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.

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.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It being 3.34 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-69.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from June 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the third time and passed.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague began his speech by talking about the importance of balancing the budget and cutting the government's unnecessary spending.

Bill C‑69 includes a nice oil subsidy for so-called green hydrogen. It is a tax credit of 15% to 40%. Last year, the federal deficit was about $40 billion. The subsidies and tax credits for oil companies totalled about $30 billion. We could reduce the federal deficit by 75% in one fell swoop.

Is that not something interesting for my colleague to think about?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I have the pleasure of serving with her on the Standing Committee on National Defence.

She began her speech by talking about the fact that we are having to debate an omnibus bill. By definition, an omnibus bill contains anything and everything. This one includes 23 tax measures and 44 non-tax measures.

We are going to vote against it because some of it is completely unacceptable. However, we can still see our way clear to agree that some other measures are acceptable and even good. One example is having the Canada child benefit continue for six months after a child's death.

I would simply like to hear her speak to any measure in the bill she considers worthwhile, or to know whether she thinks Bill C-69 is a total write-off.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the health-conscious constituents in the riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

For anyone tuning in tonight, one may be wondering why we are talking about health products, even though the bottom of one's screen says this is a debate on Bill C-69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget.

The short answer is that the Prime Minister broke his promise to end the use of omnibus bills. Like a living, breathing “hold my beer” meme, these Liberals clearly thought the last government was not omnibusing hard enough. This bill is so obese, it is even cornering the market in Ozempic.

Ironically, this budget implementation bill would give the Minister of Health, and of anti-tourism, brand new powers to make Ozempic illegal for weight loss for everyone else. Since the Liberals started bragging about taking away people's drug plans and forcing everyone into a one-size-fits-all, Ottawa-knows-best, Soviet-style drug plan, I have had one question.

When Canada finds itself in the next drug shortage, how will the Liberals decide who lives and who dies? Not a single member from the socialist coalition has been willing to address the question, but the budget implementation bill's division 31 provides a sinister answer. The government will do whatever it wants.

Here is what the weighty omnibus bill says:

the Governor in Council may make any regulations that the Governor in Council considers necessary for the purpose of preventing shortages of therapeutic products or foods for a special dietary purpose in Canada or alleviating those shortages or their effects, in order to protect human health.

If one takes the word of the officials from Health Canada, all they are seeking is the power to import baby formula without bilingual labelling. If that were true, if the government's real intent was for a temporary emergency measure, the amendment would have been limited in scope and time. Instead, the government went with the kind of language, which maximizes power and minimizes oversight.

Here is the language the government originally sought for the therapeutic products:

if the Minister believes that the use of a therapeutic product, other than the intended use, may present a risk of injury to health, the Minister may, by order, establish rules in respect of the importation, sale, conditions of sale, advertising, manufacture, preparation, preservation, packaging, labelling, storage or testing of the therapeutic product for the purpose of preventing, managing or controlling the risk of injury to health.

Credit goes to the members of the finance committee for adding an amendment to insert the words “on reasonable grounds” into that section, but it does not matter.

The bill also says, “The Minister may make the order despite any uncertainty respecting the risk of injury to health that the use of the therapeutic product, other than the intended use, may present.”

That is quite a power grab. The NDP-Liberal government is literally saying that it does not need evidence to support its radical policy. In fact, the Liberals are saying that any evidence that contradicts their policy can be ignored. This is not the Liberal government gagging scientists. This is the Liberal government gagging science, handcuffing science, taking science out back and executing it gangland-style.

If we take the word of the bureaucrats from Health Canada, the minister needs these extraordinary powers to prevent teenagers from consuming nicotine pods. If that were true, if this were only about preventing nicotine addiction amongst youth, what explains the very next section? It reads, “An order made under subsection 30.‍01(1) or 30.‍02(1) that applies to only one person is not a statutory instrument within the meaning of the Statutory Instruments Act.”

The “minister of unhealthy road trips” will have the power to pass a regulation to prevent a single person from promoting a health product, and not just promoting. The minister could regulate a single person with respect to “importation, sale, conditions of sale, advertising, manufacture, preparation, preservation, packaging, labelling, storage or testing” of the drug.

Even more concerning is that these regulations targeting a single individual would not be considered regulations under the Statutory Instruments Act. Between this section and the section on uncertainty, the government has essentially neutralized the rights of Canadians to appeal these regulations to the federal court. This is an unprecedented power grab by the technocrats at Health Canada.

Given the arrogance on regular display by the car-phobic Minister of Health, it would not take much to convince me that he is the one seeking the radical, non-reviewable powers. Whether his lust for power is rooted in the repeated childhood traumas of station wagon vacations with his parents is not for me to say, but if this language were included in a Conservative bill, the minister would be among the first to accuse us of having a hidden agenda.

With just the flick of a wrist, the current Minister of Health or the next one could ban any drug based on some vague concern about health. As a parliamentarian, I oppose giving any government, Liberal or Conservative, that level of unchecked power. Health Canada's technocrats will claim that this is the same as the regulations limiting alcohol and tobacco advertisements. It is not. This law would give the Minister of Health the power to shut down a single podcaster or TikToker who advertises health products. It could shut down an Instagram influencer who talks about Chinese herbal remedies.

The government has not gone so far as to give itself the power to issue secret orders. Instead, it just gave itself the power to issue an order against a single person, not disclose the person's identity, not disclose the actual health risk and not have to publish it in the Gazette. Health Canada could destroy a person's livelihood by publishing a single sentence in an obscure web page buried deep in some government website. If anyone doubts that the socialist coalition is capable of that, let us remember that these amendments to the Food and Drugs Act are buried deep in the budget implementation bill.

The changes were not even given a mention in the budget. Instead, the government promised it would spend $3.2 million to update Health Canada's supply management capacity over the next three years. It takes a special kind of Liberal arrogance to believe the government can manage a supply of drugs for over 40 million people. The Liberals cannot manage passports. They cannot manage to recruit anyone into the military. They cannot manage an app for collecting travellers' information. They cannot manage the graft at Sustainable Development Technology Canada. They cannot manage the self-dealing within the local journalism initiative. The Prime Minister cannot even manage a cabinet. As a former Liberal cabinet minister said last week, the government has been drinking from a fountain of “socialist bafflegab”.

The technocrats who have been advising the finance minister believe Canadians would be happier if Canadians were taxed at over 50%. The only thing socialists can manage are breadlines. With the median age around 40, that means nearly half of Canadians were born after the collapse of the last socialist empire. They do not know about breadlines. They do not know that Soviet-style socialist drug plans mean Canadians would have to line up for life-saving medicines. The well connected and the wealthy could pay people in line to wait for them. The poor and the marginalized would have to take a day or two off work and wait in line at the government pharmacy.

Just as in the Soviet Union, when reality fails to conform to Communist ideology, the government will ratchet up repression. If rebellious reporters speak up about the drug shortages, the government can accuse them of putting the health of Canadians at risk and issue an order silencing them. The reporters could take the minister to court, but when the judge asks the government lawyers how certain they are that the censorship will protect public health, the government can reply, “Not certain at all, Your Honour”, and the judge will have no choice but to rule in the government's favour.

If members think this sounds unconstitutional, they would be right, but it would not matter. The Liberals would use their favourite notwithstanding clause, called section 1. We saw it time and time again during the pandemic. Governments issued unconstitutional orders, citizens took the government to court and judges ruled that they were not health experts and would defer to the government's experts.

With the precedent set, the technocrats at Health Canada saw it as a green light to seek more power. The Department of Health already has the power to ban a drug, recall it or place any number of conditions on its sale. It already has that power, but it was not enough. Like our Prime Minister, who admires the Communists who control China, the technocrats want the kind of power that only Communism can grant them.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Minister of Northern Affairs]

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in this chamber to talk about Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, which is focused on strengthening the foundations for a good middle-class life, especially for young people so they do as well as or even better than their parents. This is our commitment to Canadians, and we are committed to doing it in a fiscally responsible way.

I will get into a bit about the structure of Canada's economy, the bones of our economy.

The economy in Canada is resilient, and we will deliver the strongest economic growth in the G7 next year. Despite everything we have been through, with almost four years of the pandemic and the disruptions it has caused, like supply chain disruptions and inflation, Canada will continue to lead the G7 in growth.

Our debt-to-GDP ratio is among the best within the G7, and more than 1.1 million more Canadians are employed today than before the pandemic. If we let that sink in, we realize that it is an incredible statistic. Our unemployment rate remains at record lows, and with our fiscally responsible approach to the budget, our AAA credit rating is assured.

At the same time, too many Canadians are not feeling this growth. Too many Canadians are struggling with inflation, the high cost of everything, like groceries, and the lack of housing, which they cannot afford.

Our growth is undoubtedly a strength, but we need to follow a responsible path to ensure that everyone benefits from this growth and that young people can get ahead and find their place in the world.

As I mentioned, one of our biggest challenges is the housing crisis. Most people will agree that the best way to bring home prices back down within reach is to focus on increasing supply and to do it quickly. That is exactly what we are doing. This budget would enable significantly more apartment blocks to be built across Canada. In fact, our caucus was in Winnipeg recently to announce $120 million for the City of Winnipeg from the housing accelerator fund. We are cutting red tape to help homeowners get shovels in the ground quicker, and we are unlocking public lands for residential housing.

Budget 2024 has a long list of targeted relief to make housing more affordable. By collaborating with builders and leveraging the resources of the federal government, in partnership with provinces and municipalities, we will build close to four million new homes by 2031. We are addressing the housing crisis head-on, with solutions to build homes faster, while continuing our commitment to Canada's middle class.

Inflation has fallen dramatically over the last two years. In fact, inflation went down several weeks ago, the Bank of Canada announced. Two years ago, remember, it was 9%, and the Bank of Canada predicts that we will return to the target rate of 2% by 2025.

While the numbers on paper are positive, our government knows that affordability is still a real issue for Canadians. To lower costs for families, we have expanded our social safety net.

Our $10-a-day child care will save Manitoba families over $2,600 a month per child this year alone. Also, we are bringing in dental care. It will save families hundreds of dollars every year. In fact, in Manitoba alone, in 2023, 28,300 children benefited from the Canadian dental care program. The next time the Leader of the Opposition says this program is not real, that it does not do anything, we have to call him out on that. By the summer, people aged 65 and up and those under 18 will be covered by the dental plan. By 2025, nine million uninsured Canadians will be covered.

We also know that too many kids go hungry at school, which is a barrier to their success. Our government is launching the national school food program, which will help 400,000 more children have the food they need to succeed in school. This is how we support fairness for every generation. The Conservatives have already voted against this. They will continue to vote against this. Our government understands that we need to look ahead to the future and keep supporting families.

I want to focus on the Prairies, as minister of PrairiesCan. We know that the $23 million of direct funding from budget 2024 to the department of PrairiesCan will support completion of the world-leading research infrastructure at the University of Saskatchewan's centre for pandemic research, the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization, in the great city of Saskatoon. VIDO is getting $23 million. The result will be better preparedness to tackle the next pandemic, with expertise from Saskatchewan.

Budget 2024 will also invest $20 million over three years to support performing arts organizations in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and it proposes another $3 million over two years for the operations of the RCMP Heritage Centre in Regina. The Conservatives, of course, will vote against all of this, but the result will be a more vibrant cultural industry in communities all across western Canada.

The regional development agencies, including PrairiesCan, would share over $200 million over five years to build on Canada's AI advantage. The result will be more real support to help start-ups across the Prairies to bring new technologies to market, something that will benefit key sectors like agriculture, the clean-tech economy and manufacturing.

We also have critical investments for innovative housing solutions, such as the design and upscale of modular homes, the use of 3-D printing, mass timber construction and panelized construction. The result will be more targeted funding for PrairiesCan to invest in more innovative homebuilding in communities big and small in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. This all means new possibilities.

Our government is also empowering entrepreneurs to take their space in Canada's economic success. I am particularly proud of the work PrairiesCan is doing with regard to inclusion in the small business sector, ensuring that no one is left behind as we move forward.

Take our Franco-Manitoban community, for example, which is a major contributor to Manitoba's prosperity. PrairiesCan is actively engaged with 15 bilingual communities in Manitoba, building strong relationships and helping them develop their economic opportunities. In Manitoba, it pays to be bilingual.

With the support of our government, PrairiesCan helps develop and implement funding programs and develops projects that have an impact on Franco-Manitobans. Part of PrairiesCan's role as an investor and facilitator is to create opportunities and provide financial support to for-profit and not-for-profit organizations facing economic challenges in Manitoba. For example, the Economic Development Council for Manitoba Bilingual Municipalities received funding to provide services that help with training, access to capital, mentoring or information services, networking and marketing advice.

Another important project is the $1.2 million in funding that PrairiesCan is giving to the Association of Manitoba Bilingual Municipalities to strengthen the labour market in Manitoba's rural municipalities.

There is much for the north as well. Budget 2024 would provide $23.2 million this year for the nutrition north subsidy program to lower the cost of healthy food and other essential items that people use every day. Food security is key in the north and the Arctic. That is why we are committing over $100 million to support the harvesters support grant and the community food programs fund to promote indigenous communities in implementing locally led solutions to food insecurity. Nutrition north will be further expanded to include the market food component, called the community food programs fund, with an additional $20 million per year over three years.

Based on feedback from indigenous partners, recent improvements have transformed nutrition north into a broader and more inclusive program that respects and responds to the unique food security issues of indigenous and northern communities. By the way, indigenous and northern communities co-developed the harvesters support grant, something that provides country food and traditional food to Inuit and northerners in the Arctic. We know nutrition north alone will not solve food insecurity in northern communities, but it is constantly evolving with feedback from northerners from across the region, and we are committed to making it more efficient and effective.

Another one of my priorities for the north, which is covered by budget 2024, includes measures to help clarify and reduce timelines for major projects by advancing the principle of one project, one review. It commits to engagement with partners, northern premiers and indigenous governments. The budget is about how government can do great things for the people it serves.

To me, the bottom line is that we are driving economic growth across the country, including for northerners and people living and working on the Prairies, to ensure that every generation of Canadians can reach their full potential. That is why we must pass Bill C-69 and continue the momentum.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand and speak to the budget bill, Bill C-69, here in the House today.

I think budgets are an opportunity for us to examine the values that we have as a nation. To many people in this House, government can be a force for good, but others, and I am thinking of my Conservative colleagues, view government as something to be feared, something to be shrunk and something to be incapacitated. We, on the New Democrat side, believe that government plays a vital role in Canadian society to deliver services that Canadians individually cannot and that the market is also unable to provide. Others in this House, and again, I think of my Conservative colleagues, believe that individuals ought to be left to fend largely for themselves, to sink or swim as they may.

On this side of the House, in the New Democrat caucus, we believe that government can be a force to build a fairer, more equal society. Others in this House do not share that value. They believe that politics is a dynamic that exacerbates division or that aggrandizes differences. In the New Democratic Party, we believe that good politics focuses on what is working well in society, and we look for ways in which we can harness optimism and collective strength to make things better. Others in this House, and again I look across the way to my Conservative colleagues, sell a line to Canadians that everything is broken, exploiting fear and insecurity.

I am reminded of President Joe Biden's famous dictum, which he actually stated well before he was ever president, where he said, “Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.” I think this budget provides a great opportunity to show Canadians what the various values are of the various parties in this House.

New Democrats know that millions of Canadians are really struggling right now from coast to coast to coast. The cost of living is up dramatically. It is getting much harder to pay the rent or the mortgage, if one is lucky enough to own a house, to buy food and to pay one's bills. At the same time, we know that large corporations and the well-off in this country are doing better than ever in some cases. There are certain sectors, like the oil and gas sector and the grocery sector, that are making record profits, profits higher than they have ever made in the history of their operating in this country, while at the same time often gouging Canadians with sky-high prices, either at the pumps or in the grocery aisles. Even with corporate profits soaring, the investment of the business community in this country in Canadian workers, in machinery and equipment, in technology, and in the Canadian economy is declining. Major shareholders and top executives are often reaping enormous benefits without the promised trickle-down to workers, communities and consumers that right-wing economists promised us some 30 to 40 years ago.

The New Democrat caucus has used our power in this minority Parliament to deliver results for people. In this budget alone, we have compelled our partners in the Liberal government to build more homes, to preserve existing affordable housing and to protect renters. We used our power to bring in universal single-payer pharmacare, setting the stage for the biggest expansion of our health care system in a generation, starting with contraception and diabetes medication and devices. We pushed to establish a groundbreaking national school food program. We are the only country in the G7, and one of only a handful of countries in the industrialized world, that does not have some form of universal access to school nutrition, something that hurts our kids and puts an added cost on families that are struggling to pay their bills. This budget reverses damaging cuts to indigenous services. It invests in accessible, high-quality, non-profit child care. It establishes a dedicated youth mental health fund.

This is the work of New Democrats, who used our values to try to bring in policies and programs and to allocate resources to Canadians in need in this country. We did not sit and just tell Canadians that we think everything is broken. We rolled up our sleeves and came up with policies that would make things better for Canadians. My colleagues on the Conservative side of the House have done none of this, but instead just preach a narrative that everything is broken and that nothing can be done about it. That is not a value that we share.

While these achievements illustrate in part what a New Democrat government could accomplish, the 2024 budget does not fully reflect our party's vision. This is not an NDP budget, but it is a budget that was influenced by the NDP. Likewise, Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, includes many positive measures that the NDP was able to compel the Liberals to implement. However, we want to underscore that this legislation does have several shortcomings. There is much, much more, in our view, that the federal government can do to make life easier for people and to provide opportunities for generations to come. New Democrats will not stop working to deliver results for people.

I just want to talk briefly about some of these positive aspects. The national school food program would be in place as early as this fall and would help some 400,000 children access food that they need to grow up healthy. This is an important first step toward establishing a national program that we hope and envision will provide universal access to nutritious food for all elementary students, some 2.8 million kids in this country in grades 1 to 8.

Across Canada, nearly one in four children does not get enough food, and more than one-third of food bank users are children. These are shocking statistics in a G7 country. According to Children First Canada, there has been a 29% increase in food insecurity in children in the last year alone. A national school food program would not only give students in Canada access to nutritious food, helping them learn better, but it would also make healthy eating a daily lesson for our kids. Countries with national school food programs have documented better academic performance, improved short- and long-term health for children, help for family budgets and improved efficiency in the health care system. This is something that Conservatives are voting no to.

Bill C-69 includes measures to make housing more affordable. I want to touch on a few of the measures. It would enhance the homebuyers' plan by increasing the withdrawal limit from $35,000 to $60,000 and temporarily adding three years to the grace period before repayments to that RRSP are required. It would crack down on short-term rentals, hopefully to unlock more homes for Canadians to live in, by denying income tax deductions on income earned from short-term rentals that do not comply with provincial or local restrictions. The bill would continue the ban on foreign buyers of Canadian homes for an additional two years to ensure that homes are used for Canadians to live in and not as a speculative asset class for foreign investors.

I am always struck by my colleagues in the Conservative Party, who tell us to just wait until they are in government and then they will fix housing. The New Democrats are not waiting for that day, which we hope will not come. We are working now, because we know that Canadians need help with decent housing now, not a year or two or three from now. We also, by the way, are mindful of the Conservative record. When the Conservatives were in government, they did not build any affordable housing in this country at all. In fact, it was the Mulroney government in 1992 that took the federal government out of social housing for a generation, leading, in large part, to the crisis that we experience today.

Bill C-69 has a myriad of other measures that would make life more affordable for Canadians in important ways. It would make it easier to find better deals on Internet, home phone and cellphone plans by amending the Telecommunications Act to better allow Canadians to renew or switch between plans and to increase consumer choice to help them better find a deal that works for them. We know that Internet use and cellphone use now are consumer staples. They are really essential utilities that every Canadian needs to stay connected and function in their communities, in their homes and at work.

This budget would crack down on predatory lending by strengthening enforcement against criminal rates of interest to help protect vulnerable Canadians from harmful illegal lenders.

It would make it easier to save for children's education by introducing automatic enrolment in the Canada learning bond, to ensure that all low-income families receive the support they need for their children's future.

It would also launch Canada's consumer-driven banking framework to provide Canadians and small businesses with better, secure access to more financial services and products. Again, these are measures that the Conservatives are voting against.

Finally, Bill C-69 includes measures to support workers by protecting gig workers and by strengthening prohibitions against employee misclassifications in federally regulated industries. It would establish an important first historic right to disconnect to help restore work-life balance for workers. It would extend additional weeks of employment insurance for seasonal workers in 13 targeted regions. It would advance employee ownership trusts to enable employees to share in the success of their work by encouraging more business owners to sell to an employee ownership trust.

Before I leave the positives, I just want to comment that there are disappointments in the budget. One of the primary ones, for me, is the Canada disability benefit. The Liberal government promised to bring in a Canada disability benefit for which the New Democrats have been pushing for years. The Liberals said the benefit would lift people living with disabilities out of poverty; that is what they promised.

However, the Liberal government's plan announced in the budget is to provide a maximum of $200 a month. That is based on holding a disability tax credit certificate, which applies to only a fraction of the Canadians who need such assistance. At present, a single adult with a disability will live below the poverty line if they receive funding from any of the provincial programs across Canada, and an additional $200 a month is not enough to bring them above the poverty line. Over 1.5 million people with disabilities currently live in poverty across Canada, yet the plan would be accessible only to an estimated 600,000 people. It will not lift even them out of poverty.

New Democrats are deeply disappointed to see the lack of investment and, frankly, a colossally broken promise to people who need it the most. A $200-a-month maximum benefit going to fewer than half of those who need it is simply unacceptable in this country. We will continue to push the government to significantly increase the benefit to make sure that all Canadians living with disabilities receive the money they need to truly lift them out of poverty.

Now I want to talk a little about tax fairness. In the 1960s, the Carter commission spent four years looking at Canada's tax situation. It came to some very important conclusions, one of them famously summarized by the phrase, “A buck is a buck [is a buck]”. That means that no matter how people receive their income, it should be taxed the same. Now, unfortunately, through successive Liberal and Conservative governments, we have built a tax system where that principle has not been respected at all.

We heard today at the finance committee from the Canadian Labour Congress economist who authored a report entitled “Canada’s shift to a more regressive tax system, 2004 to 2022”, which found that overall, Canada's tax system is only moderately progressive through the bottom half of the income distribution and is regressive at the top of the distribution, due to several sources of untaxed or lightly taxed income, such as capital gains, inheritances and bequests and employer-provided benefits, which predominantly go to top earners.

The report found that in 2022, the total tax rate for the lowest household income decile, that is the bottom 10% in Canada, was 35%, whereas the total tax rate for the top 1% in Canada is 24%. In other words, the top 1% pay taxes at a rate 11% lower than the poorest 10% in this country. Moreover, the report found that the top 5% paid a lower rate in 2022 than the bottom 95%, with the top 1% paying an even lower rate.

Canadians should ask themselves why Canada's tax system imposes a higher total rate on the lowest-income households, versus the top 5%. Can anybody in the House go back in their communities this summer and explain why, in Canada's tax system, the top 1% of households pay the lowest total tax rate of any income group? I cannot explain that.

According to the report, a comprehensive tax review in the United Kingdom concluded that a good tax system must be both progressive and neutral. That is to say that it can raise the revenue government needs to achieve its spending and distributional ambitions while minimizing economic and administrative inefficiency, keeping the system as simple and transparent as possible and avoiding arbitrary tax differentiation across people and forms of economic activity. It reads, “A fair tax system should be based on...‘horizontal equity’: the principle that two people with the same amount of income in a given year pay the same rate of tax regardless of the source of that income.”

Bay Street accountant Kenneth Carter, who headed the important Royal Commission on Taxation in the mid-1960s, captured that notion, yet since the 1960s, we have built a tax system in this country, again, through Conservative and Liberal governments, that fails to achieve a tax system based on horizontal equity, despite the recommendations of the Carter commission.

I will turn back to the issue of the capital gains matter, which the Conservatives have raised with such furor in the House. The capital gains tax was first brought into this country in 1972, and it was brought in by a Liberal government at the rate of 50%. However, it was the Conservatives who raised the capital gains inclusion rate, in 1988, to 66.6%. They then raised it again in 1990, to 75%.

Therefore it is really something to hear the Conservatives rail against a measure today that would set the capital gains inclusion rate in this country at 50%, the lowest it has ever been, for the first $250,000 of capital gains, and then to 66.6%, a moderate amount, which they themselves raised all capital gains to in 1988.

I will read from a couple of very important witnesses who appeared at the Finance Committee today. Dr. Jim Stanford from the Centre for Future Work said this: “A capital gain results not from producing and selling a product or service, but rather from acquiring and reselling an asset. It reflects speculation, not production. Other forms of income (like wages) must be fully declared. Granting asset traders this unique preference is morally unfair, and fiscally wasteful.”

I cannot say it any better than Bea Bruske, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, who asked why we tax a worker who flips burgers for a living at 100% of her income, but someone who flips stocks for a living, who is wealthy, we tax at only 50% of their income.

That is the principle that faces Canadians today, and it is something that I challenge Conservatives to explain to Canadians. Why do they believe that workers like mechanics, teachers, servers and cleaners have to pay tax on 100% of their income because they get it in the form of wages, but wealthy people, or people who are declaring a capital gain of over a quarter of a million dollars, have to pay on only 66.6%? By the way, the measure that is being announced in the budget would still permit one-third of all capital gains that anybody has in this country to be tax-free, and still the Conservatives are apoplectic.

As well, there is zero evidence that the rise of the capital gains inclusion rate through the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s had any negative effect on business investments in this country, nor is there evidence that the reduction of it in the year 2000, back to 50%, had any positive influence on investments in this country. There is zero evidence, but of course my Conservative colleagues are more interested in rhetoric than facts. I think Canadians will understand this when we come to talk to them in the summer about fair taxation and why the wealthy should pay their fair share of tax in this country, just like the working people of this country have always done.

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

Madam Speaker, after that 15-minute break to discuss Bill S-224, I am going to return to my speech on Bill C-69. I want to focus on the division that creates the federal framework for the open banking system and centralizes powers.

As I said before the break, under this bill, banks under federal jurisdiction would have only one set of regulations to follow, whereas an institution under provincial jurisdiction, like Desjardins, would be caught between two governments: the Government of Quebec, for its general operations, and the federal government, for its technological interactions with customers. The fact that these institutions will be subject to two uncoordinated regulatory bodies could be downright dysfunctional and give banks an egregious advantage over co-ops, trust companies, credit unions, Alberta Treasury Branch Financial, and so on. Why always favour Bay Street? This is unacceptable.

Bill C‑69 places Quebec in a dilemma in which there are no good options. If we refuse to join the federal framework, our institutions will stay trapped in the 20th century while their federal competitors step into the technological 21st century. Maybe we could let our financial institutions opt in to the federal framework, but then Quebec would have to waive the right to apply its own laws to their activities that come under the open banking system, which is unacceptable, especially with the Civil Code, consumer protection laws and so forth.

Then there is the worst-case scenario. In order to survive against its federal competitors, an institution like Desjardins could choose to stop being a Quebec institution within the meaning of Quebec's Cooperatives Act and become a federal institution under Canadian co-operative bank legislation. Trust companies would face the same choice. Since the open banking system could eventually be expanded to cover insurance, all of our insurance companies could switch over to federal regulation. That is what is at issue in Bill C‑69.

If this worst-case scenario comes to pass, the entire financial sector and all of its activities will be completely outside Quebec's jurisdiction. That is a serious threat to Montreal's status as a financial hub. In short, by using its power over banks to regulate all companies that interact with them, Ottawa is trying to force Quebec and the provinces out of the financial sector, which it failed to do when it was trying to regulate securities.

Rather than taking the unilateral, centralist route, Ottawa should have chosen co-operation. It could have called a federal-provincial finance ministers' working meeting on open banking. It could have encouraged them to release a joint statement at the end of this meeting in which the governments announce their intention of developing a common regulatory approach with a clear deadline, such as 2025, and possibly setting up a federal-provincial office. It could have sent a clear message to all financial institutions, not just banks, telling them to agree on a common technology, such as a secure data transfer protocol, because open banking is coming. It could have worked on common regulations on accreditation rules for fintech companies, security standards, clarification of financial liability, and consumer and data protection.

