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.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is too bad the hecklers were not listening.

Corruption and decay go hand in hand. As such, when we say that everything feels broken, we say it because we mean it. The country is in decay, and the government's rotten influence is running rampant, spoiling every single thing it touches, including even those programs and services for which there is consensus in all corners of the House. The consensus regarding immigration is another great example of something that this Prime Minister has now destroyed.

My colleague, the member for South Shore—St. Margarets, said in one of his speeches that this is corruption like we have never seen in Canada. I believe that he is correct in his assessment of the situation, with one exception: There is probably one other prime minister who could rival the current profligate spending and graft, and that is the Prime Minister's father. It seems like every time we have a prime minister with that last name, the country ends up on edge. This Liberal rot extends far beyond the SDTC. It now touches every facet of Canadian society and its institutions.

Members can take the natural health product industry, for instance, and I will tie that in. The government took a world-leading regulatory regime, implemented by the previous Harper government, and ripped it up as if it meant nothing. It did not bother to consult with the industry, either. That would have obviously been beneath it. Instead of continuing with the existing framework, the government, led by the inept Minister of Health, decided to move natural health products into the same regime as therapeutic drugs, contrary to previous parliamentary studies and general consensus that vitamins and supplements are not the same things as doctor-prescribed medications. These changes would devastate the natural health product industry. The IADSA, the International Alliance of Dietary Food Supplement Associations, had this to say about the changes that are being proposed by the current government here in Canada:

We are writing today to express our concerns about the regulatory changes being proposed in Canada, which, if implemented, could impact not only the competitive position of the dietary supplement industry within your country but also Canada's position as a global reference point in this area.

Up to now, Canada has been a world leader in the regulation of dietary supplements. We fear that the proposed changes to Canada’s regulatory framework for natural health products risk creating an environment that could stifle the industry and limit Canadians' access to high-quality supplements.

IADSA has always promoted the Canadian model as a global reference point for governments across the world who are creating or redeveloping their regulatory systems. This Canadian model is recognized as providing consumers access to products which are safe and beneficial while fostering innovation and supporting investment in the sector.

Those are probably the most glowing words we could hear from an international organization, touting the regime created by the Harper administration for natural health products as being the gold standard against which every other country is measured. Now it is writing to our committee and to members of Parliament saying that if we pursue the current agenda of the Liberal government, with the support of the NDP, through Bill C-47 and the self-care framework that the regulatory framework entails, we will actually destroy the gold standard, the gold star, the institution that the rest of the world should be modelling itself after and designing itself after.

As a response to the illogical and unwarranted attack on the natural health product industry, I did introduce my private member's bill, Bill C-368, to bring the industry back to the old regulatory regime, yet the government is not done with its attacks. Let me explain to the people at home why an election is so important.

In early spring, the government plans to implement its cost recovery framework through the gazetting process. Bill C-368 may have passed second reading in this place and it may have passed the committee stage, but it is yet to be debated at third reading in the House and passed. It would then have to go to the Senate to go through that same set of steps and processes all over again, all before the next election.

Given that the timeline is probably getting to be fairly unlikely, the government is still free, then, and still has the old legislation it passed in Bill C-47 and Bill C-69, to pursue the regulatory environment to implement the self-care framework. This is a self-funding model that is behind the changes to begin with.

It is a tax grab on the industry to get the people in the small and medium-sized mom-and-pop shops, which are small businesses that create, innovate and develop all the supplements, such as vitamins, protein powders and things of this nature, under the same cost recovery framework that companies like Pfizer or Purdue Pharma would have to actually be under. Nobody in the industry has this kind of money. It is a death sentence for the natural health product industry.

Every day that the government has care and control of the Governor in Council, the ability to pass regulatory changes, it is still allowed, notwithstanding Bill C-368, to pursue this framework. The Minister of Health has said very clearly that he is hell-bent on destroying this institution as well. The government will implement the self-care framework.

For the Canadians who are watching, this is very important. There are two parties so far in the House that have voted non-confidence in the government so we could have an election. An election would kill the ability of the government to pursue the regulatory change to the natural health product industry. It would not be able to gazette anything during an election. At the outcome of the next election, hopefully there is a government that will cease destroying the natural health product industry in Canada.

This is why it is very important that the one party that continues to support the government be held accountable. It is continuing to support the government, even though it may have supported my bill in some bizarre manners. I might add that a member on the health committee actually tried to move a wrecking motion to destroy the bill at committee. Luckily he was granted a time out, heard from tens of thousands of Canadians and changed his ways, and we managed to salvage Bill C-368 at committee.

However, every day that the New Democratic Party continues to prop up the government brings us one day closer to a gazetting process for the self-care framework, which will put the cost recovery model burden on the natural health product industry. That is what will destroy the innovation and growth and destroy the gold standard model that the IADSA says is the best one in the world. That is what is at stake.

We need an election, not just because of all of the other corruption but also because of all the bad ideas. I said that earlier in my speech. Never has there been such a collection of bad ideas, bad judgment and bad leadership in one human being as there is in the current Prime Minister.

I use this example because it is a microcosm of what is wrong with the government. The Liberals cannot work collaboratively anymore. They have no friends left. No one is defending them. I cannot imagine why they are staying the course, because nothing is getting passed in this place. It is only to pursue the regulatory power and authority that they still have that they are clutching on to government. Who is the enabler? It is the New Democratic Party.

One can only conclude that that is the true agenda, even though others might not say so publicly. There is no doubt in my mind that that is what is going on. For those who are watching, what is at risk for the natural health product industry if we do not have an election sooner rather than later is that another gold standard institution will be ruined by the incompetence of the government.

To get back to SDTC, the crux of the matter is document production. Without documents, how are we to hold the government accountable for anything? We in the Conservative Party have asked for documents numerous times, and not just in this particular example. We have asked for them constantly, in every committee.

I happen to be a member of the procedure and House affairs committee at this time. We have asked for document productions many times. We were denied access to documents that members of the media had access to during the foreign interference scandal, for example. Members of the media can see documents that I as an elected member of Parliament have never been able to see, because the Liberal government, propped up by the NDP, whether it is in the House or at committee, always denies Parliament getting access to unredacted documents. It does not matter what the issue is.

In this particular case, it just happens to be the documents surrounding Sustainable Development Technology Canada. If Canadians are wondering why we are making such a big fuss about it, it is because this is the line in the sand. It has been crossed so many times. It was even crossed in the previous Parliament to the point that an election was called to prevent documents for the Winnipeg labs from being tabled in this place. We had someone summoned to the bar, which I do not think had happened for 113 years, who refused to bring documents when he was here. He was admonished by the Speaker of this place.

Also, the government, so self-righteous in its determination to keep things secret, actually took the previous Speaker to court. Everybody knows courts have always said that Parliament is supreme in the matters of its own governance, but that did not stop the government from pursuing that matter, so desperate it was to hide what it had done and to keep it from Canadians.

Here we are at an impasse. We are several months into it, and there is only one political party in this place that does not want to turn over the documents. It is that of the government. All the other parties to date are allowing this debate to continue until the government does what it is supposed to do and what the Speaker has asked it to do. As the Speaker has said, “The House has the undoubted right to order the production of any and all documents from any entity or individual it deems necessary to carry out its duties.”

Some $400 million of taxpayers' money was inappropriately spent, and 186 conflicts of interest were identified by the Auditor General. This is taxpayers' money. This is a government program. If this is not a textbook case of documents that Parliament should be able to see, then, frankly, I do not know what else would be.

I will wrap up my comments by saying this. A number of us in this place tonight have been here for a long time. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, if I am not on my feet again by the time I return, I will have eclipsed the 19th anniversary of my first election to this place. I have never seen a House of Commons in this much disarray, and I have never seen a government that has lost complete and utter control of the finances of the country and of law and order on the streets. It has lost control of itself and the ability to follow the rules of this place. Shame on them.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, on this side of the House, we believe in all of the above when it comes to utilizing Canada's resources, and we want a comprehensive approach. Rather than throwing up roadblocks to the development of resources, we believe in getting out of the way. That is why we have committed to making sure that Bill C-69 gets repealed and that we see the development of energy resources and a renewed focus on getting Canadian energy to world markets. What has happened is that the Liberals did not do proper consultation and did not talk with all the key stakeholders, and several industries were put at a complete disadvantage and felt isolated from the process.

We wanted to make sure their voices were heard. That is why we stood against the bill.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today at the hour of adjournment to pursue a question I asked May 2, the day the Minister of Finance tabled Bill C-69. This is what is called, in the vernacular, an omnibus budget bill. Liberals will remember those words because it was in the platform of the Liberals that they would not introduce such things as omnibus budget bills.

