Bill C-69 (Historical)

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.

Food and Drugs Act

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak about Bill C-224. This is an important bill that impacts millions of Canadians who rely on natural health products as part of their daily health and wellness routines, and who want to know that the products they are using and consuming are safe.

I think all of us recognize that this bill has some ideas worth exploring. Our government is always open to ideas that help Canadian businesses thrive and ensure that Canadians have access to safe, effective natural health products. In fact, one of our new government's top priorities was to remove burdensome red tape in regulation. We have seen this promise in action in the natural health product sector. Our government heard from natural health product companies that they were finding that some new regulations were too onerous or did not do what they set out to do. In response, we paused some of these regulations and limited the scope of others.

Canada's natural health product industry is a huge part of the economy. We want to make sure that these companies can thrive, but we also want to make sure that Canadians can trust that the natural health products they rely on are safe, and that what they say on the label is what is actually in them. After all, the term “natural health products” encompasses a wide range of products, and one only needs to look at the Health Canada recall page to see that. Sometimes mistakes are made. There can be mislabeled products or undeclared ingredients. In one extreme case last year, a range of multivitamins and supplements had to be recalled across Canada because they contained metal fibres. These recalls are rare, but they show how even seemingly safe products that are authorized and widely used can still have some risks.

That is what makes some regulatory oversight so important. Having food and drug safety regulations that ensure that the products on store shelves are safe, effective and of high quality helps Canadian consumers and Canadian companies alike. These regulations build trust and confidence in the system. Consumers trust that the products on store shelves are what they say they are, while businesses get to operate on a level playing field. It also makes Canada a more attractive destination for companies looking to expand, because they know that we have a regulatory system in place that maintains some of the highest food and drug safety standards in the world.

An unintended consequence of Bill C-224 is that, rather than simply reducing the regulatory burden on natural health product companies, it could make people less certain about the products they are using.

Under the current laws and regulations, the Minister of Health has a number of important powers. They can order a product recall. They can require changes to labels or packaging. They can request additional information about a product when they suspect the product poses a serious risk to human health. They can issue fines against companies that refuse to take unsafe products off the shelf. These are all important tools to protect consumers, and the way it is currently written, the bill would remove these tools altogether.

I know that the bill's sponsor, the member for Ponoka—Didsbury, is a long-time advocate for natural health products. During the previous Parliament, he introduced the forerunner of this bill, Bill C-368, which had many of the same provisions.

I will pause here to note that one important difference between Bill C-368 and Bill C-224 is that the current bill does not exempt nicotine products from the Food and Drugs Act, which is a significant improvement. Both bills are a considerable attempt to help natural health product companies continue to grow and thrive. This is a goal all of us share.

It is certainly a goal of our new government. It is why we have been working closely with our natural health product industry stakeholders as part of our red tape review to streamline and reduce unnecessary regulatory burden. Thanks to the red tape review, Health Canada is shifting to a risk-based approach to oversight that will reduce pre-market requirements for natural health products, while shifting direct oversight and resources to higher-risk areas. It also put a pause on new labelling requirements and is continuing to work with natural health product companies to address their concerns.

We also recognize that a key part of working with the natural health product industry is flexibility. We cannot just apply a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach. One of the important pieces of legislation passed by the previous government was Bill C-69, which gave the Minister of Health the flexibility to respond to urgent and emerging regulatory challenges as they arise with tailored options and solutions. In a world where both industry and government are constantly facing evolving challenges, this kind of flexibility is essential.

This important work needs to continue, and I think there is room within the current bill to allow it to continue, which is why I look forward to voting for this bill and studying it at the health committee.

However, we also need to make sure there are rules and regulations in place to protect Canadian consumers. When Canadians reach for a product on a store's shelves, they need to have confidence in its safety and trust that the label accurately represents the product. If they do not have that confidence, if they cannot trust the product they are buying, it will hurt the entire natural health products industry and, by extension, our economy.

There is an important balance we need to find, and I hope we can study this bill at committee to make sure it strikes the right balance, one that ensures Canadians can have peace of mind when it comes to the products they buy and that Canadian natural health product companies have the tools they need to grow and thrive.

