playing field across businesses providing financial services. We will also allow FINTRAC to publicize more information around violations of obligations under the PCMLTFA when issuing administrative monetary penalties to strengthen transparency and compliance, and we'll make technical amendments to close loopholes and correct inconsistencies.

Proposed amendments to the Criminal Code include the following: allowing courts to issue an order to require a financial institution to keep an account open to assist in the investigation of a suspected criminal offence; and allowing courts to issue a repeating production order to authorize law enforcement to obtain ongoing, specific information on activity in an account or multiple accounts connected to a person of interest in a criminal investigation.

We're also proposing amendments to the Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act, which will ensure Canada Revenue Agency officials who carry out criminal investigations are authorized to seek general warrants through court applications, thereby modernizing and simplifying evidence-gathering processes and helping to fight tax evasion and other financial crimes. In addition, through our Canada financial crimes agency, in budget 2024 we're proposing to provide $1.7 million over two years, starting this year, 2024-25, to the Department of Finance to finalize the design and legal framework for the CFCA.

Just because I don't want the Conservatives to think we're not trying to implement as many measures as possible to tackle what we all know is a really serious issue in Canada—although I'd say this is an equally serious issue around the world—in addition to that, we also have a number of measures to fight trade-based fraud and money laundering. What we plan on doing in the budget is build on the work that was already proposed in the 2023 fall economics statement, which announced enhancements to the Canada Border Services Agency's authorities under the PCMLTFA to combat trade-based financial crime, with the intent to create a trade transparency unit. Building on this work, we're providing an additional $29.9 million over five years, starting in 2024-25, with $5.1 million in remaining amortization and $4.2 million ongoing, for the Canada Border Services Agency to support the implementation of its new authorities under the PCMLTFA to combat financial crime and strengthen, for our allies, efforts to combat international financial crime. Furthermore, we're continuing to modernize our anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing framework to adapt to emerging technologies.

What we're doing in this budget is proposing to introduce amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, the Criminal Code, the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act, with consequential and coordinating amendments to other statutes, to strengthen the supervision, enforcement and information-sharing tools of Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing framework.

I know we had a discussion on Friday about the importance of us spending a number of sessions looking specifically at anti-money laundering and what more we could be doing. There are some national examples that the Conservatives wanted us to focus on. I want Canadians and anybody who's listening to know that, indeed, we take this seriously.

Since 2017, we have been investing very heavily in this area. We've been working with international bodies to make sure that we're coordinating our efforts on this. In addition, in this budget and the budget implementation act, we're introducing a significant number of measures that will be very helpful in tackling money laundering, terrorist financing, sanctions evasion and other measures. I know that's important not only to us, but to all those within our Parliament.

I'll mention two other things.

I always say to Mr. Davies that he steals all my lines, because there are a lot of things I want to say, and he's often one step ahead of me in saying them. They really are part of my notes.

This is my fourth year on this committee. I'm very privileged to be part of it. Last year, we had 60 hours of filibustering and it was very painful. The only people who didn't benefit from it was Canadians. To be honest, we as a committee also didn't benefit, because we didn't hear from witnesses. I think we really had an opportunity to listen to witnesses.

We have an opportunity now to listen to witnesses. There's still some time left. If we decide we're going to vote on this programming motion and the amendments that are part of it, we might get to a few days of witnesses to hear from them, particularly on key sections that really concern us. They can make very thoughtful suggestions about ways we could strengthen Bill C‑69.

I predict what's going to happen when we get to a point where Bill C‑69 is before this committee is that the Conservatives will say we have no time to hear from witnesses and that the Liberals are really awful because we're trying to pass this legislation really quickly. I want to say to all Conservatives that there is time right now—not a lot, but maybe some time—for us to listen to witnesses and hear from them and to ask questions of our officials. There is time to give this bill, which is a significant piece of legislation with a lot of really outstanding measures for Canadians, the real consideration and review that Canadians expect us to do as part of our jobs and as part of this committee.

