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.

[Judith Hamel]

As it was announced by the government in the last fall economic statement and budget, the department is working toward the development and implementation of the consumer-driven banking framework.

A first set of legislation was tabled with the first budget implementation act, and work is ongoing for the second set of legislation, to be tabled at the earliest opportunity, I guess.

[Gerry Harrington]

Yes, I fully agree. Frankly, we have no other option than to introduce digital measures to resolve the labelling issue. That's one of the potential benefits of Vanessa's Law.

It gives us the tools to fix the regulation without disrupting the current availability of products, by having the ability to pull products out of that regime and fix the regulations so that we can use QR codes and other digital tools to enhance the labelling and then bring them back in. That is a new authority that was just made available through Bill C-69, and it's a solution we're pursuing very hotly right now.

Those kinds of modern tools, when we have change at the rate we do in our environment, are essential. The current labelling rules were developed in the United States in 1989, pre-Internet, in a country with one language. Those rules absolutely don't work in Canada. We need to be able to use things like QR codes to communicate with Canadians.

[Jules Gorham]

As Mr. Harrington has referred to, the labelling changes were passed into law in 2022. Those are to start being enforced early next year. Those labelling changes will essentially make NHPs a lot more similar to over-the-counter medication packaging—essentially drug packaging.

We have a cost recovery proposal that is now in its second consultation, which has closed down. This must be one of the consultations being counted, which was on cost recovery. Regardless of anything, that is set to go into the Gazette, part II in spring 2025, and the industry will be faced with cost recovery fees as of December 1, 2025.

We have these two omnibus bills, Bill C-47 and Bill C-69. We also have new good manufacturing practice guidance and quality guidance that is coming out. The one that was written before was written in conjunction with the department and industry, and the new one seems to be very similar to what is out for pharmaceuticals.

[Gerry Harrington]

Yes. Thank you for the question.

I mentioned previously that from the industry perspective there's a reputational risk from any weakening of the authorities around natural health products, but from a consumer perspective I think there are other really important considerations.

One of them.... Let's take the example of the nicotine order that we were discussing and that Mr. Thériault brought up earlier. In the absence of Vanessa's Law authorities, as he pointed out, it would be impossible to deal with the current challenge around a specific product that was introduced by a tobacco company without also interfering with the availability of legitimate smoking cessation therapies. What Vanessa's Law does, as it continues to be modernized, is give us new tools to deal with that without disrupting consumer access.

The other one is something that we're working on right now. I've mentioned our challenges around the labelling file. This is a regulation that was passed just in 2022. We are in a position where industry is simply not going to be able to comply by the current compliance deadlines for that. The ability of the minister to issue exemption orders under the most recent changes under Bill C-69 will give us a mechanism to potentially deal with that.

I wouldn't say that we rely on Vanessa's Law for our well-being, by any stretch, but there are benefits. We're talking about modernizing legislation that, until Vanessa's Law came along, had been virtually untouched for 50 years. This is important for regulating in the environment we're in, where change is constant.

[Michelle Auger]

No, we're not saying that.

In fact, we represent 97,000 small and medium-sized businesses from across the country, and about 2,000 of those are involved with natural health products. What our members feel is unfair is the way that these policies are being put in place. They're being tacked on piece by piece. There's no long-term vision, and they're not getting a lot of information or detail from Health Canada as to why these pieces are being implemented and how they're going to impact their businesses. That's why our members are upset.

I don't think they would oppose a stop law, but what they are opposing is the way in which these policies have been tacked on. They want to be part of the conversation. They want to be sitting at the table, talking to Health Canada and asking it questions about how these new policies continue to impact their businesses.

I did mention Bill C-69, which had natural health product implications. We're still waiting for a response from Health Canada as to how those will impact some of our members.

[Michelle Auger]

I also want to add that from our members' perspective, even when these clauses and provisions were included in the bills, there was very little information and detail as to what that entailed. Our members who are impacted by these changes were totally caught off guard, because they didn't really know the repercussions. The same thing just occurred with Bill C-69. There are some impacts there impacting natural health products, but when we actually reached out to Health Canada and asked them what this means for small businesses, we got nothing from them.

[Michelle Auger, Senior Policy Analyst, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Over the past few years, we've seen a piecemeal approach to NHP policies. Instead of a coherent, forward-looking strategy, Canada has been introducing new rules bit by bit, whether it be Vanessa’s Law, increased licensing requirements, increased fees or additional labelling rules. This isolated approach leaves many small businesses scrambling to comply, often without a clear understanding of the long-term vision of the sector. This creates confusion and inconsistency.