We asked the government to take out the division on open banking that centralizes the sector exclusively at the federal level, to take a few months to coordinate with the various players and the provinces and then to come back in the fall with a framework that respects jurisdictions and does not put provincially regulated institutions at a disadvantage. This government rejected our proposal, so now we are going to have to build this new system on a very bad foundation.

Another concern is that, in Bill C‑69, the government delegates the administration of the framework to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, an agency that mainly promotes financial literacy and does not have any of the required expertise. In committee, FCAC representatives acknowledged that they did not have expertise in sharing financial data in a way that minimizes the obvious cybersecurity risks. They also told us they do not currently have a plan for developing the expertise needed to oversee the security aspect of open banking.

We also asked several questions that the FCAC representatives said they were unable to answer. For example, since fintech companies are not banks, they are not federally regulated.

Did the government obtain the consent of the provinces, particularly Quebec, which has its own civil laws, before introducing this bill? They are unable to answer.

During the briefing on the notice of ways and means preceding the bill, it was my understanding that provincially regulated financial institutions could opt in to the federal framework provided that the province consents and declines to regulate those activities involving the open banking system. Is that the case? They do not know. They are unable to answer.

Which provincial laws will have to take a back seat to federal laws? They cannot answer this, either.

Who will be tasked with certifying the technology companies? Will it be Ottawa or the Autorité des marchés financiers? They are unable to answer.

Will Quebec's Consumer Protection Act apply to the activities of the open banking system? They are unable to answer. In the event of fraud or damages, will it be possible to launch a lawsuit or class action under the Civil Code or the Consumer Protection Act against a fintech company? Once again, they are unable to answer that question.

Will the sharing of financial liability between the financial institution and the technology company necessitate changes to the financial institutions' prudential standards? Will the Autorité des marchés financiers need to change its rules to comply with the federal framework? Again, they are unable to answer.

None of this is surprising. The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada is not well placed to administer this framework. It learned it would be receiving this role the day before the budget was tabled. When it comes to behaving like amateurs and making things up on the fly, this government takes the cake.

To avoid a disaster or some risky backpedalling, we asked the government to remove this division from Bill C-69. We suggested reworking it this summer and coming back with a good bill this fall. The government refused.

We are opposing this bad bill that sets this entire sector up on a terrible foundation. It is unacceptable.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the third time and passed.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑69 is a budget implementation omnibus bill that creates or amends 67 different acts. The government promised never to use this type of thing, but for the past several years, it has continued to do so.

Bill C‑69 enacts, among other things, the consumer-driven banking act, which establishes that it is the federal government alone that regulates this sector and that the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada acts as the regulator.

We asked the government to take this division out of Bill C‑69 and correct some of its shortcomings over the summer so it could come back this fall with a framework that does not give Bay Street an unfair advantage over other financial institutions, that respects the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, and that will be administered by a competent body. However, the government just voted against our request. The government is not working well. It is not listening, it is being partisan, and it is undermining Quebec. That is why we will be voting against this bill.

I am going to talk more about the open banking system, beginning with some context. As things stand, all financial services are based out of financial institutions that people do business with directly. These institutions are legally and financially responsible in the event of fraud or data theft, so they are fiercely protective of our personal data. Under an open banking system, financial institutions will have to share our data with platforms that will enable us to access all our accounts with one click. It would be a minor revolution. Ultimately, we can envision a system in which financial institutions essentially just create financial products, with client relations being handled by tech companies that do not themselves provide financial products, but act as intermediaries and data aggregators. That calls for a framework.

People want the flexibility an open banking system offers. That is why financial technology or fintech companies have already started coming on line despite the legal limbo. They are not well regulated, so they find other ways to evolve. Users themselves provide their credentials. The app goes into a user's account, extracts data from the screen and stores it. Financial institutions' secure networks get regular visits from actors outside the financial sector, and that makes them vulnerable. The more advanced these strategies get, the greater the risk.

We know that the level of risk varies. An aggregator that scans public data to show us mortgage rates at all financial institutions in one click is low risk. When it collects our personal data to give us a detailed picture of our financial situation, that carries more risk for the protection of sensitive personal information, namely financial information. If the app can be used to perform transactions, which implies that it places orders, that opens up a whole new level of risk, the risk of fraud. Let us also not forget that a series of orders quickly placed with the help of an AI system could completely destabilize all financial institutions. What about the principle of needing to know the customer? That principle is the foundation of our anti-money laundering laws. How can a financial institution apply this principle when it is communicating via an app?

Lastly, an important part of risk is the financial capacity to take on risk. Without that, the consumer could lose everything. Prudential regulations have to adapt. What we need is a clear framework with clear obligations and responsibilities.

The financial sector is a shared jurisdiction. The federal government has authority over banks and federally incorporated financial institutions. Financial institutions that are not banks, namely credit unions and trust companies, fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Financial intermediaries, such as investment dealers and financial advisers, fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Tech companies in the financial sector are not currently regulated, but they are likely similar to financial intermediaries.

There are different models in all this. There is the Interac approach. The Interac system, which enables exchanges between institutions and allows us, for example, to use our debit card everywhere, was developed by the financial companies themselves. These companies agreed on a common technology and standards to ensure that transactions are secure. Companies that adopt and comply with the common standards can join the system and offer Interac. This is the approach taken by the United Kingdom. In Canada, it is the approach that was favoured by the Advisory Committee on Open Banking in 2021.

The advantage of this approach, which is the simplest and most flexible, is that each government retains full regulatory power and adopting the open banking system does not result in any transfer of power. The disadvantage is that it is a form of self-regulation. The standard adopted may very well be aimed primarily at developing the sector rather than protecting citizens. Personal information, financial risks and fees come to mind. The banks, which initially advocated self-regulation, realized that squeezing out the legislator would not work and that co-operation would be a more realistic option.

Another approach, the one that we advocate and prefer, is the securities approach. Securities fall mainly under provincial jurisdiction, but Ottawa has laws governing federally incorporated companies. The Supreme Court of Canada has also recognized federal jurisdiction over systemic risk in the financial sector. In Quebec, the Autorité des marchés financiers is the regulator. To ensure that businesses could raise capital across Canada and that registrations in one province would be recognized everywhere, governments decided to coordinate. That is why Quebec's corporations legislation is very similar to the federal corporations legislation and to the corporation laws of all the other provinces. The same is true for all legislation governing the various aspects of securities. Quebec retains its legislative powers. The Quebec act may be stricter in some respects. For example, Quebec is the only province that requires a French version for all corporations registered with the Autorité des marchés financiers. However, this version must comply with the common standard adopted by all governments.

For years now, the federal government has wanted to centralize securities regulation in a single commission and concentrate the entire financial sector in Toronto, to the detriment of Montreal in particular. Quebec and the Quebec business community have always opposed this. In 2021, my party successfully amended the budget implementation bill to close the federal office responsible for creating a single securities commission. It was a really nice moment in a committee meeting over Zoom. I remember it clearly. The model of co-operation between governments, which has survived repeated attacks by the federal government, is still going and is working well. As I was saying, the securities model is the approach that my party and I favour for the open banking system.

However, in Bill C‑69, Ottawa is opting for unilateralism and centralization. As I was saying earlier, Bill C‑69 enacts the consumer-driven banking act, which would make the federal government the sole regulator of this sector, with the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada serving as the regulator. That is a problem, too. The agency does not have the qualifications to do that at all. Since fintechs are not under federal jurisdiction, Ottawa has opted to regulate them indirectly by regulating how banks can transact with them.

Specifically, Bill C‑69 provides that banks and other federally regulated financial institutions will be covered by the new act. They will be required to co-operate with fintech companies, but they may do so only in accordance with federal rules and standards. Institutions that are not federally regulated will be ignored. They can opt in voluntarily with approval from their province, which would then have to waive the right to apply its own laws to the portion of their activities that comes under the open banking system. For now, Bill C‑69 does not affect insurers, because of the sensitive nature of the medical data they hold, or intermediaries such as brokers, but the framework will likely expand to cover them in the future.

The specific rules and standards that will apply to the sector, particularly in terms of consumer protection and financial liability, will be set out in another bill that is due out in the fall, but the decision to make it exclusively federal is being made now, in Bill C‑69.

In practical terms, the Quebec Consumer Protection Act and the Quebec act respecting the protection of personal information could cease to apply to financial institutions for any activities related to open financial services. That is no small thing.

We are getting ready to pass this bill at third reading in the House, but the impact of an exclusively federal open banking system on the prudential obligations of Quebec financial institutions, as set out by the Autorité des marchés financiers, is still unclear.

In addition to forcing Quebec to transfer legislative power to Ottawa, Bill C-69 puts Quebec's institutions at a disadvantage with respect to federal institutions. While banks will have only one set of regulations to follow, under this bill, an institution like Desjardins would be caught between two governments: the Government of Quebec, for its general operations, and the federal government, for its technological interactions with customers. That is ridiculous.

The fact that Quebec institutions will be subject to two uncoordinated regulatory bodies could be downright dysfunctional and give banks an egregious advantage over co-ops and trust companies. That is unacceptable.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, the budget implementation measures in Bill C-69 are full of interference in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. Whether it is a question of housing, health, education or the banking sector, the fiscal imbalance really is on full display.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

moved that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the third time and passed.

The House resumed from June 17 consideration of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand before this House in support of the budget implementation act, 2024, no. 1, which will implement many of our government's key priorities in budget 2024 and fairness for every generation.

All children deserve a fair start in life, yet nearly one in four kids in Canada live in a household with too little income to buy enough to eat, which is impacting their health and their opportunities to learn and grow. That is just not right, so in budget 2024, we proposed a new national school food program that will help ensure children across Canada get the food they need to thrive, regardless of their family circumstances. The children of today are tomorrow's doctors, nurses, electricians, teachers, scientists and small business owners. By supporting them, we lay the groundwork for a brighter tomorrow. Therefore, I urge my hon. colleagues to pass Bill C-69 swiftly, so we can get this program up and running and do right by Canada's kids.

We are proposing to invest $1 billion over five years into the national school food program, which will provide 400,000 more kids across the country every year with food in school. That is 400,000 more kids beyond those currently served by the patchwork of provincial, local and charitable programs that currently exist and which are often under strain due to low resources and high food prices. By working together with provincial, territorial and indigenous partners, we will expand access to school food programs across the country as early as the 2024-25 school year, which is just incredible. For kids, this investment will mean not being hungry at school or missing crucial nutrients from their diet. That is important because studies show that students who consistently consumed a nutritious breakfast and lunch achieved higher grades in reading, math and science compared to their peers.

Meanwhile, for moms, dads, and caregivers across Canada, this investment will mean peace of mind, knowing that their kids are eating healthy meals and are well looked after in school, but also that they do not have to buy unhealthier foods in order to pay rent and other bills on time. Even with inflation easing significantly over the last year, affordability pressures are still causing more Canadian families to face food insecurity, which, frankly, should worry us all. After all, food insecurity is strongly linked to poorer health outcomes, including higher rates of type 2 diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure, but also higher rates of mental health issues like depression and anxiety. All of this puts a large burden on our already stressed health care system. The national school food program will be a safety net for the parents who need this support the most, including first nations, Inuit and Métis families, many of whom have some of the highest historic rates of food insecurity in Canada. Once up and running, it will save an average participating family with two children as much as $800 per year in grocery costs. That is extra money families can direct toward clothing, toys and books for their kids, as well as groceries and other essential goods.

Further to that point, evidence shows us that school meal programs do not just reduce health inequities for kids, but they also promote sustainable food systems and practices, and create more jobs in both the food service and agriculture sectors, especially for women. This is feminist social policy in action. It is smart economic policy too.

When it comes to helping kids and youth, especially vulnerable kids and youth, we are going to keep going. That is why we have made generational investments like the Canada child benefit, which has helped lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty since its launch in 2016, and provides families with up to nearly $8,000 per child per year to provide the essentials their kids need. It is why we are continuing to deliver an early learning and child care system across all provinces and territories, which has already cut fees for regulated child care to an average of $10 a day or less in eight provinces and territories and by 50% or more in all others.

We are also improving access to dental health care for children under the age of 12 through the Canada dental benefit, and soon for children under 18 with the Canada dental care plan, so that parents do not have to choose between taking care of their kids' teeth and putting food on the table.

To help younger Canadians get the mental health and addiction supports when and where they need it most, we are also launching a new $500-million youth mental health fund. This new fund would help community mental health organizations across the country provide more access to mental health care for younger Canadians in their communities. This is so we can help more kids and youth live happy, healthy, supported and fulfilled lives. Canada's success depends on the success of its youngest generations.

The national school food program is on top of our generational investments to help families make life more affordable across the country. Thanks to this crucial investment, we will be helping families by making sure that kids do not spend the school day hungry and, at the same time, bring peace of mind and relief to parents and caregivers, but we cannot do it alone.

I hope my hon. colleagues will support Bill C-69 and join us in our vision of a Canada where every child and youth has enough food to eat, so they can focus in school and reach their full potential.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand today to speak to Bill C-69, the budget implementation act. As we have heard in the debate going on tonight regarding the bill, there are a number of concerns on this side of the House, specifically the government's new spending ideas: $61 billion in new spending. We do this when we are having and dealing with a very real inflation crisis that is causing real hardship throughout the country.

The number of people who are raising their voices to that fact is something we have never seen before. Food bank usage across the country is up to record levels. There are homeless encampments now in pretty much all of our major cities, not to mention the smaller rural communities as well, where this was never seen or heard about.

To make matters worse, this year we will be spending $54.1 billion to service the national debt. It is unfortunate, because we are paying more money for interest than the federal government is sending to the provinces for health care. That is absolutely significant. I do not think I have ever heard a single person articulate the benefit of paying more in interest payments on the national debt, how that actually makes sense. It is wasted money.

Not only that, but because we are paying only the interest, we are not actually paying down the debt. That means the payments will continue. That could fluctuate based on the interest rate at the time, depending on how that certain part of the debt is structured.

Future generations and the last generation we are looking at right now, the youth graduating high school who are going to college or university, are recognizing they might not ever be able to buy a house. They might not ever be able to have the dream many generations here in Canada had before them. Yes, there is a group of people, the very wealthy, who are not being hurt by this and are not affected by it. It is those everyday, normal, working-class people who are being punished with higher prices for food, rent, fuel and heat, all of the things making life more difficult for working Canadians.

When people have less money in their pockets, less money to spend on their priorities, cutbacks in family budgets occur. We have seen and heard the stories that grace the newspaper articles and the headlines about people skipping meals and watering down milk for their kids trying to stretch dollars and stretch the supply in the refrigerator a little longer just to get through the next day or so. It is absolutely crushing to hear and read these stories in a country like Canada, where the dream has always been absolutely real. It is absolutely crushing to see these young people.

The other side will always ask for patience, more time and more resources. There will always be the promise that utopia is just around the corner and that it will be worth it if we just keep spending. The other side will say that, but will it actually be what the Prime Minister is promising? I would argue no.

The Prime Minister and the Liberal Party inherited a balanced budget. The economy was on fire. Life was affordable and life was enjoyable. Now look at where we are. Was it worth it? The average Canadian's net worth, their nest egg, their savings account and their retirement package have suffered. The buying power of their dollars has suffered. The path the government is on is not worth it for the everyday person.

The policies need to change. We have to start focusing on what used to make us extraordinary. Ontario, especially, used to be the manufacturing wheel of this country. We used to build a lot more things in this country. It is unfortunate that in Ontario, when Kathleen Wynne and Dalton McGuinty were in the premier's office, obviously separately, one after the other, they started to mess around in the energy market.

That is when hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs left Ontario. We are watching the numbers continue under the Liberal government, because when the Liberal Party of Ontario lost the election, a lot of staffers made the trip up the 401 or Highway 7 to Ottawa and started working for the current government. We can see it is a continuation of the mentality that if we just keep spending, just keep borrowing and just keep taxing, we will eventually get there, but life has only gotten worse for the majority of Canadians.

The reality is that the Liberal Party has gone too far. Its members do not know how to fix it, and their solution at this point is yet another government program. They will start the tape; they will look at the problem they created, and the solution will be a new program. The government can get money only by borrowing, taxing, printing or a combination thereof, and if it does too much in excess, it can debase the economy or the currency. We have seen a bit of both here.

Conservatives want to look to where the problem started and address it from its root, and that is where a lot of our common-sense plans come from. We are addressing the fact that we need to build and make things again in Canada. How do we do that? We need a regulatory environment that allows private enterprise to start up and flourish.

The bureaucracy has gotten bigger under the current government. That, unfortunately, has been slowing a lot of the progress from the private sector, and we have seen money in the billions of dollars flee this country looking for other jurisdictions, because capital is like water; it takes the path of least resistance. When we allow the private sector to do what it does best, to innovate and to create opportunities and wealth in our communities, the economy grows. When the economy grows, jobs are created, spending happens, more jobs are created and overall happiness rises, because when people have options, when they have choice, they are happier.

When they do not have choice, people are more miserable, and in Canada there is very little competition in pretty much every single sector, such as airlines, groceries or telecommunications. The list goes on, and it is getting worse. We need some common-sense solutions here in this party. The Conservative Party is ready to take on that challenge.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the passing of a former parliamentarian just a few days ago. Gilles Perron, who was the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for 11 years, passed away after a brief battle with cancer. He will be remembered as a fighter, someone who was close to his constituents and dedicated to his community. He will also be remembered for his extraordinary commitment to veterans. Any progress made on post-traumatic stress disorder is thanks to him. Dearest Gilles, thank you and rest in peace.

Despite this sad news, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the bill to implement certain provisions of budget 2024, Bill C-69. I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois has decided to vote against this bill. Why? It is because too many aspects of the bill go against our values, the needs of Quebec society and what we have been protecting from the very beginning, that is, Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. They are also other provinces' areas of jurisdiction, provinces that might be less combative than Quebec, but, basically, these are our jurisdictions. As I see it, all of this is having a negative impact on the environmental balance of Quebec and Canada.

We have before us a mammoth omnibus bill. We are talking about 650 pages. It contains 67 different measures, 23 tax measures and 44 non-tax measures. Objectively speaking, this bill has some positive aspects, but clearly it has too many irritants for the Bloc Québécois to agree to support it. I will focus my speech on just two points. Given that we are talking about a 650-page bill, we obviously have to limit ourselves. Two things in this bill are very important to me, and Quebeckers are concerned about them too. I am talking about oil and the environment. Oil gets a lot of ink. Far be it from me to make extremist or—how shall I put this—demagogic comments, because people still need oil.

We still need oil, unfortunately, but if we were able to advocate for a well-thought-out, calculated phase-out of oil and gas extraction, that would help us move on to something else and look to the future in a better light. However, our government and the Conservatives are obviously not taking that direction. The implementation of budget 2024 is clear proof of that.

Who here believes that there is a single oil company in Canada that needs subsidies to operate? No one, obviously. I think that even the Conservatives would agree with me. Ottawa is subsidizing oil companies to the tune of a whopping $30.3 billion in tax credits. Subsidizing companies that have record revenues year after year does not add up and is even rather obscene.

The massive subsidies the federal government is giving oil companies in the form of tax credits will total $83 billion by 2035. Six tax credits were introduced by the Liberals in the last two budgets. What is more, this $83 billion is being given to companies whose shareholders are 70% foreigners, people from outside Canada. This creates a significant flight of capital out of Quebec and Canada. It is important to mention it.

As for the profits generated by these same oil companies, we are talking about $38 billion from 2020 to 2022. Yes, we, the taxpayers, are paying oil companies to continue polluting when they are making record profits. That is an insult to our intelligence and, of course, to our environment.

Similarly, the government has implemented a clean technology investment tax credit of $17.8 billion. That is also a rather striking and appalling example. Under the guise of promoting clean energy, this tax credit actually seeks to encourage oil companies to use nuclear reactors, which would, of course, enable them to extract more bitumen and make more gas available for export at taxpayers' expense.

This bill contains another tax credit, the $12.5-billion carbon capture, utilization and storage investment tax credit. The problem is that this money once again enables oil companies to extract more oil. What is more, let us not forget that carbon capture is still in its infancy, in a completely experimental phase. The goal is to recover some of the carbon dioxide emitted and then store it underground, usually in old, empty oil wells.

Interestingly, former Liberal environment minister, Catherine McKenna, did an interview with a news site called 24 heures on December 5, 2023. She had this to say about the investment tax credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage:

It should never have happened, but clearly the oil and gas lobbyists pushed for that....We are giving special access to companies that are making historic profits, that are not investing those profits into the transition and clean solutions. They are returning those profits to their shareholders, who for the most part are not Canadian, and then they ask to be subsidized for the pollution they cause, while Canadians have to pay more for oil and gas for heating.

I guess the Liberals need to leave their party in order to speak freely and intelligently.

I will now move on to my second point. People have probably been outside today and are likely aware of the massive temperature increase forecast for this week. We are in for a second heat wave, and it is not even officially summer yet. The temperature with humidex will be 45°C. Some 135 million people will be affected by this extreme temperature. There are also the 19 pilgrims who died today in Saudi Arabia. Let us also think of the teachers and students who are finishing their year and their exams in extreme heat. Above all, I am thinking of seniors whose health is fragile and who will be affected by these extreme temperatures. There are also the farmers who are struggling to make sure they can harvest their crops, which provide us with healthy food.

There is absolutely nothing in this budget to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Do we still need to convince the Liberals that it is nearly too late to take action? It is unacceptable to ignore this issue and not prioritize measures to ensure the quality of life for future generations. The Bloc Québécois cannot just sit back and wait for a plan that will not be presented until next fall.

In closing, I would add that the government did not pick up on any of the priorities put forward by the Bloc Québécois before the economic statement. These are priorities that would respond to the real and urgent needs of Quebec and would serve Canadians as well. I will simply conclude by saying that the Bloc Québécois will continue to stand up for the interests of Quebec and its citizens against unfair and harmful measures like the ones in Bill C‑69.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand today and talk on Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, or as I prefer to call it, “the economic vandalism act”.

This is a budget that continues to build upon the inflationary deficits that Canadians are struggling to deal with. The government's spending continues to be out of control. First it was borrowing money, then it was printing money, and now it is going to continue to dip into the pockets of Canadians and raise taxes so it has money to spend on all its crazy ideas and programs.

We know the Liberals have gotten no results the entire time they have been in government. For the past nine years, we have witnessed rent double. We have witnessed the cost of a mortgage double and the cost of a down payment double. Our children and grandchildren will not have the opportunity that we did to own a home and to move ahead in life because of the out-of-control spending of the Liberal-NDP government.

We have a deficit this year that is going to be over $40 billion. It has been described as the worst budget since 1982. Who said that? The former, Liberal-appointed Bank of Canada Governor, David Dodge.

We have witnessed that Canada has the worst living standards in 40 years according to the Fraser Institute. We have also seen, under the Liberal-NDP government, that we have had the worst growth in GDP, or income per person, since the 1930s. Nine in 10 middle-class families are paying more in income tax today than they were nine years ago.

We have a situation that is increasing and is hurting everyone. In my riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, it is hitting everybody. Our farmers are struggling with increased carbon taxes that have gone up 23% and they now have to deal with the capital gains tax, and that is really starting to take a bite.

We can look at how farms have been structured, family farms, over the last number of years. I come from a farm family. My daughter and son-in-law are grain farmers. I have two brothers who are farmers. They put hard work and effort into growing their properties. They want to make sure that there is something to pass on to the next generation, which is the same thing that my father did for his children, and that is at risk.

To make things more manageable, people have formed their family farms into limited corporations. Our doctors, our dentists and our chiropractors, especially in rural areas, have set themselves up into limited liability partnerships and corporations. Those limited corporations pay out capital gains. Of course, now these capital gains are all going to get taxed by the Liberal-NDP coalition by up to 67%.

This is not a tax on the wealthy. This is a tax on the hard-working people who feed us, take care of us and take care of our health. All of them are going to be attacked and become either less profitable or be forced to relocate to jurisdictions like the United States where it is easier to make a living without having to work as hard. I have had doctors and dentists tell me that they are going to work fewer hours because of the income tax implications with the capital gains tax grab by the Liberals and the Minister of Finance.

This is also hitting cottage owners and those who have secondary residences, whether they bought a property for rental income or they bought a home that they hope to pass on to their children. Now, when they go to sell those properties, they are going to get nailed with this capital gains tax that they did not expect. There is a word for this. When somebody takes something away from another that they never deserved, it is called highway robbery. That is the economic vandalism that we are talking about here by the Liberal-NDP coalition.

As the shadow minister for national defence, I do want to switch gears and talk about how this budget does not support, in any way, shape or form, the even less ambitious defence policy update. The defence policy update had some ideas, but all the spending, especially in this budget, has been kicked down the road until after the next federal election. We are talking three, four or five years down the road before we see any increase in spending for national defence to support our troops.

At the national defence committee today, we actually had one of our witnesses say that the defence policy update is a national “embarrassment” that fails to recognize the threat environment we are in and that, technically, Canada is already “at war”.

We are witnessing what is happening in Ukraine. We have had increased escalation in the conflict in the South China Sea between the PRC and the Philippines, plus what we are seeing in Taiwan. This defence policy update fails to recognize those threats. All the money that has supposedly been promised is kicked down the road.

As a case in point, we have a retention and recruitment crisis happening in the Canadian Armed Forces. One thing that we identified is the lack of housing. The Minister of National Defence even said that we are short 6,700 residential housing units for our troops. We have troops who are living homeless and actually couch surfing. They are living in campers or in their cars. Worse yet, they are stuck in these tent cities that have sprung up across the country over the last nine years under the Liberal government.

Even though the government recognizes that we need more homes for our current serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, the budget has zero dollars for new housing for our troops. It has zero dollars next year. There is only $8 million in the budget in three years' time, which does not build 6,700 housing units. Eight million dollars will not build, in today's dollars, 24 homes. Again, that is a national embarrassment. We have people who are serving this country but cannot house themselves properly, and the government and the defence minister fail to recognize that we have to support our troops. Therefore, we have a retention and recruitment crisis, and the defence policy update gives no idea of how we are going to increase our troop strength. We are 17,000 troops short today, and it could get worse if this is not rectified soon.

We have a housing shortage and, of course, we have no money to put into new houses. As we heard today again at committee, we have an army that the government has no plan to get new kit for so that it can become the expeditionary force we have come to rely on as Canadians.

A case in point on how the government does not take our forces seriously and puts them in awkward positions is the news we heard just this weekend that the Canadian Armed Forces, through the Royal Canadian Navy, positioned one of our Arctic offshore patrol vessels in Havana, Cuba, for a celebration of the Communist dictatorship there. It is docked alongside Russian navy destroyers. Why would we want to use the Royal Canadian Navy to liaise with a hostile dictatorship in Cuba and an aggressive country that is invading Ukraine today?

We know that Cubans are serving in the Russian armed forces today and fighting in Ukraine. Cuba has actually sent troops to Belarus to train alongside Russian and Belarusian soldiers so that they can invade Ukraine again from the north. This is a national embarrassment and, again, speaks to the fact that the government does not have a plan when it comes to supporting our troops. Instead, it uses them for photo ops with Communist dictatorships rather than supporting our allies in fighting back against the evil that is occurring around the world.

We have frigates that cannot be deployed on as frequent a basis. We no longer have destroyers. We no longer have any of our own supply ships. They are slowly coming, and we have the Asterix out there, of course, which we ordered when we were in government. However, we do not have the same reach in the navy that we used to.

When we look at Ukraine, our government, again, continues to dither and delay in delivering. It announced 18 months ago that NASAMS was going to be sent to Ukraine, and it is still not there. The Liberals finally announced that we were sending 2,000 CRV7 rockets, but guess what, Mr. Speaker? We asked back in February to send the 83,000 we had, not 2,000.

We will continue to put pressure on the government to do the right thing for Ukraine, for the Canadian Armed Forces and for rural Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise here this evening to speak to Bill C-69, a bill that enacts certain provisions of the budget tabled back in April. I spoke to the budget at that time, back in the spring, but I would like to add a few comments now that it is before us as an implementation act because it is an important budget. All budgets are important, but this one in particular is important.

As we all know and hear every day, Canadians are struggling, especially to find housing, to pay the rent, to dream of paying a mortgage or even to find a roof to put over their heads. They struggle with the cost of groceries and the price of gas at the pumps.