Opposition Motion—Pipeline Construction

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, just off the top, I want to note that I will be splitting my time this afternoon.

Canada is rich in natural resources, and our energy sector creates opportunity, growth and prosperity for our country. In my region, energy jobs support families and generate growth for small businesses, contractors, tradespeople and apprentices. These companies do not just produce energy. They create middle-class jobs, they sustain local economies, they invest in local needs and community projects, and they do it while operating under some of the highest environmental and safety standards anywhere in the world.

Canada has the energy that we need as a country and that the world needs. In fact, the world wants more Canada. However, for 10 years, the “keep it in the ground” Liberals have done everything possible to hinder energy development in Canada.

The Liberals passed Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, a bill that went so far as to give the federal government unprecedented powers over provincial infrastructure, industry and natural resources. Even the Supreme Court has deemed it unconstitutional. They imposed a shipping ban on the northern B.C. coast that blocks responsible Canadian energy from reaching world markets. They have done that while letting foreign ships carrying foreign energy sail freely through the same waters. They have chased away investment, crippled our competitiveness and, in doing so, threatened energy security for not only Canada but also our allies.

Now, after a decade of this, the Prime Minister tells Canadians that his government wants to build things previously thought impossible, at speeds we have not seen in generations. He told us he would turn Canada into an energy superpower. He has now signed a memorandum of understanding with Alberta and claimed that at the core of this agreement is a priority to have a pipeline to Asia.

Today's motion simply asks the Liberals to vote for the very words their own Prime Minister signed, the same words the Liberals have been celebrating and congratulating themselves over for nearly two weeks. It asks them to support a pipeline to the Pacific. It asks them to stop hiding behind premiers and non-existent vetoes. It asks them to be honest with Canadians about their intentions and their priorities.

Already, though, the cracks are showing on that side of the House. Liberal members are openly rejecting the Prime Minister's MOU. The member for Fleetwood—Port Kells said there will be no pipeline without the consent of the Premier of British Columbia. The member for Victoria has plainly said he does not support a pipeline. Premier Eby, to whom the Prime Minister has effectively handed a veto, has been equally clear. He says that a pipeline to the Pacific will not go ahead, that it will never be built and that he refuses to allow the shipping ban to be lifted.

Well, the Premier of British Columbia does not have a veto. The Constitution is explicit. Only the federal government has the power to approve an interprovincial pipeline. No premier can stop it, and no province can veto it. The Liberal government knows this. Instead of owning that responsibility, the Prime Minister would rather use Premier Eby as a political shield. The Prime Minister is using him as someone he can point to when he backs away from the pipeline after the next election.

If the Liberals cannot stand behind their own MOU in the House, and if they cannot give the private sector the certainty and confidence that it needs to invest in a project of this scale, then this MOU is nothing more than the illusion of progress. It is not real progress. Shamefully, the Liberals have already announced that they will not support today's motion. Liberals are claiming that the motion somehow does not reflect the entire agreement, and that is simply not true.

The motion we are debating takes note of the MOU in its entirety. The Liberal government's unwillingness to stand behind it does not instill confidence. Let us not forget the fact that the MOU does not even promise a pipeline. It does not start construction. It does not commit a single metre of pipe to being laid. All it says is that seven months from now, a proposal might be sent to the federal office for two more years of study. The Liberal government is so divided that it cannot even unite behind such a limited proposal.

After eight months of promises of building at unimaginable speed, Canadians have seen nothing but paper shuffling, rebranded offices, and more and more press conferences. The Liberal member for Vancouver Granville's comments are quite telling. He called this pipeline “a theoretical conversation right now”. Where do we stand today? There is no route, no proponent, no approval process and, as we are seeing, absolutely no commitment from the Liberal caucus.

Canadians cannot afford another Liberal pipe dream, and after 10 years of failed and damaging policies, Canadians cannot afford the Liberal government. The Prime Minister's delays, taxes and regulatory roadblocks have continued to drive investment out of this country. Since he took office, nearly 50,000 more Canadians are unemployed, and nearly $50 billion of investment has fled the country. As the CEO of TC Energy said, the United States continues to be more attractive for investment than Canada. It is not that energy development and prosperity are not possible here in Canada. They are possible.