This is the final point I'll make, and Mr. Davies also mentioned it. Part of what I'm starting to hear from the Conservatives in the House, and I hear it sometimes at this committee, is that it's almost as though we want to prove that Parliament isn't working. We want to prove that committees aren't working. To them, our House of Commons—everything—is broken. However, I think what can happen is that we actually break things. We make it seem like things are broken when they're really not broken.

We have an opportunity to do the job that Canadians have elected us to do. I would encourage Conservatives to allow us to get to a vote on the amendments before us and the original programming motion before us. Allow us to do a few meetings where we have some witnesses, and allow us to move forward and hopefully pass Bill C-69, pass the budget that we know will have tremendous benefits for many Canadians and that has a tremendous number of sections that set our economy up for prosperity both today and tomorrow.

Our committees can function better. I would say this to all of us: Let's do the work that Canadians expect us to do.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I'm sad to be taking part in this filibuster. I do so reluctantly because I'd rather be listening to witnesses. We have a huge budget implementation act before us, which contains a number of measures that would help address some of the top issues that Canadians are facing today. There are also a number of measures in here that would help set Canadians up for current and future economic success, and it's really important that we get to them.

I'm very sad, because this money- and time-wasting Conservative filibuster will not allow us to have many witnesses, if any. It will not allow us to delve into some very important aspects of the budget implementation act. It will not allow us to talk to officials. It will not allow us to contemplate amendments that might make this budget implementation act even better than it is.

We started off today's meeting with Mr. Chambers reading a transcript of a Herle Burly online interview that Mr. Carney did in the past. It is not uncommon—and I don't think this is a surprise to anyone around the table—for former Bank of Canada governors or, indeed, business leaders to comment on a federal budget put out by a Liberal government, a Conservative government or any government. We have had a lot of business leaders and former bank governors comment on federal budgets, but I don't think that's reason enough to include Mr. Carney as part of the programming motion we have before us.

I want to reiterate, probably for the hundredth time now, that Conservatives can add Mr. Carney to their witness list once we get through this programming motion. Nobody disagrees with Mr. Carney being added to the witness list. The Conservatives can take the liberty of doing so.

What I didn't like about Mr. Chambers' intervention this morning is that it seemed like it could leave the public with the impression that this committee doesn't want Mr. Carney on the witness list. However, that's not true at all; we would be very happy to have him speak here, again, as an invited witness. It's the prerogative of all parties and this committee to include him on our witness list.

It's important for us to continue to reiterate that it is not the finance committee's job to interview possible future politicians. I plead with our Conservative colleagues, who I know care about their constituents and this country, to stop using the finance committee for fishing expeditions, because it is stopping us from playing our important role in reviewing, improving and passing critical legislation that has come before us. Right now, we have limited time to do the work around Bill C-69, which we know we have to delve into and look at.

There are a lot of really important initiatives in Bill C-69, and it's really important for us to run through some of them. However, our Conservative friends have decided to engage in this time-wasting filibuster at the finance committee, and they are stopping us from moving forward. The faster we move forward on Bill C-69 and make sure we get it right, the faster we can get it back into the House of Commons to go through the legislative process, and the faster we can put it into action.

I'll go through some of the key components.

One key part is the doubling of the volunteer firefighter and search and rescue tax credits. We all know wildfire season is already upon us, and we know that a historic number of forests burned last year in Canada. We have to double down on our efforts and come up with a different plan to make sure we are being more preventative in fighting forest fires and are better supporting our communities, firefighters and all the different stakeholders involved in keeping Canadians safe. We're trying to tackle the direct effect of climate change. Not looking at doubling volunteer firefighter or search and rescue tax credits is a key problem.

The next thing is that we're enhancing the Canadian journalism labour tax credit. I'm a very passionate supporter of independent, fact-based Canadian journalism. Canadian journalism—I would say journalism around the world—is going through a massive transformation and transition. We have to help our Canadian media through this transition. It's about looking at the Canadian journalism labour tax credit and making sure it's right. Making sure we continue to support independent, fact-based journalism here in Canada is critical. We say this a lot, but it is true: Working from the same facts and having strong, independent, fact-based media are critical to the strength of our democracy in Canada. We are being stopped from talking about that.