Also, we are facing a climate crisis that is bringing us fires, floods and other extreme weather events that cause widespread stress to Canadians, their health, their homes and their livelihoods. Last year's fires in my riding and surrounding areas not only destroyed houses, but put tens of thousands of people on evacuation. They ended the tourist season abruptly in early August, just when all my local businesses are poised to make an income after months of losses. Then a mid-winter freeze caused serious damage to grapevines and peach, apricot and cherry orchards, which are part of the agriculture sector, a real backbone of the economy in my riding. Any budget has to recognize and face the climate crisis head-on.

While Canadians are struggling, big corporations and wealthy Canadians are doing better than ever. Big oil companies are making a killing. Big grocery companies are making record profits. Budgets are documents that make choices that will help Canadians. That is what we hope. It is clear that it is ordinary Canadians who need that help, not big corporations and wealthy individuals.

The NDP has used its leverage in this minority Parliament to deliver results for people. In this budget alone, we have compelled the Liberal government to build more homes, preserve existing affordable housing, protect renters and bring in universal single-payer pharmacare, starting with contraception and diabetes medications and devices. I want to pause there because, while they are all critical, people may not realize how critical diabetes medications are. A friend of mine, who was 27 years old, died because he could not afford the full cost of his insulin medication to monitor and help his diabetes. That will not happen again.

This budget would establish a national food program. Canada is the only G7 nation without a national school food program. A quarter of Canadian kids live in homes that are food insecure. This is another NDP initiative put in this budget. We are very proud of it. The Conservatives voted against it.

This budget would reverse damaging cuts to indigenous services. It would invest in accessible, high-quality, non-profit child care, another NDP initiative. It would establish a dedicated youth mental health fund. It would double the volunteer firefighters tax credit. I will talk more about that later.

As I said, several elements in this budget are key NDP initiatives. They are the pillar of this budget, I would say. However, they would not be there without the NDP's pressure. This is not an NDP budget. It would be different if it was an NDP government. We would go much further in some areas to help Canadians who need it the most.

I will talk about some of the victories, the things that will change the lives of Canadians for the better, and some things that are conspicuously missing.

We have the homebuyers' plan, which has been enhanced by increasing the withdrawal limit from $35,000 to $60,000. The government is also cracking down on short-term rentals by denying income tax deductions on income earned.

Short-term rentals are one of the big issues in my riding. My riding is a very popular area for people to come visit and spend their vacations at all times of the year. Increasingly, it is becoming more and more difficult to find housing, simply because it is very profitable for people to buy houses simply for investment and to put up as short-term rentals. This will help curb that, along with some important provincial legislation that has just been introduced. That is very welcome news.

This budget implements the Canada health transfer 5% growth guarantee. Canadians expect the federal government to support provinces in delivering the health care that we need. We all know that our health care system is struggling as well. This will help keep it going and give us the health care that we need, which we are so proud of, health care that was brought to us, again, by the NDP back in the 1960s.

I mentioned the volunteer firefighters tax credit. It used to be $3,000. There are almost 100,000 volunteer firefighters across Canada. They are the people who keep us safe in small communities from one end of the country to the other, and yet they receive so little in return for that brave and hard work.

They used to get a $3,000 tax credit. That was raised to $6,000 in this budget, again, based on an NDP initiative by my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni, who put forward a private member's bill to increase that to $10,000. We will take $6,000 as an improvement, but let us keep supporting our firefighters.

There is one thing that is not in this budget. With regard to wildfire firefighters who are not part of local firefighting corps but who fight wildfires in the summer, one would be surprised to find that they are not defined as firefighters under the CRA regulations. Firefighters, policemen and other people, such as ambulance drivers, get special dispensation under the Income Tax Act to put more money aside for their retirement. Wildfire firefighters do not. They are specifically excluded, and we need to change that, to call wildfire firefighters “firefighters”. It was not in this budget, but I hope it will be soon.

While I am talking about firefighters, another thing that is not in this budget is a national wildfire-fighting force. We need this, and 75% of Canadians have come out in support of such a force, which would be there to support local and provincial firefighting services. We need this help. It is clear that things are getting worse year by year. We cannot go on as we have been. We have been depending on the armed forces to help us. This year, the armed forces have said they are not going to be there this summer. We need to do something different, and I think a national wildfire-fighting force is the way to go.

I will also mention the good news about support for research. Finally, the government is putting funding into the scholarship and fellowship funding for young researchers in Canada. That funding had remained stagnant for 20 years. Students were living in poverty, and that has finally been fixed. That is very good news.

I will just finish by mentioning the Canada disability benefit, something the NDP has been fighting for, and yet we are very disappointed that this was brought in as a $200-a-month benefit, something that will not get people with disabilities out of poverty. People with disabilities live in poverty all across the country. No province gives them enough money to live above the poverty line. We had a chance to finish that, make it right, and we will continue fighting for people with disabilities, to make sure that they will not live in poverty.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear my colleague talk about banking services. That is something that Bill C-69 does not talk much about.

I have two short questions to ask him about banking services.

First, does he recognize the authority of Quebec and the provinces in this sector?

Second, does he realize that Bill C-69 will give all of Canada's big banks a huge advantage over the smaller ones like Caisses Desjardins in Quebec?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to stand in the House to debate on matters on behalf of the great people of Steveston—Richmond East. Today, it is to continue on the debate on Bill C-69, the budget Implementation act for budget 2024, which is about reinforcing the promise that all Canadians should have a fair chance to build a good life, and about continuing to build a country that works for everyone. We are going to do that by building more affordable homes, by making life cost less and by growing the economy in a way that is shared by all.

Today I would like to talk about one element of Bill C-69 that could improve financial outcomes for Canadians: consumer-driven banking. Every Canadian deserves access to affordable, modern banking services to help them pay their bills, save money, receive their government benefits and build their credit. Budget 2024 includes measures to lower banking fees by capping non-sufficient fund fees, modernizing free and affordable bank account options, expanding financial help services, doing more to crack down on predatory lending and launching new consumer-driven banking tools.

Consumer-driven banking, also known as open banking or consumer-driven finance, provides a way for people and small businesses to securely transfer their financial data to different service providers, including banks, credit unions and accredited financial technology companies, fintechs. This could include apps that use data to provide automated budgeting and savings advice, help keep track of bills, secure a loan, find a better deal on insurance or on a currency exchange rate and track monthly rent payments to build up credit.

Consumer-driven banking provides real-time access to all financial accounts, products and services in one place and access to personalized tools and products to help improve financial health. It can play an important role in the future of the Canadian economy and increase consumers' choice and control over their financial data. It can help make life more affordable and even help young Canadians when it is time to buy a first home.

However, so far, in the absence of a framework, fintechs have been limited in their ability to develop new financial tools, largely due to a reliance on an unsecured process called screen scraping, which pulls data from a bank account by reading the account information. This requires consumers to share their banking credentials with fintech companies. An estimated nine million Canadians currently share their financial data this way, which raises security, liability and privacy risks to consumers and the financial system. I presume there may be hon. members present who have gone through this process and felt uneasy about it, as I have.

As first announced in the 2023 fall economic statement, the government published Canada's consumer-driven banking framework along with budget 2024, in order to drive an innovative consumer-driven banking system in Canada. As announced in budget 2024, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, FCAC, is mandated to oversee, administer and enforce Canada's consumer-driven banking framework.

FCAC's existing financial literacy and consumer education mandate make it well placed to help guide consumers who engage in consumer-driven banking. The mandate was informed by an extensive review of international jurisdictions and is in line with international best practices, offers administrative efficiency and allows for the timely delivery of consumer-driven banking in Canada.

At this point, I should also stress that the government would not be privy to any personal information or data.

I will move now to the bill before us. Bill C-69 introduces legislation to implement key components of the framework, including a new act, the consumer-driven banking act, and amendments to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act. These legislative updates would establish the foundational elements of the framework, including governance and scope, as well as criteria and the process for the technical standard.

The amendments to the FCAC Act would create a senior deputy commissioner for consumer-driven banking, who would be responsible for the supervision of the framework. The commissioner of FCAC would retain full administrative control of FCAC and would continue to report to the Minister of Finance and Parliament. As well, the consumer-driven banking act would require FCAC to maintain a public registry of participating entities in the framework.

Once implemented, the framework would regulate access to financial data, providing Canadians and small businesses with safe and secure access to financial services and products that would help them manage and improve their finances.

The framework would also align with those of our largest trading partners, including the United States. In order to facilitate oversight of provincial entities while respecting their jurisdiction, provincial entities would be able to opt in to governance, supervision and participation. In the case of provincial credit unions, provinces would retain the authority to impose their own requirements.

Importantly, the functional scope for participating entities would be limited to “read access”. This means that participating entities would only be able to see, not change, the data held by another participating entity should a consumer request it. The scope would not include payment initiation, or “write access” as it sometimes is called. Furthermore, data could be obtained only if a consumer provides consent to the participating entity.

Access to data would be limited to what is specified in the legislation, which includes chequing accounts and savings accounts, investment products and lending products such as credit cards, lines of credit and mortgages. Regardless of an entity's size or business model, due diligence of its security controls would be conducted before allowing it to participate in the framework. This would help set an equal and high bar for security measures and give confidence to consumers that their data is safe.

Participating entities would be required to comply with existing privacy legislation as well. The framework would also include additional privacy rules that are unique to financial data sharing to address the provision of express consent to access data, consent management, and revoking access to data shared by a consumer. Participants would be required to have a standardized process for consent and revocation that would be done in a clear, simple and not misleading manner.

The proposed legislation represents a culmination of long-term engagement with industry, consumer groups and experts, and would deliver a made-in-Canada solution to the issue of screen scraping. There is alignment among stakeholders for the government's proposed approach, including fintech and the Canadian Bankers Association.

The government would continue to engage with industry, which would lead on the implementation of the framework in key areas, including technical standards, with oversight from the FCAC. This collaborative work would refine more complex elements, such as the accreditation framework and common rules for privacy, security and liability, to be introduced in additional legislation later this year.

Canada's consumer-driven banking framework, with government-led oversight of security requirements, technical standards and consumer protections, would enable consumers to securely and confidently exercise their right to use and move their data. Once the framework is operational, the government would consult with stakeholders to determine how and when to phase out screen scraping. This would include review of other jurisdictions' approaches to screen scraping.

Canada has a strong, well-regulated financial sector that has proven to be stable, resilient and trusted by Canadians. Consumer-driven banking would contribute to the strength of the sector and protect financial consumers, part of the government's plan to grow Canada's economy in a way that works for everyone. I encourage all hon. members to support the bill.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I guess that is a call for relevance, so I will ask the hon. member to maybe stick to what we are prescribed today, which is Bill C-69.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know there is very little good to talk about in this Bill C-69, this budget implementation act, but it would be nice if the member could use some of his time at least to talk about the actual issue we are debating.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be able to speak to the budget implementation bill. Bill C-69 is a very important piece of legislation. Ultimately, it shows very clearly to Canadians in all regions of the country what they can expect from a Liberal government versus a Conservative opposition, or the Conservative-Reform party compared to the Liberal Party. Let us be very clear on that.

A few weeks back, I was at the party's annual general meeting, where some of the members were asking me a very simple question. They asked how I would best describe the difference between the Conservative Party today and the Liberal Party. The best thing I could come up with at the time was to say to think of it in the sense that the Liberal Party cares while the Conservative Party cuts. There is so much truth to that.

All one needs to do is take a look at what the Conservative-Reform party stands for today and listen to the many announcements being brought forward by the government to get a better appreciation of the contrast between the two parties. As a government and as a political party, we have advocated for very strong progressive policies. At the same time, we have taken budgetary and legislative action to support a strong, healthy economy. The big difference is that our plan is about building a Canada that ensures fairness for every generation. We do not see that coming from the Conservative Party.

I would suggest some members need to look at Hobbes and his theories on economic development and people to get a better sense of maybe where the Conservative-Reform party is. I would argue the Conservative Party today has really shifted far to the right. The more people understand the degree to which it has shifted, the more they are going to turn their backs on the Conservative Party.

Former prime minister Joe Clark is distancing himself by saying things like he never left the Progressive Conservative Party but that the party left him. Individuals like Kim Campbell are talking in a not a very positive way about the current leadership of the Conservative Party and the type of misinformation the party—

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we noticed that the budget contains a helpful measure for microbreweries that make craft beer.

My question for the parliamentary secretary, who, if I remember correctly, serves on the Standing Committee on Finance, has to do with excise duty on small artisanal producers. It is a lot for them. It makes a big difference in the cost per bottle, whereas exempting them from excise duty will not have much impact on the government's coffers.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to use his influence to convince the Minister of Finance to exempt berry wine producers from excise duty at the next opportunity. It is too late to do so in Bill C-69.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about Bill C-69, which is a huge omnibus bill containing more than 650 pages. I would not be entirely honest if I said that I read them all. It contains 67 different measures, more specifically 23 tax measures and 44 non-tax measures. There are therefore a lot of elements in this huge bill.

Like any omnibus bill, Bill C‑69 contains some commendable measures. However, it also contains measures that the Bloc Québécois and I consider unacceptable. I will give two examples.

First, the division regarding the banking system essentially removes Quebec and the provinces from the financial sector when a financial institution deals with its clients through a technological platform. The parties treacherously made no move to change this, as though nothing had happened, despite the explanation by the witness from Quebec. A representative from Mouvement Desjardins, the largest financial cooperative in Quebec, told the committee that the entire financial sector in Quebec and the provinces would be penalized if this power were taken away. My colleague from Joliette clearly explained how this does not make a lick of sense for the provinces and Quebec. Despite that, this division remains in Bill C‑69, to our profound dismay. We do not understand why the members of the parliamentary committee did not listen to Mouvement Desjardins and the other witnesses who criticized this.

Bill C‑69 also contains a new oil and gas subsidy. The government has added a so-called clean hydrogen tax credit. It is a 15% to 40% tax credit that will be calculated based on the carbon intensity of the hydrogen produced. I think we can read between the lines. It is really a tax credit tailor-made for natural gas producers. We have talked ourselves hoarse saying that enough is enough with the support for all the companies and producers that has increased greenhouse gas rates in Quebec, in the provinces and across Canada.

I could list make a list of things that disappoint me, but what disappoints me the most is that there is nothing, no income support measure, for our farmers. When I say farmers, I am talking about small-, medium- and large-scale fruit and vegetable growers who are subject to the vagaries of climate and temperature.

If the members over there could stop talking loudly so I could finish my speech—

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to rise this evening and represent the most generous and entrepreneurial residents in the country, the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge. It is a privilege to represent them. I understand there are other residents in the 338 ridings, but mine are the most special, in my humble view.

Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, is another major piece of legislation that would move Canada forward, move our economy forward, and provide foundational pillars for a strong economy and a strong future for my children and all the children who are blessed to call Canada home.

One thing I want to really be adamant about tonight is Canada's economic fundamentals. If we look at the foundation that we are building as a government, that we have built, one piece is the dental care plan. In my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, all over the riding, there are billboards up of dentists accepting patients under the Canadian dental care plan. We can think of the over two million seniors who have been approved by the plan. Over 200,000 seniors have seen oral health care providers from coast to coast to coast. Now, kids who are under 18 can also go.

This is transformational, and it is moving the country forward. This is helping Canadian families, not only for today, while we are elected to be in the House, but also for the future and for decades to come. It is part of our health care system. We did it, and we should be proud of that.

On the early learning and national day care plan, I am blessed to have a two-and-a-half-year-old who is in day care. We know of the reductions that have taken place in Ontario. By September 2025, we will get day care down to an average of $10-per-day, working with the province of Ontario. We need to expand the child care spaces to meet the demand, and that is happening. Yes, there are always kinks in the road. Life is not a straight line, and every representative knows this. However, it is about working hard and making sure that we are doing the right thing for our constituents, and the constituents in Vaughan—Woodbridge know that. We will continue to move forward.

On the housing accelerator fund, there has been a $59-million investment into the city of Vaughan, and we are using those funds to incentivize home building.

The Canada child benefit is a transformational plan. When the Conservatives were in power, they were sending $100 cheques to millionaires. We stopped that. We now have monthly, tax-free cheques going out to families across the country. It is nearly a $30-billion program.

Now, we know that Conservatives equal austerity, and they are going to need to come clean on their plan to cut vital programs for Canadians and hard-working Canadian families, much like the ones in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge.

On the capital gains front, I have heard some chirping on the other side about the inclusion rate. Capital gains were taxed at 25% versus dividends in the mid-30% and versus interest. When we look at forms of capital income, it can lead to tax avoidance strategies put in place by accountants across this country, but I love accountants. I was halfway through doing my CPA. I have my CFA, and I have my master's degree in economics. I also worked on Wall Street and Bay Street, and I understand the tax system very well.

However, this is a fairness question that we need to fundamentally debate in the House. We move to integration, and the IMF said it in its review that this measure would make the tax system fairer. It makes it neutral, and we do not undertake strategies such as surplus stripping. I recommend members of the House to type in “surplus stripping”. They will see that it is a tax avoidance strategy.

We need to build a country that incentivizes entrepreneurs and incentivizes investment, such as in the auto sector, and we know that the opposition would have abandoned the auto sector. They would have abandoned St. Thomas, Windsor, Oakville, Brampton, Alliston and Oshawa. The investments in Quebec and British Columbia would not have happened. However, we stood up, and we collaborated with our provincial partners, the Ontario Progressive Conservative government, and that is what it is about. It is working with industry and labour, and getting those strategic investments.

I have heard much about energy and the forms of energy. We know that we will not, in the world, reach net zero by 2050 without nuclear energy, and Ontario is a leader. I am proud of our government, which believes in nuclear energy and is investing in nuclear energy. I have been up to Bruce Power in Kincardine, and I have been over to OPG on the east side of Toronto, near the area of my colleague's riding, the hon. member for Whitby, who is seated close to me. We are investing in small modular reactors. We have put in an ITC to assist the nuclear sector. The Conservatives would cancel that.

The Conservatives do not believe in incentivizing investment. They believe in small government. They want to shrink the size of government. They would starve the government.

Some of my Conservative friends say that the FTE count has increased on the federal bureaucracy. Yes, it has, but do colleagues know why? It is because the Conservatives cut the living daylights out of the public service when they were in power. That is what they did. They made cuts. How do colleagues think Phoenix happened? The former Conservative government cut border services. It made cuts to the RCMP. It made cuts to everything to try to achieve a magic balanced budget, and used some accounting gimmicks from the sale of the shares of GM. Conservatives claim that was due to the small government. They should come clean and put out a plan.

It is 40°C outside. The world is experiencing climate change. It is real. They have no plan. We need an environmental plan. We need an economic plan. They have neither. They have slogans which mean absolutely nothing. It is unfortunate because I know that, on the other side, there are some hon. members with a lot of substance. It is unfortunate that they are not allowed to put forth ideas that have substance.

On Bill C-69, I look at our economic growth rate, which has forecasts for the IMF, built on the budget implementation act, built on the past. In 2025, Canada is forecasted to lead the G7 in growth. I think it is around 2.5%. Yes, we have had a population increase that has impacted our per capita rate. That will adjust itself in time. We know that. As an economist, I know that.

Let us be serious. We need to build a country where all Canadians are given the chance to succeed, not just the lucky few. I hear the chatter about capital gains. I hear the chatter against dental care. I hear the conversation against child care, which has increased labour participation rates, and I hear the chatter against nuclear energy and renewable energy, which half that caucus probably does not believe in. We know the cost curve has come down, that it is the cheapest form of energy there is and how many hundreds of billions of dollars is going into that. That is where the smart money is going. The member from Calgary on the opposite side knows that. We understand that.

Look at our AAA credit rating, which we have sustained since the former Liberal government, under Martin and Chrétien, fixed it. Look at our growth rate. Look at our net debt-to-GDP ratio and our deficit-to-GDP ratio, which is at 1%, versus the United States, which is between 5% and 7%, depending on how one measures it, and the European countries, which is three or four times that. Countries around the world look at us with envy and say, wow, look at their fiscal framework. Look at their banking system. Look at the FDI they are receiving for indirect investment. That is how to build a country. That is how to move forward.

On climate change, I am going to say that, again, we need to believe in climate change. The science is there. The next thing we will be having is a debate about vaccines again. Thinking about some of the commentary I have heard over the last couple of years, maybe members on the other side will say we should not vaccinate against measles, polio or something else.

When I look at my own riding, the EDA president was just shamed on Instagram for putting up fake news about our Minister of the Environment. That is what the Conservative Party of Canada is about. It is about fake news and misinformation, not real solutions for people at home and middle-class Canadians who work hard, get up and do the right thing every single day. That is unfortunate because Canadians deserve better. As an economist, as a father, as someone who worked for 25 years in the private sector before coming to this place, I will debate any one of those colleagues on economics, finance and business at any time. We are building a country where all Canadians get a fair shot of success, and that is what we need to continue to do.

I would be more than happy to have questions and comments. It is a beautiful day outside, but it is very hot. Climate change is real.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, unfortunately, what we do not see in Bill C-69 is an investment in the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link project, which would help Nunavut communities not to rely on diesel. Does the member agree that there needs to be more taxation on oil and gas companies so that tax collected from them can help fund projects such as the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link project?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are here this evening to debate Bill C-69, the budget implementation act.

We are again debating the out-of-control inflationary spending by the Liberals that is driving up the cost of literally everything for Canadians. In the budget for which this is the implementation act, we saw another $61 billion in inflationary spending piled on the backs of Canadians, on top of the billions we have seen over the last nine years. It must be noted that, as a result of this, Canadian taxpayers are on the hook for $58 billion in interest on that debt, which is more than the federal government sends to the provinces for health transfers. This point has been made, but it is worth restating because it is such an astronomical number.

All this debt and interest equals more taxes on the backs of Canadians, which is why, on April 1, we saw the Liberals increase the carbon tax by 23%, notwithstanding the outcry from premiers and Canadians. It is on the way to quadrupling, which we now know will be a $30-billion-per-year hole in the economy. The report has now become public. Of course, there is the recent job-killing tax hike as well.

The problem with all the spending, taxes and red tape is that these things are killing our economy. Canada is now the worst-performing economy in the G7 and in the OECD. Since 2019, the last year before COVID, GDP per capita in Canada is down 2%; in the U.S., it has increased by 8%. Therefore, we really have a huge gap here between our two countries. We are at the very bottom and the U.S. is at the top of the G7, after nine years of the Prime Minister. The OECD calculated that Canada's economic growth will be the worst of the nearly 40 advanced economies in the OECD in this decade, again in the very basement. It will be below Greece and Italy, which are often the historical underperformers. If this trajectory continues and is not reversed, the OECD projects that Canada will have the worst economic growth for the next three decades.

Therefore, as we debate the budget, all of this means that we are on track for the worst decline in Canada's standard of living in 40 years, according to a Fraser Institute report from last month. In fact, we are seeing the widest gap in GDP per capita, which is a measure of the standard of living, between Canada and the U.S. since 1965. That is according to RBC.

This is alarming to me, and it should be alarming to all Canadians. It should be setting off alarm bells on the government benches as to how we got here. Clearly, all the inflationary spending, debt, taxes and red tape have compounded it. Really, it is what we have been calling economic vandalism.

Over the weekend, I was talking to a constituent who has a trucking firm. He told me that his orders are down and people are shipping less. This is in the midst of the greater Golden Horseshoe in southern Ontario. He is seeing that decline in business in the daily orders he is getting. He told me that, often, trucking is a harbinger of a decline in economic activity. We know this is true. Therefore, it confounds me that this is the case. How did we get this way in Canada? We have so many advantages that have been squandered by the Liberal-NDP government, with its fiscal and economic policies. The budget, with its taxes, exacerbates the issue even further.

In Canada, we have everything the world wants. We have 18 LNG projects awaiting approval; they are on the desk of the Prime Minister. The Germans, the Japanese, the Poles and the Greeks have all come to Canada looking for our LNG. We can help get the world off coal and replace Europe's dependence upon Russian natural gas. However, the Prime Minister told the German chancellor that there was no business case for LNG, so Germany went to Qatar, which helped it build the facility in seven months. This was a lost opportunity for Canada and Canadian jobs.

Canada has all the critical minerals, as well as many rare earth minerals. The world needs them, the world wants them, and we need them for our own economy. While we have 6% of the world's lithium, we do not extract it because of the government's bad policies and ideological aversion to natural resource extraction industries.

We also have nuclear expertise; not far from my home in southern Ontario, there is the second-largest nuclear plant in the world. There is a whole supply chain of companies that help feed that throughout southwestern Ontario, some of which are located in my constituency. That is another advantage that Canada has, yet our economy and standard of living are in decline, with the worst decline in 40 years. How can this be? Despite all these obvious advantages, along with smart people and good people, Canada is lacking in private sector investment in our economy. We saw that in the recent report about the lack of entrepreneurs that will take risks and seed innovation.

Therefore, it is not surprising that, after nine years of Liberal taxes and out-of-control spending, entrepreneurialism is being stifled. We saw that Canada lost 100,000 entrepreneurs. In the year 2000, Canada had three entrepreneurs for every 1,000 people. Today, that is down to 1.3, on average, per 1,000 people. The Prime Minister has bloated the size of the federal government at the expense of entrepreneurs and innovation. What is sad is that this is happening in Canada; we have every reason to succeed, but the government, these policies and the budget are dragging us down.

I contrast that to 2014, when there was a headline in The New York Times declaring that Canada had the strongest, most prosperous middle class in the world. In fact, The New York Times suggested that the Canadian dream had replaced the American dream in many respects in 2014. That is why my omas and opas came to Canada from the Netherlands following the Second World War. After the hunger winter, when the Dutch people were literally being starved to death by the Nazis, it was Canadian troops who liberated them. Many Dutch people came to Canada seeking hope, opportunity and freedom, and that is the story of many Canadians over the course of our history.

These people came with nothing in their pockets, as my grandparents did. They could work hard, save up, buy a home and start a family, but after nine years of the Prime Minister, that is no longer possible. It was possible in 2014, when The New York Times had that headline. Now, mortgages, down payments and rents have doubled, and taxes are up. That is why Canadians of all generations and backgrounds are upset. They are very upset. The most common thing I hear is people asking how it is that the Canadian dream has faded away. They ask how the freedom to work hard and succeed, to have that opportunity and hope, has drifted away after nine years of the Prime Minister.

It used to be that nine in 10 young people had given up on the dream of home ownership. It is now nine in 10 Canadians overall who see no future and no hope. That is an indicator of what the government farcically calls a budget that has fairness for every generation, when it is actually unfairness for every generation. They government has eroded that hope. I will be voting against Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, because it does not serve the interests of any generation of Canadians.

It is long past time that the Liberals get out of the way so that common-sense Conservatives can unleash Canada's potential and people can bring home powerful paycheques. Let us bring it home.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, is a real pleasure for me to stand here on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Davenport to speak to Bill C-69, the budget implementation act.

It is legislation that would deliver on key measures from budget 2024, a budget that would advance our government's plan to build more homes faster, make life cost less and grow the economy in a way that helps generations get ahead. Budget 2024 is a plan to build a Canada where people of all generations have a fair chance to build a good middle-class life, a Canada where Canadians, especially young Canadians, can get ahead, where their work pays off and where there are homes that they can afford.

Fairness matters. Budget 2024 matters. Bill C-69 matters.

The bill we are studying allows us to implement several elements of the last budget, as well as policies that the government announced in recent months. I am thinking in particular of the housing sector, because giving a fair chance to the next generation begins with housing.

One of the key elements of the plan is that it would improve the homebuyers' plan. This is one of the programs that can help Canadians buy their first home. It allows people to withdraw money tax-free from their RRSP to make a down payment for their first house. Homebuyers then pay themselves back over the years by putting the money back into their RRSPs. The program has been in place for over 30 years, and it has enabled thousands of Canadians to become homeowners. I am one of them; I used the program to buy my own home, and I am delighted that we are expanding the program.

Across the country, especially in major cities, home prices have gone up steeply. With rising prices, the amount needed for a down payment is now much greater. The housing market facing today's young families is different from what it was when the homebuyers' plan was created, a time when many of today's young buyers had not yet been born.

We still need to help first-time buyers save, but the support must keep pace with market prices. Currently, a person can withdraw $35,000 from an RRSP to use in the homebuyers' plan. As announced in budget 2024, we have proposed to increase the limit to $60,000 per person.