Liberals also promised that they would make sure that the legislation brought forward would have full consultation with indigenous peoples as required under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; that did not happen either. We also had a promise to improve environmental assessment. What I did on May 2 was refer to this as something of a hat trick. There were three different platform promises broken in one omnibus budget bill.

The part that concerns me the most, although it is hard to say which is worse, is I think what we have had happen here is a gross violation of our responsibility as parliamentarians to respond to the challenges and the need to have environmental assessment legislation that works, to ensure that it is constitutionally valid and to ensure that it is studied in the appropriate committee.

Let me try to point out one of the major reasons it is so deeply offensive that the Minister of Finance brought forward the changes being made to the environmental impact bill. This is a huge omnibus bill. There are over 40 different divisions, not to mention there are over 300 sections to the bill. We get to the environmental assessment bits by the time we get to division 28, part 6 and then we start realizing something.

This is what I think as an environmental lawyer and I have consulted some friends who do constitutional law. The Liberals may not have fixed the problem that the Supreme Court had because the way they have defined when something is in federal jurisdiction is to get rid of language they think the court did not like, which was language around things like “adverse effect”. They said an adverse effect, and throughout the bill it is the same every time, within federal jurisdiction is a “non-negligible” adverse change. That is repeated multiple times.

My point is we cannot come up with a conclusion that an effect is non-negligible before studying the project and having some idea what the impact is going to be. We cannot decide, ahead of time, that it is non-negligible. It is a tautology. It is hastily drafted. The court ruled that the last version violated the Constitution by having federal intrusions into provincial jurisdiction.

Here is the problem: The bill continues with what Stephen Harper did in wrecking environmental assessment in, yes again, omnibus budget Bill C-38 in spring 2012. This was a chance to fix it. The Liberals blew it.

Criminal Code

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My app malfunctioned for the first vote, on Bill C-69 in the third reading, and I am asking for unanimous consent to have it recorded as no.

Bill C-69—Time Allocation Motion

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1, Bill C-47, made numerous changes to the Food and Drugs Act, redefining what a therapeutic product is. We now see, in Bill C-69, that there are again further amendments to the Food and Drugs Act. There do not appear to be any appropriations in the budget whatsoever that actually require more spending for Health Canada or for the natural health directorate.

I am wondering why the government is continuing to put major changes into how natural health products are governed and regulated in this country, through budget implementation acts, when there is no budget appropriation for it.

Why are they doing this omnibus backdoor approach, instead of actually consulting with the industry, and leaving them blindsided by these budget changes?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at report stage and at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Excise Tax Act

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to rise today to discuss Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act for mental health services. It is great to see the bill come forward. The bill would add psychotherapy and counselling to the list of health care services exempt from point-of-sale taxes, and as members can imagine, New Democrats are very much in support of this.

My colleague from London—Fanshawe tabled Bill C-218, which would also remove GST from psychotherapy services, and the bill is currently outside of the order of precedence. Another of my NDP colleagues tabled a bill for the very same thing in 2017, so we have been fighting for this for years,.

However, I do want to highlight a couple of things. The bill is actually encapsulated in the budget bill, Bill C-69, which the Conservatives who are bringing forward Bill C-323 voted against. It is hypocrisy that the Conservatives are bringing forward a bill that is now in the budget bill. They could support the budget, like we have had to do. We have had to work with the government. There are things that we do not love that the Liberals did not do. I supported the budget and got the firefighter tax credit for volunteer firefighters and search and rescue volunteers doubled. Those are things that we do.

I heard one of my colleagues, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, complain that the government stole her bill. Actually, our job in opposition is to bring good ideas to government and have the government see that they are good ideas and then take them. That is the idea. That is a good thing, so today is a good day, when Bill C-323 was encapsulated in Bill C-69, the budget Implementation bill, and it is something, again, that New Democrats have led the charge on.

Regarding the Excise Tax Act, I think back to my predecessors John Duncan, who was an MP in this place for 18 years, and James Lunney, who was an MP for 15 years, both Conservatives, with a total of about 33 years that they sat in this place. They did get one bill passed, and it was actually to change the Excise Tax Act to remove the excise tax on jewellery so people could get their diamonds more cheaply. Those are the people they were fighting for. I cannot even make this stuff up. Therefore it is good to see Conservatives come here today to bring forward legislation that would actually make a difference in people's lives, and not just in the lives of the wealthy and the well-connected.

I will get to the crux of it. We know physical health services are typically included in our universal health care system, or at the very least are exempt from sales taxes. That is critical. We are proud of our universal health care system and we need to do much more. However, mental health care is not included in our health care system. There is a two-tiered health care system in this country right now. We know that Canadians who cannot afford services like therapy and counselling are actually paying taxes on those services.

There should be no tax on health care in this country; it should be covered. It is absolutely absurd to hear about Canadians' having to pay taxes on health care services. We know that they do not have to pay taxes to see an optometrist, a chiropractor or a physiotherapist, so it seems obvious to all of us. Why is it not obvious when it comes to mental health care? Again, it is the stigma; that is why. Mental health is health care and we need to treat it as health care. We need parity in this country when it comes to mental and physical health.

There is a mental health care crisis post-COVID, but actually pre-COVID there was a mental health crisis in this country. Things were exacerbated, as we know, throughout COVID, and now they are exacerbated with the cost of living crisis. A tax exemption would certainly increase access to the services by reducing the costs directly, but it would also help Canadians who cannot afford or can barely afford the services to access care. It might open up a few appointments for them to get a couple of extra sessions that they might not have been able to access before, or maybe they would have less strain on their grocery budget.

However, it is certainly not a complete solution. Lowering the cost would not help those people who still cannot afford it, which is a situation that no Canadian should be in. All health care services, including mental health care, should be available at no cost to Canadians, and as soon as they need them. They should have no-wait support. Again, we are in a mental health crisis, and so many Canadians who cannot afford therapy and counselling services need the support. People are going through their daily lives trying to survive, and they are in serious need of supports.

There should be no barriers in getting them the support if they cannot afford it. Certainly we know that parents often cannot afford it, and children are the most vulnerable. In Ontario, children can wait anywhere from two weeks to two years to get these kinds of supports. That is completely unacceptable when it comes to children.

I am grateful and glad that we could work with the government as New Democrats to get the first federal youth mental health fund launched. It is a $500-million fund over five years. It will make a difference, getting funding out to community-based organizations at no cost to support children and youth. We have to mitigate and identify, and work with youth when it comes to mental health issues as they arise.

When someone's spouse or other family members need help and mental health care is impossible, we know terrible things can happen. We are forcing Canadians to go through their daily life without the care they need, and we need to turn the tide. This can have both an impact not just on people's mental health but also on their physical health, which is directly related, and their work. People can withdraw. As we know, the impact that can have on families and communities has been identified, and some people will even lose their lives. As New Democrats, we will not accept this until there is true parity.

I know yesterday was Father's Day, and I want to wish all my colleagues from across political lines a happy Father's Day. We have been working on Father's Day on the Hill, my colleagues from the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, and the Bloc. For seven years we have been working on raising awareness for men's mental health on the Hill so men talk about their issues. We also want to encourage men, who are disproportionately at higher risk of death by suicide or of having depression, which leads to even further challenges around substance use-related issues, to seek help.

Something I just want to raise while we are in this debate today is how important it is that we talk to the men in our lives, and to everybody, but obviously the importance of talking to men is something that we always want to highlight around Father's Day.

We know that provinces and territories are spending far too little when it comes to mental health care. Most provinces are spending between 5% and 7% of their health care budget on mental health. In British Columbia, with the new billion-dollar commitment from the Eby government, it will be at close to 9%. That is still not good enough. We know Ontario is even lower; mental health spending is at 3% of its overall health care spending.

Other OECD countries are spending 12% to 14% of their health care budget on mental health. That is where we need to get to at bare minimum, and we know that the new bilateral agreements will increase funding for mental health, which is something that is part of the confidence and supply agreement that we worked with the government on. It is still not enough; we have to go much further.

To get parity between mental and physical health in our country and universal access to health care is one of our core values as new Democrats. It is something we are always going to support. If somebody breaks their leg, they will never have to worry about paying for the medical treatment they need, but if something happens when it comes to their mental health, they also should not have to wait. We know that is not the case in our country today, and that needs to change.

We are going to fight every single day to make sure people do not have to worry that they are going to have to wait when it comes to their mental health, and I can assure members that there is no one in this country who is not touched by a mental health illness, a mental health-related issue or a substance use-related issue, so we are all in this together. We have to demonstrate this when we support legislation and bills like the one before us and when we roll them into the budget implementation act, so we can fast-track getting supports and breaks. However, we have to go much, much further, and as New Democrats, we will fight every single day until there is parity between mental and physical health.

