Bill C-69

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

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

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

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Environment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criminal Code

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

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

Bill C-69—Time Allocation Motion

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

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

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

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

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved:

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

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

Excise Tax Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill C‑69—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

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

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to report stage and third reading of Bill C-69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages of the bill.

Financial Institutions

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Online Harms Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third, the government must actually enforce—

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

Finance

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

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

Report Stage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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