For couples, if both spouses meet the eligibility requirements of the home buyers' plan, the maximum withdrawal limit will go from $60,000 to $120,000. This will allow more Canadians to buy the first home of their dreams.

In addition, we are proposing to temporarily extend the grace period during which homebuyers are not required to repay their home buyers' plan withdrawals, from two years to five years. This extension would apply to those who made a first withdrawal between 2022 and 2025 inclusive.

In reality, whoever buys a house in 2024 would not have to start paying it back until 2029. In the medium and long term, the building of new housing will drop real estate prices in Canada. This is why in April's budget we presented a plan to make 3.87 million new homes available by 2031.

We must also act in the short term. That is what improvements to the home buyers' plan will do: help Canadians buy a home and enjoy a middle-class quality of life.

Liberals want to help Canadians put a roof over their head. Building more housing is one way. Helping Canadians buy their first home is another. We also need to ensure that homes are for Canadians to live in, not to be used as speculative assets for investors. Platforms such as Airbnb and and Vrbo are keeping tens of thousands of homes off the market, homes that Canadians cannot buy or rent on a long-term basis.

We need to crack down on short-term rentals that do not comply with provincial and municipal restrictions. In last year's fall economic statement, we announced that we would introduce a measure to support provincial and municipal efforts in this area. Bill C-69 proposes legislation to do just that. Under the proposed legislation, tax deductions would no longer be available in computing income from a short-term rental if the property is located in a province or municipality that has rules that prohibit or restrict the operation of short-term rentals and the property does not comply with those rules.

That income would be subject to tax without an offsetting deduction. By ending these tax deductions, the government is eliminating a financial incentive to non-compliant short-term rental properties. The changes will be retroactive to January 1, 2024.

We are also proposing adding an incentive for short-term rental property owners who revert their properties to the long-term rental market.

This too would make more homes available for Canadians.

Another way to help Canadians find a place to live is to limit the number of homes that are left empty and often kept only as a passive asset. To counter this practice, an annual 1% tax is applied on the ownership of vacant or underused housing in Canada; this has been in place since 2022. The tax generally applies to foreign owners. However, Canadians who own their residential property indirectly, like via a corporation, partnership or trust, have been required to file an annual return even if they did not have to pay the tax. Bill C-69 proposes changes first announced last fall to facilitate the application of the law while ensuring that the tax would be applied as intended.

The change would make it possible for more Canadian owners to be excluded from application of the law, particularly those who own their property through entities that are substantially or entirely Canadian. They would no longer have to file an annual return on underused housing or pay the tax.

We also propose to implement a new exception for houses that serve as employee lodging in rural areas with around 30,000 residents. We are proposing these changes in response to constructive suggestions sent to us by Canadians.

Finally, Bill C-69 would extend by two years the existing ban on foreign buyers of Canadian housing, something we promised we would do in January. The ban was set to expire January 1 of 2025. Bill C-69 would extend it to 2027.

That means even more homes on the market for Canadians and less upward pressure on the price. Every exception in place will remain in effect, including those for non-Canadians who will be settling in Canada to build a new life.

Bill C-69 would help to make housing more affordable for every generation. For years and years in this country, if one found a good job, worked hard and saved money, they could afford a home. For today's young adults, that is under threat.

Bill C‑69, like budget 2024, seeks to ensure that the dream of joining the middle class remains accessible to everyone and that Canadians, including millennials and those who are part of generation Z, have the means to buy a home.

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

Madam Speaker, the irony of the question is that I have been here for 18 years and remember a time when the NDP used to actually keep count of how many times time allocation had been used, and they said they would never, ever do it. However, here we are; the NDP is just going along with every time allocation motion moved by the government across the way. We would have plenty of time to have the debate if we did not have time allocation on Bill C-69.

I will remind my colleague that when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, we cut taxes over 130 times. That required a fairly big budget implementation act.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to debate Bill C-69.

Here we are again. Another year, another NDP-Liberal budget, and every budget it seems is worse than the one before. This year's iteration of the budget is falsely titled “Fairness for Every Generation”. The title is ironic because, after nine years of the government, virtually every generation in the country is worse off. In fact, I cannot think of a single demographic, other than the Liberal insiders, that is better off in nine years.

Our youth can only dream of affording a home after the government has allowed a housing shortfall. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, we would need to build 1.3 million homes to close the housing gap. Both renters and homeowners are struggling to pay their bills after the cost of housing has been allowed to double under the leadership of the Prime Minister.

Our seniors are seeing their pensions ravaged by inflation. Not that long ago, it used to be that their old age security, CPP and whatever other savings they might have could see them through on a monthly basis. That is no longer the case. The government has directly driven up that inflation, making life unaffordable by continuing to overspend. By piling on another $61 billion of new spending this year, piling on to our already enormous debt, it has proven that it does not plan on changing course any time soon.

Parents are struggling with affordability, and it is now difficult for many families to feed their children. We are seeing yearly inflation rates for many food products in the double digits, while a record two million Canadians had to use a food bank in a single month last year, which is incredible.

Let us not forget the pesky carbon tax that compounds through the economy, costing over $30 billion of economic activity, as recently highlighted by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Therefore, not only is it costing us every time we make a purchase, but it is costing our economy $30 billion in output. After nine years of the government creating intergenerational poverty, that would be a more apt name for this budget.

We know things are bad for the government when former Liberal Bank of Canada governor David Dodge has called it the worst budget since 1982, when the current Prime Minister's father was the prime minister. Like father, like son, as they say.

Instead of cutting back spending, the government has continued to be irresponsible and is spending money that Canadians no longer have. This has forced the Bank of Canada to raise interest rates. The cost to service the debt is now $54.1 billion. One must wonder what $54.1 billion could have been spent on instead of servicing the debt.

Like many Liberal bills, the budget has been turned into an omnibus bill to push forward strange and unusual requests that have little to do with budgets or measures, that are so controversial that if tabled on their own would not likely get the support of this chamber.

This year's boondoggle is the new tax on capital gains, a direct attack on business owners. It is only after the Conservatives pushed back that the government relented and put the capital gains changes into a separate bill. I chalk this up to pure incompetence, as the government continues to wedge, stigmatize and divide Canadians, and has open class warfare in our tax system.

The government claims that this change will bring fairness into the tax system essentially to target the richest 0.13%. Nothing could be further from the truth. What it conveniently ignores is how this tax will likely impact, and only impact, middle-class Canadians. This includes tradesmen, farmers who are worried about the succession of their family farms and small business owners who worry that it may not be worth growing their businesses in Canada anymore after these changes. The immigration stats are proving this to be true.

This would not be the typical 1%, but in fact would not be any of the 1% at all. Rather, they are our neighbours, friends and family members, the people who put food on our table and build our homes, and those industrious small business owners who employ people in our local communities and, meanwhile, sponsor the T-shirts for our kids' soccer teams.

I would also like to focus the attention of members on another underhanded change in the budget implementation act, and that is the newest changes to the Food and Drugs Act. The NDP vacated its role as an opposition party in March 2022, and instead of holding the government to account, its members have decided to help ease the passage of budget Bill C-47, which was the budget implementation act of 2023.

The ghastly bill was a direct attack on Canada's natural health product industry, one of the safest and best regulated industries on Planet Earth. These changes came as part of a push to radically change Health Canada's regulatory framework. Health Canada claimed that the changes were necessary to safeguard public health, but we simply know, with all the powers that it has, that this simply is not true.

The major alteration to the act was to change the definition of a therapeutic product to include natural health products. A therapeutic product is essentially a synthetic drug and it has little in common with food, which is the closest commonality that natural health products actually have. This would essentially put natural health products in the same regulatory framework as pharmaceutical drugs. It would also force the industry to pay for Health Canada's costly bureaucratic overhead with expensive new licensing fees and fines.

Essentially, by putting a self-funding model in place, what the government would be doing is just taxing the industry with that self-funding regulatory model so that it could free up the $50 million a year, which it already uses to manage the natural health product space, and use that money on some other misguided priority of the government.

Previously, natural health products were exempt from much of the regulations in the Food and Drugs Act, as a common understanding is that natural health products are a much lower risk to one's health than a pharmaceutical drug. That is why I introduced my private member's Bill C-368 to repeal these changes to the Food and Drugs Act and return to the status quo, maintaining the distinction between natural health products and therapeutic products.

However, if my private member's bill fails to pass, this new budget may also have a big impact on the natural health products industry. That is because division 31 of part 4 of this new budget implementation bill has introduced new ministerial powers pertaining to therapeutic products. Once again, it would be another change to the Food and Drugs Act and Health Canada. Instead of putting it in its own bill, it is tucked into part of an omnibus budget implementation act.

The most concerning of these changes is to allow the minister to make unilateral changes on therapeutic products without any basis in science demonstrating risk. Proposed subsection 30.01(1) of the bill states:

Subject to any regulations made under paragraph 30(1)‍(j.‍1) and if the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that the use of a therapeutic product, other than the intended use, may present a risk of injury to health, the Minister may, by order, establish rules in respect of the importation, sale, conditions of sale, advertising, manufacture, preparation, preservation, packaging, labelling, storage or testing of the therapeutic product for the purpose of preventing, managing or controlling the risk of injury to health.

That might seem innocuous, however, proposed subsection 30.01(3) states, “The Minister may make the order despite any uncertainty respecting the risk of injury to health that the use of the therapeutic product, other than the intended use, may present.” It states “despite any uncertainty”, so there would be no scientific rationale needed anymore, if the bill passes, for the minister to pull any product he or she wants off of the shelf. That is uncontrolled power. The powers that would be given to the ministers are concerning, but what is even more concerning is the combined effect of both budgets on our homegrown natural health product industry. The effect would be catastrophic. Not only is the industry reeling from the changes in the last budget implementation bill, but this one has introduced the element of arbitrary power in the hands of the minister.

There is little worse in business than uncertainty, and natural health products are only a small part of what is wrong with this bill and with industries across Canada. Small businesses are closing across our country, and yet, instead of supporting our entrepreneurs, the government uses every budget it has to target them.

We need a budget that empowers small business owners instead of penalizing them. In essence, I say not to buy into the budget title. If the last eight budgets from the Prime Minister are any indication, fairness for every generation is simply a pipe dream. As Winston Churchill once noted, “The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” If by promoting fairness, the government means promoting intergenerational poverty, then in its own way, I guess it is fair, but absolutely nobody is better off.

Only the Conservatives can restore Canada's fiscal house to order. Instead of saddling Canadian families, tradesmen, small enterprise operators and entrepreneurs with ever-growing regulation and taxation, we would axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Canada has a vast and untapped economic potential and it is time for a Conservative government to unleash that potential.

The House resumed from June 11 consideration of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm going to get to that now.

On the notice paper, if you recall our motion from April 10, there was a request for documents from all the departments for indigenous procurement and contracting. The last line makes it necessary to conduct a longitudinal study of the matter in committee or subcommittee as long as the decision is made before Thursday, June 20.

Time allocation has started on Bill C-69. We'll see bells in about 10 minutes, but hopefully we can just continue through that and put to bed this motion on this issue.

I'll go to Mr. Genuis to speak about how we'll move forward with the study from April 10.

If you wish, I'll have the clerk send out a copy of the motion.

Go ahead as it's going out.

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.

Motions in Amendment

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are two things I would like to point out about Bill C-69.

First, there is the much-touted open banking system provided for in division 16 of the bill, which my colleague from Joliette mentioned earlier in his speech. That is a real problem for Quebec. Should the Leader of the Opposition become prime minister, I would like to know whether he will repeal that division in order to give Quebec back its power over Caisses Desjardins and the other financial institutions currently regulated by Quebec.

Second, we have been hearing the leader of the Conservative Party talk about the carbon tax problem for months now. However, Derek Evans, the executive chair of Pathways Alliance and one of the financiers who contributed to his campaign, said that the best piece of advice he would give the Leader of the Opposition is that carbon policy is going to be absolutely critical to maintain Canada's standing on the world stage.

What does the leader of the Conservative Party think about Mr. Evans' advice?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere pleasure to stand before the House in support of the budget implementation act, 2024, No. 1, which would implement many of our government's key priorities in budget 2024, entitled “Fairness For Every Generation.”

All children deserve a fair start in life, and I think we can all agree on that, yet nearly one in four kids in Canada lives in a household with too little income to buy enough to eat, impacting their health and their opportunities to learn and grow. That is just not right. Therefore, in budget 2024, we proposed a new national school food program that would help ensure children across Canada get the food they need to thrive, regardless of their family background.

The children of today are tomorrow's doctors, nurses, electricians, teachers, scientists and small business owners. By supporting them, we lay the groundwork for a brighter tomorrow. Therefore, I urge my hon. colleagues to pass Bill C-69 swiftly so we can get this program up and running and do right by Canada's kids.

We are proposing to invest $1 billion over five years into the national school food program, which will provide 400,000 more kids across the country every year with food in school. That is 400,000 more kids beyond those currently served by the patchwork of provincial, local and charitable programs that currently exist across Canada. By working together with provincial, territorial and indigenous partners, we will expand access to school food programs across the country as early as the 2024-25 school year, which is incredible.

For kids, this investment will mean not being hungry at school or missing crucial nutrients from their diet. That is important because studies show that students who consistently consumed a nutritious breakfast and lunch achieved higher grades in reading, math and science compared to their peers.

Meanwhile, for moms and dads, and caregivers across Canada, this investment will mean peace of mind knowing that their kids are eating healthy meals and are well looked after in school. Healthy and nutritious food for all our kids is an investment into the future. Parents will no longer have to decide on whether they purchase healthy and often more expensive alternatives or pay their rent on time.

Even with inflation easing significantly over the last year, specifically over the last four months, which has led to Canada to be the first country in the G7 to have its central bank cut rates, affordability pressures are still causing many more Canadian families to face food insecurity, which, frankly, should worry all of us. After all, food insecurity is strongly linked to poorer health outcomes, including higher rates of type 2 diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure, but also higher rates of mental health issues like depression and anxiety. All of this puts a large burden on our already stressed health care system.

The national school food program will be a safety net for the parents who need this support the most, including first nations, Inuit and Métis families, many of which have some of the highest historic rates of food insecurity in Canada. Once up and running, it will save an average participating family with two children as much as $800 per year in grocery costs. That is extra money families can direct toward clothing, toys and books for their kids, as well as groceries and other essential goods.

Further to that point, evidence shows us that school meal programs do not just reduce health inequities for kids. They also promote sustainable food systems and practices, and create more jobs in both the food service and agriculture sectors, especially for women. This is feminist social policy in action, and it is smart economic policy too.

Speaking of that, something that should always be mentioned when we are talking about vulnerable kids and youth is that we have done a lot. That is why we have made generational investments into the Canada child benefit, which has helped lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty since its launch in 2016. About $91 million comes into my riding of Whitby on a yearly basis to support 14,000 families just in my riding alone.

This program provides families with up to nearly $8,000 per child per year to provide the essentials that kids need. That is why we are continuing to deliver an early learning and child care system across all provinces and territories, which has already cut fees for regulated child care to an average of $10 a day or less in eight provinces and territories, and by 50% or more in all others.

We are also improving access to dental health care for children under the age of 12 through the Canada dental benefit, and soon for children under 18 with the Canadian dental care plan, so that parents do not have to choose between taking care of their kids' teeth and putting food on the table.

To help younger Canadians get the mental health and addiction support right when and where they need it most, we are also launching a new $500-million youth mental health fund. My youth council was a group of young people who identified this issue a number of years ago and has advocated for more supports for youth mental health. Therefore, it is great to see this in the budget. This new fund will help community mental health organizations across the country provide more access to mental health care for younger Canadians right in their communities, so we can help more kids and youth live healthy, happy, supported and fulfilled lives. Canada's success depends on the success of younger generations.

The national school food program is at the top of our list. It is a generational investment to help families and make life more affordable across the country. Thanks to this crucial investment, we will be helping families by ensuring that kids do not spend the day at school hungry, and at the same time bringing peace of mind and relief to parents and caregivers. However, we cannot do it alone.

I hope my honourable colleagues will support Bill C-69 and join us in our vision of a Canada where every child and youth has enough food to eat to focus in school and reach their full potential.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are poor, a theme that is all too common after nine years under the Liberal-NDP government. Canadians know that they could do all the right things: They could go to school, have a part-time job while they are going to school, make ends meet, get a job, and work and put in as much as they can to save up. However, at the end of the day, the government will do everything in its power to work against all that hard work.

The Canadian experience, or the Canadian dream, that we used to have in this country used to include things that would seem very basic for any country. If people put in hard work, they could own a home, own a business and send their kids to a good playground or a school where they would not find such things as needles and crack pipes. They would be able to just walk down the street without fear of being mugged or fear of going through tent cities such as those we are seeing across this country. However, after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, that experience is gone. Nine out of 10 young people say that they have lost the dream of home ownership. They see a Liberal-NDP government with a carbon tax scam, which has been increased once again. Because of this, single moms have to make decisions about skipping meals now.

There is a woke, ideologically extremist government that will do everything in its power to make sure Canadians will never be successful. This is because we have an out-of-touch Prime Minister who has probably never had to fill his own car with gas or go grocery shopping on his own. I am not even sure if he knows how to open doors anymore. He probably needs to be retrained after next year, when he is not going to be prime minister anymore. The sad part is that the incoming Liberal leader is no different. It is Mark “carbon tax” Carney who is going to be crowned. The pain that the Liberal-NDP government is inflicting on Canadians does nothing to these trust-fund babies or these elitists, but it does everything to harm the middle class and workers.

We do not have to look very far to see the pain the government has caused after nine years, with nothing but blind support from the NDP. On top of the tent cities, there are food banks with larger and larger lineups at them and with different demographics than there were nine years ago. In fact, people can have a well-paying job and still have to line up at a food bank. They could be a teacher or a nurse but still end up sleeping in their car because, after nine years, the Liberal-NDP government has doubled housing costs. The government spent $89 billion on housing. Rents and mortgages have doubled; in fact, rents are at the highest rate they have ever been in Canadian history.

However, this is no surprise, because we have an out-of-touch Liberal-NDP government that has no clue. According to them, Canadians have never had it so good. However, none of the Liberal or NDP MPs or the Prime Minister actually talk to Canadians. They would rather rub elbows, as Mark “carbon tax” Carney does, with the elites of the world. They would rather do that than sit at a dinner table with everyday Canadians and workers, such as the ones who cannot afford groceries anymore, who are deciding whether they should get that extra grocery item or who are thinking about whether they can actually afford heat or rent this month. Kids are starving because of the cost of food. That is nine years of the Liberal-NDP government.

The problem is that productivity in this country has declined once again, for the seventh consecutive quarter. GDP per capita tells us how productive the country is. I spoke on Bill C-69 just weeks ago; at that time, GDP per capita was at the lowest rate since 2016. The week before that, GDP per capita was at the worst rate since 2017. Today GDP per capita is worse than it was in 2014.

Canadians have been hit with 40-year highs in inflation because of the Liberal-NDP government's out-of-control spending. They got the most rapid interest rate hikes seen in Canadian history. They got slammed by a carbon tax scam that only went up, did nothing for the environment and only made the cost of gas, groceries and home heating even more expensive. Not only did the government do that, but it also made sure that investment in this country fled. More than $200 billion of investment has already fled since 2016. That is the record of the current government; however, again, Canadians have never had it so good according to the Liberals.

In fact, Canadians have had it so good that they want to leave. More Canadians are leaving each year now because of the high cost of living. The Canadian dream that everyone thought of or came here for, just as my family did, is gone, and the proof is in the numbers: the food bank usage, the people fleeing from here or thinking about leaving here, the number of bankruptcies and the insolvencies.

I will give an example of a small business owner. Small business owners are the ones the government considers to be tax cheats. I have a friend in the GTA, who left everything back at home and took the big risk of coming to this country. He came at a good time, when taxes were low and rent was half of what it is today. That was under a Stephen Harper government. It was a time when people knew that they could put in hard work and get something back.

He started his first job as a janitor in this country; now he is a very successful transport owner. What happened in that time, and what has happened to him now? He was able to save up. He was able to send his kids to a good school, and now they are a part of that business as well.

Now he is being taxed more than ever before by the ideology-driven government. In this country, after nine years, success is vilified. If people make money, the Liberals are going to take it. Now my friend has been hit with higher carbon tax costs; he cannot find workers, because the government has broken the immigration system; and, on top of all that, extortion has happened to him. After nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, he is getting hit with every single bad policy: He is paying higher taxes, he is not getting the labour he needs so he can grow his business, and his success is not only vilified by the government, but now extortion is happening to him because the soft-on-crime policies of the current government have done that to him and his business.

Now, this person's family lives in fear every single day. The family members live in separate hotel rooms. They have bulletproof windows on their house and cars. On top of that, they are now thinking about leaving. This is a story that is all too common in this country after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government. By every measure, productivity has gone down; that always affects the most vulnerable people and the middle class, the ones whom the Liberal-NDP government is supposedly always standing up for.

However, hope is on the horizon; it cannot come soon enough. Under a common-sense Conservative government, we would turn this country around. That Canadian dream would be revered once again around the world.

Under the leadership of the member for Carleton, we would axe the tax. We would get rid of the carbon tax for all and bring down the cost of gas, groceries and home heating. We would make sure business owners can keep that money, so they could invest more in themselves and in workers.

\We would fix the budget. We would bring in a dollar-for-dollar law, so that a dollar spent needs to have a dollar of savings somewhere, and this would help lower inflation and interest rates. The current government does not understand this, because the Liberals think that budgets balance themselves.

We would build the homes, not more of the bureaucracy that we have seen under the government, which has doubled the cost of housing in all respects.

We would stop the crime by bringing back mandatory minimum sentences so that we can have safe streets and safe communities once again.

Under a common-sense Conservative government led by the member for Carleton, we would bring home that Canadian dream once again. This is something that, after nine years, the out-of-touch Liberal-NDP government has destroyed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his remarks. I really like working with him too.

Bill C-69 seeks to amend 67 different statutes. It contains some good things and some that are not so good.

For example, it contains the global minimum tax aimed at countering tax havens, and that is good. My colleague was talking about credits for what the government calls “clean” hydrogen. In fact, this is an $11-billion subsidy for the oil companies and the hydrocarbon industry to help gas companies with that. We do not support this. However, we do support the measure that earmarks $1 billion for the school food program. This was one of our asks.

And so it goes. There are things we support and things we do not support. Overall, the cons outweigh the pros, so we will not be voting for this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you. I also thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean.

Bill C-69 places Quebec in a dilemma in which there are no good options.

If we refuse to join the federal framework, our institutions will stay trapped in the 20th century while their federal competitors step into the technological 21st century. Maybe we could let our financial institutions opt in to the federal framework, but then Quebec would have to waive the right to apply its own laws to their activities that come under the open banking system.

Then there is the worst-case scenario. In order to survive against its federal competitors, an institution like Desjardins could choose to stop being a Quebec institution within the meaning of Quebec's Cooperatives Act and become a federal institution under Canadian co-operative bank legislation. Trust companies would face the same choice. Since the open banking system could eventually be expanded to cover insurance, all of our insurance companies could switch over to federal regulation.

If this worst-case scenario comes to pass, the entire financial sector and all of its activities will be completely outside Quebec's jurisdiction. That is a serious threat to Montreal's status as a financial hub. In short, by using its power over banks to regulate all companies that interact with them, Ottawa is trying to force Quebec and the provinces out of the financial sector, which it failed to do when it was trying to regulate securities.

Rather than taking the unilateral, centralist route, Ottawa should have chosen co-operation. It could have called a federal-provincial finance ministers' working meeting on open banking. It could have encouraged them to release a joint statement at the end of this meeting in which the governments announce their intention of developing a common regulatory approach with a clear deadline, such as 2025, and possibly setting up a federal-provincial office.

It could have sent a clear message to all financial institutions, not just banks, telling them to agree on a common technology, such as a secure data transfer protocol, because open banking is coming. Lastly, it could have worked on common technical regulations on accreditation rules for fintech companies, security standards, clarification of financial liability, consumer and data protection, and other such matters.

This is what we are asking the government to do today. We are asking it to take out the division on open banking that centralizes the sector exclusively at the federal level. We are asking it to take a few months to coordinate with the various players and the provinces and then to come back in the fall with a framework that respects jurisdictions and does not put provincially regulated institutions at a disadvantage.

The government could have chosen another model for the open banking system. There is the Interac approach based on self-regulation, as well as the securities approach. Securities fall mainly under provincial jurisdiction, but Ottawa has laws governing federally incorporated companies. The Supreme Court has also recognized federal jurisdiction over systemic risk in the financial sector. In Quebec, the Autorité des marchés financiers is the regulator.

To ensure that businesses could raise capital across Canada and that registrations in one province would be recognized everywhere, governments decided to coordinate. That is why Quebec's Business Corporations Act is very similar to the Canada Business Corporations Act and to the corporation laws of all the other provinces. The same is true for all legislation governing the various aspects of securities.

Quebec retains its legislative powers. The Quebec act may be stricter in some respects. For example, Quebec is the only province that requires a French version for all corporations registered with the Autorité des marchés financiers. However, this version must comply with the common standard adopted by all governments. This is the approach I prefer. This is the approach preferred by the Bloc Québécois.

There is another concern. In Bill C‑69, the government delegates the administration of the framework to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, an agency that mainly promotes financial literacy and that does not have any of the required expertise. In committee, FCAC representatives acknowledged that they did not have expertise in sharing financial data in a way that minimizes the obvious cybersecurity risks. They also told us they do not currently have a plan for developing the expertise needed to oversee the security aspect of open banking.

We also asked several questions that the FCAC representatives said they were unable to answer. For example, since fintech companies are not banks, they are not federally regulated. We asked if the government had obtained the consent of the provinces, particularly Quebec, which has its own civil laws, before tabling this bill. They were unable to answer. The answer is no.

During the briefing on the notice of ways and means preceding Bill C-69, it was my understanding that provincially regulated financial institutions could join the federal framework if they so chose, provided that the province consents and declines to regulate on its own those activities involving the open banking system. Is this in fact the case? I am unable to get an answer.

Which provincial laws will have to take a back seat to the federal laws? There is no answer.

Who will be tasked with certifying the technology companies, Ottawa or the Autorité des marchés financiers? I am unable to get an answer.

Will Quebec's Consumer Protection Act apply to the activities of the open banking system? There is no answer.

In the case of fraud or damages, will it be possible to launch a class action suit under the Civil Code or the Consumer Protection Act against a fintech company? Again, I am unable to get an answer.

Will the sharing of financial responsibilities between the financial institution and the technology company necessitate changes to the financial institutions' prudential standards? Will the Autorité des marchés financiers need to change its rules to comply with the federal framework? Here again, I cannot get an answer.

None of this is surprising. The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada is not well positioned to manage this framework. It learned it would be receiving this role just before the budget was tabled. This is ridiculous.

To avoid a disaster or some risky back-pedalling, let us act today. Let us take this division out of Bill C-69, do our job better and come back with a good bill this fall.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-69 is an omnibus budget implementation bill that creates or amends 67 different acts. It enacts the consumer-driven banking act, which makes the federal government exclusively responsible for regulating this sector, with the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada serving as the regulator.

Today we are calling on the government to take this division out and fix its flaws over the summer. We want the government to come back in the fall with a framework that does not give Bay Street an undue advantage over other financial institutions, that respects Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction and that delegates the administration of the framework to an appropriate agency.

Since financial technology or fintech companies are not federally regulated, Ottawa has opted to regulate them indirectly by controlling the manner in which the banks can transact with them. Specifically, Bill C‑69 provides that banks and other federally regulated financial institutions will be covered by the new act. They will be required to co-operate with fintech companies, but they may do so only in accordance with federal rules and standards.

As for institutions that are not federally regulated, they are ignored. They can opt in voluntarily if they get the approval of their province, which would then have to waive the right to apply its own laws to the portion of their activities that comes under the open banking system. For now, Bill C‑69 does not affect insurers, due to the sensitive nature of the medical data they hold, or to intermediaries like brokers, but the framework is likely to expand to cover them in the future.

The specific rules and standards that will apply to the sector, particularly in terms of consumer protection and financial liability, will be set out in another bill that is due out in the fall, but the decision to make it exclusively federal is being made now, in Bill C‑69. We urge the government to take out this division, improve it over the summer and present us with a better law this fall. Taking out this division will not delay the bill's coming into force.