Furthermore, our members believe Health Canada's current approach overlooks a crucial fact: NHPs are not pharmaceuticals, and they should not be regulated as such. For instance, the recent introduction of cost recovery fees being layered on top of stricter labelling requirements does not consider the unique realities of small businesses operating within the sector. One of our members imports approximately 800 different types of NHP. He has projected that the cost recovery program could add an extra $500,000 per year to his business expenses.

SMEs operate with tight budgets, and many may find it challenging to absorb these rising costs, especially all the additional costs associated with compliance. This forces many SMEs to make some tough business decisions, such as reducing investment in their operations and their employees, reducing innovations and reducing proper health and safety measures. Such a situation also creates an uneven playing field between small and large businesses. With large companies better equipped to absorb these expenses, this ultimately hinders the ability and the competitiveness of SMEs.

Bill C-368 seeks to repeal sections of Bill C-47, the budget bill. However, it is important to note that Bill C-69, another budget bill, also included further measures impacting NHP businesses.

Our members are not against the modernization of NHP regulation. However, they're concerned about Health Canada's introduction of multiple uncoordinated regulatory changes that risk overwhelming small businesses and complicating their survival in an already very tough economic landscape. As such, CFIB supports the passing of Bill C-368. It's a very important bill to a lot of our members operating within the NHP sector.

Thank you for your attention to these concerns. We look forward to answering your questions.

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

Is Bill C-69 a good one as far as barriers to investment, then?

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

That's a good question. Thank you, Mr. Julian, for your question. You're exactly right.

Here's how it played out: Bill C-51 was brought forward. I don't think the industry responded well to Bill C-51 back when that happened. The right thing to do when Parliament or a government in the House of Commons makes a mistake is to step back, ask “What have we done?”, and then consult with the industry, consult with stakeholders, and consult with people who are going to be affected by this.

Mr. Julian, if the claim that 80% of Canadians.... You asked me during the debate on Bill C-368 whether I take these products. You and I are part of the 80% of Canadians who take them. As a matter of fact, you and I both take magnesium, which is very understandable, considering the lifestyles and the work demands that we have.

That's how you do it. You do it by engaging. What's missing in this particular case is that the government did make a misstep with Bill C-47. The misstep is that it didn't consult with the industry and that it was tucked into a budget implementation act. It passed basically with no discussion. I don't recall anybody in the debate on Bill C-47 even raising the issue, because it was just four little lines in this great big omnibus piece of legislation, until people figured out what was actually going on with the implementation of the self-care framework. Then the industry came forward and asked the government, similar to what it did with Bill C-51 and Bill C-17, to take a step back and to consult the industry before moving forward. That's how you do things in a constructive way.

What I've seen happen here is that the government has not only dug in on Bill C-47 but has also doubled down on it in Bill C-69, the next budget implementation act, giving the power to Health Canada and to the minister to make immense changes to the industry.

To my knowledge, to this day the industry has not been consulted by the minister, who's been responsible for making those last two changes.

How can you build goodwill and get to a place where everybody is happy, where Canadian consumers are happy, where the industry is happy and where the government can provide adequate oversight? Nobody's arguing that there should be no oversight. We're simply saying, the industry is saying and Canadians are saying that there was not a really big problem with the way things were, and if there are a few small flies, we don't need to swat them with a sledgehammer. That seems to be what's happening.

My recommendations would be to pass Bill C-368 and take it back, and then, if the government does have some legitimate problems, start all over again. Start working with the industry on a broader level. Do consultations before making this kind of a misstep again, because we've riled up thousands—millions—of Canadians with this, as has been evidenced by the cards we've received, and rightly so, Mr. Julian.

Our job, as members of Parliament, is to work on behalf of Canadians, not to work on behalf of the government.

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

Yes, with regard to those female entrepreneurs, 54,000 Canadians work directly in the industry, but there has been no gender-based analysis on this. Over 80% of the consumers of natural health products are women, 90% of practitioners in the industry are women, well over 50% of the micro-businesses are female-owned and 84% of direct sellers are women.

Here's the part that's particularly obnoxious about the way this has all happened: Bill C-47 and Bill C-69 give the Minister of Health the power to make direct orders. When the minister has the ability to make a direct order, they don't have to go through the gazetting process. When you don't go through the gazetting process, you actually don't have to do the gender-based analysis the government set up when it came into office in 2015, so no gender-based analysis was done on this particular issue of changing natural health products under the rubric of Vanessa's Law, and I think that's particularly galling, since this government claims to be a feminist government. It's going to disproportionately affect women—women-owned businesses, women consumers, mothers who want to look after the health of their families and their children. People who are looking after their own health should have choices and options available to them.

