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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Lawrence.

There is a ruling.

Bill C-69 seeks to amend the Income Tax Act by providing refundable tax credits for certain activities related to clean technology manufacturing property. The amendment attempts to add to the list of qualifying properties by including equipment used for helium production and would expand the tax credit provided in the bill.

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

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

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment expands the tax credit provided in the bill to a new category of qualifying property, which would impose a new charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Opposition Motion—Measures to Lower Food Prices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I'll just make some brief comments.

I want to thank Mr. Davies for bringing the amendments forward. I think they're welcome.

I want to express the intent of the proposed amendments in budget 2024 that amend the Food and Drugs Act. They all attempt to address and prevent unintended and harmful uses of therapeutic products. One example is preventing addictive nicotine replacement therapies from being marketed to youth. Obviously, this is a major concern that we share when we see youth taking up those new replacement therapies and being the target of marketing campaigns.

The intent of the measures was always to give the Minister of Health the authority so that he or she, in the future, can review all available evidence and base any decisions on well-founded reasons before using the new legislative authorities. That was the intention.

I also recognize that Mr. Davies has formalized that within a set of amendments, adding reasonable grounds to some of the important clauses here in the bill. That's welcome, because it further makes explicit what was intended. I think those are things that the government members will be supporting, and we appreciate the amendments.

To Mr. Ste-Marie's points, I'll just say generally that it was too bad we didn't have as much time to hear from witnesses. There were quite a lot of committee resources that went into a fairly extensive debate and filibuster, which went on for a while. I'm glad we got past that and we're now moving forward, but it's regrettable that there wasn't a bit more witness testimony for him to hear from additional witnesses. We empathize with him on that.

I think, as he knows, these are welcome adjustments, giving the minister some authorities and powers that are needed to crack down on these activities that target youth.

Thanks very much.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am very sympathetic to all of the arguments made by our colleague Mr. Davies. They are of real concern and they align strongly with my values, my principles and my positions.

Again, I object to the approach taken here.

I received a letter this evening. I had told you that it came from the Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control, but it was signed by several groups.

I want to take the time to read it to you so it can contribute to our consideration. I reiterate: I object to the process. I will not have the time needed to hear all the experts and reach a considered decision, because the government should have dealt with the subject in a separate bill so we have the time to do things properly.

I am going to read you this letter, which was sent to me as my party's finance critic and to my colleague Luc Thériault, health critic and vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Health.

The groups that signed the letter are the Quebec Lung Association, the Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control, the Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health, the Heart and Lung Foundation, and the Canadian Cancer Society. Its purpose is to support clauses 322 to 333 of Bill C-69, so it could not be clearer. I will begin reading it.

We hereby wish to express our firm support for enacting clauses 322 to 333 of Bill C‑69 amending the Food Drugs Act. These provisions are crucial for protecting Canadian youth against new tactics being used by the tobacco industry, which could make nicotine products popular among young people. The shameless marketing by Imperial Tobacco of new flavoured nicotine pouches (“Zonnic”) last fall exposes major weaknesses in the present rules governing nicotine replacement therapies that are authorized as natural health products. Unlike the historical marketing of NRTs, Imperial promoted its “Zonnic” brand in a way that makes these pouches attractive to young people, in particular by using images of trendy young people in social contexts, catchy slogans and exotic flavours (such as “tropical breeze”), in candy-like packaging. Unsurprisingly, a number of organizations have observed that young Canadians are interested in this new product. They include the Ordre des pharmaciens du Québec which stated in January that “in pharmacies where they are floor stocked, they seem to be very popular, particularly among younger people.” That is what prompted the Ordre to recommend that all pharmacists operating in the province keep these products behind the counter. A few weeks later, the Government of British Columbia stepped in to limit behind-the-counter sales to pharmacies. The other provinces are leaving it to the federal government to establish guidelines for the sale and promotion of these types of nicotine products and at present, the federal legislation governing tobacco products and vaping products has no power to regulate nicotine pouches, like most new (and future) products containing nicotine that the cigarette manufacturers are working on. That is why we want to point out to you and the members of your party how advisable and how urgent it is for it to be able to protect young people against products like these. In fact, it is important to prevent any industry that manufactures over-the-counter nicotine products from starting a new wave of nicotine dependence as vaping did among young people, which would be a complete public health fiasco. This youth health disaster is the direct result of far too permissive initial oversight. A tobacco manufacturer marketing “Zonnic” pouches (supposedly intended for quitting smoking) through convenience stores—except in Quebec—changes things and calls for urgent action by the Minister of Health. The proposed amendments would enable the minister to prevent the tobacco industry from exploiting the various loopholes in the regulatory scheme for natural health products.