In practical terms, under this section of Bill C-69, the Quebec Consumer Protection Act and the Quebec Act Respecting the Protection of Personal Information could cease to apply to financial institutions for any activities related to open financial services. The impact of an exclusively federal open banking system on the prudential obligations of Quebec financial institutions, as set out by the Autorité des marchés financiers, is unclear at this point.

In addition to forcing Quebec to transfer legislative power to Ottawa, Bill C-69 puts Quebec's institutions at a disadvantage with respect to federal institutions. While banks will have only one set of regulations to follow, an institution like Desjardins would be caught between two governments: the Government of Quebec, for its general operations, and the federal government, for its technological interactions with customers.

Being subject to two uncoordinated regulatory bodies could be downright dysfunctional and give banks an egregious advantage over co-ops and trust companies. Bill C-69 gives Bay Street an advantage over other institutions like co-ops and credit unions. As a result—

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in the debate on the budget implementation act, also known as Bill C-69. I will declare from the outset that I will oppose the reckless and incompetent Liberal government and its disastrous economic policy, which is contained in this legislation.

When the budget was introduced, the Liberal government told Canadians that it was adding another $57 billion in new inflationary spending, but guess what? The Parliamentary Budget Officer later confirmed that that enormous number was even higher, to the tune of $61.2 billion. That is a miscalculation of over $4 billion. This new inflationary spending only adds more financial fuel to the flames of inflation. Sadly for Canadians, as long as the NDP-Liberal government stays in power, it is only going to get worse. Already, it is costing Canadians more. In fact, the new spending in this budget would cost the average Canadian family an extra $3,687. I would ask the Canadians watching at home to pause and think about that for a moment. What could their family do if they had an extra $3,687 in their bank account?

As the shadow minister for tourism and the proud member of Parliament for the Niagara Falls riding, which includes the city of Niagara Falls and the towns of Niagara-on-the-Lake and Fort Erie, may I be the first to suggest a vacation in Niagara Falls, Canada's top leisure tourism destination? When common-sense Conservatives proposed to rescind the carbon tax and federal taxes for fuel for the summer to allow Canadians an opportunity to enjoy a vacation, the Liberal government instead criticized those same Canadians and then voted down our motion.

Really, that extra money could go toward anything, especially things that would help improve the quality of life for them and their children. Instead, the Liberal Prime Minister will continue to take their hard-earned money and then immediately throw it at the shocking interest charges that his enormous debt has racked up after nine years. This is simply unsustainable. This is not how we get to a balanced budget either, as the finance minister said she would during her fall fiscal update in 2022.

According to the Fraser Institute, last year the Liberal government was spending more on paying off its debt than it was spending on child care benefits and employment insurance benefits, but it gets worse. This year, the NDP-Liberal government will spend more taxpayer money on servicing its debt than on health care. I will let that sink in for a moment.

After nine years of the Liberal Prime Minister, it feels like we are back in the dying days of the Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne Liberal government at Queen's Park, where rampant, wasteful and reckless Liberal spending on green energy programs made Ontario's debt the highest of any sub-sovereign state in the world. What is both troubling and astounding is the fact that some members on the Liberal side are from the very same cast and government of that Ontario period. Have they learned nothing?

After nine years of the Liberal government, Canadians know prices are up, rent is up, debt is up, taxes are up, and they are fed up. Rent has doubled. Mortgage payments are 150% higher than they were before the current Prime Minister took power. Tent cities exist in almost every major city. Over 50% of Canadians are $200 or less away from going broke. The Liberal government's tax-and-spend inflation is non-discriminatory. It costs Canadians their hard-earned money and savings, and it impacts Canadians of all walks of life, of every demographic and in every region of our great country. Young Canadians have had to put their dreams of buying a home on hold, while hard-working Canadians are working overtime, or two or more jobs, just to get by. Retirees, who have worked hard their whole lives to build our country, are now struggling to hold on to their savings as high inflation and new Liberal taxes drain their bank accounts.

Demand at local food banks is at an all-time high. In Niagara Falls, Project Share's food bank served more than 13,000 people last year, a total of one in seven residents. Across Ontario, a report from Feed Ontario revealed that more than 800,000 Ontarians used a food bank between April 2022 and March 2023, an increase of 38% province-wide.

These miserable results are the legacy of nine years of the Liberals' rule, and their disastrous spending and budgetary plans, which have failed at every turn. If Canadians were not already enduring enough financial pain and suffering caused by their federal government, they will take no solace in knowing that the Liberal government is committed to quadrupling the carbon tax, driving up the cost on everything from food, to groceries, to shelter and energy to heat and cool their homes.

The government's most recent tax increase was a 23% hike on the carbon tax on April 1, but there is hope. There is a solution. In the next federal election, which will be a carbon tax election, Canadians can elect a common-sense Conservative government. Only common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax to bring lower prices for Canadians. We will build the homes Canadians need. We will fix the budgetary finances of this country and we will address the issues of crime, which the government policies have made only worse, not better, in Canada.

The carbon tax is just one of a series of new tax measures being schemed up by the tax-hungry Liberal government that needs to continuously feed and fund its spending addiction. In the first quarter of this year alone, businesses across Canada saw taxes go up in areas such as CPP and EI premiums, as well as the added burden of the carbon tax. Some also had an alcohol escalator tax hike to worry about, such as the wineries and craft breweries in my riding, and every business is concerned about general costs continuing to go up.

Canadians in need of a home, desiring to rent or trying to save to buy their first home face stiff headwinds. After nine years of the Liberal government, housing costs have doubled and mortgage costs have doubled. Required down payments have doubled and rent has also doubled. More houses were built in 1972 than were built in Canada in 2022. Because of the government's habitual overspending ways, Canadians are struggling with increased mortgages and interest rates, which threatens their very future.

Just this morning, Global News reported on an Ipsos poll indicating 63% of respondents would continue to remain on the sidelines of the housing market due to higher interest rates. The poll was conducted between June 7 and June 10. Some 45% of respondents maintained that they would not be able to afford a home no matter how much interest rates declined, and, sadly, six in 10 respondents said they had given up on ever owning a home.

After nine years of the Liberal government, Canadians are poor while Liberal insiders and friends of the Liberal cabinet get rich. The government has screwed up the housing file so badly that in the 2023 fall economic statement, it trumpeted the creation of a new Canadian mortgage charter to save Canadians from the problems the NDP-Liberal government had created itself. The government should be ashamed.

Only common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime so Canadians can focus on getting ahead in their daily life. After nine years, it is clearer than ever that the Liberal Prime Minister is not worth the cost, and budget 2024 would make life worse across the country for Canadians. Prices are up and rent is up. Debt is up; taxes are up, and Canadians are fed up. The Liberal government's time is up.

I encourage members of all opposition parties to take a stand with Conservatives, vote against the reckless, inflationary federal budget and vote non-confidence in the disastrous Liberal government.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have sad news for the member. If he carefully reads the piece of legislation, Bill C-69, he will see that the capital gains tax is not in it. In fact, the Minister of Finance said that she would table a separate piece of legislation. It is as if the Liberals were completely unprepared to table a single piece of budgetary legislation that included all of their taxing schemes because they were either too incompetent, too foolish or did not know what they were doing, or this is just a political ploy and a political game, just as so many pundits are now attacking the Liberals over. They even have the Canadian Medical Association disagreeing with them.

Capital gains tax is not in the legislation. I invite the member to read it.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad I caught your eye, and I am glad you also caught the fact that I had mistakenly put my phone a little bit too close to the microphones. It is now far away.

I want to start by thanking the residents and constituents of my riding for again allowing me the opportunity to represent them in the House. We are now several years into this particular Parliament, but we all know that it is a great honour to be sent here to represent them. We speak on their behalf. We do not just speak for ourselves.

In preparation for speaking today, I did go through the many emails and phone notes I have written to myself from calls with constituents, people who have told me about the misery they are suffering through with the NDP-Liberal government's policies and Bill C-69 specifically, which is basically an encapsulation of many years of policy-making by the government that has led to the doubling of mortgage down payments and the doubling of rent.

I speak as a renter. My rent has gone up significantly, and I do not fault my landlord. He has no choice, because interest rates have much more than doubled. When an interest rate goes from 25 basis points or 50 basis points to 4.75%, that is a multifold increase. That is not a doubling; it is not a 4.5% increase. We are talking about a manyfold increase, like an 800% increase in some cases, on the interest people are paying on the total amount of their loan. I do not fault them.

We have seen the price of homes double since the Liberal government took over. We have seen the price of many goods go up significantly. It is the number one issue in my riding, the cost of living. It hits people in the grocery stores when they see it. It hits them at the pump when they go to refill their trucks or vehicles that they use to get their families around my riding. My riding is one of the bigger ones in Canada. Thankfully, the electoral boundaries commission is drastically shrinking it, by 40%. That will make it much easier for me to get back to everybody on time, those who make phone calls and send emails and those few who still send letters.

I often get asked the question, “What would Conservatives do?” I have taken the time to summarize a few things that, for me, are the highlights of what Conservatives would do. We have our main points that we make, and all parties do this. I often hear the NDP-Liberals accuse Conservatives throughout Canada of sloganeering. We are just making it simple for people to understand. There are vast amounts of information online, on YouTube, on social media. I trust Canadians to go through those things. If they are interested and curious about what Conservatives are proposing, there is an entire docuseries that, for example, the member for Carleton, the leader of His Majesty's opposition, has made, “Debtonation.” I highly recommend it. Those who are interested should go check it out.

I will start with “pay as you go”. It is a very simple idea. It has been time-tested. It has worked. In the U.S. Congress, between 1998 and 2002, when it was introduced, it basically said that for every new dollar of government spending, the current government had to find a dollar of cuts in current government programs or propose one dollar of new taxation to cover this cost. In the span of those four years, they were able to balance the budget of the United States government. That is a government that runs trillion-dollar deficits at this point.

Our national debt is in the trillions, but we do not run trillion-dollar deficits yet. I do not want to suggest anything. I am sure the Liberal government, if given half the opportunity, would reach that level. After all, as I remember it, there was a certain Prime Minister who promised to run small deficits, less than $10 billion for three years, and that never happened. The Prime Minister has run multi-billion dollar deficits ever since he was elected to office, and it has never stopped. In fact, none of the budgets that the Liberals have tabled since then have shown a balanced budget.

“Pay as you go” is a proposal from the Conservatives to adopt that would ensure that we could fix the federal budget. Fixing the federal budget would lead to lower interest rates. Lower interest rates would lead to lower housing costs and lower rents and, at the very minimum, stop this massive inflationary increase in the costs of everything.

It would make it easier for small businesses, like those of fishermen, giving them an opportunity to actually be able to afford new equipment. It would give them an opportunity to plan for their retirement and have the certainty that the equipment, goods, boats and everything else they use to run their business would have the same value at the end of the day, so they could retire with dignity.

The second thing is the building homes not bureaucracy act, which this House voted on. I find it interesting that one of the NDP members who spoke was trying to give a hard time to one of our members, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, saying that we had not proposed anything on housing. We proposed legislation on housing, legislation that they voted against, in fact. The NDP members voted with their coalition partners in the Liberal Party.

There is a proposal, the building homes not bureaucracy act. It went very specifically to the heart of what is going on in our country, which is that we have people at the very local level, in the planning departments of different cities, who are making it more difficult to increase density and, as is is in my community, to build more greenfield housing of single-family detached housing and low-rises. Calgary has generally done a really good job of building housing that is necessary, but so has the city of Edmonton.

As Calgarians, we do not often praise the city of Edmonton, but I used to live in Edmonton, and if I look at its housing costs over the last nine years, it probably has the smallest increases of any major metropolitan region. That is because, locally, they have decided to prioritize pricing and make sure that pricing stays low and affordable, so people can afford the homes that they want to live in, and there are different types of housing for different people to make sure they have the choices they need at different stages in their lives.

However, the building homes not bureaucracy act had provisions in it to ensure that we divested ourselves from federal government properties that are no longer necessary, to ensure that we can pass them over to developers to encourage them to build more housing and more development around TUCs, and also to cut CMHC's bonuses. This is the housing agency that is supposed to ensure we build sufficient amounts of housing. I have long been a critic of the CMHC. It does not matter which CEO has been there. It has completely failed in its mandate, so at minimum we should be cutting these bonuses, the performance base or whatever euphemism we want to use for the bonuses and the extra pay they are giving themselves when they are failing. We should not reward failure.

The government needs to cancel the carbon tax. It is very simple: Axe the tax. The carbon tax is adding on to the misery of all Canadians. We can see it in our grocery stores with the prices, but if we tax the farmer who makes the food, and we tax the shipper who takes the food to the producer who adds second-level value, and then they take it to the grocery store, all of those costs are being passed on through the entire system, and we have higher costs at the end of the day. That is simply how math works, and axing the tax is the solution.

What would we do to replace the tax? We are Conservatives. Generally, we do not like taxes. We would not replace it with any other tax. There are a lot of technological changes that we could do. There are a lot of things that we could do on the grid side in Canada to make sure we have a national grid, or something closer to a national grid, where there would be a better flow of electrical power between the provinces. We can do that through encouragement. We do not need to mandate things.

I watched the Minister of Environment mandate things, such as forcing Calgary Co-op, the grocery store of my choice, with 400,000 members in Calgary, almost a third of the city, to abandon its completely compostable bags. They are completely compostable in the city-owned compostable system, and the government is saying that they have single-use plastic in them. It is a compostable bag. Not even the ink is made of plastic. It is also compostable, but an insistence that Ottawa knows best is why we see so much division in this country and so few Liberal provincial governments left. There are so few of them left in existence.

I know many members wait for this, but I always have a Yiddish proverb. I have a great love for that language, and when a wise man and a fool are debating or arguing, there are two fools debating. That is what I feel while watching the Liberal cabinet when it has these disagreements about whose fault it is that there is a massive increase in mortgages and massive increase in housing prices and rentals. They seem to always point their fingers at somebody else. It is never their fault when things go wrong. It is always someone else's. It is as if they've not been in power for nine years.

The government members often, during question period especially, say that they will find the person who is responsible for this. They love labelling small business owners as too rich, with too much for their retirements, while the Liberals basically have golden-plated defined benefit plans that are afforded to them by the taxpayer. They should stop accusing those who create richness in our country and who contribute to the hiring in all of our communities. It is often that the government members are always looking for someone else to blame. It is the cabinet. It is just that person. I have not found a wise man among them yet, but I have found those fools who continuously blame Canadians for every single one of their mistakes.

As such, of course, I am going to be voting against Bill C-69. I have moved several amendments to it as well. It is also a matter of confidence, so I will also remind my constituents back home that on these types of matters, I have zero confidence in the NDP-Liberal government and this coalition, and we must vote this legislation down.

We have to have a carbon tax election, so let us axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

There are 161 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-69. Motions Nos. 1 to 161 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 161 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Members, we have gotten through Bill C-69.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

I now give you my ruling on this one. Bill C-69 amends several acts, including the Trust and Loan Companies Act, to provide that “the directors of a company of a prescribed class must make available...prescribed information respecting diversity among directors and members of senior management”. The amendment seeks to add an obligation to disclose information respecting the company’s investments in countries recognized as tax havens, which is a new concept that goes beyond the scope of the bill as agreed to by the House at second reading.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, and for the aforementioned reason, the amendment introduces a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

Now I give you my ruling. Bill C-69 amends several acts, including the Trust and Loan Companies Act, to provide that “the directors of a company of a prescribed class must make available...prescribed information respecting diversity among directors and members of senior management”. The amendment seeks to add an obligation to disclose information respecting the company’s investments in entities that produce fossil fuels, which is a new concept that goes beyond the scope of the bill as agreed to by the House at second reading.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, and for the aforementioned reason, the amendment introduces a new concept that is beyond the scope of this bill. Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Lawrence.

MP Ste-Marie, I see your hand up, but this is not debatable, because it's not admissible.

I now give my ruling to MP Lawrence and to the members. Bill C-69 amends several acts, including the Tax Court of Canada Act, to provide that “the Court under special circumstances grants leave to the party [to a proceeding who is not an individual] to be represented by a director, officer, employee, member or partner of the party” or by a lawyer in normal circumstances. The amendment seeks to provide for the party to be represented, in normal circumstances, by a tax accountant, which is a new concept that goes beyond the scope of the bill, as agreed to by the House at second reading.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment introduces a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. For the aforementioned reason, therefore, the amendment is inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Hallan.

Okay, I'm looking around.... I will now give my ruling. Bill C-69 amends several acts. The amendment seeks to repeal the Impact Assessment Act in its entirety. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 771:

an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

Since the sections of the Impact Assessment Act being repealed by the amendment are not amended by Bill C-69, it is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

(Clause 269 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 271, 273, 291 and 292 agreed to on division)

(On clause 321)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Ste-Marie, I have a ruling on this.

First, Bill C-69 amends several acts. The bill provides for the coming into force of its sections 213 to 221 and 224, related to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act:

on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

The amendment attempts to subject all clauses of the bill that relate to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act to the written consent of all the provinces before their coming into force, which is a new concept that goes beyond the scope of the bill as agreed to by the House at second reading.

As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on pages 773 and 774:

An amendment intended to alter the coming into force clause of a bill, making it conditional, is out of order since it exceeds the scope of the bill....

It attempts to introduce a new question into it.

In the opinion of the chair and for the aforementioned reason, the amendment introduces a new concept that is beyond the scope of this bill; therefore, the amendment is inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Davies.

I will now give my ruling.

Bill C-69 amends several acts, including the Canada Student Loans Act, and the amendment seeks to add “occupational therapist” to the list of people who would be eligible for student loan forgiveness.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment alters the terms and conditions of the initial royal recommendation, thereby imposing a charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible. The ruling also applies to amendment NDP-2 since it is consequential.

(Clause 156 agreed to)

(Clause 157 agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

I'll give my ruling now.

Bill C-69 amends several acts, including 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. The amendment seeks to repeal the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act in its entirety.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 771:

...an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

Since the sections of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act being repealed by the amendment are not amended by Bill C-69, it is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Lawrence.

We have a ruling on this. Bill C-69 amends several acts, including the Excise Act, 2001, to add inflationary adjustment clauses. The amendment seeks to establish new amounts of fines related to certain alcohol offences. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, this addition is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Now we are at new clause 130.1 and CPC-17.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Lawrence.

I do have a ruling here, and I should have jumped in right after MP Ste-Marie.

The ruling is that Bill C-69 amends several acts, including the Excise Act, 2001, to add inflationary adjustment clauses. The amendment seeks to add a new category of exempted product to a clause that is not amended by the bill.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 771:

...an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

Since paragraph 134(3)(b) of the Excise Act, 2001, is not being amended by Bill C-69, it is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

Is there any further debate on this?

There is a ruling. I will give you my ruling right now.

Bill C-69 amends several acts, including the Excise Act. The amendment seeks to amend section 1 of part 1 of the schedule of the act by adding new rates of duties for absolute ethyl alcohol contained in spirits depending on its production level.

Since paragraph (1) of the said schedule provides for a uniform rate of duties to absolute ethyl alcohol regardless of the quantity produced, the adoption of the amendment would create an incapability in the act, which renders the amendment inadmissible.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on pages 772 and 773:

Last, an amendment which would render a clause unintelligible or ungrammatical is also out of order.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment is incompatible paragraph 1(1) of the schedule, and I therefore rule the amendment inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Chambers.

I'll now give my ruling.

Bill C-69 amends several acts, including the Income Tax Act, to authorize the minister to make available to public taxpayers information relating to claims or receipts of a clean economy tax credit. The amendment seeks to expand this authorization to any tax credit.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, by expanding the authorization, the amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill as agreed to by the House at second reading. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Lawrence. There is a ruling from the chair.

Bill C-69 seeks to amend the Income Tax Act by providing a refundable tax credit for certain activities related to clean technology manufacturing property. The amendment attempts to add to the list of qualifying materials by including uranium, which would expand the tax credit provided in the bill.

The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment expands the tax credit provided in the bill to a new category of qualifying material, which would impose a new charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

We are now on CPC-5.

MP Chambers, would you like to move this?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Lawrence.

There is a ruling from the chair.

Bill C-69 seeks to amend the Income Tax Act by providing a refundable tax credit for certain activities related to clean technology manufacturing property. The amendment attempts to add to the list of qualifying minerals activities by including a conversion or fuel fabrication to those activities, which would expand the tax credit provided in the bill.

The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment expands the tax credit provided in the bill to a new category of qualifying mineral activities, which would impose a new charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Members, shall clause 38 carry?

(Clause 38 agreed to on division)

(On clause 80)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Lawrence.

I do have a ruling.

Bill C-69 seeks to amend the Income Tax Act by providing refundable tax credits for certain activities related to clean technology manufacturing property. The amendment attempts to add to the list of qualifying properties by including equipment used for natural gas production, which would expand the tax credit provided in the bill.

The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment expands the tax credit provided in the bill to a new category of qualifying property, which would impose a new charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Next is CPC-3.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Lawrence.

There is a ruling.

Bill C-69 seeks to amend the Income Tax Act by providing refundable tax credits for certain activities related to clean technology manufacturing property. The amendment attempts to add to the list of qualifying properties by including equipment used for helium production and would expand the tax credit provided in the bill.

The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment expands the tax credit provided in the bill to a new category of qualifying property, which would impose a new charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Opposition Motion—Measures to Lower Food Prices

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, yesterday evening we were debating a Conservative amendment to a Standing Committee on Finance report. This amendment sought to revive the proposal we had voted against just a few hours earlier, the miracle solution of the tax holiday that would last all summer. The taxes would resume once the House was back in session, just in time for us to collectively complain about their return.

Earlier yesterday, we were debating the simplistic solution to the fight against high grocery prices, because, as we know, in addition to solving all the world's ills, world hunger, the cancer and AIDS epidemics and all other problems, axing the tax on carbon will also guarantee more affordable food prices for all. In fact, if we abolish the carbon tax, food costs would go down to zero and everyone would eat for free.

A day after the Conservatives' simplistic motion, we are studying a simplistic motion moved by the NDP. We are shifting from a tax break to a price cap. I will read the NDP motion, as I will be talking about the three proposals it contains. There are some good ideas in there, but the Bloc Québécois cannot support it as a whole. It reads as follows:

That, given that the cost of food continues to increase while grocery giants such as Loblaws, Metro and Sobeys make record profits, the House call on the government to:

(a) force big grocery chains and suppliers to lower the prices of essential foods or else face a price cap or other measures;

(b) stop delaying long-needed reforms to the Nutrition North program; and

(c) stop Liberal and Conservative corporate handouts to big grocers.

The first thing is the basic wording, “That, given that the cost of food continues to increase while grocery giants make record profits”. We all agree on that. However, we run into the same problem that we saw with the Conservatives. They focus on the perfectly legitimate public anger, but then offer simplistic solutions instead of truly addressing the root of the problem.

Let us begin with point (a): “force big grocery chains and suppliers to lower the prices of essential foods or else face a price cap”. Say we support it. Now I would want to know how we are supposed to do this. Is there a how-to manual? How do we go about imposing a cap on the price of bread, for example, when wheat prices are negotiated at the Toronto Stock Exchange? How do we go about imposing a cap on the price of fresh vegetables, when prices are skyrocketing mainly because of crop losses due to drought or flooding, which are caused by climate change?

Unlike the Conservatives, the NDP does believe in climate change. However, the NDP continues to support the budgetary policies introduced by the Liberals, who are always giving handouts to oil companies, even though they contribute more to climate change than any other sector.

How do we force farmers to lower their prices when the price of nitrogen fertilizer has quadrupled? The price per tonne jumped from $250 to $1,000 between 2020 and 2022. How do we force a Californian produce grower to sell their broccoli cheaper in Canada than in the United States? Does the NDP think it can wave a magic wand and cap prices without creating shortages?

Point (a) is impractical and unfeasible, which is already reason enough for the Bloc Québécois to vote against the motion, despite the good intentions behind it.

Now, let us look at the enhancement of the nutrition north program. I will start by saying that this is a good measure. Since 2011, nutrition north has subsidized grocers in the far north to compensate for the high cost of transportation and lower the price of groceries. However, the program does not fully compensate for the high costs, which are due not just to transportation costs but also to low volumes and higher operating costs. Considering that the average income in the Inuit community is around $23,000 a year, which is shockingly low, it is clear that food insecurity must be a widespread problem.

Businesses offer workers from outside the community a golden bridge to encourage them to work in the north. The income of non-indigenous individuals is approximately $95,000 a year, according to a study by Gérard Duhaime, a professor at Université Laval with whom I rubbed shoulders in a previous life.

We agree with that part of the motion. If that was all the motion contained, both my colleague from Mirabel and I would have given very short speeches, two minutes at most. We would merely have said that we supported the motion. Unfortunately, all the rest of it dilutes and undermines the proposal's credibility.

The third point calls on the government to “stop Liberal and Conservative corporate handouts to big grocers”. The only thing we want to know is what that is referring to. The NDP often talks about a subsidy that Loblaw received a few years ago to replace its refrigerators with more energy-efficient models. That in itself is no scandal. I think we all aspire to that.

Besides that, the only handout I see the Liberals and Conservatives giving big grocers is their inaction. By doing nothing, by remaining silent and not taking action, they are giving them an indirect handout. In fact, there are no subsidy programs specifically for grocers, apart from nutrition north, for which the NDP is asking for more funding today. The NDP supports the only subsidy that exists. It is asking the government to enhance and improve the program, and that is what we are asking for as well.

As mentioned earlier, the companies that are really gorging on subsidies are the oil companies. In the past two years, the federal government has given them subsidy after subsidy. That was always the case, but it did not stop when the infamous coalition agreement with the NDP was signed. The tax breaks set out in all the budgets and economic statements will total $83 billion by 2035. That is more than $2,000 per capita, or almost $4,000 per taxpayer. The NDP keeps supporting every budget, every economic statement and every appropriation, no questions asked, in the name of an agreement to further intrude on Quebec's jurisdictions.

This spring, Parliament has been seized with bills C-59 and C-69. Today, the Standing Committee on Finance is voting as part of the clause-by-clause study of Bill C‑69. They could be at it until midnight tonight. It provides $48 billion in tax breaks mostly for the oil companies. Does the NDP support that? The answer is yes.

Since I only have two minutes left, I will finish my speech quickly. I will try to talk as fast as an auctioneer at those events we all occasionally attend in our ridings.

That being said, there is a real problem. I must emphasize that. The grocery industry is dominated by a handful of moguls, namely Loblaw, Sobeys and Metro. In 2022 alone, these three companies, the most affluent companies in the sector, reported over $100 billion in sales and drew in profits exceeding $3.6 billion. Yes, there is a competition problem. Small entrepreneurs have a hard time breaking into the market, since the grocery giants control everything. With a mixture of astonishment and consternation, we are seeing the growing concentration in the sector make it harder and harder for new entrants to break into the market or expand, making competition almost non-existent.

According to a 2023 Competition Bureau report, a grocery sector strategy is urgently needed. If the Liberals and Conservatives are giving these giants any handouts, it is by not having a strategy. That is the handout.

Let us agree on the fact that there are several possible solutions. We need to make it easier for foreign investors to enter the market. We need to increase the number of independent grocers. We also need to have clearer and more harmonized requirements for unit pricing. We also need to take measures to discourage, or even prohibit, property controls in the grocery sector. These controls restrict competing grocers from leasing space in the same building. They make opening new grocery stores much more difficult, if not impossible, and this reduces competition in our communities.

Why is competition so important? It is the backbone of the economy. Simplistic solutions are not the answer. The answer is more competition in the grocery sector.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I'll just make some brief comments.

I want to thank Mr. Davies for bringing the amendments forward. I think they're welcome.

I want to express the intent of the proposed amendments in budget 2024 that amend the Food and Drugs Act. They all attempt to address and prevent unintended and harmful uses of therapeutic products. One example is preventing addictive nicotine replacement therapies from being marketed to youth. Obviously, this is a major concern that we share when we see youth taking up those new replacement therapies and being the target of marketing campaigns.

The intent of the measures was always to give the Minister of Health the authority so that he or she, in the future, can review all available evidence and base any decisions on well-founded reasons before using the new legislative authorities. That was the intention.