I want to thank my colleague who sponsored the bill following the bill from the New Democratic Party, and I actually want to congratulate him for turning the tide when they look at changing the Excise Tax Act, in reducing taxes not just on diamond jewellery but actually on mental health. I want to congratulate them on taking this step.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill C‑69—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

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

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to report stage and third reading 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 stages of the bill.

Financial Institutions

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, yesterday in committee, we heard from the heads of Canada's five big banks, specifically BMO, Scotiabank, CIBC, the Royal Bank of Canada and TD Bank. They all rank in the top third of the world's oil financiers.

It is hard to get an accurate picture of their investments because the other three parties in the House refuse to make them disclose those investments. They all voted against a Bloc Québécois amendment to Bill C-69 requiring the mandatory disclosure of banks' investments in fossil fuels.

Why does the government not want to force banks to be honest with the public about their oil agenda?

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, for a moment there, I thought, for once, we were going to get away without a preamble, but we had a lot of amble there, a lot of post-amble.

I can assure my hon. friend that the law that is coming this fall would protect every single Canadian who draws their income from a paycheque, and 0.13% of Canadians would pay a modest amount of additional tax on capital gains over a quarter of a million dollars garnered in a single year.

Tax fairness not only will be written into the law, but also will continue to be the thing we talk about in the House.

Tomorrow, we will complete the report stage study of Bill C-40, Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act, which is also known as David and Joyce Milgaard's law.

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

Our priorities next week will be to complete report stage and third reading of Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, and second reading of Bill C-65, the electoral participation act. We will also give priority to other important bills, namely third reading of the aforementioned Bill C-40 and report stage and third reading of Bill C-26, the critical cyber systems protection act.

Finally, there have been discussions amongst the parties and, if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That the motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons related to the appointment of Christine Ivory as Parliamentary Librarian, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1(2), be deemed adopted.

Online Harms Act

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we must protect Canadians in the digital age, but Bill C-63 is not the way to do it. It would force Canadians to make unnecessary trade-offs between the guarantee of their security and their charter rights. Today I will explain why Bill C-63 is deeply flawed and why it would not protect Canadians' rights sufficiently. More importantly, I will present a comprehensive alternative plan that is more respectful of Canadians' charter rights and would provide immediate protections for Canadians facing online harms.

The core problem with Bill C-63 is how the government has changed and chosen to frame the myriad harms that occur in the digital space as homogenous and as capable of being solved with one approach or piece of legislation. In reality, harms that occur online are an incredibly heterogenous set of problems requiring a multitude of tailored solutions. It may sound like the former might be more difficult to achieve than the latter, but this is not the case. It is relatively easy to inventory the multitudes of problems that occur online and cause Canadians harm. From there, it should be easy to sort out how existing laws and regulatory processes that exist for the physical world could be extended to the digital world.

There are few, if any, examples of harms that are being caused in digital spaces that do not already have existing relatable laws or regulatory structures that could be extended or modified to cover them. Conversely, what the government has done for nearly a decade is try to create new, catch-all regulatory, bureaucratic and extrajudicial processes that would adapt to the needs of actors in the digital space instead of requiring them to adapt to our existing laws. All of these attempts have failed to become law, which is likely going to be the fate of Bill C-63.

This is a backward way of looking at things. It has caused nearly a decade of inaction on much-needed modernization of existing systems and has translated into law enforcement's not having the tools it needs to prevent crime, which in turn causes harm to Canadians. It has also led to a balkanization of laws and regulations across Canadian jurisdictions, a loss of investment due to the uncertainty, and a lack of coordination with the international community. Again, ultimately, it all harms Canadians.

Bill C-63 takes the same approach by listing only a few of the harms that happen in online spaces and creates a new, onerous and opaque extrajudicial bureaucracy, while creating deep problems for Canadian charter rights. For example, Bill C-63 would create a new “offence motivated by a hatred” provision that could see a life sentence applied to minor infractions under any act of Parliament, a parasitic provision that would be unchecked in the scope of the legislation. This means that words alone could lead to life imprisonment.

While the government has attempted to argue that this is not the case, saying that a serious underlying act would have to occur for the provision to apply, that is simply not how the bill is written. I ask colleagues to look at it. The bill seeks to amend section 320 of the Criminal Code, and reads, “Everyone who commits an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament...is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.”

At the justice committee earlier this year, the minister stated:

...the new hate crime offence captures any existing offence if it was hate-motivated. That can run the gamut from a hate-motivated theft all the way to a hate-motivated attempted murder. The sentencing range entrenched in Bill C-63 was designed to mirror the existing...options for all of these potential underlying offences, from the most minor to the most serious offences on the books....

The minister continued, saying, “this does not mean that minor offences will suddenly receive...harsh sentences. However, sentencing judges are required to follow legal principles, and “hate-motivated murder will result in a life sentence. A minor infraction will...not result in it.”

In this statement, the minister admitted both that the new provision could be applied to any act of Parliament, as the bill states, and that the government would be relying upon the judiciary to ensure that maximum penalties were not levelled against a minor infraction. Parliament cannot afford the government to be this lazy, and by that I mean not spelling out exactly what it intends a life sentence to apply to in law, as opposed to handing a highly imperfect judiciary an overbroad law that could have extreme, negative consequences.

Similarly, a massive amount of concern from across the political spectrum has been raised regarding Bill C-63's introduction of a so-called hate crime peace bond, calling it a pre-crime provision for speech. This is highly problematic because it would explicitly extend the power to issue peace bonds to crimes of speech, which the bill does not adequately define, nor does it provide any assurance that it would meet a criminal standard for hate.

Equally as concerning is that Bill C-63 would create a new process for individuals and groups to complain to the Canadian Human Rights Commission that online speech directed at them is discriminatory. This process would be extrajudicial, not subject to the same evidentiary standards of a criminal court, and could take years to resolve. Findings would be based on a mere balance of probabilities rather than on the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The subjectivity of defining hate speech would undoubtedly lead to punishments for protected speech. The mere threat of human rights complaints would chill large amounts of protected speech, and the system would undoubtedly be deluged with a landslide of vexatious complaints. There certainly are no provisions in the bill to prevent any of this from happening.

Nearly a decade ago, even the Toronto Star, hardly a bastion of Conservative thought, wrote a scathing opinion piece opposing these types of provisions. The same principle should apply today. When the highly problematic components of the bill are overlaid upon the fact that we are presently living under a government that unlawfully invoked the Emergencies Act and that routinely gaslights Canadians who legitimately question efficacy or the morality of its policies as spreading misinformation, as the Minister of Justice did in his response to my question, saying that I had mis-characterized the bill, it is not a far leap to surmise that the new provision has great potential for abuse. That could be true for any political stripe that is in government.

The government's charter compliance statement, which is long and vague and has only recently been issued, should raise concerns for parliamentarians in this regard, as it relies on this statement: “The effects of the Bill on freedom expression are outweighed by the benefits of protecting members of vulnerable groups”. The government has already been found to have violated the Charter in the case of Bill C-69 for false presumptions on which one benefit outweighs others. I suspect this would be the same case for Bill C-63 should it become law, which I hope it does not.

I believe in the capacity of Canadians to express themselves within the bounds of protected speech and to maintain the rule of law within our vibrant pluralism. Regardless of political stripe, we must value freedom of speech and due process, because they are what prevents violent conflict. Speech already has clearly defined limitations under Canadian law. The provisions in Bill C-63 that I have just described are anathema to these principles. To be clear, Canadians should not be expected to have their right to protected speech chilled or limited in order to be safe online, which is what Bill C-63 would ask of them.

Bill C-63 would also create a new three-headed, yet-to-exist bureaucracy. It would leave much of the actual rules the bill describes to be created and enforced under undefined regulations by said bureaucracy at some much later date in the future. We cannot wait to take action in many circumstances. As one expert described it to me, it is like vaguely creating an outline and expecting bureaucrats, not elected legislators, to colour in the picture behind closed doors without any accountability to the Canadian public.

The government should have learned from the costs associated with failing when it attempted the same approach with Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, but alas, here we are. The new bureaucratic process would be slow, onerous and uncertain. If the government proceeds with it, it means Canadians would be left without protection, and innovators and investors would be left without the regulatory certainty needed to grow their businesses.

It would also be costly. I have asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to conduct an analysis of the costs associated with the creation of the bureaucracy, and he has agreed to undertake the task. No parliamentarian should even consider supporting the bill without understanding the resources the government intends to allocate to the creation of the new digital safety commission, digital safety ombudsman and digital safety office, particularly since the findings in this week's damning NSICOP report starkly outlined the opportunity cost of the government failing to allocate much needed resources to the RCMP.