However, the Prime Minister needs to do just one thing for a pipeline to happen, and that is to get out of the way: get out of the way by repealing the industrial carbon tax that drives production out of Canada; get out of the way by repealing the anti-development laws like Bill C-69 and the shipping ban; get out of the way by granting a permit for a pipeline to the Pacific and unlocking the trillions of dollars of private investment that would be ready to build it.

Energy CEOs have publicly called on the Prime Minister to cut red tape, reduce timeline approvals and grow energy production. The current trade and global uncertainty is all the more reason to ensure we are doing what we can in Canada to spur economic growth that is within our control.

Getting the Liberal government out of the way would boost Canadian paycheques. It would strengthen the Canadian dollar. That in turn would make energy, food and homes more affordable. It would strengthen our self-reliance, security and sovereignty. It is time to do that.

Canadians need real action, not press releases, not paper pushing and not theoretical pipelines, no more delays and no more deflections. It is time for the Liberal government to stop talking out of both sides of its mouth, to stop blocking Canada's energy potential, to unlock the trillions of dollars of private sector energy investment, to build profitable pipelines and to enable the shipment of a million barrels of oil to Asia. Canadians are watching today. Do members know who else is watching? Investors are watching.

Let us be clear. If Liberals vote against this motion, they are voting against their own commitments. They are voting against the agreement that the Liberal Prime Minister signed and celebrated with the Alberta premier. They are making it once again clear that they cannot be taken at their word.

Food and Drugs Act

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-224 this morning.

This is an important bill that would impact millions of Canadians who rely on natural health products as part of their daily health and wellness routines and want to know that the products they are using and consuming are safe. Unfortunately, the bill as it is currently written would make it harder for Canadians to trust the safety and quality of their natural health products, and it would make it harder to make sure that harmful products could be taken off the shelf. However, even with those flaws, I think we can all agree that this bill has some ideas worth exploring.

One of our new government's top priorities was to remove burdensome red tape and regulations. We have seen this promise in action in the natural health products sector. Our government heard from natural health product companies that some of the regulatory burdens added by the previous government were too onerous or did not do what they set out to do, so we paused some of those regulations and limited the scope of others.

Canada's natural health products industry is a huge part of our economy, and we want to make sure that these companies can thrive. We also want to make sure that Canadians can trust that the natural health products they rely on are safe and that what is on the label is actually what is in them. After all, the term “natural health products” encompasses all sorts of things. It includes vitamins, minerals and supplements, but it can also include products like sunscreen, deodorant and toothpaste. It even includes products that contain addictive substances, like nicotine in the form of nicotine replacement therapies. In other words, there is a wide range of products.

We need only look at the Health Canada recall page to see that sometimes, mistakes are made. There can be mislabelled products or undeclared ingredients. In one extreme case last year, a range of multivitamins and supplements had to be recalled across Canada because they contained metal fibres. These recalls are rare, but they show that even seemingly safe products that are authorized and widely used can still have some risks.

Having this oversight in place, with food and drug safety regulations that ensure that the products on store shelves are safe, effective and of high quality, helps Canadian consumers and Canadian companies alike. These regulations build trust and confidence in the system. Consumers trust that the products on store shelves are what they say they are, while businesses get to operate on a level playing field. This oversight also makes Canada a more attractive destination for companies looking to expand, because they know we have a regulatory system in place that maintains some of the highest food and drug safety standards in the world.

It is important to note that in its current form, Bill C-224 would undo many of these regulations. In trying to lessen the regulatory burden on natural health product companies, it could open the door to companies that do not have the best interests of Canadians at heart.

Under the current laws and regulations, the Minister of Health has a number of important powers. They can order a product recall. They can require changes to labels or packaging. They can request additional information about a product when they suspect that it poses a serious risk to human health. They can also issue fines against companies that refuse to take unsafe products off the shelves. These are all important tools to protect consumers, and Bill C-224 would get rid of them.