I also recognize that Mr. Davies has formalized that within a set of amendments, adding reasonable grounds to some of the important clauses here in the bill. That's welcome, because it further makes explicit what was intended. I think those are things that the government members will be supporting, and we appreciate the amendments.

To Mr. Ste-Marie's points, I'll just say generally that it was too bad we didn't have as much time to hear from witnesses. There were quite a lot of committee resources that went into a fairly extensive debate and filibuster, which went on for a while. I'm glad we got past that and we're now moving forward, but it's regrettable that there wasn't a bit more witness testimony for him to hear from additional witnesses. We empathize with him on that.

I think, as he knows, these are welcome adjustments, giving the minister some authorities and powers that are needed to crack down on these activities that target youth.

Thanks very much.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am very sympathetic to all of the arguments made by our colleague Mr. Davies. They are of real concern and they align strongly with my values, my principles and my positions.

Again, I object to the approach taken here.

I received a letter this evening. I had told you that it came from the Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control, but it was signed by several groups.

I want to take the time to read it to you so it can contribute to our consideration. I reiterate: I object to the process. I will not have the time needed to hear all the experts and reach a considered decision, because the government should have dealt with the subject in a separate bill so we have the time to do things properly.

I am going to read you this letter, which was sent to me as my party's finance critic and to my colleague Luc Thériault, health critic and vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Health.

The groups that signed the letter are the Quebec Lung Association, the Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control, the Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health, the Heart and Lung Foundation, and the Canadian Cancer Society. Its purpose is to support clauses 322 to 333 of Bill C-69, so it could not be clearer. I will begin reading it.

We hereby wish to express our firm support for enacting clauses 322 to 333 of Bill C‑69 amending the Food Drugs Act. These provisions are crucial for protecting Canadian youth against new tactics being used by the tobacco industry, which could make nicotine products popular among young people. The shameless marketing by Imperial Tobacco of new flavoured nicotine pouches (“Zonnic”) last fall exposes major weaknesses in the present rules governing nicotine replacement therapies that are authorized as natural health products. Unlike the historical marketing of NRTs, Imperial promoted its “Zonnic” brand in a way that makes these pouches attractive to young people, in particular by using images of trendy young people in social contexts, catchy slogans and exotic flavours (such as “tropical breeze”), in candy-like packaging. Unsurprisingly, a number of organizations have observed that young Canadians are interested in this new product. They include the Ordre des pharmaciens du Québec which stated in January that “in pharmacies where they are floor stocked, they seem to be very popular, particularly among younger people.” That is what prompted the Ordre to recommend that all pharmacists operating in the province keep these products behind the counter. A few weeks later, the Government of British Columbia stepped in to limit behind-the-counter sales to pharmacies. The other provinces are leaving it to the federal government to establish guidelines for the sale and promotion of these types of nicotine products and at present, the federal legislation governing tobacco products and vaping products has no power to regulate nicotine pouches, like most new (and future) products containing nicotine that the cigarette manufacturers are working on. That is why we want to point out to you and the members of your party how advisable and how urgent it is for it to be able to protect young people against products like these. In fact, it is important to prevent any industry that manufactures over-the-counter nicotine products from starting a new wave of nicotine dependence as vaping did among young people, which would be a complete public health fiasco. This youth health disaster is the direct result of far too permissive initial oversight. A tobacco manufacturer marketing “Zonnic” pouches (supposedly intended for quitting smoking) through convenience stores—except in Quebec—changes things and calls for urgent action by the Minister of Health. The proposed amendments would enable the minister to prevent the tobacco industry from exploiting the various loopholes in the regulatory scheme for natural health products.

In its present version, clauses 322 to 333 of Bill C-69 let the federal Minister of Health step in quickly to regulate the sale, promotion and flavouring of nicotine pouches and other nicotine replacement therapies, or NRTs, to prevent undesirable use of these pouches that could harm users' health. An example is use by individuals who are neither smokers nor vapers but for whom the marketing kindled their curiosity about trying them recreationally. It is important to note that the ministerial powers introduced by C‑69, in clauses 322 to 333, do not operate to remove any natural health products from the market; rather, they allow the Minister of Health to introduce guidelines for the sale of products where the marketing of the products involves health-related issues and concerns. In those cases, sale in general would be allowed, but be conditional on compliance with certain criteria for which there would be consultations. In the cases that concern us, nicotine pouches and other natural health nicotine products that might emerge, these amendments represent an appropriate proactive mechanism for better oversight of products that create one of the most powerful dependences in the world, in addition to other risks to physical and mental health, particularly in young people. To conclude, as a health group that has fought against smoking and nicotine dependence for decades, particularly among youth, we urge you to support these amendments, which solidify the existing measures in Quebec and extend them to the other provinces. Sincerely …

The letter is signed by the groups.

Mr. Chair, I have taken up a lot of time reading the letter in its entirety. It is a letter signed by groups that promote health and oppose tobacco use, in which they use very strong language. As I said, I did not have time to hear every party with an interest in the division we are considering—that would have enabled me to reach a clear conclusion—because of the way the government has gone about it, to which I object. This is not the right approach; it is not the right way to do things.

Mr. Davies raised a lot of very important and very strong arguments and asked a number of questions about the minister's extended powers. This is a matter of considerable concern. Personally, I have to decide among the various points made by the various witnesses, the arguments made by Mr. Davies, and, I imagine, the ones Mr. Turnbull will be making. As well, I also have this letter, which contains some powerful arguments. Since I am not an expert in the matter, I choose to base my judgment on the associations I trust: the Quebec Lung Association, the Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control, the Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health, the Heart and Lung Foundation, and the Canadian Cancer Society.

In light of the letter and the arguments made by those groups, I am going to vote for the clauses mentioned and possibly—very probably, even—for the suggested amendments, if they are moved. That has not been an easy decision to make and I object to how the government has handled this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I do have a ruling, members.

Bill C-69 seeks to amend the Income Tax Act by providing a refundable tax credit for certain activities related to clean technology manufacturing property. The amendment attempts to add to the list of qualifying products by including equipment used for helium production, which would expand the tax credit provided in the bill.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772, “Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a long clause in Bill C-69 that creates the tax credit for clean hydrogen. In fact, when we look at the details of this clause, we see that it is a made-to-measure subsidy for the oil and gas industry, the gas industry, to produce hydrogen. In our opinion, this is not a transition plan; it is a plan to support an industry composed of corporations that are already extremely profitable and simply pay their profits to their shareholders. We think the purpose of a transition plan is not to subsidize the gas industry, including the hydrogen industry, in this case.

I am therefore asking for a roll-call vote. I am going to vote against this clause, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 147 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the House of Commons order of reference adopted on Wednesday, May 22, 2024, and Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C-69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.

Before we begin, I would like to ask the members and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.

Please make note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. Only use a black, approved earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from the microphone at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you to all for your co-operation.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders. In accordance with the committee's routine motion concerning connection tests for witnesses, I'm informed that all witnesses have completed required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

Actually, this is not exactly correct, members. There may be witnesses or officials who need to come on if you have any questions, and they would be tested at that time. There are too many of them available to us. It will be done when they are asked to come before us.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For members in the room, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your understanding in this regard. Also, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I'd like to provide the members of the committee with a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-69. As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. Pursuant to the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, May 28, 2024, all clauses for which no amendment was submitted will be considered and voted on first, although I believe that there have been some discussions and that may change somewhat at the beginning, when members are able to pull out some of those clauses.

We'll follow that with the clauses with amendments. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to a clause in question, I will recognize the members proposing them, who may explain them.

In addition to having to be properly drafted in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. The chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill—both of these were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading—or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown.

Amendments have been given a number on the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it. During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. Approval from the mover of the amendment is not required. Subamendments must be provided in writing. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time. The subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Pursuant to the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, May 28, 2024, if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 5 p.m., all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved. The chair shall put the question forthwith and successively, without further debate, on all remaining clauses and proposed amendments as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill and all questions necessary to report the bill to the House.

Finally, if members have any questions regarding the procedural admissibility of amendments, the legislative clerks are here to assist the committee; however, they are not legal drafters. Should members require assistance with drafting an amendment or a subamendment, they must contact the legislative counsel.

I thank the members for their attention and wish everyone a productive clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-69.

As I said earlier in my remarks, members, there are many witnesses. I believe there are about 70 or so who are available if members have questions, but they would have to come, many of them, online via video conference and they would have to be tested to get them going.

Now we will get started.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Davies. I concur.

Thank you very much to our witnesses, our final panel today—our 12th panel of witnesses—and all those who came before you, the many witnesses who provided testimony on Bill C-69.

From here our committee will move to clause-by-clause consideration to get Bill C-69 through and back to the House. We thank you and wish you the best for the rest of your day.

On that, members, we are adjourned.

[Kaylie Tiessen, National Representative, Research Department, Unifor]

Although not explicitly tied to Bill C-69, we want to express concern over the absence of new capital funding toward the strategic innovation fund in budget 2024. That's a cornerstone investment vehicle that has served the industrial economy well for many years. Recapitalizing this fund should be considered for 2025.

For Unifor members in the health care sector, we support proposed amendments to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act that will establish a 5% growth guarantee to the Canada health transfer for eligible jurisdictions, marking a long-awaited increase to the transfer payments. Unifor is, however, very disappointed that such requirements do not include efforts to ward off privatization schemes or establish minimum standards for long-term care.

Finally, Bill C-69 proposes various important amendments to the Canada Labour Code. Proposed changes to the code clarify that workers shall be presumed an employee if they are remunerated by an employer. Reassigning the burden of proof to employers when determining employment status is a long-standing demand of our union and an important step for combatting worker misclassification in the federal sector.

Further, the bill introduces a new policy on disconnecting. It's a requirement under the code that follows developments in other jurisdictions, like Ontario. Unifor supports this amendment to the code, but with three specific amendments that we have appended to our submission and can send to you once we get the translation.

Amendment one proposes that Bill C-69 explicitly require the policy to detail how non-working-hour communications will be limited and what opportunities exist for employees to disconnect.

Amendment two removes the proposed exemption for those working non-standard hours. Amendment three requires these changes to come into force one year after Bill C-69 is passed and not over an indeterminate amount of time.

We thank you again for the opportunity to present. We look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you.

[Angelo DiCaro, Director, Research Department, Unifor]

Thanks very much.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Angelo DiCaro. I'm the director of research for Unifor, which is Canada's largest labour union in the private sector, representing 320,000 workers across the country.

I'll be sharing my time with my colleague Kaylie Tiessen, an economist who leads the union's budgetary analysis work.

We want to thank the committee for the invitation to participate in this review of the budget implementation bill.

Unifor recognized the federal government for presenting what was, by many measures, a social progress budget in 2024. It's one that responded to persistent economic inequities, affordability pressures and stubbornly high interest rates. Over consecutive budgets, the government has established durable public goods programs, including first-phase pharmacare, as well as dental care, child care and student nutrition programs that will serve Canadians now and for generations to come.

Nevertheless, the absence of promised employment insurance reform, a program that will serve as the core economic stabilizer for unemployed workers on the path to net zero, is a glaring hole in budget 2024.

Our commentary today will focus on curated elements of Bill C-69, but it by no means constitutes Unifor's full or comprehensive assessment of the legislation.

Unifor supports the proposed Income Tax Act amendments that increase maximum labour expenditures for newsroom employees from $55,000 to $85,000, as well as the proposed increase to the Canadian journalism labour tax credit rate to 35%.

That support extends also to the $10-million capital gains exemption on the sale of a business to an employee ownership trust. These measures provide opportunity for local and national media outlets, keeping them viable and delivering the journalism Canadians need.

In the clean energy and advanced manufacturing sectors, Unifor supports the proposed investment tax credits, including the clean technology manufacturing credit, which already appears to have been instrumental in securing significant future investments in the auto sector.

However, Unifor has stated publicly its desire to see these tax credits developed in a manner that ensures good-quality union jobs. This includes explicit requirements that companies receiving public funds commit to union neutrality covenants. Such a covenant would allow workers to exercise their constitutional right to join a union and collectively bargain free of employer intimidation, threats, harassment and reprisal.

[Ernie Daniels, President and Chief Executive Officer, First Nations Finance Authority]

Thank you to the committee members for inviting us to testify today.

I'm calling from the Westbank First Nation in British Columbia.

Very briefly, for background, the First Nations Finance Authority was created under federal law with support from all parties in Parliament. We are a first nations-led organization very much driven by the priorities of the first nations we serve.

Our primary function is to find and secure financing in domestic and international capital markets for first nations. The financing we secure, primarily through the issuance of debentures, is securitized by the own-source revenues of qualifying first nations.

While historically the financing support we provided was primarily for infrastructure such as roads, schools and community centres, we are now in many discussions that are equity-based opportunities that present communities with a path to a state where they would be able to thrive and grow. I can share with confidence that FNFA lending to first nations for equity investments is economic reconciliation realized.

We have followed with great interest the development of the indigenous loan guarantee program that Bill C-69 proposes to create. We are all aware of the vast potential for a wide range of large resources and energy projects across Canada.

Many of these, such as rare earth element extraction and electrical transmission lines, are vital to achieving Canada's clean energy goals in the manufacture of zero-emission vehicles. Others, like natural gas, support the transition to a low-carbon future. All of them have vast potential to support employment and economic development in the first nation communities they touch. FNFA is ready and able to support the desire of communities to participate, thus realizing these important economic and environmental ambitions.

There was a time when a specified number of guaranteed jobs or supply contracts would be deemed sufficient as the benefits that indigenous communities could expect from development on their traditional lands. Today, though, first nations and other indigenous communities want the long-term benefits that ownership brings. They want to be full partners, with both the benefits and the obligations that partnership implies. In other words, they want equity, and first nations equity translates to economic growth and increased productivity for Canada.

FNFA is well positioned to deliver the financing for the large projects that we understand the loan guarantee program is intended to support. Having issued 10 debentures with a loan portfolio in excess of $2 billion and having recently migrated from the municipal to the federal index, FNFA now has access to vast amounts of capital for equity stakes in these projects, and because of the model on which FNFA is based, we can provide capital to first nations at much lower interest rates than they would get from commercial lenders. This means that they can retain more of the revenue their equity stakes generate, resulting in greater financial capacity for vital infrastructure or for programs that communities desperately need. It also means more revenues that they can leverage through the FNFA up front for investment and community priorities.

The current governing legislation for the FNFA, the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, prevents the FNFA from lending to special purpose vehicles, such as limited liability partnerships. Last week we had the opportunity to meet with a range of decision-makers and parliamentarians from all parties. Among the issues we discussed was a regulatory change that would allow FNFA to lend to special purpose vehicles in cases when a federal loan guarantee is in place. This would provide a financing option in circumstances where multiple first nations organize themselves. This would open the opportunity for participation to those first nation communities that otherwise might not have been able to participate.

In this scenario, communities that participate in an investment opportunity will be better positioned for economic growth and capacity building on their own terms. As they advance and become more familiar with us, they will see the potential benefits of becoming certified and obtaining membership.

We see this as a real opportunity that would create wins for Canada and for the first nations. We invite members of this community to support our efforts in this regard.

Thank you. We'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

[George Christidis, Vice-President, Government Relations and International Affairs, Canadian Nuclear Association]

Thank you very much. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here today at this very important hearing on Bill C-69, another budget implementation bill.

As stated, my name is George Christidis. I am vice-president of government relations and international affairs at the Canadian Nuclear Association.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging that we are on unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin first nation.

The Canadian Nuclear Association is a non-profit organization that represents over 100 members from the nuclear industry across Canada. The Canadian nuclear industry employs 76,000 Canadians in highly skilled trades and professional jobs, directly and indirectly. Currently, Canada's CANDU nuclear reactors generate about 15% of Canada's electricity, representing over 60% of the electricity in Ontario and over 30% in New Brunswick. These assets provide clean, reliable, non-emitting baseload power. More and more provinces are increasingly looking at nuclear technologies as part of their electricity needs.

The Canadian nuclear industry is a key employer of first nations communities, particularly in northern Saskatchewan. For instance, the Cameco uranium mining corporation is one of the largest employers of aboriginal peoples. The Canadian nuclear industry is also a major supplier of isotopes, which is key to fighting certain cancers and to other nuclear medicine procedures.

It is clear from an international and domestic perspective that attaining climate and energy security goals will require significantly more nuclear energy, as well as a strengthened nuclear fuel cycle and supply chain capability. The Canadian nuclear industry is a global leader in this regard. The Canadian nuclear industry advantage is based on the successful operation and refurbishment of its CANDU nuclear fleet and the nuclear cycle and supply chain that is necessary for its operation.

This effort to meet climate and energy security goals is really foundational to what the Canadian Nuclear Association's recommendations are. Canada, as a leader in the nuclear industry, is a tier one nuclear nation, with nuclear companies recognized around the world across the supply chain and across nuclear research, such as at the national laboratories at Chalk River or the nuclear waste management initiatives being led by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization and Chalk River nuclear laboratories. Based on that foundation, the recommendation is to strengthen the nuclear industry, and we encourage all parliamentarians to implement quickly the decisions that have been made in the last few budgets.

We've seen a significant increase or inclusion of nuclear power in key foundational policies in Canada and abroad. At COP28, there was a recognition of the need to triple nuclear energy. At Sapporo 5 there was a recognition of leveraging the nuclear industry in Canada and other like-minded countries to meet energy security goals to help delink from Russian energy assets.

We applaud these measures. However, we recommend a timely and strategic approach in implementing and operationalizing the investment tax credits, the clean manufacturing tax credits, and similar initiatives that have been announced. We have to move quickly. There is a competitive bent to it as well, as we see the United States proceeding to implement the Inflation Reduction Act.

I must reiterate that the link between domestic and international initiatives is very important and that energy security, national security and climate initiatives are all interconnected. With that in mind, we recommend that there be an appropriate definition of small modular reactors to enable technologies that are chosen for Ontario and Saskatchewan to be eligible for investment tax credits. The definition should be 1,200 megawatts thermal to ensure that projects are included and can proceed, as well as an operational requirement for modularization that the current technology does not meet.

Making leasehold property models clearly eligible for the investment tax credits is also crucial for any potential partnerships between nuclear utilities and first nations. These financial tools enable nuclear utilities to enter into partnerships with first nations while complying with nuclear licensing requirements. The Canadian Nuclear Association also recommends that the definition of eligible refurbishments and expenditures include all components that enable clean energy assets to continue operations.

We also recommend that uranium be added to the list of qualifying materials and the inclusion of conversion and fuel fabrication in the list of qualifying materials eligible for the clean technology manufacturing tax credit. This is essential to strengthen a key component of the nuclear industry.

Finally, the definitions that will be used for the hydrogen investment tax credit framework need to include nuclear to ensure that Canada does indeed achieve its hydrogen goals.

These recommendations have been presented as a way to strengthen the Canadian nuclear industry, but they are also a means to strengthen Canada's economic, social and environmental credentials and capabilities, which all, again, have a very strong national security and energy security bent.

Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

Thank you, MP Davies.

We want to thank our terrific witnesses very much for their testimony here on Bill C-69. I know some of the members have asked you questions on information that you may not have at this time, but you will provide it in writing. If you could do that through the clerk so that information could then be distributed to the members, we'd appreciate that.

We wish you the best with the rest of your day.

Members, we are now going to suspend as we get ready for our final panel today.

[Anne Kothawala, President and Chief Executive Officer, Convenience Industry Council of Canada]

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee, for hearing from local corner stores as part of your budget bill deliberations.

On behalf of Canada's 22,500 convenience stores, which employ 180,000 people in communities across the country, we would like to speak to provisions in Bill C-69 that would fundamentally alter our businesses and impact adult customers who shop at their local corner store. These same stores and gas stations not long ago were deemed essential services by government during critical pandemic times and were celebrated and recognized for our role in helping keep Canadians safe.

Of immediate concern with the passage of C-69 are changes to the Food and Drugs Act presented in clause 326 in the BIA that would give the Minister of Health unfettered powers to apply precision regulation to therapeutic products. This captures a number of different products, but most relevant to convenience stores are nicotine replacement therapies, NRTs, including nicotine pouches, which are currently sold in our stores to adult customers.

I want to be very clear with committee members. Convenience stores support stronger regulations for NRTs, including nicotine pouches. Not long after the products were approved for sale by Health Canada, we issued guidance to retailers encouraging them to put the products behind the counter and to age-gate the products just as we do for traditional tobacco.

We are also open to other regulations, including marketing restrictions, labour limitations and even increased penalties for retailer non-compliance to ensure these products are used as intended by adults and for cessation or transition purposes.

However, we do not believe that providing sweeping unilateral powers to the minister over a process that is typically apolitical is the appropriate path to better regulate NRTs, and it would set a dangerous precedent for other products that may be sold in our stores or any retailer of a therapeutic product.

Rather than contemplate removing these products from our stores without any evidence to suggest convenience stores are the source of these products for youth, we would like to work with the regulators to ensure these products are used as intended by adults.

Tobacco users want to purchase reduced-risk products from the places where they purchase their cigarettes. Being able to retail these in our stores allows adult consumers an easier option to make that choice.

We have seen recent public policy failures that have arisen when removing nicotine products from our stores under the auspices of curbing youth access. Both B.C. and Ontario made changes to the availability of vape in convenience stores, limiting or removing some or all of these products from our retail establishments; there remains no data to suggest that this has resulted in fewer youth using the product. In fact, online illicit sales of these products continue to grow at an alarming pace.

Further, the removal of these products from our stores and concentrating their sale ultimately favours the illicit market and illegal websites. In fact, there are dozens of illegal, unapproved NRTs for sale online, sold without age checks, without taxes paid and containing unknown ingredients. It is our understanding that these sites are already the primary source of youth access to nicotine pouches, yet there is no plan to address this threat and online harm to young people. We can all agree that the proliferation of products available to youth online, including dangerous products like LSD gummies, should be an urgent focus of government.

To conclude, we are in favour of treating NRTs and their gum and inhaler equivalents just as other tobacco and nicotine products are treated. We agree there should be clear regulations applied to nicotine replacement therapies, including age restrictions, locating the product behind the counter and both marketing and flavour restrictions. However, far-reaching ministerial power that would allow for significant changes in the absence of evidence or input from government officials, experts and stakeholders is not the appropriate tool to regulate NRTs or other therapeutic products.

For that reason, CICC is requesting that the text outlined in clause 326 granting these precision regulation powers be deleted or that the ability to determine where the product is sold, something that is typically a provincial responsibility, be excluded from such regulatory powers.

I would be pleased to share our proposed amendment text in writing with the committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

Thank you, MP Davies. That is the time.

We want to thank our witnesses for coming before our finance committee on Bill C-69 and for their testimony.

Members, before we suspend to bring in our next panel, you should have received two budgets for Bill C-69. They came in on Friday at 4:38 p.m. I just want to see if we have approval for that.

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

I have a little bit of time and I want to make my point.

The point is that if Health Canada has made an error in judgment in labelling a nicotine pouch as a natural health product instead of labelling it as a product under the tobacco and vaping products legislation and regulations, that would be something for which you wouldn't need the powers here.

Every power I see in Bill C-69 for the Food and Drugs Act deals with “other than the intended use”. It's in the supplementary rules for a therapeutic product. In the promotion, it's “other than the intended use”; under uncertainty, it's “other than the intended use”.

This is all about off-label use. It has nothing to do with the existing powers that the government has in order to properly regulate these products, categorize them and sell them appropriately in the Canadian marketplace.

Am I missing something?

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

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Buckley, I'm assuming you're listening to the testimony here today.

Mr. Arango, in his previous answer to a question, indicated that the government already has a regulatory process started and a gazetting process going, whereby these pouches or nicotine.... I don't think anybody here is arguing that we should be getting these things out of the hands of kids. Nobody here is making that argument. We're simply trying to draw a line between what the minister has said in defence of Bill C-69 and the Food and Drugs Act, and whether or not the government actually needs the power to do so.

Mr Buckley, you strongly argue that the government already has the ability to do so. My colleague Mr Davies just mentioned the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act.

If that's the case, what would prevent the minister...? Does the minister have the power right now?

Let's say one of these nicotine pouches had a natural product number. Could the minister pull that natural product number from that product? It's just a simple yes or no.

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

You can give me your general impressions.

What would you suggest, for example, with regard to the separate study of division 31 of Bill C-69?

Do you have any responses to the arguments advanced? On what arguments are the suggestions you're making to the committee based?

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

On the supplementary rules under therapeutic products, right now there's a bill in the House, Bill C-368, that seeks to undo the changes that were made in Bill C-47 in relation to therapeutic products.

As the voice of the Natural Health Product Protection Association, if Bill C-368 does pass in its current form, can you tell us what impact that could have for the natural health product industry in regard to changes in Bill C-47, and now in Bill C-69, should they pass in their current form?

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

My assessment of the minister's arguments in using nicotine pouches and flavoured vaping products as a rationale for this power grab, both in Bill C-47 and in Bill C-69, is that they're a bit of a red herring.

Under the Food and Drugs Act as it existed even before Bill C-47, Health Canada has the ability to stop the sale of any product it deems unsafe. It has the ability to seize any product. It has the ability to stop any personal use imports across the border if it wants to. It could mandate a label change, adding any warnings that it wants to, and it can withdraw any natural product number. It actually approves a natural product number in the first place, and it has the power therein to withdraw a natural product number.

Is the issue actually the regulated use and sale of these nicotine pouches or is it actually the contraband sale of these nicotine pouches?

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

Thank you, Chair.

I will start my questions with Mr. Buckley.

Going back, Bill C-69 is a budget implementation act. It's not an actual act tabled by the health minister. It's an act tabled by the finance minister. These are substantive changes to the Food and Drugs Act. This follows on the heels of other substantive changes to the Food and Drugs Act passed last year in the budget implementation act bill, Bill C-47.

Do you and your organization have any comments for this committee about the appropriateness of having these discussions in a finance committee rather than tabling an individual piece of legislation that specifically deals with health and can be scrutinized and vetted through the appropriate channels here in our Parliament?

[Manuel Arango, Vice-President, Policy and Advocacy, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Heart and Stroke appreciates the opportunity to appear before this committee to discuss Bill C-69, the budget implementation act.

I would like to address four measures today that were included in budget 2024, namely the school nutrition program funding, tobacco and vaping taxes, measures to address nicotine pouches, and pharmacare funding.

First, the $1-billion investment over the next five years to implement a national school nutrition program will greatly benefit the health and well-being of children in Canada. This investment is important to the one-third of students in elementary schools and two-thirds of students in secondary schools who do not eat a nutritious breakfast before school, leaving them at risk for learning, behavioural and health challenges at school.

The reality is that food insecurity puts people at risk for various chronic diseases, including heart disease and stroke. The annual economic burden to Canadians of chronic diseases, which is attributed to unhealthy eating and other modifiable risk factors, has been estimated at a staggering $28.2 billion. Canada is seeing increases in the rates of illnesses, such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and cancer, much of it stemming from poor diets. In 2019, dietary risk factors contributed to an estimated 36,000 deaths in Canada.

Evidence shows that school food programs help to produce better health and education outcomes, including a reduction in the risk of chronic disease and improved mental health, as well as improved concentration and learning, which are associated with improved graduation rates.

School food programs can have significant positive economic impacts. A preliminary University of Guelph study suggested that a national program could stimulate the development of over 200,000 jobs. Also, a national school nutrition program can help to educate our kids on the value of local agriculture and the important role that local farmers play in supporting healthy diets. It will be key for this measure to be implemented, given that Canada is the only G7 country without a national school food program.

Heart and Stroke is also pleased to see strong action on tobacco and vaping control by way of increased taxation. Smoking remains the leading risk for premature death and disability in Canada. It places a burden on our economy, with over $11 billion in lost productivity and health care costs in 2020.

Also, Canada has some of the highest youth vaping rates in the world. The reality is that increased taxes on tobacco and vaping products are one of the most effective strategies to reduce consumption, especially among price-sensitive youth and young adults. Young people have lower disposable incomes, and research shows that they are more sensitive to e-cigarette and tobacco price increases.

Heart and Stroke is also pleased to see the federal government's resolve to move towards a healthier nicotine-free generation. The budget includes a proposed amendment to the Food and Drugs Act that will help address the alarming uptake of nicotine pouches amongst our youth. The reality is that the unregulated sale of nicotine pouches, such as Zonnic, is a real danger to young people in Canada. With attractive flavours, such as Tropic Breeze, Chill Mint and Berry Frost, and colourful small packages, these packages entice youth to try nicotine pouches. The devastating result is that youth will become trapped in a cycle of nicotine addiction.