Said differently, if the government cannot fund and maintain the critical operations of the RCMP, which already has the mandate to enforce laws related to public safety, then Parliament should have grave, serious doubts about the efficacy of its setting up three new bureaucracies to address issues that could likely be managed by existing regulatory bodies like the CRTC or in the enforcement of the Criminal Code. Also, Canadians should have major qualms about creating new bureaucracies which would give power to well-funded and extremely powerful big tech companies to lobby and manipulate regulations to their benefit behind the scenes and outside the purview of Parliament.

This approach would not necessarily protect Canadians and may create artificial barriers to entry for new innovative industry players. The far better approach would be to adapt and extend long-existing laws and regulatory systems, properly resource their enforcement arms, and require big tech companies and other actors in the digital space to comply with these laws, not the other way around. This approach would provide Canadians with real protections, not what amounts to a new, ineffectual complaints department with a high negative opportunity cost to Canadians.

In no scenario should Parliament allow the government to entrench in legislation a power for social media companies to be arbiters of speech, which Bill C-63 risks doing. If the government wishes to further impose restrictions on Canadians' rights to speech, that should be a debate for Parliament to consider, not for regulators and tech giants to decide behind closed doors and with limited accountability to the public.

In short, this bill is completely flawed and should be abandoned, particularly given the minister's announcement this morning that he is unwilling to proceed with any sort of change to it in scope.

However, there is a better way. There is an alternative, which would be a more effective and more quickly implementable plan to protect Canadians' safety in the digital age. It would modernize existing laws and processes to align with digital advancements. It would protect speech not already limited in the Criminal Code, and would foster an environment for innovation and investment in digital technologies. It would propose adequately resourcing agencies with existing responsibilities for enforcing the law, not creating extrajudicial bureaucracies that would amount to a complaints department.

To begin, the RCMP and many law enforcement agencies across the country are under-resourced after certain flavours of politicians have given much more than a wink and a nod to the “defund the police” movement for over a decade. This trend must immediately be reversed. Well-resourced and well-respected law enforcement is critical to a free and just society.

Second, the government must also reform its watered-down bail policies, which allow repeat offenders to commit crimes over and over again. Criminals in the digital space will never face justice, no matter what laws are passed, if the Liberal government's catch-and-release policies are not reversed. I think of a woman in my city of Calgary who was murdered in broad daylight in front of an elementary school because her spouse was subject to the catch-and-release Liberal bail policy, in spite of his online harassment of her for a very long time.

Third, the government must actually enforce—

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, there is indeed a secret in the House, and that is the Conservative Party's true intentions when it comes to cuts. “Chop, chop, chop,” as my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine so aptly puts it. That party wants to cut social programs and the programs that are so dear to Quebeckers and Canadians: women's rights, the right to abortion, the right to contraception. The Conservatives want to scrap our government's dental care and pharmacare plans. The secret is the Conservative Party's hidden agenda, which will do great harm to all Canadians.

With our government's usual transparency, this evening we will proceed to report stage consideration of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments, and Bill C-40, an act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to repeal a regulation regarding miscarriage of justice reviews, also known as David and Joyce Milgaard's law.

Tomorrow, we will begin second reading of Bill C-63, an act to enact the online harms act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

I would like to inform the House that next Monday and Thursday shall be allotted days. On Tuesday, we will start report stage of Bill C-69, the budget implementation act. On Wednesday, we will deal with Bill C-70, concerning foreign interference, as per the special order adopted last Thursday. I wish all members and the House staff a good weekend.

Finance

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker. I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Report Stage

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-20 in this place.

This bill is incredibly important, as it would enact a new stand-alone statute to establish the public complaints and review commission, or PCRC, as an independent civilian review body for both the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency. For the first time, both these law enforcement agencies would fall under the scrutiny of an external review body. The bill would also bring about enhanced reporting mechanisms, improving our ability as parliamentarians to hold the Minister of Public Safety to account in relation to complaints and systemic reviews.

I urge my hon. colleagues to adopt this bill without delay. It responds to long-standing, unfulfilled commitments from the government's first mandate to introduce legislation to create a review body for the CBSA. Indeed, Bill C-20 follows three previous attempts to fill this gap. Now is the time for us to make sure that Bill C-20 passes the finish line. Robust, independent review of our law enforcement agencies is essential to public trust and the rule of law, and central to our role as parliamentarians in holding to account the Minister of Public Safety through his reporting to Parliament.

Bill C-20 is an effort to foster trust between Canadians, the RCMP and the CBSA, and it would do so by providing greater transparency and accountability. Adoption of this bill would be timely, as there has been a notable erosion of trust in Canadian law enforcement agencies. There are many reasons for this, but the erosion has largely been influenced by several recent events involving law enforcement misconduct. The erosion of trust is also the product of broader discussions around systemic racism within law enforcement. A public opinion survey from 2022 found that only one in three Canadians agreed that the RCMP treats members of visible minority groups fairly or that it treats indigenous people fairly. CBSA and RCMP officers are entrusted with broad powers, and Canadians expect and deserve assurances that these powers are not abused or misused. They expect and deserve assurance that any allegations of misconduct will be reviewed and redressed when warranted.

As lawmakers, we have the power to restore public confidence in our law enforcement agencies in order to sustain our country's peaceful and civilized society. Under this legislation, we would ensure that Canada's two largest law enforcement agencies are required to demonstrate their ongoing commitment to justice and fairness in all their actions. Through the establishment of the new independent review body, they would also need to be transparent with the public about their powers and their integrity in exercising these powers.

As I mentioned, Bill C-20 responds to calls from the public for greater transparency and accountability from Canada's law enforcement agencies. The PCRC would replace the existing Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP and extend its mandate to the CBSA with increased accountability and tools at its disposal. Complainants and eligible third parties would now have access to an external body that could independently initiate, review and investigate RCMP- and CBSA-related complaints as they relate to conduct and/or levels of service.

In general, the PCRC would first refer the cases to the RCMP or the CBSA for initial investigation, to ensure accountability remains first and foremost on these agencies. If an individual is not satisfied with how the RCMP or CBSA handled the complaint, they could ask the PCRC to review it. At the end of the PCRC investigation, the review body would report its findings and make recommendations. Tracking these recommendations and their implementation by the RCMP and the CBSA would better allow us to hold the minister to account.

Further, the bill would allow third parties to submit complaints to the PCRC. Vulnerable individuals are sometimes reluctant to file a complaint or may be unable to proceed with the complaints process, because of language barriers, distrust of law enforcement or other reasons. In some cases, a complaint against the CBSA may come from someone who is detained in a CBSA facility.

The inclusion of third parties would provide for greater representation from individuals who may be reluctant or unable to complete the complaint process. This would make the PCRC accessible to a greater number of individuals who interact with the RCMP and the CBSA, including migrants detained in immigration holding centres and provincial facilities or in any future designated immigrant stations as proposed in Bill C-69.

There is a second type of review that the PCRC could undertake as part of its mandate, and that is the conduct of specified activity reviews, or SARs, on the PCRC's own initiative, at the request of a third party or by the Minister of Public Safety. Also called systemic investigations, SARs would allow the PCRC to identify systemic issues and develop recommendations around policies, procedures or guidelines relating to the operations of the CBSA and the RCMP. These investigations would provide the PCRC with the tool to identify broader concerns in Canadian law enforcement and to contribute to solutions to address them.

In contrast to its predecessor, Bill C-20 would also provide PCRC with enhanced tools to fulfill its complaints and review mandate. First, it would establish the PCRC under stand-alone legislation to reinforce the commission's independence from the agencies it reviews. To further increase accountability, the bill would also create codified timelines for the RCMP commissioner and the CBSA president to respond to the PCRC's interim reports, reviews and recommendations. This would help deliver on some of the recommendations made by the Mass Casualty Commission with regard to creating more transparent reporting of federal law enforcement agencies.

In addition, deputy heads of the RCMP and the CBSA would be required to submit an annual report to the Minister of Public Safety to inform them of the actions taken in response to the PCRC recommendations. Annual reports would be tabled in both Houses, allowing for parliamentary scrutiny, which would further strengthen the accountability process. To facilitate the identification of and contribute to the government's efforts to address systemic issues around vulnerable populations, the PCRC would be required to collect disaggregated demographic and race-based data of complainants.

The bill would seek to improve law enforcement's interactions with the public by mandating PCRC outreach activities, including with indigenous or racialized communities, and raise awareness of people's right to file a complaint.