In its present version, clauses 322 to 333 of Bill C-69 let the federal Minister of Health step in quickly to regulate the sale, promotion and flavouring of nicotine pouches and other nicotine replacement therapies, or NRTs, to prevent undesirable use of these pouches that could harm users' health. An example is use by individuals who are neither smokers nor vapers but for whom the marketing kindled their curiosity about trying them recreationally. It is important to note that the ministerial powers introduced by C‑69, in clauses 322 to 333, do not operate to remove any natural health products from the market; rather, they allow the Minister of Health to introduce guidelines for the sale of products where the marketing of the products involves health-related issues and concerns. In those cases, sale in general would be allowed, but be conditional on compliance with certain criteria for which there would be consultations. In the cases that concern us, nicotine pouches and other natural health nicotine products that might emerge, these amendments represent an appropriate proactive mechanism for better oversight of products that create one of the most powerful dependences in the world, in addition to other risks to physical and mental health, particularly in young people. To conclude, as a health group that has fought against smoking and nicotine dependence for decades, particularly among youth, we urge you to support these amendments, which solidify the existing measures in Quebec and extend them to the other provinces. Sincerely …

The letter is signed by the groups.

Mr. Chair, I have taken up a lot of time reading the letter in its entirety. It is a letter signed by groups that promote health and oppose tobacco use, in which they use very strong language. As I said, I did not have time to hear every party with an interest in the division we are considering—that would have enabled me to reach a clear conclusion—because of the way the government has gone about it, to which I object. This is not the right approach; it is not the right way to do things.

Mr. Davies raised a lot of very important and very strong arguments and asked a number of questions about the minister's extended powers. This is a matter of considerable concern. Personally, I have to decide among the various points made by the various witnesses, the arguments made by Mr. Davies, and, I imagine, the ones Mr. Turnbull will be making. As well, I also have this letter, which contains some powerful arguments. Since I am not an expert in the matter, I choose to base my judgment on the associations I trust: the Quebec Lung Association, the Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control, the Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health, the Heart and Lung Foundation, and the Canadian Cancer Society.

In light of the letter and the arguments made by those groups, I am going to vote for the clauses mentioned and possibly—very probably, even—for the suggested amendments, if they are moved. That has not been an easy decision to make and I object to how the government has handled this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I do have a ruling, members.

Bill C-69 seeks to amend the Income Tax Act by providing a refundable tax credit for certain activities related to clean technology manufacturing property. The amendment attempts to add to the list of qualifying products by including equipment used for helium production, which would expand the tax credit provided in the bill.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772, “Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a long clause in Bill C-69 that creates the tax credit for clean hydrogen. In fact, when we look at the details of this clause, we see that it is a made-to-measure subsidy for the oil and gas industry, the gas industry, to produce hydrogen. In our opinion, this is not a transition plan; it is a plan to support an industry composed of corporations that are already extremely profitable and simply pay their profits to their shareholders. We think the purpose of a transition plan is not to subsidize the gas industry, including the hydrogen industry, in this case.

I am therefore asking for a roll-call vote. I am going to vote against this clause, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 147 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the House of Commons order of reference adopted on Wednesday, May 22, 2024, and Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C-69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.

Before we begin, I would like to ask the members and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.

Please make note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. Only use a black, approved earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from the microphone at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you to all for your co-operation.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders. In accordance with the committee's routine motion concerning connection tests for witnesses, I'm informed that all witnesses have completed required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

Actually, this is not exactly correct, members. There may be witnesses or officials who need to come on if you have any questions, and they would be tested at that time. There are too many of them available to us. It will be done when they are asked to come before us.