This proposed amendment will restrict the marketing, restrict the use of attractive flavours, impose a minimum age for sale, require placement of these products behind the counters at pharmacies, and impose warning labels and other measures. These are key to helping to protect our youth from these harmful products.

Finally, as a last point, the allocation of $1.5 billion in funding over five years to support the launch of the national pharmacare program is critical in order to improve drug coverage among the seven and a half million people in Canada with no insurance or inadequate insurance. The current patchwork of public and private plans in Canada has created fragmented drug access, leaving millions struggling to afford their prescription medications.

While many people in Canada have some form of drug coverage, it is often not sufficient and poses affordability issues for some. A 2024 poll commissioned by Heart and Stroke and the Canadian Cancer Society found that one in five people in Canada do not have sufficient prescription drug coverage. Over one in four Canadians had to make difficult choices in order to afford prescription drugs, such as cutting back on groceries; delaying paying rent, mortgage or utility bills; and/or incurring debt.

One in 10 people in Canada diagnosed with a chronic health condition were more likely to visit an emergency room due to a worsening health issue because they were not able to afford their prescription medications.

People with diabetes are more likely to develop heart conditions at a younger age and are three times more likely to die of heart disease. As such, the budget 2024 investment in pharmacare will support 3.7 million people in Canada living with diabetes in managing their condition at home. It will also reduce their risk of developing heart conditions, among other complications.

We hope to see the coverage expanded to cover heart disease and stroke drugs in the near future.

I'll be happy to address any comments or questions. Thank you very much.

[Stephen Hazell]

Thank you.

I would say that we are looking for several amendments to the impact assessment as amendments to Bill C-69. The government has covered off the constitutional issues that the Supreme Court of Canada has raised. We think that's been done adequately, but they have overreacted to that. They fear another court challenge.

Our view is that with the changes that the environmental community has provided to the committee, and I think several parties as well, those issues relating to transboundary issues can be corrected. We can ensure that the federal government can do assessments to the limits of its constitutional authority.

Thank you for that opportunity.

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

Then I'd like to ask Mr. Turnbull, who represents the government on this committee, to make those analyses public and available. As he said, carbon pricing is widely discussed in Canada. So that would add to the information the public has on the subject.

Now getting back to the budget, Mr. Giroux, my question concerns a somewhat technical aspect that troubles me, so I'd like to hear your opinion on it. You said in your analysis that the government had announced $61.2 billion in new spending that was partially offset by $21.9 billion in revenue-raising measures. We're eagerly awaiting the bill respecting the main revenue-raising measure, and we're obviously awaiting your analysis of that measure as well.

However, when I received the notice of ways and means motion, I was surprised to see that the measure wasn't in it. It isn't in Bill C-69 either. However, as I understand it, when the government announces measures in the budget, such as changes to capital gains taxation, it has to table a ways and means motion and then a bill.

Is it normal for that kind of measure announced in a budget not to appear in the notice of ways and means motion or in the bill to implement the budget?

[Yves Giroux, Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today.

First, I'd like to say a few words about the office's work on carbon pricing.

In April of this year, in the course of reviewing and updating our computable general equilibrium or CGE model, PBO staff discovered that the original CGE simulations underlying our March 2022 distributional analysis of carbon pricing inadvertently included the economic impact of both the federal equivalent fuel charge and the output-based pricing system. CGE estimates from these simulations were published in our March 2022 report, table 3-1, and were also used in the update to that report that we published in March 2023.

Weeks ago, on April 17, we published a notification flagging this modelling issue. It appeared on the home page of our website. The notification also indicated that we plan to provide an updated analysis of carbon pricing by the fall of this year.

I am truly sorry for this modelling error and for not providing more prominent notification to parliamentarians.

PBO staff are working diligently to prepare this update to incorporate recent policy changes, new projections and new CGE modelling. This analysis is challenging and complex, involving multiple models, programs and databases. We will publish updated analysis when we have full confidence in our results.

Further, going forward, I will ensure that parliamentarians are provided with more prominent notification should similar issues arise.

I would now like to discuss the reason for our appearance today, which is Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.

I am joined today by Chris Matier and Mark Mahabir, directors general in my office.

On April 30, my office published an analysis including highlights of Budget 2024. In that budget, the government announced $61.2 billion in new spending that was partially offset by $21.9 billion in revenue-raising measures. Thus, on a net basis, the new measures reduce the budgetary balance by $39.3 billion over 2023–2024 to 2028–2029.

My office has also published cost estimates for measures included in budget 2024, including the refusal of tax deductions for short-term rental, employee ownership trusts, Canadian journalism labour tax credit enhancement and accelerated capital cost allowance for eligible new purpose-built rental housing. We also published a blog post on increasing the borrowing limit.

In the coming weeks, my office will publish further analyses on measures announced in the 2024 budget, including the capital gains inclusion rate increase, the Canada disability benefit, an investment tax credit for clean energy, tax reduction for entrepreneurs and an update on the alternative minimum tax measures.

We are also preparing to publish analyses on reaching NATO's 2% target on defence spending, as well as the procurement of polar icebreakers. These analyses aim to provide parliamentarians with important information on key issues to inform your discussions about the country's economic and financial situation.

We would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have regarding our budget 2024 analysis. Merci.

[Stephen Hazell, Consultant, Nature Canada]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members.

My name is Stephen Hazell and I am pleased to represent Nature Canada.

Thanks so much for the opportunity to appear before the committee as it considers Bill C-69, and specifically the amendments to the Impact Assessment Act.

Nature Canada is one of the oldest nature conservation charities in Canada, representing a network of over 130,000 members and supporters.

Nature Canada's key message today is that the proposed government amendments to Bill C-69 would severely undercut federal authority to assess impacts of proposed projects that cause serious transboundary environmental effects, such as acid gas, greenhouse gas emissions and reduced water flows in transboundary rivers.

Recall that the Supreme Court of Canada's October 2023 opinion confirmed the federal authority to carry out impact assessments of development projects as long as those projects have the potential to impact federal jurisdiction. The court opined that several IAA provisions strayed out of the federal constitutional lane. The government's proposed amendments fully address these issues, in Nature Canada's view.

Unfortunately, the government's amendments overreact to the court's opinion. The result is that proposed developments generating millions of tonnes of toxic air pollutants and GHGs or causing major reductions in transboundary water flows would not be subject to even the possibility of federal assessment.

Here are two examples of what I'm talking about, based on my own personal experience from over 40 years as an environmental lawyer working in Ottawa.

First, Colacem, a multinational corporation, is proposing a cement plant on the shores of the Ottawa River in Ontario, a few kilometres east of the province of Quebec, 70 kilometres upwind of Montreal and 50 kilometres upwind of Kanesatake First Nation. The Colacem plant would produce one megatonne of GHGs every year, as well as acid gas pollution in excess of Canadian standards.

The Kanesatake First Nation opposes the plant and says it was not consulted. No one consulted Quebec either. Ontario conducted no impact assessment, and Quebec was unable to undertake one, given that it wasn't on Quebec territory.

In 2018, Nature Canada petitioned the federal environment minister to convene a federal assessment of the proposed cement plant. That petition and a subsequent one were rejected.

The point is that the government's proposed Impact Assessment Act amendments would prevent a federal environment minister from even entertaining a request to designate any similar project generating significant transboundary air pollution, leaving downwind provinces—not to mention the United States—at the mercy of upwind provinces.

Nature Canada proposes that the IAA allow projects such as the Colacem cement plant to be designated for assessment so long as the transboundary air pollution is significant. Nature Canada is confident that the test for national concern under “peace, order and good government” as set out out by the Supreme Court in the previous Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act reference, can thus be met—perhaps with a backstop provision.

My second example is from 1986. Saskatchewan proposed the Rafferty and Alameda dams on the Souris River, which flows south into North Dakota before looping north to join the Assiniboine River, which flows through the middle of Mr. Morantz's riding.

Changes to the quantity and timing of transboundary water flows of the Souris were the key environmental issues at the time, not damage to fish habitat. Initially, the federal government refused to convene an environmental assessment for Rafferty and Alameda, but did so after the Canadian Wildlife Federation—where I served as legal counsel—applied successfully to the Federal Court for an order mandating an assessment.

My second point is that the government's amendments would preclude the federal government from assessing the impacts of such dams or other types of projects, like irrigation schemes, on transboundary waters.

Nature Canada says all adverse changes to international and interprovincial waters—not just pollution-related changes—should be included as effects within federal jurisdiction. The full text of these amendments is contained in amendments that have been tabled with the committee by several parties, as well as by other groups, such as Ecojustice.

Nature Canada recognizes that provinces may challenge the amended IAA in court. However, given that climate chaos and destruction of nature are the issues of this century, the federal government must face such challenges and advance impact assessment legislation that aggressively supports climate stability and nature conservation within federal jurisdiction.

Thank you very much.

[Carolyn Webb, Knowledge Mobilization Coordinator, Coalition for Healthy School Food]

Thank you. Good morning.

On behalf of the Coalition for Healthy School Food, I want to thank you, Mr. Chair and the committee, for inviting me to speak on the Budget Implementation Act.

The Coalition for Healthy School Food is made up of more than 300 non-profit member organizations and over 140 endorsing organizations from all provinces and territories. We've been advocating federal funding for a cost-shared national school food program for years, and we were pleased with its inclusion in the April 16 budget.

This is a historic moment for Canada. Thanks to this investment, we will be joining all the other G7 countries and most industrialized countries in the world by establishing a national school food program. This investment is the result of an excellent social and economic policy that will ensure that children and youth at schools across the country are well fed, ready to learn and have an equal opportunity to succeed. It will also help families by lowering grocery bills and will support women and parents, food suppliers, food systems, employment, economic growth and communities.

As stated by a recent World Food Programme report, all the evidence shows that school meal programs, along with other social protection initiatives, are one of the smartest long-term investments that any government can make. Since 2023, we've seen more and more provinces and territories invest in school food, including $214 million over three years in British Columbia, $30 million annually committed by Manitoba and $18.8 million in Nova Scotia. As of the 2024-25 school year, the combined investment from provinces, territories and municipalities is projected to be over $285 million annually.

Despite growing investments from other levels of government, programs need federal support now more than ever. In Ontario, for example, the affordability crisis and other factors have made it so that programs are really struggling to feed the children and youth who access them. Over the past three years, student nutrition program providers report that food expenses have increased by 40% to 80%, while student participation rates have risen by 25% to 40%. This has impacted the quality and quantity of the food served in programs: Some regions can no longer serve a full meal and offer a simple snack like a granola bar instead, while others have reduced the number of days that they serve kids or have had to shut programs down months before the end of the school year because they've run out of money.

Federal funding will provide enormous support to existing programs in this country. This funding is necessary and should be disbursed as soon as possible. Although all the federal, provincial, territorial and municipal investments combined aren't enough to reach all children and youth in Canada, federal funding will help existing programs ensure that students are well fed, that schools stay off waiting lists and that far more students are included in school food programs. These programs will be able to stabilize, expand and adopt best practices, in particular by involving students in planning, growing, preparing, serving and learning about foods and by providing good jobs. They can also purchase more local foods, which, as we all know, generates significant benefits for food suppliers and communities.

The coalition has been advocating that federal funding be be transferred to provinces and territories because each province and territory has an existing system in place to flow funding to school food providers, along with a mechanism for public accountability. All provinces and territories also have food and nutrition policies that strive to ensure that the food served is as healthy as possible. We know that many provinces and territories have reached out to Minister Sudds to express their support and their interest in federal partnership, because school food programs need a significant amount of investment to serve quality programs, to support the health and well-being of children and youth and to succeed.

The coalition has also been advocating that the federal government enter into discussions with indigenous leaders to negotiate agreements for the creation and enhancement of permanent, independent, distinctions-based first nations, Métis, and Inuit school meal programs, and we ask that this work happen without delay.

We recommend that your committee ensure implementation of the budget, which states:

In Budget 2024, the government proposes to provide a statutory appropriation authority in the Budget Implementation Act that would enable the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development to sign bilateral agreements and transfer funding to provinces and territories to support National School Food programming for the 2024–2025 school year.

For the health and well-being of children, youth and families across Canada, we urge you to support the budget implementation act so that this process of signing bilateral agreements can begin as soon as possible.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 146 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the House of Commons order of reference adopted on Wednesday, May 22, 2024, and Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C-69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.

Before we begin, I would like to ask all members and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. Only use the approved black earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you're not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker that is on the table for this purpose.

Thank you all for your co-operation.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to Standing Order 15.1.

In accordance with the committee's routine motion concerning connection tests for witnesses, I'm informing the committee that all witnesses have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For members in the room, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your understanding in this regard. I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses with us here today.

From the Centre for Future Work, by video conference, we have Jim Stanford, economist and director.

From the Coalition for Healthy School Food, we have Ms. Carolyn Webb, knowledge mobilization coordinator.

From Nature Canada, Mr. Steve Hazell, consultant, is joining us.

From the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, we have the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Monsieur Yves Giroux. Joining him is Chris Matier, director general of economic and fiscal analysis, and Mark Mahabir, director general of costing and budgetary analysis. Welcome to you all.

With that, we're going to have time now for opening statements.

We'll start with Mr. Jim Stanford from the Centre for Future Work, for up to five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Green.

We want to thank our excellent witnesses. Thank you for coming before the finance committee on Bill C-69. We wish you the best with the rest of your day.

Members, we are adjourned.

[Mark Weber, National President, Customs and Immigration Union]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to address the finance committee today.

My name is Mark Weber. I appear before you today as a member of the national board of directors of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, which represents 245,000 members, most of whom are federal public service employees. Many also work for post-secondary institutions, territorial governments, non-profits, indigenous organizations and even some private employers. I am also the national president of the Customs and Immigration Union, a component of the PSAC, which represents over 12,000 employees of the Canada Border Services Agency. That includes 9,000 members of the border services group, who have now been without a contract for two years.

On the positive side, budget 2024 provides significant funding for post-secondary students, workers and institutions, especially in remote locations. This is good news for our members in that sector, and we congratulate the government on these announcements.

We suggest that the list of eligible professions include occupational therapists. Also, if not already included in the definition of “nurse”, please include registered practical nurses, RPNs; licensed practical nurses, LPNs; and registered nurses. Ideally, distribution of these funds would happen no later than 30 days after the act receives royal assent.

Bill C-69 provides language that clarifies in the Canada Labour Code that employers are responsible for properly identifying employees as such, instead of skirting responsibilities by claiming that they are contractors. This is also a welcome and long-overdue change for Canadian workers.

We are also pleased to see language around an employee's right to disconnect during non-work hours. Unfortunately, this section makes some of the same mistakes that the Ontario government has made in its changes to Ontario's Employment Standards Act and should include minimum standards that apply to all workers and employers, along with meaningful penalties for breaches of these standards.

While the elements mentioned above are certainly positive, we are concerned that the budget and the bill leave out some important aspects. There is no money for Phoenix damages or increased funding to hire and retain more staff to deal with the nearly half-million Phoenix cases still in the backlog currently. There is no money to increase capacity at the pay equity commission, which is sorely behind.

Even more concerning are two issues that are included in Bill C-69.

First, changes are made to the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act. We understand from different sources that these are housekeeping changes made so that the Treasury Board can move money to and from members' plans in the case of a non-permitted surplus, or possibly in the case of increased draws from the plan or reduced revenues. The federal government would do well to remember that any surplus that may be realized will have been built on employee contributions. Before any move is made to use that surplus for government spending, it is essential that members be consulted and that inequities be rectified.

One such inequity is the differential treatment for public safety occupations. The PSAC has long called on the federal government to provide border officers, federal defence firefighters and fisheries officers with pension provisions equivalent to their peers in public safety divisions of other departments and governments. Right now, CBSA officers, federal firefighters and fisheries officers must work at least five years longer than their peers, leaving them at increased risks for occupational diseases and injuries, and making recruitment and retention increasingly difficult as well. The fact that the federal government continues to refuse to implement the simple legislative changes that would correct this inequity is deeply insulting to our members. Budget 2024 is a chance for the government to change this.

We also have questions about proposed changes to the corrections act to permit the housing of immigration detainees in federal correctional facilities. As the bargaining agent for CBSA, Correctional Services and immigration workers, PSAC must be consulted on any changes to job classifications, locations of work and responsibilities. Who will provide what service to detainees under this new framework? How will jobs interact and overlap, and will the government confirm that services will not be contracted out? Public safety duties should never be offloaded to the lowest bidder, and private security companies have no role to play in these or any public institutions if we wish to ensure the integrity of sensitive public safety processes.

I thank the committee and look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Davies.

We want to thank our excellent witnesses. Thank you for coming before the finance committee on Bill C-69. We appreciate your testimony and wish you the best with the rest of your day.

Members, we are now suspended as we transition to our next panel.

[Alexander Vronces, Executive Director, Fintechs Canada]

Good afternoon to the chair, vice-chair and members of the Standing Committee on Finance. My name is Alex, and I am the executive director of Fintechs Canada.

Fintechs Canada is an industry association of Canada's most innovative financial technology companies. Our members collectively serve millions of Canadians on a daily basis.

Economic growth has slowed. Life is increasingly unaffordable. Canadian productivity has reached emergency status. At Fintechs Canada, we believe in whole-of-government solutions to problems like these.

One critical part of the solution needs to be boosting competition in banking, because our banking sector is partly to blame for the problem. That means passing the bits and pieces of an open banking framework we're starting to see in Bill C-69 without delay.

More competition in banking will make life more affordable for Canadians. Canada's banking sector is heavily concentrated, with little change over the past decade. Canadians pay higher banking fees than consumers in similar markets, such as the United Kingdom and Australia.

Canada's big banks make more and more of their money from what's called non-interest income—in other words, fees. These include account and investment management fees, payment processing fees and administrative fees on mortgages and other loans.

More competition in banking will also boost Canada's productivity. Canada's economy is mostly made up of small businesses, but Canada's small businesses receive less financing from our banks and pay more for it than their peers in other countries. Weak investment in Canada's small business community is a long-standing issue. How can our economy run at its best when the engine has no fuel to run on?

Consumer-driven banking will help boost competition in banking by putting consumers in control of their financial information. Suppose you're a recent immigrant who can't qualify for a loan because you don't have a Canadian credit history. With open banking, you can reliably and securely share your monthly rent payments with Borrowell's Rent Advantage app to build your credit score.

Maybe you're a small business and you don't want to rely on spreadsheets to manage your books. You can use open banking to reliably and securely share your transaction data with accounting platforms like Xero to automate your bookkeeping.

If you're having trouble tracking investment accounts at different banks, there are apps that let you view and manage them in a single dashboard. However, to share your data securely and reliably, you need open banking.

By empowering Canadians to reliably and securely share their financial information, Canadians will be better able to vote with their wallets. They can decide for themselves who will serve them best. What's more, Canadians can do this without having to decipher who's the most secure and resilient because of the consumer protection that comes with open banking.

As I have written before, open banking isn't really about opening the vault of financial data. That much has already happened. It's actually about closing it again and putting Canadians in charge, letting Canadians decide whom it can be open for, when it can be opened, how long it can be opened and for what purpose.

This is why Canada needs the consumer-driven banking act. It also needs a regulator such as the FCAC, well equipped for the job of policing the industry. The longer we wait, the further and further we will fall behind our G7 counterparts, who have already put their financial sectors to work to make their economies more competitive, affordable and productive.

[Gauri Sreenivasan, Co-Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees]

Good afternoon, Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear.

The Canadian Council for Refugees is Canada's leading national umbrella, representing over 200 frontline organizations working with, from and for refugees and migrants.

We are very grateful to the committee for having given us this opportunity to present our perspectives and recommendations with respect to the budget implementation act.

Federal budget 2024 had important investments to support refugee claimants, but the budget implementation act is now suggesting major new changes to refugee and immigration law that are extremely concerning, without prior consultation. These include changes that will not only undermine international human rights, but also our reputation as a rules-based refugee leader. The CCR objects to the budget implementation act being used in this undemocratic way to bring in potentially sweeping changes to the refugee system.

As you will see in our brief, our overarching recommendation is for you to either delete major sections of the bill or insist on the immigration and refugee aspects being separated out from the legislation to enable full hearings, debate and further parliamentary review of pending regulations, which have yet to be tabled. Lives are at stake.

We have four major concerns. I'm going to cover two regarding changes to the refugee claims process. CCR vice-president Jenny Jeanes will cover the other two aspects related to CBSA and detention.

It's worth remembering, members of Parliament, that Canada has an obligation under international law to provide safe haven to those who arrive at our shores fleeing persecution. The vast majority of those who seek asylum in Canada—almost 80% last year—are found to be refugees. We have a world-class refugee determination system to hear cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board. We need to let it do its job, but Bill C-69 is making major changes.

First, division 38 is creating a worrisome new step in the refugee claim process that creates an indefinite gap before referral to the Immigration and Refugee Board—the IRB—in which claimants could be asked to provide endless information and documents with no timeline for the claim to be referred for their hearing. It will lead to long delays, creating indefinite limbo for claimants and not only threatening fundamental rights but also, ironically, undermining the progress that has been made to date in streamlining processing.

CCR is recommending to the committee to amend clauses 410 and 411 to delete the provisions whereby if a claim “is determined to be eligible, the Minister must consider it further” to enable discretion in that case, and to amend clause 411 so an eligible claim must be referred to the IRB within at least a month of the required information being submitted. These are crucial amendments to secure due process.

Our second concern is that division 38 introduces new provisions that trigger an early opportunity for a claim to be declared abandoned before it has even been referred to the IRB. The measure is likely to lead to claims being unfairly declared abandoned, penalizing people who, through no fault of their of their own, miss a deadline or forget to file a document in a byzantine system that is already providing zero formal support services. Those most at risk are likely to be the most vulnerable.

The provision will also—again, counterintuitively—contribute to a backlog of abandonment hearings at the IRB. It is absurd to ram these measures through now. They need to be rethought.

We are recommending that MPs move to delete clause 412 or at least, in the alternative, change proposed section 102.1 from “the Minister must” to “the Minister may” to allow for situations where claimants are obviously trying to complete requirements but are prevented due to lack of counsel. It's only common sense.

I want to turn it over to CCR's vice-president to continue with our presentation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call the meeting back to order.

Welcome back, everybody. This is our third panel of witnesses today, although it is our seventh panel of witnesses on Bill C-69.

With us for this panel, we have the Canadian Council for Refugees. Its vice-president, Jenny Jeanes, is with us. Its co-executive director, Gauri Sreenivasan, is also joining us. From the Canadian Physiotherapy Association, the senior director of advocacy, Kayla Scott, will be joining us. From Fintechs Canada, we have the executive director, Alexander Vronces.

We will first hear from the Canadian Council for Refugees. I understand that Jenny Jeanes and Gauri Sreenivasan will be sharing their time, although I believe Gauri is first.

You may commence. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Davies.

On that, we want to thank our excellent group of witnesses. Thanks for your testimony and the information you have provided to our committee on Bill C-69. We wish you the best for the rest of your day.

At this time, members, we are going to suspend as we transition to our next panel. Thank you.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

Professor Elgie, I'd like to pick up where I left off. I'm looking for a specific substantive amendment that you would recommend we make to Bill C-69 to correct the issue before us of this retreat, apparently, from federal jurisdiction over cross-border pollution.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

In your view, how can that problem be addressed before Bill C-69 is passed into law?

[Heidi Yetman, President, Canadian Teachers' Federation]

Thank you very much.

Good morning, everybody. Good morning, Mr. Chair.

Thanks for having the Canadian Teachers' Federation here to speak to Bill C-69 and bring the perspective of teachers in Canada to the study of the legislation.

The federation is an organization that represents over 365,000 K-to-12 public education teachers and education workers in Canada. We proudly represent members in every province and territory.

I'm here to speak to the positive things for education in Bill C-69.

As the cost of living crisis continues to hit Canadians hard, teachers and their families are no different. That's why, when we met the Minister of Finance earlier this year to discuss issues of affordability and cost-saving measures that would benefit teachers and their families, we had three clear asks. These were the creation of a national school food program, federal loan forgiveness for teachers and more resources for mental health.

The pandemic has negatively impacted the mental health of students and young people, and students' academic success is linked to their well-being. This budget has more resources dedicated to addressing mental health concerns within youth communities in Canada. We know that sadly, mental health is becoming a more prevalent cost for families. We called on the federal government to find a way to make sure the government seeks to alleviate barriers to mental health supports, especially for those who find them inaccessible. We are pleased to see that the government pledged $500 million over five years for a new youth mental health fund designed to help younger Canadians access health care.

With student mental health issues on the rise, classrooms are becoming more complex. As a result, working conditions are deteriorating. Consequently, teachers are leaving the profession. In addition, student populations are growing and, unfortunately, fewer people are enrolling in education faculties and universities. This has resulted in a retention and recruitment crisis in education in this country, especially in remote and rural communities.

The federation pointed out a way that the federal government could make entering teaching a more enticing and viable career path by using loan forgiveness. This initiative would mean the loan forgiveness of thousands of dollars for teachers in communities that already have a difficult time recruiting. I cannot state strongly enough how significant an investment this is into public education and into making the lives of teachers and their families more affordable.

Did you know that in 2022, one in four Canadian children were food insecure in Canada? That really is something, if you think about it.

We asked for the creation of a national food program, which is a program that we have long called for and felt was long overdue. After a decade of advocacy, we are thrilled and relieved to hear the announcement of an investment of $1 billion over five years.

This is wonderful news for us and many other organizations that have advocated a food school program for years. Taking pressure off parents and families by providing nutritious meals for school-aged children at school is something that Canada, collectively, should be excited and proud about. This will have a life-changing impact on the lives of children and families living in Canada. Putting food on the lunchroom table at school will improve student physical and mental health, improve their ability to fully participate in their education and improve relationships at school. Research shows that universal food programs provide a 2.5 to 7 times return in human health and economic benefits.

I'm really pleased that Bill C-69 has made investments into each of these three key areas that will have an impact on education. Education is the foundation of a healthy and prosperous society. Spending money on education and youth is not a cost; it's an investment.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That is the time. Thank you, MP Davies. I know it goes fast.

We want to thank our witnesses for joining us here in Ottawa. It's a beautiful Friday morning. Thank you for coming before us on Bill C-69. We really appreciate your testimony. We wish you the best for the rest of the day. Thank you very much.

On that, we're suspended, members, as we transition to our second panel.

[Aaron Skelton]

Not particular to Bill C-69, but in a similar vein to an unchecked ministerial power, that's what we're seeing on cost recovery. I'd comment that through our analysis, we've seen that the impact of several of these regulatory and legislative updates is that at a minimum, one in five of these Canadian brands is looking to exit the country. It's going to reduce the number of Canadian-produced and Canadian-regulated products that are available.

The companies that do remain are going to be reducing the assortment of products, because they just won't be financially viable anymore. The selection of products will be reduced for Canadians. The products that remain will have an increased cost burden that will be extremely different from products in other countries. We'll see an increase in cost of those that remain. Therefore, there will be less Canadian compliance, less assortment and increased costs for those that do remain.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Greetings to my colleagues.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for coming, and for their testimony.

We can see that there are very serious concerns about three completely different matters. As my speaking time is limited, my questions will be for Mr. Brun of the Desjardins Group.

Thank you for your blunt testimony. You're merely suggesting the removal of division 16 in part 4 of Bill C‑69 to prevent a false start.

To begin with, why do you think it's important to adopt a framework for an open banking system?

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

Thank you, Chair.

My question is to the Health Food Association. Thank you for your presentation.

I just want to be clear about one part of your presentation. You said that Health Canada snuck these changes in Bill C-47 and Bill C-69. Actually, when officials from Health Canada appear at Parliament, they sit exactly where you're sitting right now. It would be the health minister advising the finance minister to put these changes into this piece of legislation. Health Canada wouldn't be able to table any legislation at all. It's MPs and ministers and the government that tables these things.

I want to talk a little bit about the health minister's defence of using Bill C-47 and now Bill C-69 and claiming that Health Canada needs powers to stop, I think, a particular example of a product that they're talking about. I want to go through the current set of powers that Health Canada has.