I do not think that was the goal of Bill C-224. The bill's sponsor, the member for Ponoka—Didsbury, has been very passionate about this. He has been an advocate for natural health products going back to the previous Parliament, when he introduced the forerunner of this bill, Bill C-368, which had many of the same provisions. I will pause here to note that one important difference between Bill C-368 and Bill C-224 is that Bill C-224 does not exempt nicotine products from the Food and Drugs Act, which is a significant improvement.

Both bills are understandable attempts to help natural health product companies continue to grow and thrive. This is a goal that all of us in this House share. It is certainly a goal of our new government. It is why we have been working closely with natural health products industry stakeholders as part of our red tape review to streamline and reduce unnecessary regulatory burden. Thanks to the red tape review, Health Canada is shifting to a risk-based approach to oversight that will reduce premarket requirements for natural health products, while shifting direct oversight and resources to higher-risk areas. It has also put a pause on new labelling requirements and continues to work with natural health product companies to address their concerns.

We recognize that a key part of working with the natural health products industry is flexibility. We cannot apply a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach. One of the important pieces of legislation passed by the previous government was Bill C-69, which gave the Minister of Health the flexibility to respond to urgent and emerging regulatory challenges as they arise, with tailored solutions. In a world where both industry and the government are constantly facing evolving challenges, this kind of flexibility is essential. This important work needs to continue, and I think there is room within Bill C-224 to allow it to continue.

We also need to make sure that there are rules and regulations in place to protect Canadian consumers. When Canadians reach for products on store shelves, they need to have confidence in their safety and trust that the labels accurately represent the products. If they do not have that confidence and they cannot trust the products they are buying, it will hurt the entire natural health products industry and, by extension, our economy.

There is an important balance that we need to find. I have heard that word a lot in the debate today, and I hope we can find it in this bill at the committee stage. Let us make sure that it strikes the right balance to ensure that Canadians can have peace of mind when it comes to the products they buy and that Canadian natural health product companies have the tools they need to grow and thrive.

Employment

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

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to have my son joining me here in Ottawa today.

This country is experiencing a serious unemployment crisis. The overall unemployment rate of 7.1% is bad enough, but it is young Canadians who are suffering the most, with a disastrous rate of 15.5%.

It is not just the number of unemployed people that is a problem, but also how long they remain unemployed. On average, people stay unemployed for more than 21 weeks. This means that more Canadians, especially young people, are out of work and staying out of work longer. They wait, they struggle, and many lose hope.

I have spoken with Canadians who are experiencing this. A young programmer living in Vancouver told me that he had sent out over 1,000 job applications. He is educated, skilled and ready to contribute. However, after more than a year, he is still unemployed. This is the reality for far too many people. That young man is not alone. I hear the same story in Toronto, Quebec City, Montreal, small towns and rural areas. Young Canadians everywhere say they want to work, but they cannot find a job.

Why is this happening? It is because the government has made choices that hurt Canadian workers. It has allowed certain immigration programs, such as the temporary foreign worker program, to be abused while genuine asylum seekers wait years for a decision. We even see fake college acceptance letters being used to circumvent the system. Meanwhile, Canadians who are here and ready to work cannot find jobs. Is this fair? No. Is it responsible? Certainly not.

The government is also blocking projects that would create jobs. Bill C‑69 and other measures have blocked investments in natural resources, pipelines and mines. These projects would have provided work for thousands of families, but instead of freeing up Canadian talent, this government is tying it up with red tape and gatekeepers. While other countries are moving forward, Canada is moving backward.

The result is clear. TD Bank predicts that 100,000 jobs could be lost by the third quarter this year. The Governor of the Bank of Canada says that businesses are going to scale back hiring. The numbers are there, but behind every number is a family, a young graduate and a community losing hope. This government's record is clear: More Canadians are staying out of work for longer and with fewer opportunities for the future. We have talent, energy and resources, but instead of unleashing that potential, the government is putting up roadblocks.