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” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your understanding in this regard. Also, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I'd like to provide the members of the committee with a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-69. As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. Pursuant to the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, May 28, 2024, all clauses for which no amendment was submitted will be considered and voted on first, although I believe that there have been some discussions and that may change somewhat at the beginning, when members are able to pull out some of those clauses.

We'll follow that with the clauses with amendments. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to a clause in question, I will recognize the members proposing them, who may explain them.

In addition to having to be properly drafted in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. The chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill—both of these were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading—or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown.

Amendments have been given a number on the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it. During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. Approval from the mover of the amendment is not required. Subamendments must be provided in writing. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time. The subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Pursuant to the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, May 28, 2024, if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 5 p.m., all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved. The chair shall put the question forthwith and successively, without further debate, on all remaining clauses and proposed amendments as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill and all questions necessary to report the bill to the House.

Finally, if members have any questions regarding the procedural admissibility of amendments, the legislative clerks are here to assist the committee; however, they are not legal drafters. Should members require assistance with drafting an amendment or a subamendment, they must contact the legislative counsel.

I thank the members for their attention and wish everyone a productive clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-69.

As I said earlier in my remarks, members, there are many witnesses. I believe there are about 70 or so who are available if members have questions, but they would have to come, many of them, online via video conference and they would have to be tested to get them going.

Now we will get started.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Davies. I concur.

Thank you very much to our witnesses, our final panel today—our 12th panel of witnesses—and all those who came before you, the many witnesses who provided testimony on Bill C-69.

From here our committee will move to clause-by-clause consideration to get Bill C-69 through and back to the House. We thank you and wish you the best for the rest of your day.

On that, members, we are adjourned.

[Kaylie Tiessen, National Representative, Research Department, Unifor]

Although not explicitly tied to Bill C-69, we want to express concern over the absence of new capital funding toward the strategic innovation fund in budget 2024. That's a cornerstone investment vehicle that has served the industrial economy well for many years. Recapitalizing this fund should be considered for 2025.

For Unifor members in the health care sector, we support proposed amendments to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act that will establish a 5% growth guarantee to the Canada health transfer for eligible jurisdictions, marking a long-awaited increase to the transfer payments. Unifor is, however, very disappointed that such requirements do not include efforts to ward off privatization schemes or establish minimum standards for long-term care.

Finally, Bill C-69 proposes various important amendments to the Canada Labour Code. Proposed changes to the code clarify that workers shall be presumed an employee if they are remunerated by an employer. Reassigning the burden of proof to employers when determining employment status is a long-standing demand of our union and an important step for combatting worker misclassification in the federal sector.

Further, the bill introduces a new policy on disconnecting. It's a requirement under the code that follows developments in other jurisdictions, like Ontario. Unifor supports this amendment to the code, but with three specific amendments that we have appended to our submission and can send to you once we get the translation.

Amendment one proposes that Bill C-69 explicitly require the policy to detail how non-working-hour communications will be limited and what opportunities exist for employees to disconnect.

Amendment two removes the proposed exemption for those working non-standard hours. Amendment three requires these changes to come into force one year after Bill C-69 is passed and not over an indeterminate amount of time.

We thank you again for the opportunity to present. We look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you.

[Angelo DiCaro, Director, Research Department, Unifor]

Thanks very much.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Angelo DiCaro. I'm the director of research for Unifor, which is Canada's largest labour union in the private sector, representing 320,000 workers across the country.

I'll be sharing my time with my colleague Kaylie Tiessen, an economist who leads the union's budgetary analysis work.

We want to thank the committee for the invitation to participate in this review of the budget implementation bill.

Unifor recognized the federal government for presenting what was, by many measures, a social progress budget in 2024. It's one that responded to persistent economic inequities, affordability pressures and stubbornly high interest rates. Over consecutive budgets, the government has established durable public goods programs, including first-phase pharmacare, as well as dental care, child care and student nutrition programs that will serve Canadians now and for generations to come.