There's also the Canada carbon rebate for small businesses. Often, the Conservatives—and I would probably say all of us—talk about how concerned they are about our small businesses and what they're struggling with: the high costs of inflation, how business has changed coming out of the pandemic, how buying patterns have changed and how costs have increased because we had a global pandemic and subsequent inflation. Small businesses are struggling to come up with new business models. I think part of how we as the federal government can support small businesses is through this Canada carbon rebate.

We know we have to tackle climate change. We have a responsible plan to do so. One of the key promises we made when we put a price on pollution—also called a carbon tax or carbon pricing—was making sure not only that eight out of 10 Canadians would get more money than what they pay, but also that we would provide additional funding for small businesses and rural Canadians. Small businesses have been waiting for this carbon rebate. They have been waiting, in my opinion, a little too long. I'm very anxious to get this Canada carbon rebate discussed and passed as part of this bill. Small businesses will be very happy to know they will be getting this carbon rebate back.

The House resumed from May 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Bill C-69—Time Allocation Motion

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that I am very excited about in Bill C-69 is that 25% of the new spending is proposed for indigenous priorities, including a major loan guarantee for which indigenous partners have been calling for economic reconciliation, to ensure that when natural resource projects or other major projects in the country go forward, indigenous people also prosper, stopping what I would say is a pattern of exclusion. This is going to enrich all of us. I look forward to the member's support.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's comments addressed parts of Bill C-69, but unfortunately, as we know, it is an omnibus bill. As an omnibus bill, it includes other parts that are not intended to help Canadians who are most in need or help indigenous communities, but to push through, without proper study, quick and dirty amendments to the Impact Assessment Act.

I intend to move a motion later today to ask that the impact assessment portions of this omnibus bill be removed so they can be properly studied, not by the Standing Committee on Finance but by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I wonder if the minister has any thoughts on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the House, we have seen the Conservatives blocking the dental care legislation.

Six thousand seniors, on average, in each of the Conservative MPs' ridings, have actually signed up for dental care so far, and we know that millions more are joining as we speak. Tens of thousands of Canadian seniors have benefited from dental care.

We have seen the Conservatives opposing the pharmacare legislation, even though 17,000 of their constituents, on average, would benefit from the diabetes medication components, and 25,000 people in their ridings, on average, would benefit from contraceptive coverage.

We now have the Conservatives blocking Bill C-69 as well. We are talking about affordable housing. These are all things that the NDP has forced the government to put forward in a minority Parliament. This is important.

My question to my colleague is simply this. Why are the Conservatives systematically opposing measures that would help people in their ridings?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister why her party hates democracy so much. The fact is that we have not had a single hour of debate on Bill C-69, a 657-page piece of legislation, and the Liberals are already limiting debate. I know that the Liberals' leader once said that he most admires China, and I know that they find the opposition's questions and perhaps having a different perspective gets in the way. The member for Waterloo said that she thinks it is terrible that the opposition would actually have a different perspective. Why do the minister and the government think that debate on government bills is something that should not happen?

Industry and Technology

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

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed. I came here believing that we would be debating budgetary measures on Bill C-69, something that Canadians are very much concerned about and would ultimately like to see passed.

I am wondering why it is that the Conservatives have now made the decision to try to have a discussion on an issue that we have already had a debate on. It is in the committee. Why not allow the committee to do the work and continue to do the work that it has been doing? There is nothing the member has said that previous governments have not done.

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

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology that, during its consideration of Bill C-27, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, the committee be granted the power to divide the bill into two pieces of legislation:

(a) Bill C-27A, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, containing Part 1 and the schedule to section 2;

(b) Bill C-27B , An Act to enact Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act, and an An Act to enact the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act, containing Part 2 and Part 3.