My question is simple, and I will ask it directly: When will the government finally remove the roadblocks, listen to Canadians and let our workers, especially our young people, build their future here at home in Canada?

Oil and Gas Industry

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, after the Liberals' Bill C-69 cancelled a dozen pipeline projects in Canada, Germany, Japan, Greece, Poland, Latvia, Ukraine, South Korea, the Philippines and Taiwan all pleaded with Canada for our LNG. Now, in the middle of a jobs crisis, the promise of an energy superpower and the world wanting our energy, we could use Canadian steel and Canadian labour to build Canadian pipelines to get Canadian energy to the world.

How many new pipelines can we expect to be operational in the next two years?

Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in the House on what is, in fact, a very sad day for our country. I am quite surprised, flabbergasted really, to hear members across the way say that it is an exciting day. Today is a very sad day with the devastating unemployment numbers that have just come out.

Statistics Canada released unemployment numbers for today showing that unemployment in Canada has risen to 7%. This is the highest unemployment that our country has seen outside of the COVID period since 2016, and it is part of a trend that has been chugging along under the Liberal government. We have seen, if we look at unemployment statistics over the last two years, this increase, particularly in youth unemployment. In unemployment in general, we are now at 7% unemployment.

Many experts expect these numbers to continue and to get worse. For example, a forecast from TD said that it expects 100,000 job losses by the third quarter of this year. The Governor of the Bank of Canada has warned us that “businesses are generally telling us that they plan to scale back hiring.”

If we delve a little more into these numbers, we will see just how painful the situation is for young people. For students looking for summer jobs, one in five Canadian students are now unemployed, which is extremely high. These are young people who are trying to get ahead, trying to pursue opportunities for the future, studying post-secondary, and trying to find jobs so they can sustain themselves and be able to continue their studies. However, one in five Canadian students, more than one in five, are unemployed. This is really a desperate situation for Canadian young people. We have 7% unemployment, and very high rates of unemployment for youth, in particular, for students.

I notice unemployment rates are particularly high in various major centres in southern Ontario. Unemployment is at 10.8% in Windsor, 9.1% in Oshawa, 8.8% in Toronto and 8.4% in Barrie. Toronto's unemployment rate is the highest it has been in over a decade outside of the COVID period. We have seen various sectors being particularly hard hit, with 25,000 manufacturing jobs lost in Ontario alone since a year ago.

Canadians are more desperate. They are searching longer for work. The data shows that, while the number of unemployed Canadians is increasing, the average duration of unemployment is also substantially up, to over 21 weeks. More Canadians are unemployed, in particular, more young Canadians are unemployed. Canadians are waiting longer, struggling more and getting more desperate as they try to find jobs.

As we were preparing for these numbers, I have been speaking to Canadians who are dealing with unemployment. In a number of cases, I talked to people who told me that they put in over 1,000 job applications. I talked to one software developer in Vancouver, for example, who told me his story. He is a young man my age, and a skilled professional. He had to go abroad for some health care that he needed, which he was struggling to get access to in Canada. He came back in the hope of finding a job, and has been struggling to find one for over a year.

I think we can expect Liberals to try to find excuses for this, as they always do, and they will try to point to external events that are beyond their control, but it is important to underline that this is the continuation of a long-running trajectory.

As we have been warning for years, Liberal policies have made it harder and harder for employers to hire people and for Canadians to find work. We have warned about that as these numbers have unfolded and as we have progressed into this unemployment crisis over, really, the period ever since we came out of COVID. I hope that today's dire unemployment numbers are a wake-up call to the Liberal government, a wake-up call that its policies are not working and that it is time to change course.

The other thing we hear from Liberals, in response to bad economic news, is a promise to do the same thing even harder. They instituted bad economic policies that caused a housing crisis and an unemployment crisis, and now they say they are going to do more of the same thing again. They are going to increase taxes and expand spending. I think what Canadians actually want to see is the government change course, change its direction.

As it relates to unemployment, I think we can identify a number of concrete factors, factors that we have been talking about for a long time, that are driving up unemployment in this country. One, and it is very clear, is a lack of private sector job growth. We also had, earlier this week, numbers come out on labour productivity. Labour productivity is down in the service sector, and we are not seeing the kind of productivity growth across the board that would allow us to address these long-running problems.