The community's frustrated, Mr. Ellis.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here to discuss my private member's bill, Bill C-368, which was passed at second reading on May 29.

Bill C-368 is, by design, a bill that is meant to undo the changes made to the definition of natural health products in Bill C-47, a budget implementation act passed by the Liberals and the NDP. The omnibus bill brings natural health products under the legislative and regulatory rubrics of Vanessa's Law, a bill that was intended to only affect therapeutic chemical drugs.

The Liberal government, supported by the NDP, snuck these changes in without consulting the industry, shrouding their actions under the cover of a budget bill, hoping no one would notice. However, Canadians did notice.

Over 80% of Canadians rely on products such as protein powders, vitamins, probiotics, electrolytes, etc., every day in their daily lives. They would like to have their say on this bill. Bill C-368 is finally their opportunity for them to have that say.

The changes introduced in Bill C-47 are unacceptable and will lead to irreparable harm to the natural health product industry and the 32 million consumers in Canada. Eighty per cent of Canadians use natural health products. Businesses will close, innovation will be stifled, investment will dry up and Canadian products will disappear from shelves. Made-in-Canada choice will be replaced with unregulated foreign mail orders.

We are talking about a $5.5-billion industry that generates over $200 million in GST. It employs 54,000 people directly, from manufacturing to retail, and this does not even include the members working indirectly in the industry's packaging and shipping and so on.

I believe that Canadians have the right to make the health choices that are best for them and their families. I also believe that businesses should not shoulder the heavy cost of an ever-growing bureaucratic empire. We know that existing regulations on health supplements already keep Canadians safe. This additional red tape is about giving more power to Ottawa, not protecting Canadians.

That's why I've introduced my bill, Bill C-368, which amends the Food and Drugs Act and takes us back to the laws and regulations prior to Bill C-47. It aims to safeguard the rights of Canadian consumers and ensure the availability of safe and beneficial natural health products that Canadians rely on.

By supporting this legislation, you will be pushing back against governmental overreach and protecting the rights of entrepreneurs and consumers in the health product market. Together we can ensure that Canadian businesses are competitive and that Canadians' access to safe supplements is protected.

Before we go to the round of questions, I would like to refute some claims that some of the detractors of my bill have stated.

The first is that the industry is not a safe one. If anything, our existing regulatory system is one of the best in the world. I would like to quote the IADSA, the global association for the food supplement sector. In a letter they submitted to this committee, they stated:

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.

They're not talking about the Bill C-47 changes; they're talking about before Bill C-47.

Next, Health Canada has paraded out an Auditor General's report that claims that hundreds have become sick from natural health products, notwithstanding the fact that therapeutic drugs harm a magnitude more people than natural health products. This statistic is simply not true. Deloitte conducted an audit of the industry, and it shows that in fact very few people have had adverse effects from natural health products.

There's a general theme to be observed here. Health Canada makes claims they cannot support and provides no documentation to support their claims, which are quickly debunked in the absence of any real data.

Another line of attack on my bill was that the changes to the Food and Drugs Act were necessary to stop the sale of nicotine pouches. This is simply not true. Nicotine pouches should never have been categorized as a natural health product, nor did Health Canada need to give them a natural health product number. The Minister of Health already has the powers needed to fix these issues, including issuing a stop order. Why the need for these ever greater powers?

The last claim is that the self-funding model is needed to pay for the expanded bureaucracy. The directorate at Health Canada is now $50 million. This industry generates over $200 million in GST alone. One could assume then that the self-funding model is nothing more than a tax grab.

If I am to leave you with one salient point, it's that the minister has given himself unchecked power with Bill C-47 and Bill C-69 to deem many products non-compliant, even if the scientific evidence does not support that claim. When we couple this with the fact that under Vanessa's Law non-compliance can result in $5-million daily fines, natural health product small and medium-sized enterprises are understandably feeling the chill of a government with unchecked power.

This once stable, safe and renowned industry is being destroyed. As MPs, it is our duty to fix the mess that Bill C-47 has created.

I urge all of you to go through the study, pass my bill unamended and send it back to the House of Commons as quickly as possible.

Thank you, Chair.

[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.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome to our witnesses today as we continue our study on red tape reduction.

My first questions will be for Mr. Buckley with the Natural Health Products Protection Association.

I would have to say that as a member of Parliament, there are certain issues that we tend to hear back from our constituents about in a really big way. I heard from many constituents after the introduction of the budget implementation act last spring. They were deeply concerned with the changes that were introduced in that bill to the regulation of natural health products.

I have two questions for you.

First, were any consultations held with the natural health products industry?

Would it be fair to say that your industry was caught off guard by the changes that were introduced in the budget implementation act, Bill C-69?