Nevertheless, the absence of promised employment insurance reform, a program that will serve as the core economic stabilizer for unemployed workers on the path to net zero, is a glaring hole in budget 2024.

Our commentary today will focus on curated elements of Bill C-69, but it by no means constitutes Unifor's full or comprehensive assessment of the legislation.

Unifor supports the proposed Income Tax Act amendments that increase maximum labour expenditures for newsroom employees from $55,000 to $85,000, as well as the proposed increase to the Canadian journalism labour tax credit rate to 35%.

That support extends also to the $10-million capital gains exemption on the sale of a business to an employee ownership trust. These measures provide opportunity for local and national media outlets, keeping them viable and delivering the journalism Canadians need.

In the clean energy and advanced manufacturing sectors, Unifor supports the proposed investment tax credits, including the clean technology manufacturing credit, which already appears to have been instrumental in securing significant future investments in the auto sector.

However, Unifor has stated publicly its desire to see these tax credits developed in a manner that ensures good-quality union jobs. This includes explicit requirements that companies receiving public funds commit to union neutrality covenants. Such a covenant would allow workers to exercise their constitutional right to join a union and collectively bargain free of employer intimidation, threats, harassment and reprisal.

[Ernie Daniels, President and Chief Executive Officer, First Nations Finance Authority]

Thank you to the committee members for inviting us to testify today.

I'm calling from the Westbank First Nation in British Columbia.

Very briefly, for background, the First Nations Finance Authority was created under federal law with support from all parties in Parliament. We are a first nations-led organization very much driven by the priorities of the first nations we serve.

Our primary function is to find and secure financing in domestic and international capital markets for first nations. The financing we secure, primarily through the issuance of debentures, is securitized by the own-source revenues of qualifying first nations.

While historically the financing support we provided was primarily for infrastructure such as roads, schools and community centres, we are now in many discussions that are equity-based opportunities that present communities with a path to a state where they would be able to thrive and grow. I can share with confidence that FNFA lending to first nations for equity investments is economic reconciliation realized.

We have followed with great interest the development of the indigenous loan guarantee program that Bill C-69 proposes to create. We are all aware of the vast potential for a wide range of large resources and energy projects across Canada.

Many of these, such as rare earth element extraction and electrical transmission lines, are vital to achieving Canada's clean energy goals in the manufacture of zero-emission vehicles. Others, like natural gas, support the transition to a low-carbon future. All of them have vast potential to support employment and economic development in the first nation communities they touch. FNFA is ready and able to support the desire of communities to participate, thus realizing these important economic and environmental ambitions.

There was a time when a specified number of guaranteed jobs or supply contracts would be deemed sufficient as the benefits that indigenous communities could expect from development on their traditional lands. Today, though, first nations and other indigenous communities want the long-term benefits that ownership brings. They want to be full partners, with both the benefits and the obligations that partnership implies. In other words, they want equity, and first nations equity translates to economic growth and increased productivity for Canada.

FNFA is well positioned to deliver the financing for the large projects that we understand the loan guarantee program is intended to support. Having issued 10 debentures with a loan portfolio in excess of $2 billion and having recently migrated from the municipal to the federal index, FNFA now has access to vast amounts of capital for equity stakes in these projects, and because of the model on which FNFA is based, we can provide capital to first nations at much lower interest rates than they would get from commercial lenders. This means that they can retain more of the revenue their equity stakes generate, resulting in greater financial capacity for vital infrastructure or for programs that communities desperately need. It also means more revenues that they can leverage through the FNFA up front for investment and community priorities.

The current governing legislation for the FNFA, the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, prevents the FNFA from lending to special purpose vehicles, such as limited liability partnerships. Last week we had the opportunity to meet with a range of decision-makers and parliamentarians from all parties. Among the issues we discussed was a regulatory change that would allow FNFA to lend to special purpose vehicles in cases when a federal loan guarantee is in place. This would provide a financing option in circumstances where multiple first nations organize themselves. This would open the opportunity for participation to those first nation communities that otherwise might not have been able to participate.

In this scenario, communities that participate in an investment opportunity will be better positioned for economic growth and capacity building on their own terms. As they advance and become more familiar with us, they will see the potential benefits of becoming certified and obtaining membership.