Madam Speaker, I rise today on an important debate that is coming from the industry committee. Right now, we are studying what seems to be the unending study of Bill C-27, which is privacy legislation.

I have risen in this House before at least one other time on this matter, as have other members of the Conservative Party and other parties, including the NDP. We are rising today to request that this bill be split into two parts. One would be the privacy legislation replacing PIPEDA in the tribunal, and the second one would be AIDA, or the AI portion of this bill.

The reason for that is twofold. It is taking a long time to pass this bill mainly because of the government. The government produced a bill that was flawed, and because of this flawed bill, when it presented the bill, it presented 55 amendments to the bill. We have been going through them at committee, and we are now just getting through the definitions part of clause-by-clause on the first part, which is PIPEDA. We are finding there has been 16 table-drops to this bill for amendments.

This bill was not ready to come to the floor. We are looking at the need for privacy legislation, which we do agree with. Conservatives have stood in this House and said we believed that privacy should be considered a fundamental right for Canadians. When we look at that aspect of the bill, and it is very important, the second part of this bill, the AI, the AIDA, portion of this bill, is so flawed that it is holding up the first part of the bill.

The parts never should have been put together; they should have been separate. There were some fundamental reasons why the government wanted to put them together. With 55 amendments and 16 subamendments to the main part of the bill, this bill is so flawed we cannot even get through the first part. We are worried if the bill is not separated into two votes, and we do not have AIDA separated and perhaps have it come back as a whole new legislation, we are not going to get the first part of the bill through, which is privacy legislation that Canadians are desperately asking for.

After nine years, Canadians have never had less privacy. We look at the fact that we have Alexa, or AI of any form, and when our children are on their iPads, that data is being scraped off the Internet and collected. None of it is private. We do not have any privacy with our data.

This week, we are looking at privacy, and we are trying to discern the difference between normal privacy and sensitive data. Sensitive data would be looked at under the act, but would be a bit more heightened. It would be looked at with greater penalties for those who breach it. We are certainly looking at everyone's privacy in the coming years with AI and the advancement of computers.

The one that we are specifically looking at is financial data. All of the transactions that we do through Interac, our banking system as a whole, our bank accounts, and the interactions that we have online, like with Apple Pay or on our cellphones, are all held by the banks. Many Canadians would be surprised to know they do not own their financial data.

A bank has someone's data, and that can mean anything from their credit history, where they spend their money, how they get their income or where they are paying their taxes. All of that data right now is not held as sensitive, and more importantly, it is not held under that person's consent. Financial data across Canada needs to be regarded as sensitive.

Perhaps the biggest breach of that within the last two years was when the government enacted the Emergencies Act and bank accounts were frozen under the act. The government has the ability to freeze bank accounts because that data is not sensitive. Through the government, when it took away the rights of Canadians, that data was then held by those banks against consumers' will.

In this country, we want to be able to have open banking. The idea with open banking is to have Canadians control who owns their data, and, with their consent, who can have their data. That is really the crux of this bill. When we talk about sensitive financial data, it is the ability for someone, as a consumer, to control where their data is and where it goes.

Open banking, of course, brings competition to our banking sector, which allows not only the six big banks to have our business, but also hundreds of other financial tech organizations that want to have our business and right now are only able to get it through screen scraping. This is taking data off screens or having their clients take screenshots of their financial history in order to get it to a financial tech organization so it can compete for their business. However, financial data should be sensitive information, and when we look at how that relates to AI, well, it is a whole different component of the bill. Also, when we look at location data, and the ability for someone to know from a person's phone where that person is right now, that is also sensitive data. However, the advancement of AI has allowed all of that information to be out in the open and to be emulated.

When we look at the AI bill, the most important part that we are going to be standing up for, as Conservatives, is to ensure that computers cannot emulate human beings without their express consent. However, when we look at privacy as a fundamental right, AI allows the ability of one's image, likeness and voice to be replicated and used all over this planet, which, of course, is bad when we talk about fraud. We have all the heard stories of parents who thought that their children were calling them for help and to ask for money. It sounded like them, they laughed like they did, but at the end of the day, it was an AI program that emulated an individual to cause an act of fraud.