I think the legislation is crucially important. All members at the committee stage and all parties represented have had the opportunity to put forward amendments and work collaboratively with us. With respect to the arguments around its timing to get here, if members truly believe the legislation is needed and important, then they should vote with us to ensure that it passes quickly.

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.

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to join debate in the House of Commons, even quite late on a Monday evening. We are discussing Bill C-49, a bill the government tabled to solve regulatory issues and bring them in line with other bills it had passed, in particular, the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-69 of the 42nd Parliament.

The problem with Bill C-49, as well as the sudden urge to ensure its passage by invoking closure and using procedural tools to force a vote on it, is this: Since the time the government tabled the bill at first reading to bring existing environmental regulations into line with the other red tape it brought in with Bill C-69, significant portions of Bill C-69 were struck down in court.

The prudent action any government would take in this situation would be to remedy the portions of its existing red-tape regime that have been found to be unconstitutional. The government has been found to have trammelled the constitutional prerogatives of provinces. This is what the Supreme Court found in its review of Bill C-69. However, the government is persisting, through Bill C-49, in taking the same unconstitutional framework and applying it to offshore projects, both oil and gas drilling projects and future renewable energy projects, such as offshore wind production or perhaps tidal electrical generation.

On this side of the House, we are the party of energy. Canadians need reliable, affordable and abundant energy. That energy could come from any of a variety of sources. We support all forms of energy that can deliver on those basic points of affordability, availability and reliability. Different parts of the country are able to produce energy in different ways. The potential for offshore in its oil and gas potential has brought, in fairly recent memory, tremendous economic benefit to Newfoundland and Labrador. For the first half or more of my life, this was by far the poorest region in Canada, with the lowest per capita GDP. It is a part of the country that really suffered economically and had the lowest standards of living in Canada.

We have seen in a generation what energy production can do for that part of the world and how so many people from Newfoundland and Labrador have also helped build Alberta and its energy projects. In addition to that, there is tremendous potential for offshore renewable energy. However, taking this unconstitutional model from the government's earlier bill and applying it to projects offshore, renewable or non-renewable, is not going to give affordable, reliable and available energy for Canadians or create the export opportunities that an abundance of energy may give. This is a flawed approach.

One would think that the Liberals would not need the opposition to move an amendment that would seek to refer the bill back to committee where it could be studied further and amended to deal with the reality of the Supreme Court's decision on renewable energy. However, they have even made it muddier still by tabling, in the House, a budget implementation act that further confuses regulatory issues and compliance and congruity between these different acts, by tabling a bill that overlaps and attempts to do some of these things the bill before us would do.

One would think that the Liberals would hold back on the bill before us and call the BIA tonight, and it is confusing because it is numbered Bill C-69, but have that debate instead and move that bill along. I mean, I will vote against it and I hope that other members will too and so that we can bring the government down and get on with the carbon tax election. However, either way, whether the bill passes or not, surely that is a more prudent present step than forcing through Bill C-49, which has obvious constitutional and regulatory problems to it. So, if they will not do it for that reason, if they will not do it for compliance or get the order right with the BIA versus Bill C-49, at least recognize that the Supreme Court has already weighed in on the substance of the bill and found it unconstitutional. The bill belongs back at committee, or perhaps just not called at all.

The Liberals have tabled a lot of bills, and a lot of them do not go anywhere. In fact, over these last few weeks, they have tabled a number of bills that they have not called, and so I do not understand, in terms of the management of its legislative calendar, why suddenly the drive to call the bill before us.

We have seen the kind of red tape that this government has given Canadians. The Liberals have already hindered traditional and alternative energy development in Canada. Under Bill C-69, no projects get approved. It is the no-more-pipelines bill, and it is going to become the no-offshore-wind-development bill and the no-offshore-drilling bill. To top it all off, I understand from speaking to a number of Atlantic members of Parliament that they have also managed to upset the stability and the investment climate for the fishing industry, because they have not consulted those in the fishing industry who stand to be affected by the bill. This government is so consistent in its muddy, muddled approach to regulation and the creation of red tape. It is time for this government to maybe fire some gatekeepers instead of finding new ways to tie up Canadian businesses and scare away investment.

However, scaring away investment is exactly what these bills have done. Bill C-69 led to capital flight from this country. We have seen how Bill C-49, even its tabling, has also triggered capital flight from Atlantic Canada in terms of projects abandoned and the dearth of new applications for drilling or offshore projects in the wake of the bill. As my colleague for Calgary Nose Hill said earlier, Canada has become a country where political risk is driving away investment, because decision-makers, those who allocate capital, do not know from one year to the next just what this government is going to do. It piles on laws that do not stand up in court and then it is charging along here tonight by calling the bill before us and having a debate on it as if the Supreme Court decision did not happen. It happened, and it cannot be ignored. The bill was tabled before that decision, and it does not take that decision into account. It should be taken back to committee where maybe it can get sorted out, or it can just be held back and not called again.

The Liberals have so many other bills that they seem to want to get approved but have not called and have chosen instead to call Bill C-49. I would call on the government to get a hold of its legislative calendar, get a hold of its constitutional issues, and go back and fix the bill if it is going to call it again.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands undoes himself with his own arguments. He says inflation is not as bad as it was three years ago. He says the Liberals are getting a little better than they were. The Liberals want to tell us they might be bad, but they are getting a little better, and they are not doing as badly as they used to.

To the member's comments on the Constitution, the Liberals just show complete disregard for the Constitution. They just ignore it. They violate the law routinely. We see that with Bill C-69. The anti-energy, anti-development Bill C-69 has been found, in part, to be unconstitutional, and rather than responding to it, they are resuscitating provisions in Bill C-49.

While I am on my feet, I just want to say the lack of extending the rural top-up to the people of Pefferlaw is a grave injustice. I stand with the member for York—Simcoe in calling for the immediate redress of that injustice.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

The member is asking if that leads to the use of the notwithstanding clause.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals actually just ignore the Constitution. They bring in a bill like this that does not at all address or respond to what the court has already found with respect to Bill C-69. The member for Kingston and the Islands wants to use constitutional issues as a pointed, partisan political attack, while he and his colleagues show shameful disregard for the Constitution in terms of their own legislative action.

I have read, in the good book, that someone should not try to remove a sliver from their brother's eye when they have a log in their own. When it comes to respecting the Constitution, I think the government has a log in its own eye that it needs to address before it tries to hurl political attacks at others.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it does seem that a substantially greater number of Liberals came in for my speech, like the member for Kingston and the Islands in particular, and the prospective leadership candidate, the Minister of Housing. The Liberals are busy planning leadership campaigns.

To the member's point, a very important point, I will firmly agree with everything said by my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill. The government members love to talk about the Constitution, except when they violate it. It is all about the charter, except when it is inconvenient.

Then, on Bill C-69, the court finds the government was ignoring the Constitution. It shows flagrant disregard for the constitutional order, and it gets its plans shut down.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her very interesting speech. She raised some important issues.

I sit with other colleagues on the Standing Committee on Finance. Introducing mammoth bills, budget implementation bills that affect a whole bunch of different acts, seems to be the government's way of doing things at the moment. It is positioning itself above the provinces, above other jurisdictions, above other governments and telling them how things are going to be done.

The latest example is Bill C-69, in which the government legislates on the whole issue of open banking. Institutions under provincial jurisdiction must ask the province for permission to opt in to federal regulation if they want to be able to compete with federally regulated banks. That always seems to be the way. This government does not seem to understand that the compromise of the federation was to create separate governments, each of which is sovereign in its own areas of jurisdiction. In the House, the government always says that it conducted consultations, but when we talk to the governments, we find out that it did not, or that the consultations were too little, too late and always conducted with a paternalistic approach. Ottawa knows best and decides what the naughty little children should do.

Is that acceptable?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was delighted when I heard the member for Waterloo express her jubilation on the floor of the House that we would be supporting this bill. I thought it was very appropriate for her to do that.

On the issue of constitutionality, Bill C-69 has been found wanting. There is a term “mene, mene, tekel, upharsin”, which means “numbered, numbered, weighed, divided”. The Supreme Court of Canada has studied Bill C-69 very carefully and determined that it is not constitutionally compliant. The Supreme Court of Canada has made a decision on Bill C-69.

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2024-25

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister will not be surprised that I want to turn to Bill C-69 and the sections relating to the Impact Assessment Act. I never did practise constitutional law, but I have been consulting with some constitutional law experts. The minister brought the bill forward, so he must think it will meet the standards of the Supreme Court of Canada that this is federal jurisdiction. I do not. I wonder if the minister is open to considering changes, even at this stage, to ensure that environmental assessment is returned to the four squares of federal jurisdiction, as was the case under Brian Mulroney's version of environmental assessment, which was repealed by Stephen Harper.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the growing problem of auto theft in Canada.