We are not seeing investment because of barriers that the government has put up. Gatekeepers and obstruction are preventing small and large businesses from moving forward with creating jobs for Canadians. This is most evident in the area of major projects, projects such as pipelines, which are critical for fuelling job growth. Major projects in natural resources, mining and other sectors have been blocked by Liberal Bill C-69, as well as other legislation that undermines the ability of major projects to move forward. We have heard a lot of discourse about major projects from the government, but it continues to speak out of both sides of its mouth, saying it will keep Bill C-69 in place, while also saying it will only move forward with major projects if there is consensus.

We are never going to get everyone to agree on things getting built, on investments being made. If we wait for complete unanimity, then we are just never going to build anything, and that has implications on jobs and opportunities for Canadians, as we are seeing in today's 7% unemployment number and the jobs crisis that we are seeing across the board. Getting major projects by repealing Bill C-69, reversing course on the obstruction and red tape, is going to be critical for our future.

Also, small businesses face all kinds of barriers. We have had growing payroll tax increases that make it harder to hire Canadians, to hire new employees. We have seen a tax on small business over the course of the government's time in office, which is demonizing small business owners as tax cheats. These actions of the government have all had an impact on the escalating unemployment crisis we are seeing.

One thing that we need to do as a country to move forward with addressing this employment crisis is to reverse course on these Liberal antidevelopment, anti-investment policies that have made it so difficult for companies, large and small, to create jobs and employ Canadians.

Another problem that we are seeing is how the cost of living is forcing older workers to stay in the workforce for perhaps longer than they intended. The unemployment crisis is particularly acute for young people. We have had continuous growth in the unemployment rate for youth and, as I mentioned, it is particularly pronounced for students looking for summer jobs.

A contributing factor to that, as some experts have said, is that while Liberals had predicted a so-called grey tsunami of people in older generations leaving the workforce, what has happened is that there have been dramatic increases in the cost of living and the price of groceries. These things have hit seniors particularly hard and have impacted people's ability to retire on the timeline they intended. With the cost of living and obstruction of development, these policies that we have been talking about filter into the unemployment numbers, in which we are seeing this continuous growth.

Then there was, of course, immigration. The Liberals have made a mess of our immigration system, and the conversation around this has completely changed. I recall that 10 years ago there was broad consensus among Canadians about the levels of immigration pursued under the previous government, because there was always an emphasis on understanding what Canada's labour market needs were, viewing immigration through the lens of what is in Canada's interest and welcoming people to this country who could fill in skill gaps and catalyze job growth for Canadians. That was the prudent, effective and welcoming approach taken by the previous government.

It also included a major emphasis on rule of law and proper enforcement. Under the Liberal government, numbers have ballooned and there has been a complete failure of alignment, a failure to align immigration with our national interest and labour market needs. There are major problems, and levels need to come down. There is a broader failure of the government on immigration that is contributing to unemployment. For instance, if we have issues of fraud in the LMIA system, which The Globe and Mail has reported on, that has implications for people who are supposed to be coming here in cases in which there are not Canadians available to work but are actually coming when there are Canadians available to work. Conservatives will continue to hold the government accountable on all of these issues: getting projects moving forward; creating an environment in which small businesses can invest and grow; addressing the cost of living crisis that is affecting seniors and people of all ages, impacting retirement choices; and immigration.

We have talked about these policies; we have predicted these problems, and again we see them in the numbers today. The continuation of a long-running trend now reaches total unemployment of up to 7%. As I mentioned, there are some regional pockets of very low unemployment, but unemployment is particularly high, above the national average, in many of our major central Canadian cities. I know people in Toronto, in particular, are going to be looking at these numbers with great concern, given that they are the highest numbers we have seen in more than a decade.