Right now, Scarlett Johansson is in the news. If anyone has used ChatGBT lately, version 4, which is the new version, they would find that Sky apparently uses Scarlett Johansson's voice without her permission. AI does this right now. It can scrape images and likenesses off the internet, and there is no recourse to ensure that it is taken care of. However, having this AI bill attached to Bill C-27, the privacy act, is slowing this process down and, because of that, Canada is falling further and further behind. It should be a separate bill, and we are asking that the bill before us, of course, be put into two separate votes, as we have before.

I am splitting my time today, because I have some knowledge, but we have greater expertise coming from the member from South Shore—St. Margarets.

I will end with where we are with AI in general. It was announced last week on the budget bill, Bill C-69, that the government is going to put money into AI, figuring that, finally, Canada should have been a leader and should be a leader on this. However, another article, just released yesterday, effectively said, “Ah, too late”, and that the money the government wants to put into AI and infrastructure, Meta Llama 3 has just made obsolete. Of course, Meta, Microsoft, Google and so many other companies have already put money and resources into AI, and Canada is falling further and further behind because, after nine years, Canada has lost almost all of its IP in AI to the rest of the world. China had 13,000 patents in AI just last year, which was more than all patents filed in all sectors in Canada. The U.S. had close to 20,000 patents. So, now, when we put money into IP for AI in Canada, it is not Canadian IP. Once again, we are just investing in American and international companies in Canada. Canada is becoming a branch-plant state. We take our taxpayers' hard-earned money and we put it into intellectual property and multinational corporations that do not provide the GDP that Canada needs but just jobs, which is what we are left with.

We have a bill that was not properly done. It has 55 amendments from the government side and 16 subamendments. I could not believe that, the other day, the government was filibustering its own bill. We were in committee, and the government was talking it out. It did not like that we were talking about financial data as sensitive information. I had never seen this before. However, the bill is flawed and it needs to be split in two. We are happy to make sure that happens and that we get the bill right. Do not worry, a Conservative government will get it right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the continuation of meeting number 142 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting to discuss the subject matter of Bill C-69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to Standing Order 15.1.

Before we begin, I would like to remind all members and other meeting participants in the room of the following important preventative measures.

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 the 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 use only a black, approved earpiece. By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of the meeting.

When you're not using your earpiece, please place it face down on 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 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.

I would 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” button on the screen. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as well as we can, and we appreciate your understanding in this regard.

I remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

On that, members, I hope you had a good week last week. I was not here on Friday. I guess a speakers list was not captured as far as who was on that list when we last left off on Friday, so the speakers list is open.

We are on MP Morantz's subamendment.

I saw the hand of an eager MP Chambers just go up, so we have MP Chambers on the list. Anybody else can let me know as we go along.

I see MP Davies, then MP Morantz and then MP Dzerowicz.

We'll get started with MP Chambers.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

I had intended to speak to the point of order, so I'll briefly do that. Then I'll go back to the subamendment, Mr. Chair, if I may.

Mr. Chambers makes some good points. What I would add to this is that different consequences flow from a meeting being suspended versus being adjourned. When a meeting is suspended, there are advantages that members can take from that. For instance, when you come to the next meeting, you pick up where you left off, which, for some parties' purposes, may be advantageous. Second, you preserve the speaking order, which can be advantageous as well.

I will point out that when the meeting was suspended last time, nobody objected. Sometimes parties want a meeting to be suspended for the purposes I just mentioned, and at other times it should be adjourned. I agree with him, though, that were a future government to abuse the distinction between those two, that would be cause for concern, and it would be up to the parties and Parliament to amend the Standing Orders to deal with such a situation. In my 15 years of Parliament, I have not seen any government of any stripe or any committee chair ever abuse this by suspending every meeting to prevent a Standing Order 106(4) request.

I'm going to speak briefly about why I took the position I did on the request, and it wasn't because I'm opposed to the substance of the motion to study money laundering. I think that is a good thing to study, which I'll talk about briefly in a moment.