Our government has remained steadfast in its commitment to effectively combat auto theft. We have taken deliberate, effective and swift action, including by organizing the national auto theft summit, where we brought together partners and stakeholders from across government, industry and law enforcement to agree upon strategies to better respond to this issue.

Through the budget implementation act, we would amend the Criminal Code to provide additional tools for law enforcement and prosecutors to address auto theft. I really hope this is something that all parties in this place can get behind. I am going to speak to each of these amendments in turn.

Canadians are concerned with the increasingly violent nature of auto theft and the involvement of organized crime groups. To effectively respond to these concerns, Bill C-69 would enact new offences targeting auto theft and its links to violence and organized crime, punishable by a maximum of 14 years.

These offences are important. They explicitly recognize the increased severity of blame that exists when someone not only steals a car, but also uses violence to achieve it. Carjackings are traumatic not only for the victims, but also for those who may witness such brazen acts of violence. With changes proposed, the government is unequivocally denouncing such conduct. Make no mistake; such conduct will be responded to in a manner that reflects its seriousness.

No less serious is the link between auto theft and organized crime. We have all seen the news that demonstrates the sophisticated criminal operations that have fuelled the increase in auto theft in Ontario and Quebec. Cars are stolen in communities and quickly brought to Montreal where they are put on ships for sale in other countries. Such activities cannot be accomplished without organized crime. Not only does the crime line the pockets of criminals, but it also provides them with the resources to engage in other illicit activities. All of this threatens the stability, safety and prosperity of our communities.

I am encouraged to see our government, together with other levels of government, proposing thoughtful and targeted responses to get at the heart of this illegal activity. Moreover, working together with our law enforcement partners, we have learned that organized crime entities are advancing modern technology for car theft. They are targeting vehicles equipped with keyless ignition systems, employing software to unlock and start those cars remotely.

This understanding prompted our government to propose changes that would create new offences for possession and distribution of devices used to commit auto theft punishable by a maximum of 10 years by indictment. This makes eminent sense as we want to get at the related activities that make auto theft easier to commit.

The government is also proposing changes to tackle the money, a critical side of organized crime. We know that targeting money-laundering operations is a crucial element in an effective response to the crime. It is essential to disrupt the availability of laundered funds that contribute to keeping criminal groups in operation.

Bill C-69 would reaffirm the offence of laundering the proceeds of crime for the benefit of a criminal organization, punishable by a maximum of 14 years. Again, that is an example of a targeted response in the fight against organized crime, whether the laundered funds came from auto theft or any other crime.

I was also pleased to see amendments proposed to respond to the reality that criminal organizations are involving youth in crime, including motor vehicle theft and carjacking. We need to make amendments to stop organized crime groups from involving youth. It is reprehensible, no matter the offence.

The new factor applies to advancing sentencing where there is evidence the offender is the ringleader, involving a person under the age of 18. It is critical that an offence implicitly recognize this. It is imperative that we take decisive action to prevent criminal organizations from exploiting vulnerable young people in such heinous activities.

In addition to establishing new offences to enhance efforts against auto theft, amendments proposed by the budget implementation act would also provide law enforcement with access to investigative tools for these offences, including wiretap authorizations and DNA warrants.

Our government is proposing changes to the Criminal Code that would actually combat auto theft. The Leader of the Opposition is trotting out rhetoric and failed policies and claiming it will solve the problem. We know his proposals will not work. He knows his proposals will not work, in fact, but he is going to try to sell us a bill of goods anyway. On this side of the House, we are focused on actual solutions.

Let us keep in mind the Criminal Code is only one tool, among many, used to fight auto theft. Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, also includes measures that would crack down on auto theft by amending the Radiocommunication Act to regulate the sale, possession, distribution and import of devices used to steal cars. This would enable law enforcement agencies to capture and remove devices believed to be used to steal cars from the Canadian marketplace.

Beyond legislative changes, our government is investing heavily in cracking down on auto theft, including $15 million to support motor vehicle investigations and stolen vehicle recovery. Of course, combatting organized crime is essential in those stolen vehicles being returned. It is also a pivotal part of the issue at hand. I was heartened to read that nearly 600 vehicles were recovered from the port of Montreal last month before they could be illegally shipped overseas.

Cracking down on auto theft means cracking down on international organized crime. That is why the government is investing $3.5 million in funding to Interpol's joint transnational vehicle crime project to enhance information sharing and investigative tactics to identify and retrieve those stolen vehicles around the world.

To the same end, the government is also investing $28 million to detect and search shipping containers for stolen vehicles, as well as enhance collaboration on intelligence sharing with partners around Canada and internationally to help identify those involved within the supply chain and arrest those who are perpetuating the crimes.

The government is also committed to extending $9.1 million to provincial, territorial and municipal police forces, through the contribution program to combat serious and organized crime, to increase their capacity to take custody of detained stolen vehicles from the Canada Border Services Agency.

Cracking down on guns and gangs is a key part of combatting auto theft, which is why the government is also investing $121 million in funding to the Province of Ontario to help prevent gun and gang violence, including organized crime and motor vehicle theft, through the initiative to take action against gun and gang violence.

Motor vehicle theft presents a multi-faceted challenge that requires a comprehensive solution. The proposed legislative amendments, along with significant investments, recognize this.

Too many families and too many victims, in my community especially, are being affected by the disturbing rise in auto theft and home invasion. It affects people at home. It affects people emotionally. It is a serious issue. We must do everything we can, working together, to stop this violence and protect our communities. It is not to heckle and not to persuade others to do otherwise. We need to work together and find the opportunity to fix this matter. I appreciate this opportunity to address it as well.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity this evening to speak on an issue of major concern to the residents of Canada: the threats of organized crime and money laundering and the measures that the Government of Canada is taking to respond to these serious problems.

Specifically, I am going to share with everyone how the government proposes to strengthen the robust framework that is in place in the Criminal Code to address these serious crimes. The government has been listening to the concerns of communities in Canada and is acting to ensure that law enforcement and prosecutors have the laws and tools they need to combat these serious crimes.

Organized criminal groups are increasingly sophisticated and mobile. Their activities extend beyond the illegal drug trade to include the trafficking of human beings, cross-border smuggling, counterfeit goods, natural resource crimes and money laundering.

As we have seen in recent years, organized crime has also expanded its focus to auto theft. Organized crime has devastating impacts on our health, safety and economic security. These impacts include the harms of substance use and the tragedy associated with overdose; the loss of financial security due to crimes such as auto theft and frauds; and the erosion of our communities' sense of safety and security.

However, I am pleased to speak today about some of the considerable tools that police and prosecutors have to assist them in the investigation and prosecution of organized crime offences and money laundering. The Criminal Code defines a criminal organization broadly. It refers to “a group, however organized...of three or more persons in or outside Canada” that “has as one of its main purposes or main activities” to commit or facilitate a serious offence that would “result in...a material benefit” for anyone in the group.

A serious offence is one that is punishable by at least five years' imprisonment or that is otherwise prescribed by regulation. As well, there are four specific criminal organization offences in the Criminal Code. These consist of participating in the activities of a criminal organization, recruiting members for a criminal organization, committing an indictable offence for a criminal organization and instructing the commission of an offence for a criminal organization. These offences are punishable by significant penalties, including up to life imprisonment for instructing the commission of an offence for a criminal organization.

The involvement of organized crime in an offence has further implications under the Criminal Code, both prior to a trial and following a conviction. These include the availability of enhanced tools to enable police to investigate offences involving organized crime. They also include the requirement for a person charged with an offence involving organized crime to justify why their release from custody pending trial is, in fact, warranted.

There are significant implications for an offender who is convicted of a criminal organization offence. They include that the courts must consider, as an aggravating factor for sentencing, that a crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal organization. All murders connected to an organized crime are automatically treated as first-degree murder, regardless of whether or not they were planned and deliberate. There are increased maximum and mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment for certain offences committed in connection with organized crime, and the offender may face forfeiture of the proceeds of their crime unless they can demonstrate that the property was not obtained or derived from organized crime activity.

Although the Criminal Code has a comprehensive framework to address organized crime in all its forms, the government has in recent months considered how best to update our criminal law as organized crime shifts its strategies. That is why I am pleased to outline the measures included in Bill C-69, the budget implementation act.

To respond to the rise in motor vehicle theft, particularly where violence and organized crime are involved, the proposed amendments include the following: new offences targeting auto theft and its links to violence and organized crime, which would carry a maximum penalty of 14 years of imprisonment; new offences for possession and distribution of a device suitable for committing auto theft, which would carry a maximum penalty of 10 years of imprisonment; a new aggravating factor at sentencing if an offender involved a young person in committing a crime; and, lastly, a new offence for laundering proceeds of crime for the benefit of a criminal organization, which would carry a maximum penalty of 14 years of imprisonment.