The path forward is clear. We need to remove barriers to work, reduce the tax burden on working Canadians and get government out of the way so that businesses can grow and hire, and the government must fix immigration. To deliver a government that works for those who work and for students and young people pursuing their dreams, these changes are vitally necessary. Despite talking the talk of change, we continue to see a government that doubles down on the policy failures that have gotten us to this point, a government that continues to talk out of both sides of its mouth on resource projects, a government that continues to allow extremely high levels of immigration. These are the policy choices made by the government that have not changed and that are leading to more of the same in terms of unemployment numbers.

In the context of this overall economic situation, we have Bill C-4 before Parliament. This is a piece of legislation that purports to be about affordability measures for Canadians. When it comes to what the government is talking about in the bill, Conservatives have been very clear that we do not think its proposed measures go nearly far enough in terms of providing Canadians with the tax relief they need.

Of course, Conservatives have for a long time talked about the need to get rid of the carbon tax, the consumer carbon tax and the industrial carbon tax. Liberals have, in the most hyperbolic terms, denounced that advocacy for 10 years. They continue to believe in a consumer carbon tax, as well as an industrial carbon tax, and they would bring it back and raise it if they were ever anywhere close to having a chance to do that.

However, the Liberals perceived that their political interests were at odds with their deeply held convictions, so they announced an intention to change course on the consumer carbon tax while leaving in place the industrial carbon tax, effectively leaving in place a structure that would see those costs passed along to consumers.

These failures of the government to fully address the barriers to opportunity and to investment, such as the industrial carbon tax, and these decisions of the government deter the kind of investment and job growth this country needs. It is about what the Liberals have done and what they have not done, which is leaving in place and continuing to raise taxes on various sectors, on small business, on large business, on companies and on Canadians. This is what is holding back jobs and opportunity.

We do not need to see more of the same. We need to see a change in course. I hope that today's job numbers will evoke some humility from the government members and that they will look at these numbers and say perhaps they need to do something different for the Canadians in their ridings who are struggling, perhaps they need to reverse course on these policies that have, in fact, prevented job growth and led to the increases in unemployment we have seen.

I want to drill down on one specific point, which is that we have seen, over the years, increases in taxes on businesses in the form of increases in payroll taxes. At a time when unemployment is rising, the government should not be planning to hike payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are a tax directly on employment, a tax on jobs, so when the payroll taxes individuals and businesses have to pay are increased, it makes it harder for them to choose to hire more Canadians.

As we go further into this unemployment crisis, as we reflect on the numbers that are in the StatsCan report today, we should remind the government of the importance of not further increasing payroll taxes in the year ahead. I want to very clearly call on the government to not increase payroll taxes in the year ahead.

In conclusion, we have before us Bill C-4, a bill the government says contains affordability measures. It is being debated on a day when we find catastrophic news in the space of unemployment. There is 7% unemployment, which is a number not seen since 2016, outside the COVID period. This is the third consecutive monthly increase in the unemployment rate.

Unemployment has been going up steadily for two years. Canada has had virtually no employment growth since January. Again, students are hit particularly hard, with more than one in five Canadian students now unemployed. This is the highest rate in decades, excluding the COVID period. There are some regional pockets of lower unemployment, but there is very high unemployment, above the national average, in many of our major cities. These unemployment numbers should be a wake-up call for the government about the need to change course and actually allow our economy to move forward.

Oil and Gas Industry

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the election campaign, the Prime Minister said he had a plan to build new energy projects. What better time than today to present his plan to all of Canada's premiers and explain how he will produce that energy?

The citizens of Montmorency—Charlevoix and people across Quebec and Canada are tired of paying more for less. Will the Liberal government think about the regions and repeal the anti-energy legislation, Bill C-69?

Natural Resources

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the campaign, the Prime Minister tried to convince everyone that he was open to new energy projects, but he never clearly said that he plans to repeal the law stemming from Bill C-69, a Liberal anti-development law that would scrap the GNL Québec project. The majority of Quebeckers want pipelines. The people of Saguenay want GNL Québec. We need it to reduce our dependence on the United States.

Will the Prime Minister listen to the people in the Quebec regions and repeal Bill C-69?

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 an impact not just on people's mental health but also on their physical health, which is directly related, as well as 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.