Thank you, Madam Chair.
This will be my last intervention, and before I continue, I just want to thank the chair and all of my colleagues for your generosity in allowing me as an independent to get some thoughts on the record. It's very collegial of all of you, and I appreciate it.
I will do one intervention to speak to the point that Mr. Weiler just made on clause 597, but I'll also comment on clause 598. Then I don't need to do any more interventions.
Clauses 597 and 598 would amend the Competition Act to remove the requirement that the substantiation of representations about the environmental benefits of businesses or business activities must be done in accordance with internationally recognized methodology. That's what the act says now, and it's what we passed in the last Parliament. As Mr. Weiler just eloquently pointed out, the act would also be amended to exclude the application of the provision respecting those representations from proceedings before the Competition Tribunal that are initiated by a member of the public. In other words, you can't have a complaint initiated by a member of the public rather than the commissioner of competition.
Both of these clauses contain two amendments to anti-greenwashing provisions that were added to the Competition Act in 2024 as a collaborative effort by Liberal MP Patrick Weiler, me and Bloc MP Gabriel Ste-Marie. The first change removes the requirement....
I've talked about the changes, but I think the important point is that together these changes will weaken the anti-greenwashing protections that Parliament put in place less than two years ago. Also, removing the requirement for internationally recognized methodology and shutting out third party complaints will predictably make it easier for companies to continue to make unverified environmental claims and harder for Canadians to hold them accountable.
I would urge all of my colleagues to vote against clauses 597 and 598 for those reasons.