Here's what I got when the Standing Order 106(4) request came in, which, by the way, I was not asked to sign, nor was I even aware of it going in. I looked into this, and this is the advice I received. The information sent by the committee directorate regarding finance's meeting on Friday says that as the committee has a meeting that is currently suspended, it cannot simply convene a new meeting on a 106(4) request. It must first deal with the business from the suspended meeting even if it is to simply set that business aside and move on to the 106(4) meeting. It goes on to say that in such a situation, the committee clerk would discuss with the chair in order for the chair to determine how best to proceed in the circumstances, and the clerk could suggest that the chair discuss with the vice-chairs about the approach for the meeting.

I think it's quite clear that we had to begin this meeting—because it had been suspended—with the business under consideration, but Mr. Chambers is correct, and I think this speaks to his point about how a future government could control this. If every meeting were to be suspended, it still is open to committee members at the next meeting of the suspended meeting to adjourn that debate and address the Standing Order 106(4) request. A government can't stop a that simply by suspending meetings. It will always be open to the majority of members at the committee to end the suspended meeting and begin a Standing Order 106(4) request, which we could have done today.

Let me just speak briefly about the merits of the subamendment, which I'm going to say for the moment is not restricted to Mr. Carney. The subamendment says to call the minister for an hour as well. When the Minister of Finance is called to this committee, that leaves it pretty wide open to talk about any issue one could put to the Minister of Finance. I've been listening carefully to people's points of order and what's relevant or not. Maybe the part about Mr. Carney might be relevant to Mr. Carney, but if the subamendment calls for having the minister come, I think there's much more latitude when speaking.

Here's why I have taken the positions that I have today. I agree that money laundering and terrorist financing sanctions and other measures are a critical issue that this committee should look at, but I want to point out, if we're all being completely frank here, that the Conservatives are engaged in a filibuster right now to prevent us from considering the BIA, the budget implementation act.

I want to read to you a bit of what's in the BIA.

Part 4, division 34, proposes amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, the Criminal Code, the Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act to support stronger anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing compliance, enhance information sharing and continue to provide new tools for financial crime investigations, prosecutions and asset recovery. It goes on to describe that in detail.

The first area is on strengthening supervision and the anti-money laundering, anti-terrorist financing framework. Here it says that amendments proposed would enable the introduction of regulations to cover cheque-cashing businesses and factoring, leasing and financing companies. Coverage of these sectors under the legislation would ensure comprehensive and consistent coverage of businesses providing financial services in Canada. I'll skip the rest of it.

The next major heading is on enhancing the sharing of information and financial intelligence. Here it says that amendments are proposed to the legislation to enhance the ability of businesses with obligations under the Act to share information with each other. Information sharing between private sector entities can improve their risk mitigation practices and promote higher quality reporting to FINTRAC, Canada's AML-ATF regulator and financial intelligence unit. This, in turn, can lead to better intelligence in support of financial crime investigations and prosecutions. Amendments are also proposed to permit FINTRAC to disclose financial intelligence to provincial and territorial civil forfeiture offices to support their efforts to seize assets linked to unlawful activity, and also to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to administer the Citizenship Act. This would help ensure citizenship applicants do not pose national security or organized crime concerns.

Another major heading is on improving tools to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. Here it says that amendments are proposed to the Criminal Code, the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act to strengthen investigative powers and support the operational effectiveness of Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime. Two amendments are proposed to the Criminal Code to support the enforcement of laws dealing with money laundering and associated crimes. First is a new order to keep an account open or active for a limited period of time to assist in the investigation of a suspected criminal offence. Financial service providers often close accounts suspected to be linked to criminal activity, which can hinder investigations into financial crimes. Second is a new repeating production order to enable law enforcement to obtain information regarding ongoing activity in an account believed to be linked to criminal activity on pre-established dates over a set period of time. This would provide law enforcement more consistent and timely information to support criminal investigations and would include robust safeguards to respect charter-protected rights.