We see this as a real opportunity that would create wins for Canada and for the first nations. We invite members of this community to support our efforts in this regard.

Thank you. We'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

[George Christidis, Vice-President, Government Relations and International Affairs, Canadian Nuclear Association]

Thank you very much. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here today at this very important hearing on Bill C-69, another budget implementation bill.

As stated, my name is George Christidis. I am vice-president of government relations and international affairs at the Canadian Nuclear Association.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging that we are on unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin first nation.

The Canadian Nuclear Association is a non-profit organization that represents over 100 members from the nuclear industry across Canada. The Canadian nuclear industry employs 76,000 Canadians in highly skilled trades and professional jobs, directly and indirectly. Currently, Canada's CANDU nuclear reactors generate about 15% of Canada's electricity, representing over 60% of the electricity in Ontario and over 30% in New Brunswick. These assets provide clean, reliable, non-emitting baseload power. More and more provinces are increasingly looking at nuclear technologies as part of their electricity needs.

The Canadian nuclear industry is a key employer of first nations communities, particularly in northern Saskatchewan. For instance, the Cameco uranium mining corporation is one of the largest employers of aboriginal peoples. The Canadian nuclear industry is also a major supplier of isotopes, which is key to fighting certain cancers and to other nuclear medicine procedures.

It is clear from an international and domestic perspective that attaining climate and energy security goals will require significantly more nuclear energy, as well as a strengthened nuclear fuel cycle and supply chain capability. The Canadian nuclear industry is a global leader in this regard. The Canadian nuclear industry advantage is based on the successful operation and refurbishment of its CANDU nuclear fleet and the nuclear cycle and supply chain that is necessary for its operation.

This effort to meet climate and energy security goals is really foundational to what the Canadian Nuclear Association's recommendations are. Canada, as a leader in the nuclear industry, is a tier one nuclear nation, with nuclear companies recognized around the world across the supply chain and across nuclear research, such as at the national laboratories at Chalk River or the nuclear waste management initiatives being led by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization and Chalk River nuclear laboratories. Based on that foundation, the recommendation is to strengthen the nuclear industry, and we encourage all parliamentarians to implement quickly the decisions that have been made in the last few budgets.

We've seen a significant increase or inclusion of nuclear power in key foundational policies in Canada and abroad. At COP28, there was a recognition of the need to triple nuclear energy. At Sapporo 5 there was a recognition of leveraging the nuclear industry in Canada and other like-minded countries to meet energy security goals to help delink from Russian energy assets.

We applaud these measures. However, we recommend a timely and strategic approach in implementing and operationalizing the investment tax credits, the clean manufacturing tax credits, and similar initiatives that have been announced. We have to move quickly. There is a competitive bent to it as well, as we see the United States proceeding to implement the Inflation Reduction Act.

I must reiterate that the link between domestic and international initiatives is very important and that energy security, national security and climate initiatives are all interconnected. With that in mind, we recommend that there be an appropriate definition of small modular reactors to enable technologies that are chosen for Ontario and Saskatchewan to be eligible for investment tax credits. The definition should be 1,200 megawatts thermal to ensure that projects are included and can proceed, as well as an operational requirement for modularization that the current technology does not meet.

Making leasehold property models clearly eligible for the investment tax credits is also crucial for any potential partnerships between nuclear utilities and first nations. These financial tools enable nuclear utilities to enter into partnerships with first nations while complying with nuclear licensing requirements. The Canadian Nuclear Association also recommends that the definition of eligible refurbishments and expenditures include all components that enable clean energy assets to continue operations.

We also recommend that uranium be added to the list of qualifying materials and the inclusion of conversion and fuel fabrication in the list of qualifying materials eligible for the clean technology manufacturing tax credit. This is essential to strengthen a key component of the nuclear industry.

Finally, the definitions that will be used for the hydrogen investment tax credit framework need to include nuclear to ensure that Canada does indeed achieve its hydrogen goals.

These recommendations have been presented as a way to strengthen the Canadian nuclear industry, but they are also a means to strengthen Canada's economic, social and environmental credentials and capabilities, which all, again, have a very strong national security and energy security bent.

Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

Thank you, MP Davies.

We want to thank our terrific witnesses very much for their testimony here on Bill C-69. I know some of the members have asked you questions on information that you may not have at this time, but you will provide it in writing. If you could do that through the clerk so that information could then be distributed to the members, we'd appreciate that.

We wish you the best with the rest of your day.

Members, we are now going to suspend as we get ready for our final panel today.

[Anne Kothawala, President and Chief Executive Officer, Convenience Industry Council of Canada]

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee, for hearing from local corner stores as part of your budget bill deliberations.

On behalf of Canada's 22,500 convenience stores, which employ 180,000 people in communities across the country, we would like to speak to provisions in Bill C-69 that would fundamentally alter our businesses and impact adult customers who shop at their local corner store. These same stores and gas stations not long ago were deemed essential services by government during critical pandemic times and were celebrated and recognized for our role in helping keep Canadians safe.

Of immediate concern with the passage of C-69 are changes to the Food and Drugs Act presented in clause 326 in the BIA that would give the Minister of Health unfettered powers to apply precision regulation to therapeutic products. This captures a number of different products, but most relevant to convenience stores are nicotine replacement therapies, NRTs, including nicotine pouches, which are currently sold in our stores to adult customers.

I want to be very clear with committee members. Convenience stores support stronger regulations for NRTs, including nicotine pouches. Not long after the products were approved for sale by Health Canada, we issued guidance to retailers encouraging them to put the products behind the counter and to age-gate the products just as we do for traditional tobacco.

We are also open to other regulations, including marketing restrictions, labour limitations and even increased penalties for retailer non-compliance to ensure these products are used as intended by adults and for cessation or transition purposes.

However, we do not believe that providing sweeping unilateral powers to the minister over a process that is typically apolitical is the appropriate path to better regulate NRTs, and it would set a dangerous precedent for other products that may be sold in our stores or any retailer of a therapeutic product.

Rather than contemplate removing these products from our stores without any evidence to suggest convenience stores are the source of these products for youth, we would like to work with the regulators to ensure these products are used as intended by adults.

Tobacco users want to purchase reduced-risk products from the places where they purchase their cigarettes. Being able to retail these in our stores allows adult consumers an easier option to make that choice.

We have seen recent public policy failures that have arisen when removing nicotine products from our stores under the auspices of curbing youth access. Both B.C. and Ontario made changes to the availability of vape in convenience stores, limiting or removing some or all of these products from our retail establishments; there remains no data to suggest that this has resulted in fewer youth using the product. In fact, online illicit sales of these products continue to grow at an alarming pace.

Further, the removal of these products from our stores and concentrating their sale ultimately favours the illicit market and illegal websites. In fact, there are dozens of illegal, unapproved NRTs for sale online, sold without age checks, without taxes paid and containing unknown ingredients. It is our understanding that these sites are already the primary source of youth access to nicotine pouches, yet there is no plan to address this threat and online harm to young people. We can all agree that the proliferation of products available to youth online, including dangerous products like LSD gummies, should be an urgent focus of government.

To conclude, we are in favour of treating NRTs and their gum and inhaler equivalents just as other tobacco and nicotine products are treated. We agree there should be clear regulations applied to nicotine replacement therapies, including age restrictions, locating the product behind the counter and both marketing and flavour restrictions. However, far-reaching ministerial power that would allow for significant changes in the absence of evidence or input from government officials, experts and stakeholders is not the appropriate tool to regulate NRTs or other therapeutic products.

For that reason, CICC is requesting that the text outlined in clause 326 granting these precision regulation powers be deleted or that the ability to determine where the product is sold, something that is typically a provincial responsibility, be excluded from such regulatory powers.

I would be pleased to share our proposed amendment text in writing with the committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

Thank you, MP Davies. That is the time.

We want to thank our witnesses for coming before our finance committee on Bill C-69 and for their testimony.

Members, before we suspend to bring in our next panel, you should have received two budgets for Bill C-69. They came in on Friday at 4:38 p.m. I just want to see if we have approval for that.