However, this is not all the government has been doing to provide law enforcement and prosecutors with tools in the Criminal Code to respond to the serious crimes of money laundering and terrorist financing. In recent years, the Government of Canada has introduced legislative reforms to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, the Income Tax Act and the Criminal Code to better respond to money laundering and terrorist financing.

Having said all that, I have a question for the minister with respect to the notwithstanding clause.

We have often heard from the leader of the new Reform Party across the way about the notwithstanding clause. However, zero is the number of times that any federal government from any party has ever used the notwithstanding clause, as this would negate enshrined freedoms of Canadians. Furthermore, it has only rarely been used by provinces. However, two weeks ago, the Leader of the Opposition, the new Reform Party, said that he would trample on our charter and use the notwithstanding clause to knowingly violate Canadians' rights. This is very serious.

Can the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada talk to this chamber about the notwithstanding clause and why it should not be used to attack the rights and freedoms of Canadians as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, the new Reform Party?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Chair, it is a pleasure to rise today in the chamber. I will be providing remarks and using the remainder of my minutes, after my remarks, with some questions for the minister.

I am pleased to speak this evening to an important keystone of access to justice, and that is legal aid. There are so many things one can speak on, but I have to limit what I can say here tonight in the minutes I have available.

While legal aid is not covered in the appropriations requested under the main estimates, budget 2024 includes measures to increase funding to criminal legal aid as well as legal aid for immigrants and refugees. It also includes new funding for impact of race and culture assessments. These proposed increases are contained within Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, which is now going through Parliament.

I want to give a short preamble to my comments on legal aid.

Our work on access to justice is aligned with broader Government of Canada work to achieve the sustainable development goals, including SDG 16, which speaks to a peaceful, just and inclusive society.

Our government is moving forward on this objective thanks to a person-centred approach. That means that we are focusing on the various needs of people with justice issues. The system must take into account people's situations.

This includes any history of victimization, mental health or substance use. In this vein, we are committed to addressing the root causes of crime, recognizing that this is the most effective way to build safer communities. Fair and equal access to justice also means ensuring respectful and timely processing without discrimination or bias.

We recognize that racism and systemic discrimination exist in our institutions. We know indigenous people, Black people and members of other racialized communities are grossly overrepresented in Canada's criminal justice system as both victims and offenders. In fact, we have heard plenty of testimony on that aspect at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

This brings me to the topic of legal aid.

A strong legal aid system is one of the pillars that advances access to justice in our justice system. However, not everyone has equal access to legal aid and representation. Lawyers are costly and the courtroom can be a confusing place.

Legal aid assists economically disadvantaged people in obtaining legal assistance and fair representation. We are committed, together with our provincial and territorial counterparts, to ensuring stable and predictable funding for legal aid so that Canadians can access justice.

Funding for criminal legal aid is marked as a decrease in the main estimates. While it is reflected as such, Bill C-69, and the justice minister addressed this in a previous question, proposes to renew this funding to provide $440 million over five years starting in 2024-25. The renewed funds would support access to justice for Canadians who are unable to pay for legal support.

We know that would be particularly helpful for indigenous people, Black people, members of other racialized communities and people with mental health problems, who are all overrepresented in Canada's criminal justice system.

As I mentioned, improving access to legal aid is possible only with continued collaboration between our governments, the provinces and the territories. The proposed renewed federal contribution will assist them in paving the way to greater access to justice, especially for vulnerable groups. We are also committed to ensuring the ongoing delivery of legal aid in immigration and refugee matters with eight provincial partners. That includes Nova Scotia.

The world is facing an unparalleled flow of migrants and refugees, and Canada is no exception. I have heard their stories, heard about the lives they left behind and heard about the challenges that they have to face in a new country, no matter how welcoming it may be, particularly when they have to deal with unfamiliar, complicated legal processes.

That is why our government is firmly committed to upholding a fair and compassionate refugee protection system. Part of this work is making sure that refugees have access to legal representation, information and advice. That is why budget 2024 proposes to provide $273.7 million over five years, starting in 2024-25, and $43.5 million ongoing to maintain federal support for immigration and refugee legal aid services in eight provinces where services are available. This includes an additional $71.6 million this fiscal year.

The funding will improve access to justice for asylum seekers and others involved in certain immigration proceedings who may not have the means to hire legal representation. Immigration and refugee legal aid supports fair, effective and efficient decision-making on asylum and certain immigration claims by helping individuals present the relevant facts of their case in a clear and comprehensive manner.

To improve these specific legal aid services, Justice Canada works in tandem with provincial governments and legal aid service providers, as well as with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. We want to collectively ensure that we have stable and predictable ongoing funding for these important services.

Before I conclude, I also want to touch on another important item that would be supported by Bill C-69, impact of race and culture assessments, which would help the courts understand how racism and discrimination have contributed to a Black or racialized person's interactions with the criminal justice system. Budget 2024 proposes to provide an additional $8 million over five years and $1.6 million ongoing to expand these assessments in more jurisdictions.

On access to justice for all Canadians, we are committing to ensuring that the justice system is fairer for all. I will now continue with the time that I have left to pose a couple of questions to the minister.

My first question is going to centre on the online harms act, Bill C-63. I just want to preface it by saying that the online harms act is something that many of us are very concerned about these days. Obviously, we always were, but the concern is heightened. It is to combat online hate, but it is also to protect our children from sexual exploitation and other harms. One cannot happen without the other.

Can the minister please comment on this, and, specifically, can he explain to Canadians and to the House why is it essential to raise Bill C-63 in the context of protecting our children?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Food and Drugs Act

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all my colleagues for their support and for speaking to Bill C-368, but I want to remind people how we arrived here.

There seem to be some forgetful folks. Even though I am thanking the NDP for its position, I would like to remind people how we arrived at this place. We are at this point with natural health products because of a budget implementation act, Bill C-47, which was passed for budget 2023. The authority for that came from a promise made by the leader of the NDP in March 2022 to form a coalition, a supply and confidence agreement, with the Liberal government, which meant carte blanche. It was going to support every budget and every budget implementation act that it had not even seen, discussed nor been party to. It gave that power to the Liberal government, and that is why we are here today.

While I appreciate the NDP's revisionist history on this, it is the reason this change happened in the first place. I am glad it is supporting this bill, which would take the legislative framework back where it was with the previous Conservative government under Stephen Harper and where we had the best natural health product regulations, framework and industry in the world. There is no need to tamper any further with the natural health product industry.

I want to talk about freedom of choice in health care, as this is a huge issue. Over 80% of Canadians, and I suspect it is even more, are using natural health products. This is about that freedom of choice and losing that choice. I believe the Canadian Health Food Association, the Natural Health Product Protection Association, the Direct Sellers Association of Canada and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business when they say that the changes being proposed by the Liberal government, through Health Canada's changes to the definition of therapeutic products to include natural health products, is going to kill and stifle business. I believe them when they say that because we have a nine-year track record of the government doing nothing but harm to the economy of this country. The government is going to continue to do it to this beautiful, wonderful industry that gives Canadians the choice they need to look after their own personal health.

Finally, I want to thank all the Canadians who have reached out to members of Parliament in a very active campaign to let MPs know how important this is to them. I want to thank the mothers out there who look after their families. I know my wife is the same way. She had a full-time job on top of her full-time job of raising the family while I was here in Ottawa. She wanted to help our kids, to help our family and to keep us healthy. She wanted to make sure we had the best possible health outcomes that we could have. I want to thank all the women who make up the largest part of the workforce and the entrepreneurship in this beautiful industry. The fact that there was not a gender-based analysis on this is striking.

I want to thank the seniors and those with chronic conditions who are scared about losing their access to these health products. When these organizations I mentioned before said that they are going to lose these products, I believe them. These seniors believe them, and these people with chronic conditions believe them. This is how they manage. This is how they cope with their ailments, and we should be enabling and empowering that, not scaring away investments, businesses and opportunities.

I want to thank the wonderful people in the industry. I want to thank the beautiful people I have met from coast to coast who are part of this industry. I have never met a group of people who are more conscientious, more thoughtful, and more creative and innovative. I want them to know that I am very thankful for the work they do.

For those who are going to be voting in favour of this, we are going to be voting on this next Wednesday night in a recorded division. I want to thank my colleagues for sending this to committee so that we can hear from the experts and from Canadians about this because this was snuck through in Bill C-47. The Liberal government is doing it again, right now, with Bill C-69 in this place. It is making even more changes to Health Canada and giving it more powers. Why are we not talking about this in a separate piece of legislation so that we can actually have a proper debate about it? Now we are, with Bill C-368.