I'll just stop there. Those are measures in the BIA on money laundering and anti-terrorist financing that are being held up by the Conservatives' filibustering. They put a Standing Order 106(4) motion in today that wasn't properly drafted, meaning that we had to first deal with the suspended meeting. However, we could deal with this next week. We could call witnesses from FINTRAC, TD Bank and the RCMP next week to talk about these provisions in the BIA, and we could work towards getting this bill passed to provide legislative measures to address the very concerning stories we saw in the media this week about TD Bank, the Royal Bank and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

I'm new to the committee, so please forgive me for any mistakes, but from my research, I'm pretty sure this committee has already started its mandatory statutory review of anti-terrorist financing laws or the money-laundering laws. I believe there was one meeting at which we heard from officials. I see Mr. Chambers nodding his head, so I look forward to his correcting me on that, but that's my information.

We have proposed that if we can get this budget passed by late May or maybe early June, we will have six or eight days of hearings for this committee in June, out of which I would be more than open to devoting at least two meetings to anti-money laundering or anti-terrorist financing. I've had discussions with everybody from all sides of the House, and I think everybody would agree to that, including those on the government side.

I think it's important to note for the record that I believe all of us want to get at these issues. We're in politics, so we can be a bit partisan, but I don't think it's correct or fair to assert that nobody is interested in this. I will say, however, that there is a clear pathway to getting at these issues, and that is by stopping the Conservative filibuster and getting to the BIA and the scheduling of hearings in June, to which we could be calling witnesses and hearing evidence on this right away.

On Mark Carney, I just want to say a couple of things.

I don't think it's unfair to say that the Conservatives have spoken extensively on why they want to call Mr. Carney. Some of their reasons are stronger than others, but what is absolutely clear—and they've put it on the record repeatedly—is Mr. Carney's potential political ambitions. I won't out the colleague who said this last time, but last meeting, a Conservative member spoke about how unfair it was to speculate on his motives. However, all I hear on this issue is speculation about Mr. Carney's motives. I don't think that's fair either. The point is that the basis upon which the request to call Mr. Carney has been made is not exclusively his thoughts or ideas on any matters under consideration. It's been repeatedly pointed out that he might be a potential future Liberal leader, and that's why they want to call him to committee.

Now, if we talk turkey here, the Conservatives don't just want to proceed with the business and call Mr. Carney as a witness, which they have every right to do. They could call him next week if we proceed with the BIA. They're worried that Mr. Carney won't come. He may or may not; I don't know. I do know that he testified before a Senate committee a week or two ago, so he's no stranger to coming to Parliament.

He may have different reasons, depending on the motivation. If he's being called to be grilled on his political ambitions, that may make him less interested in coming than if there's a bona fide interest in hearing his comments on, say, money laundering. The Conservatives said that they want to call him for money laundering because he has expressed that money laundering is troubling. Well, that's hardly insightful. Who wouldn't say that? I could probably call 55,000 Canadians who would say that money laundering is troubling. That's not a basis to call someone before this committee.

More importantly—and this is my main concern about this—I think it would create a very improper if not dangerous precedent—I'll get that word on the record too—for us to explicitly use the rare power of a parliamentary committee to issue a summons. Let me stop there. That's why the Conservatives want there to be a motion of this committee to call Mr. Carney. It's because if there's a motion passed by this committee and Mr. Carney doesn't come, we're in a position to potentially issue a summons. This is what I find to be a dangerous precedent. For a parliamentary committee to use its ancient and very rare power to summons—essentially subpoena—a private citizen to this committee to be grilled on his or her political views or political ambitions is, I find, an improper use of the power to summons.

With great respect to my colleagues in the Conservative Party, they could not be clearer that that's why they want to call him. What's next? If I don't like the political prospects of the person who wants to run for the Conservatives in my riding and I want to use my power as a parliamentarian to haul that person before this committee so I can grill them on their political ambitions, that is improper, in my view. Worse, it's dangerous. Again, you can go back to the record and read any number of interventions from the Conservatives—even today—showing that that's why they want to call Mr. Carney.

Now, if Mr. Carney was the current Bank of Canada governor, if he was currently in the position, there might be a basis for calling him to this committee. However, he's a private citizen now. He has every right to talk to the media and talk to any economic club to express his views like every Canadian does. These are the basic fundamental charter rights of freedom of expression, assembly and association. You shouldn't have to risk being hauled before a parliamentary committee to be grilled on your views for partisan purposes. Unfortunately, again with great respect to my Conservative colleagues, that's exactly what they want to do. They said it themselves. That's why I am resistant to this.

It would be easy to pass a motion to call Mr. Carney as a witness. However, having knowledge that this bona fide request is contaminated by overtly partisan reasons makes me absolutely opposed to misusing the power of our committee for that purpose. I would say that to any government of any hue. If the Liberals were trying to call a potential Conservative leader here and said they wanted to bring him before Parliament because he might be the next Conservative leader of this country, that is the politicization of the finance committee. It's worthy of a third world dictatorship. It's banana-republic politics, in my view.

That's why I wanted to put on the record why I've taken the position I have today. We must follow proper procedure at this committee. That's why the suspended meeting meant that we had to start this meeting with the suspended business. It also meant that we could have moved to the Standing Order 106(4) request. It would have been improper to begin with that, but we could have suspended and gone to the Standing Order 106(4) subject matter if we'd wanted to.

I find that to be disingenuous, because everybody here knows that we could be talking about these very subjects next week, but the Conservatives are blocking that. We could be scheduling this in June, so I don't believe the Standing Order 106(4) request to get to money laundering this week is entirely sincere. Certainly, it cannot be said by anybody on this committee that the Liberals and the NDP, or anybody else for that matter, are not interested in dealing with money laundering or anti-terrorist financing, because we have taken the position we have today. I want us to be dealing with that very issue on Tuesday. However, we can't unless the Conservatives release their filibuster.

My understanding is that when we come to the finance committee next week, the fifth last week of Parliament, we're going to face a filibuster. There will be endless talking about all matters under the sun, such as the price of tea in China and the mating rituals of the wombat. We're going to talk about everything except the BIA, which includes anti-terrorist financing and money laundering provisions. Those are the facts.

Again, for Mr. Carney, I've already said my piece. I have never met Mr. Carney, and I have no track or trade with Mr. Carney. I wish him all the best as a private citizen. However, it doesn't matter to me what his views are. I'm a New Democrat. His potential participation in other parties is of no interest to me. If I felt that he had relevant evidence for the BIA, I would be happy to call him as a witness, but I do not see a basis for taking the very unusual step of issuing a summons to call him before this committee to be grilled for partisan purposes. I just don't think that's appropriate.

I respect each and every one of my colleagues, and I have been very impressed in my three weeks on this committee by the degree of knowledge, commitment and, I think, bona fide interest. We have different views on financial matters, and that's what makes a democracy a vibrant and interesting place.

There are good ideas on all sides, but what I don't think is appropriate is for us to be holding up and stalling the business of the finance committee at a critical time in May, when we have a budget to discuss. I don't think that is appropriate, especially holding up the business because one party wants to grill a particular private citizen on his potentially partisan, political interests. I don't think that's an appropriate use of the filibuster.

We've all done it. There are appropriate uses of a filibuster, like if there's a very important matter of principle or there's an important political narrative, but it doesn't resonate with me that holding up the entire budget of Canada so that we can have a three-hour grilling session with Mark Carney is appropriate. I really hope we can get to the business of the people, battle out the budget and grill it, criticize it and praise it—it probably deserves all of those things—in the next couple of weeks. Then we'll have a democratic vote on whether it passes or not. That's what I sincerely hope this committee can get back to next week.

Thank you all, and thank you all for not interrupting me with points of order.

Bill C‑69—Notice of Time Allocation

[Pascale St-Onge, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, 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‑69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.

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.

Report Stage

[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?