It is time to pass Bill C-368. It is time to get back to basics. It is time to get back to making sure that Canadians have access to the health products they deserve. I want to thank my colleagues who are brave enough and who have the courage to do what their constituents want them to do, and vote for Bill C-368.

Response to Order Paper Question No. 2221

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Simcoe North on May 8, respecting the government's response to Order Paper Question No. 2221 and the testimony of the Department of Finance on the subject matter of Bill C-69, the budget implementation bill. Question No. 2221 asks for information about overpayments for the Canada child benefit. The member acknowledged in his intervention that the government did respond to significant parts of his written question. However, the government was unable to respond to a sub-element of the member's question, and I will quote that part. The question states:

...collected from taxpayers who received overpayments following or due to death of a child; and (b) what is the amount of money represented by the overpayments in (a)(i) and (a)(ii)?

There is a simple and straightforward response to this. The Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, has an identifying code for why a child has become ineligible for the Canada child benefit. However, CRA does not have the reason codes for the overpayment. The reason for this is that the CRA does not have the information about a child's death, but the CRA cannot determine the reason for an overpayment or a recovery and how that relates to the child's death. The death of a child could form one piece of potentially multiple pieces that would result in an overpayment.

The question posed by the member on May 7 at the finance committee was about cancelled eligibility for the Canada child benefit and was not requesting information about overpayments. These are two different questions. In conclusion, the specific information sought in Question No. 2221 relates to overpayments. The answer provided to the member reflects the data available in the CRA systems relating to overpayments in the manner requested by the member. Where there were limitations to the provision of data, a rationale for the limitation was provided in response to the member.

As you can see, Madam Speaker, there was no intent to mislead the member or the House in the government's response to Question No. 2221. Moreover, information the member referred to in his intervention from testimony at the finance committee on May 7 differs from the information provided in response to Question No. 2221 since they are different questions. As I have previously stated in the House, the government can only answer the question posed in the Order Paper Question. It cannot assume that a member is making a different question. I can confirm that the government's response to Question No. 2221 was accurate, and we stand by it. A question was posed through the Order Paper process. The government responded to the precise question accurately and within timelines established in the Standing Orders. This matter does not in any way affect the member's rights or privileges in discharging his parliamentary duties.

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.

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?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impact Assessment Act

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to this bill.

The issue of impact assessments and environmental studies is significant, given that Quebec, Canada and the entire world are going through an extremely intense environmental crisis, biodiversity crisis and climate crisis.

I was a bit surprised by the speech by the member for Repentigny, who is a Bloc Québécois member. I would like to remind her that, unfortunately, pollution and greenhouse gases do not recognize provincial borders. What is happening in the Prairies, out west or up north has consequences on the lives of Quebeckers.

I would also like to take this opportunity to give a bit of background, because an important report was released by Environment and Climate Change Canada this week. The report indicated that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions increased by 10 megatonnes between 2021 and 2022. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change was very pleased about that. To quote a well-known film, I could say, “and he is happy”. That is mind-boggling, because he is saying that at least the numbers are better than they were in 2019. They are better than they were in 2019 because something happened in 2020 that had a pretty major impact on our greenhouse gas emissions. It was the pandemic. COVID-19 is saving the current environment minister's statistics. Had it not been for the pandemic, there would be no reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Let me put things in context. What we have also learned is that, from 2005 to 2022, Canada's overall emissions decreased by a measly 7%. That decrease is mainly attributable to the pandemic, which all but wiped out economic development, trade, travel and so on. The economy had to be put on pause for there to be a significant drop in greenhouse gas emissions. If we factor out the pandemic, the Liberals' plan is not working.

The Liberal government's current target is a 45% drop in emissions by 2030. Emissions have dropped 7% in 19 years. There are five and a half years left to do the rest, that is, to reduce emissions by 38%. We have barely managed to reduce emissions by 7% between 2005 and 2022, and that included the pandemic period. Now they would have us believe that we are going to cut emissions by 38% in five and a half years. This makes no sense, unless we have a pandemic every year. It is our choice. It has to be one or the other.

All this is happening while the Liberals are running hot and cold. They are incapable of really taking on the big polluters and big oil companies who are largely responsible for the current situation. That is because of all their projects, including the Trans Mountain project, the pipeline they bought with our money to the tune of $34 billion.

What we found out through the work of journalists at The Globe and Mail was that the Liberals were about to impose a special tax, a special tax on the excessive profits of oil and gas companies, but at the last minute, under lobbyist pressure, they backed down. It disappeared from the budget. That is what The Globe and Mail is reporting. It just goes to show how much sway the oil lobby has over the Conservatives or the Liberals.

Before I tackle the bill specifically, I would like to point out that the oil and gas sector has the highest share of GHG emissions, at 31%. It is the fastest-growing sector, the sector with the fastest-rising environmental impact and the heaviest polluter. We all know that the best way to stop this insanity is to cap oil and gas sector emissions.

The Liberals and the Minister of Environment, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, keep promising that they will do this, but we are still waiting. Today, during question period, we found out that they have promised to publish draft regulations. Wow, we are going to get draft regulations. We are going to get the beginnings of an outline for some regulations that may or may not materialize someday. If that is not the government dragging its feet and straining people's credulity, I do not know what is.

The issue is urgent. We need a cap on oil and gas emissions, but the environment minister thinks it can wait a while longer.

This cannot wait. The Alberta government said a few weeks ago that the forest fire season had already started. It is expected to be even worse this year than it was last year. My NDP colleague from Victoria said she never thought she would ever see forest fires start in British Columbia before winter was over. That is the new reality.

If people breathed in smoke last summer, they had better brace themselves, because this summer will be even worse. It is possible that last summer will be the best summer we will have for the next 10 years. I take no pleasure in saying that. People are getting sick and dying from air pollution, from forest fires and from fine particles in the air. That is the reality.

We need legislation on the impact assessment process for major projects to ensure that we meet our Paris Agreement targets, uphold our commitments on biodiversity and our treaties with indigenous peoples in the spirit of reconciliation, and show respect for local communities through proper consultations.

I understand where the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent is coming from when he says that we need to avoid redundancy. One process is better than two. I am just saying that we need to be careful. The federal government has specific responsibilities, particularly when it comes to biodiversity and wildlife. I think that it is important to have a process for ensuring that projects comply with our international treaty obligations, particularly the Paris Agreement, and that we meet our specific responsibilities toward indigenous peoples and species at risk, in terms of biodiversity. If the government steps back from the process as this bill suggests, it will give some provinces the opportunity to unilaterally approve projects that will have a major impact on all Canadians. The NDP is worried provinces may rubber-stamp projects, speeding up the approval process to say yes to everything, which will increase the negative impacts on our environment and ecosystems. This is an important issue for us. We voted against Bill C-69 because we did not think that it went far enough, because it did not have enough teeth and because we were concerned that it gave the minister far too much discretion.

However, it has already been used. This law was used to delay an expansion of the Vista coal mine in central Alberta after civil society groups and activists fought hard for an environmental assessment of the project and for a number of their concerns to be addressed.

Given the ongoing environmental and climate crisis, the NDP is very reluctant to give up a tool that can effect change. We cannot simply say that if the province is doing it, everything is okay, without taking a look. As we see it, this would mean certain Conservative provincial governments could approve some projects that will have a major impact on everyone and that will not comply with our international agreements. We believe in strong, firm measures. The federal government needs to be present, watchful, and capable of shouldering its environmental protection role and going after big polluters like the oil and gas sector.

The Impact Assessment Act is an important tool for keeping our air and water clean and ensuring a healthy environment and healthy surroundings for everyone.

In closing, I would say that we cannot overlook the fact that, as far as greenhouse gas emissions and pollution are concerned, borders, provinces and countries do not exist. We believe in taking responsibility and keeping watch for the sake of our future and our children's future.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, on that question I can assure the hon. member that whatever we do, we will do with the elected premier of British Columbia and not the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

On the Thursday question, this afternoon we will continue with debate on Bill C-49, the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic accord implementation and offshore renewable energy management act, which has had great support obviously from my colleagues from Atlantic Canada.

Tomorrow, we will call Bill C-20, concerning the public complaints and review commission act.

On Monday, we will begin debate at second reading of Bill C‑69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.

I would also like to inform the House that Thursday, May 9, will be an allotted day.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 54 to concur in the eighth report of the Standing Committee on National Defence, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and at the conclusion of the time provided for debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the motions be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred pursuant to Standing Order 66.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

moved that a ways and means motion to introduce a bill entitled An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be concurred in.