Does Health Canada currently have the power to issue a stop sale on any natural health product in Canada?

[Aaron Skelton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Health Food Association]

Good morning.

Thank you, Chair and members of this committee, for having me here today. My name is Aaron Skelton. I'm the president and CEO of the Canadian Health Food Association, a trade association representing natural health, organic and wellness products in Canada. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak before you today on behalf of not just our member companies but also the 82% of Canadians who use natural health products as part of their health and well-being.

The core concern I am bringing to you today is regarding Health Canada’s continued abuse of the parliamentary process. Health Canada introduced significant amendments to the laws governing natural health products through budget omnibus bills in 2023 and 2024 rather than following the parliamentary process. This has undone the hard work of prior legislative reviews conducted by previous Parliaments and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.

In budget 2024, current amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, as included under division 31 of Bill C-69, has yet again caught an entire industry completely off guard. For the second time in as many years, Health Canada has attempted to evade proper parliamentary process, including scrutiny by the Standing Committee on Health and consultations with industry, to achieve their desired outcome with zero checks or balances. The amendments they seek as part of division 31 are extremely powerful. However altruistically the intentions behind it are framed, the implications of such broad, sweeping changes demand proper study and regulatory rigour.

As mentioned, this same approach was taken in 2023, when division 27 in part 4 of Bill C-47 shockingly changed the definition of “therapeutic products” to include natural health products—with no scrutiny, public analysis or industry consultation. The lack of transparency and the unintended consequences that came from a blatant disregard of due process resulted in a private member’s bill, Bill C-368, that just this week passed second reading with support from all opposition parties to repeal this amendment. While a step in the right direction to course-correct a sneaky tactic, once an amendment has passed, it is no easy feat to undo what was inappropriately done.

The need for industry and consumers to voice their concerns on important regulatory and legislative matters is paramount, a requirement that is crucial to the development of fair and appropriate regulations. The potential impact of unchecked powers is not a hypothetical one. The current cost recovery proposal for NHPs, the outcome of such ministerial powers, has already created a staggering and untenable situation for companies across our sector.

Today we are back to ask this committee to not let history repeat itself. To be clear, we represent the natural health products industry. We do not represent any smoking cessation or tobacco products. We are here because over the course of the past two years, our trust in Health Canada has been eroded. We have faced multiple regulatory and legislative changes that have serious consequences on an industry and on Canadians.

If Bill C-69 passes and this amendment goes through, health products, natural or otherwise, will be left to face broad, sweeping powers from a minister who will have the ability to issue orders without following the Statutory Instruments Act. As it is a first of its kind, we have no visibility into the evidence required to support an order, and we will be left in the dark as to whether or not these powers can override department-issued licences, such as those granted by the natural and non-prescription health products directorate.

As an industry, we continue to support regulation and legislation that protects Canadians and is developed in a transparent, responsible and appropriate manner. Regulatory amendments pushed through omnibus bills do not reflect this value.

Today we ask this committee to consider removing division 31 from this act. This committee amended the budget in 2017, and we urge you to consider this precedent here. The restrictions placed by division 31 on health products, including natural health products, have consequences beyond what the current Minister of Health has communicated. With the power of this and no due process, Health Canada has made itself the judge, the jury and potentially the executioner. We cannot overstate the need to approach regulatory changes of this nature and this magnitude in the proper way—with study, analysis and consultation.

I thank you again for your time and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Bernard Brun, Vice-President, Government Relations, Desjardins Group]

Good morning, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, dear committee members, for this opportunity to speak with you today.

My name is Bernard Brun and I'm the head of government relations at the Desjardins Group.

With assets of over $420 billion, Desjardins is the largest co‑operative financial group in North America and the seventh-largest financial institution in Canada. To meet the diverse needs of our 7.7 million members and clients, our activities cover every aspect of the financial sector, including services to individuals, business services, wealth management, personal insurance and general insurance.

Desjardins supports initiatives that would enable it to provide enhanced financial services to its members and to Canadian citizens. The objectives of the consumer-driven banking framework, commonly known as the open banking framework, would appear to do just that. We therefore support the ultimate objective, which is the implementation of a framework to allow consumers to control the sharing of their data.

Unfortunately, the proposed framework has a major structural flaw. Our current concern stems from the fact that the proposed framework would do more than introduce a common technical standard for all of the country's financial institutions; it would also establish a separate mandatory framework for federal financial institutions, to which provincial institutions could adhere.

As this government admits, the field covered is one of shared or joint jurisdiction. Concretely, it would lead to a dual overlapping framework for the jurisdictions, which would certainly put provincial financial institutions, like caisses populaires and credit unions, at a disadvantage. Although adherence to the framework is theoretically voluntary, financial institutions would end up being required to adhere in order to remain competitive and provide proper services to members and citizens, and also because of risk management considerations.

As I was saying, the current bill has a structural flaw that would have a major impact. It needs to be corrected as soon as possible. The government must avoid a false start in terms of consumer-driven banking services to ensure that it covers the entire financial sector and all consumers.

As a systemically important financial institution nearly all of whose activities are subject to provincial regulation, we believe that the inevitable overlap between the federal framework being proposed and the existing provincial framework is counterproductive. It's a barrier to competitiveness.

The adoption of the bill in its current form would undermine consumer and user confidence, when this confidence is crucial to the concept underpinning the idea of open financial services.

A two-tier system would place consumers at a disadvantage and, more to the point, make a consistent consumer experience impossible, while ultimately reducing credibility and innovation.

The Desjardins Group is in favour of introducing a framework that would enable consumers to control how their data is shared. In order to do so, corrective action is immediately needed in terms of governance and structure, if we are to continue to benefit from current favourable conditions and avoid future delays.

Under the circumstances, dear committee members, we asked the government to remove division 16 of part 4 of Bill C‑69 and to make it a separate bill so that the proposed framework could be reviewed in depth to allow all of the entities affected and the public sectors, including provincial authorities and governments, to have the same view and understanding of the future system.

Thank you for listening. I'd be more than happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 145 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the House of Commons order of reference adopted on Wednesday, May 22, 2024, and Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C-69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.

Before we begin, I would like to ask the members and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents from occurring. Please take note that the following preventive measures are in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.

Use only an approved black earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used.

Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face-down on the sticker on the table for this purpose.

Thank you all for your co-operation.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to Standing Order 15.1 and in accordance with the committee's routine motion.

Concerning connection tests for witnesses, I'm informing the committee that all witnesses have completed the required connection tests. Everything is good with that.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For members in the room, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function.

The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your understanding in this regard.

I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Before I welcome our witnesses, I want to thank our clerks, Alexandre and Ariane, for their great work. In really short order, they've been able to gather all the witnesses and bring them all before us. Thank you very much for your tremendous efforts.

Now I'll welcome our witnesses.

From the Desjardins Group, we have the vice-president of government relations, Bernard Brun. Welcome, Mr. Brun.

From the Canadian Health Food Association, we have the president and chief executive officer, Aaron Skelton, and Laura Gomez, lawyer and legal counsel. Welcome.

Also with us, from the Mining Association of Canada, is the president and chief executive officer, Pierre Gratton. Welcome, Mr. Gratton.

With that, we'll start with your opening statements. We'll start with Mr. Brun for up to five minutes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Davies.

We want to thank our witnesses for their testimony and for coming before the finance committee on Bill C-69. We really appreciate it.

We wish you the best with the rest of your day.

We're adjourned.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

That was very helpful, and I appreciate it.

Just because I know time is so limited, I want to direct the next question to Momentum.

Mr. Loomis, thank you for your opening comments. I appreciate the importance of financial literacy. I saw it repeatedly in my work life. Thank you for highlighting how important Bill C-69 is for the most vulnerable families, in many cases, in our communities.

I want to link into, first of all, the importance of automatic tax filing. I think that's incredibly important, and thank you for highlighting it. What an opportunity it is to allow people to access services without penalizing them when, for a variety of reasons, they aren't able to go through that process. It can be very difficult for some to file their income taxes, and of course, that keeps them out of the portal of being able to access much-needed supports.

I want to link the first question to Prosper Canada. How important is it for community groups to become part of supports to protect people from criminal rates of interest?

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I'm going to direct my questions to Mr. Thurlow.

It's good to have you back at the committee. I wanted to ask you about the investment tax credits. You and Dow Canada have been proponents of investment tax credits, as I understand it, not only as a means for profitability, but also for the decarbonization of your operations, basically making your operations more environmentally friendly.

I'm wondering if you could talk a bit about how you or Dow would use the investment tax credits that are in Bill C-69, the budget—both the clean technology manufacturing tax credit and the clean hydrogen investment tax credit.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

When we look at Bill C-69, which forecasts a $40-billion deficit, there are many ways that the deficit could be understated, one of which is with respect to the expectation of a fire sale on capital gains. That is going to, according to their projection, get an additional $7 billion. We haven't even seen that legislation yet, so we don't know whether the $7-billion fire sale is going to happen.

Do you think it is responsible for the government to continue to run large deficits and debts?

[W. Scott Thurlow, Senior Advisor, Government Affairs, Dow Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon.

Through you, I extend my warmest regards to the committee members.

I'm proud to speak to the committee today about Dow Canada. Dow operates two manufacturing facilities, in Fort Saskatchewan and Lacombe County, Alberta. The Alberta sites convert natural gas feedstock into ethane, ethylene and, finally, polyethylene. Our main product in Alberta, polyethylene, is sold to customers across Canada and worldwide to make durable industrial goods, as well as packaging and consumer products. We also supply industry in the region with other petrochemical derivatives.

In Ontario, we have two manufacturing sites—one in Scarborough at West Hill and the other near Sarnia. These facilities produce emulsions and specialty plastic resins, respectively.

On November 29, 2023, Dow's board of directors approved a final investment decision for the world's first net-zero scope 1 and scope 2 emissions ethylene and derivatives complex in Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta. Economically speaking, this brownfield investment enables Dow to deliver two million metric tons per annum of product growth in attractive, high-end markets, effectively tripling our domestic production. At its peak, we expect approximately 7,000 construction jobs to be created. When completed, our site will produce and supply approximately 3.2 metric tons of certified low- to zero-carbon-emissions polyethylene and ethylene derivatives for customers and joint venture partners around the globe. Environmentally speaking, this investment will eliminate a million tonnes of CO2, even with the added growth. We'll do this by converting hydrogen from cracker off-gas as a clean fuel, while capturing and storing the remaining CO2.

To expand on this a bit, the by-product of the cracking process to produce ethylene is a methane-rich off-gas. In the circular hydrogen process, this methane-rich off-gas will be decarbonized and returned to furnaces as clean hydrogen fuel. Associated CO2 is captured, transported and sequestered in deep saline caverns. This investment paves the way for the growth of Dow's entire packaging and specialty plastics portfolio.

The first-mover advantage gives us the ability to lead in capturing the growing demand for low-carbon solutions and puts Dow out front in delivering the first world-scale, fully integrated site with net-zero scope 1 and scope 2 carbon emissions.

The Fort Saskatchewan site is strategically advantaged, because we have access to low-cost ethane; there is existing rail and export infrastructure that will be expanded to support our global sales; we have direct government support from Alberta and Canada, as well as tax credits that are offsetting a portion of our cost of investment; and it is one of the few places in the world where existing infrastructure for carbon transportation and storage exists. This is a key reason that we have a first-mover advantage in low-carbon solutions.

Certainty in the investment environment we are operating in is also a key advantage. As such, I am here today to offer Dow Canada's support for Bill C-69 and the clean hydrogen tax credits it creates. The tax credit will go specifically to underwriting the costs of the hydrogen-fuelled ethylene cracker. These tax credits were first announced in a previous budget. Natural Resources Canada released its thoughtful study on the potential of this sector in 2020. It is high time we have this adopted. Similar measures were introduced, debated, adopted, implemented and deployed under the United States Inflation Reduction Act in less than two months.

We urge parliamentarians to pass this bill expeditiously, so the certainty required to rely on these investment tax credits can be built directly into our investment models. These tax credits help support the decarbonization of our operations in Fort Saskatchewan and our return to operation by 2030.

I would like to repeat a key point. These credits will lead to absolute emissions reductions. In order for Canada to succeed in reducing our emissions and meeting our emissions reduction goals, we need to see transformative investments like the one being made by our company. It is through advances in the chemistry sector that these deep emissions reductions will occur.

I welcome any questions the committee members may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Chambers.

We want to thank the officials for coming before the finance committee on Bill C-69. Thank you for the hard work you do on behalf of the government every single day. We really appreciate you answering the questions from the members today.

Thank you.

Members, we are going to suspend now as we transition to our second panel.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank everyone for being here today. It's nice to see all of you. Thank you so much for your hard work.

I'm going to ask questions about the homebuyers' plan, as well as the small business carbon rebate and, if I can get to it, investment tax credits.

There are many in my riding who, like many Canadians, would love to buy their first home, and I think they're very excited to see a number of measures in our budget, in the budget implementation act, to help facilitate that.

Could you respond to how the increase in the RRSP withdrawal limit and the temporary repayment relief—extending when you actually have to start repaying back whatever you withdraw from your RRSP—and some of the other measures will help first-time homebuyers in these challenging times?

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

Thank you, Mr. Repetto. I am pleased to see you at the committee again.

I would like to talk about the global minimum tax. What is there in Bill C-69 that determines what share goes to the federal government and what share goes to the provinces?

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

Hello, Ms. Fraser.

My concerns obviously relate to financial institutions that come under provincial jurisdiction and would like to participate in the open banking system. The institutions in question are credit co‑operatives, financial institutions owned by a province and certain trust companies.

The framework proposed by Bill C-69 is federal. You told us at a briefing that a financial institution under provincial jurisdiction could join the federal framework on an optional basis. However, we understand that if that institution wants to compete and participate in the open banking system, it will have to join the federal framework.

Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That's terrific.

We are now going to get to our officials.

We do have many here. I understand that approximately 75 officials are with us from all of the different departments to address questions on parts 1 to 4 of Bill C-69.

If you are called upon and you do come to the table, I ask that you let everybody know the department that you represent and who you are before answering the members' questions.

I understand there are no opening statements for the first panel, which is the officials in the first hour.

As you know, each party will have up to six minutes to ask questions.

We're starting with MP Chambers for the first six minutes.

Go ahead, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 144 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the House of Commons order of reference adopted on Wednesday, May 22, 2024 and Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C-69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.

Before we begin, I'd like to ask all members and other persons participating to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.

Only use a black, approved earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you're not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose.

Thank you all for your co-operation.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to Standing Order 15.1. In accordance with the committee's routine motion concerning connection tests for witnesses, I'm informed that all witnesses have completed the tests required for the connection tests in advance.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For members in the room, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your understanding in this regard.

As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses from the department on parts 1 to 4 of Bill C-69.

Members, before we get to our officials, you received an email from our clerk at 12:16 p.m. yesterday. It was regarding approval of the budget to study the FES bill, Bill C-59, and the ATIP request. I'm just looking around for approval.

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is that acceptable?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

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

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

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2024-25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This brings me to the topic of legal aid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I afforded you the respect of sitting and listening. I'm not going to take very much time.

What I was saying, briefly, is that I'm looking forward to hearing witnesses on the study that will come from this motion. However, I am going to be proposing amendments following this. I hope that in the remaining half-hour, we will go back to asking questions of the witnesses we have here.

When we're talking about emissions reductions, electricity is a big piece of what we have to do to get there. To be clear, emissions right now in Canada are at the lowest they've been in three decades, other than in the COVID years.

The only target we've had to face is an interim target in 2026. We're on track to meeting that given what you see in the interim report that we submitted to the IPCC. However, electricity, the clean electricity regulations and what the people here at the table are working on are going to be a very big piece of what we need to do to meet targets.

I would ask that we please park the discussion on this motion and give the last half-hour back to the witnesses so we can hear from them.

I will also point out that if the Conservatives are interested in the amendments to the IAA, which were a whole chunk of the conversation, they can find them in the budget implementation act. We can talk about that when we're debating, but what I—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the continuation of meeting 143 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C-69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.

Before we begin, I ask all members and other participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.

Please take note that the following preventive measures are in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters: Use only an approved black earpiece. The former grey earpieces must not be used. Keep your earpiece away from the microphones at all times. When you're not using your earpiece, please place it face down on a sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you all for your co-operation.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to Standing Order 15.1.

I will make a few comments for the benefit of the members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. For those in the room, just raise your hand. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your understanding in this regard. I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

As we get back to where we were the last time, members, we have a new permanent member at our committee. Francesco Sorbara, the fine member from Vaughan, has joined us—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order. It's good to see everybody.

Welcome to meeting number 143 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting to discuss the subject matter of Bill C-69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to Standing Order 15.1.

Before we begin, I'd like to remind members and other meeting participants in the room of the following important preventative measures to prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents that can cause injuries.

All in-person participants are reminded to keep their earpieces away from all microphones at all times. As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all members on Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents.

All earpieces have been replaced by a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black in colour, whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please use only the approved black earpiece. By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of a meeting.

When you're not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the middle of the sticker for this purpose, which you will find on the table, as indicated. Please consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. The room layout has been adjusted to increase the distance between microphones and reduce the chance of feedback from an ambient earpiece.

These measures are in place so that we can conduct our business without interruption and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. Thank you for your co-operation.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For members in the room, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your understanding in this regard. This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

We will now resume debate on the motion by Mr. Turnbull and the amendment by Mr. Hallan. We also have a subamendment from Mr. Chambers.

The list, as I have it here, has changed a few times. I have MP Morantz—I have MP Green, but I don't see MP Green here in the room—and then MP Lawrence and MP Hallan. They are on the list that I have at this time.

MP Morantz.

Food and Drugs Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's always a pleasure to be here.

I'll just set the stage for what I hope will be some productive dialogue, either in a formal or informal stance going forward.

Here's where we are right now: A programming motion was put forward by Mr. Turnbull that would substantially limit the amount of debate and discussion on the budget. The budget is a 600-plus-page document, and I don't find it unreasonable at all that it requires sufficient debate. As discussed earlier and suggested by the Liberals, the NDP and, of course, the Conservatives, it is one of the most important documents a government can put forward in a given year. Mr. Davies raised that issue as well when he said we need some more debate. That's one of the issues with this document.

Also, we are well behind the eight ball with respect to money laundering, which has been highlighted by the recent discussion of TD Bank's anti-money laundering protection issues. We definitely need to accomplish some work on studying money laundering. It is completely four-square within the finance committee's mandate to study the anti-money laundering act, as we were asked to do by the Deputy Prime Minister more than a year ago, I believe, so we need to get on with that work.

Finally, the Conservatives have called for Mark Carney to appear as a witness. Mr. Carney, of course, was governor of the Bank of Canada and governor of the Bank of England and is organizing to be the next leader of the Liberal Party. All of that, I believe, is in the public domain and has been reported.

Those are some of the issues that the Conservatives need to get resolved.

The final issue is that, as said, the amount of debate and discussion is being severely limited and curtailed so that clause-by-clause consideration will end at the beginning of June. We all know that things can change and that information could come up with regard to the 600-page budget document. Putting that cap on the study of a 600-page document when significant issues have come up before—such as the SNC-Lavalin affair, in which a deferred prosecution agreement was placed in a large omnibus budget bill and unfortunately wasn't caught until well after the fact—means that due diligence is required there as well.

However, in the spirit of collaboration, Conservatives would like to see us moving forward, and although this proposal doesn't represent the entire solution, hopefully it does move us in the direction of a much-needed study of this budget.

I'll be seeking unanimous consent to, one, withdraw the subamendment moved by Marty Morantz and, two, invite Mark Carney to testify on Bill C-69 by himself for no less than two hours. I think we can make substantial progress if we get unanimous consent on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 143 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting to discuss the subject matter of Bill C-69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to Standing Order 15.1.

Before we begin, I'd like to remind all members and other meeting participants in the room of the following important preventive measures.

To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents that can cause injuries, all in-person participants are reminded to keep their earpieces away from all microphones at all times. As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all members on Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents.

All earpieces have been replaced by a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black in colour, whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please only use the approved black earpiece. By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of a meeting. When you are not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the middle of the sticker for this purpose, which you will find on the table as indicated.

Please consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. The room layout has been adjusted to increase the distance between microphones and reduce the chance of feedback from any ambient earpiece.

These measures are in place so we can conduct our business without interruption and protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. Thank you all for your co-operation.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For members in the room, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your understanding in this regard. Remember that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Now we will resume debate on the motion by Mr. Turnbull, the amendment by Mr. Hallan and the subamendment by Mr. Morantz.

The speaking order I have is from yesterday. Starting off is MP Lawrence, then MP Chambers, MP Genuis and MP Green, if they're around.

MP Lawrence, you have the floor.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It being 3:20 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 21, 2024, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-69.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from May 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly happy to engage in our final moments here in this chamber tonight, addressing the very important Bill C-69, which is our budget implementation bill.

As I prepared what I was going to share this evening, I thought a lot about our wonderful staff members here in the House of Commons who have been supporting us tonight. I thought about our lobby teams who do so much for us, and I also thought about my own team, both in the riding of Fredericton and right here on the Hill. I would just like to take this moment to congratulate them and to thank them for all that they do on behalf of constituents across the country.

This got me thinking. I have a wonderful intern in my office right now. She is actually visiting us from Michigan, studying our Westminster parliamentary system and comparing it to the American system that she is used to. She interviewed me today. She asked me a bunch of questions about my personal journey into this place, and about various policies and the process that I undertake.

She also asked me a very interesting question. It gave me a minute of pause. She asked me what the biggest issue would be for Canadians 10 years from now. It made me pause for a second because I thought it very much depends on perception, absolutely. It depends on what kind of Canada we want, what kind of efforts we are going to be putting into what this future looks like. It certainly also depends on the policies and investments of today that could create that future of tomorrow.

The Canada I want to see is one that is inclusive and diverse, one that focuses on equity and justice for all, one that has Canada leading in the green economy, one that respects environmental sustainability, one that has affordable and accessible housing as a human right, and one that ensures safety and security for all.

I think it is safe to say that we can all dream about this kind of Canada, but it is about what we do in this place right now as members of Parliament that sets up this future for the next generation. I think about my two children at home and what kind of world I want to bring them up in.

I refuse to paint a picture of Canada that is devoid of the hope and the energy that is truly reflective of Canadian ambition, of our tradition of hard work and resiliency. Conservatives may chastise me by suggesting I take off my rose-coloured glasses and hop on the nation-bashing bandwagon, but I will not do that. No one is saying that Canadians have never had it so good.

We know there are challenges right across this country. We know that the climate change impacts, geopolitical events, supply chain pressures, a cost-of-living crisis and general everyday struggles have only compounded post pandemic. We know that the word “unprecedented” has, unfortunately, been used an unprecedented amount of times in the last couple of years.

This does not mean that we turtle. It does not mean that we bury our heads in the sand or worse, that we retreat to the angry corners of the Internet to point fingers and to scapegoat our fears against the most vulnerable in society. Unfortunately, this is the direction that Conservatives have chosen. The Leader of the Opposition smiles while our country burns so that he can claim to be the great saviour, like Dances with Wolves, swooping in to rescue poor Canadians from the boogeyman.

Canadians do not need a saviour. They do not need to be talked down to or to be patronized. They do not need to be misled. They need solutions. They need evidence-based policy. They need investments. They need support. Most of all, I think that they need each other.

The Canada that I envision in 10 years would also see co-operation, unity, an atmosphere of civil dialogue where we can set aside our perceived differences to find a common ground that truly binds us. I hear none of this from the Leader of the Opposition. I hear a lot of “me”, I hear a lot of “I” and a lot of what he thinks is best or supposedly what is “common sense”, even when it makes no sense at all.

Bill C-69 is about setting the stage for a bright future for Canadians. It is about fairness. It is about strategic initiatives that respond to the difficult realities faced by Canadians. It is about transforming, for example, our housing system, empowering renters and homeowners, building stock, incentivizing development, and using the creativity and innovation that we know is what defines Canadians across this country.

Fredericton has benefited from these really important policies around housing, for example, the rapid housing initiative, the housing accelerator fund, and green and inclusive infrastructure programs. We are also home to the now famous 12 Neighbours tiny home project by entrepreneur and philanthropist extraordinaire Marcel LeBrun, who has built 99 new homes for those in need, with the help of the federal government. These are good news stories that make a real difference in people's lives, but Conservatives do not want to talk about that.

This budget bill is also about economic growth and productivity. The IMF and the OECD project that Canada will have the strongest economic growth in the G7 on average by 2025. This is good news again.

Bill C-69 looks to invest in the technologies, incentives and supports critical to increasing innovation, attracting more private investment and backing up our workforce. We are doing this by improving access to training and reskilling programs, increased funding for youth employment and skills strategy programs. This is what investing in the future looks like. It brings me hope. We do not have to be pessimistic in this place. I think it is incumbent upon all of us to be optimistic, to lay that path forward for Canadians to come along with us, together, not to divide us, not to draw those lines in the sand I am seeing far too often in this place, but in working together. That, to me, is what Bill C-69 is all about, and I am very proud to support it.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to stand in the House and to contribute to the debate today on Bill C-69, the budget implementation act for budget 2024, which is focused on ensuring fairness for every generation. It is another building block to help future generations and is based on supporting the promise that all Canadians should have a fair chance to build a good, middle-class life and to do as well as their parents, if not better.

Today, too many young Canadians feel as though the deck is stacked against them, and the reward of secure, prosperous, comfortable middle-class life remains out of reach. Budget 2024 presents our plan to fix that. We will build a Canada that works better for everyone, no matter where or when they were born, and we are going to do that by building more affordable homes. We will make life cost less, and we will grow the economy in a way that is shared by all because our country works best when our economy is growing and when more opportunities exist for every generation.

Today, I would like to talk about the housing pillar of budget 2024 and the elements of Bill C-69 that support the effort to make homes more affordable to more Canadians.

For generations, one of the fundamental, foundational promises of Canada's middle-class dream was that if one worked hard and saved money, one could afford a home. However, for today's young adults, this promise is under threat. Rising rents are making it hard to find an affordable place to call home, and rising home prices are keeping homes out of reach for many first-time buyers, especially in my home province of British Columbia, and in Richmond, B.C.

On April 12, the government released our ambitious housing plan, “solving the housing crisis: Canada's housing plan”, which is supported by new investments from the budget. Budget 2024 and Canada's housing plan lay out the government's bold strategy to unlock 3.87 million new homes by 2031, which includes a minimum of two million net new homes beyond what was already expected to be built. The plan will enable more apartments and affordable housing to be built across the country, while protecting the stock of affordable housing and protecting renters from unfair practices.

When it comes to Bill C-69, the federal government is taking action to help Canadians buy and stay in their homes while also curbing investor activity that drives up the cost and decreases the availability of housing. Homes are for Canadians to live in, not speculative assets for investors, so we would crack down on non-compliant short-term rentals. The operation of non-compliant short-term rentals is helping to keep too many homes off the market. The 2023 fall economic statement proposed tax changes to incentivize the return of non-compliant short-term rentals to the long-term market and to support the work of provinces and territories that have restricted short-term rentals.

Bill C-69 proposes those amendments to the Income Tax Act, which would deny income tax deductions for short-term rentals operated in provinces and municipalities that have prohibited such activities or where short-term rentals operators are not compliant with the applicable provincial or municipal orders. This measure would induce owners of short-term rentals to return their properties to the long-term market and would unlock more housing supply for Canadians to live in.

The extension of the foreign buyer ban on Canadian housing now is to address increasing affordability concerns in cities across the country due to foreign money coming into Canada to buy up residential real estate. The government introduced a two-year ban on the purchase of residential property by foreign investors, which went into effect on January 1, 2023, to help further curb speculative foreign investments that reduce the supply of homes for Canadians to live in.

The government announced that it intends to extend the ban on foreign buying of Canadian homes by an additional two years. As confirmed in budget 2024, Bill C-69 proposes to amend legislation to extend the restrictions on foreign investment in Canadian housing, established under the Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act, to January 1, 2027. Foreign commercial enterprises and people who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents would continue to be prohibited from purchasing residential property in Canada.

Regarding the issue of underused housing tax refinements, as part of the 2023 fall economic statement, the government proposed several changes to the underused housing tax, or the UHT. Canadians and other stakeholders were invited to share their views on these proposals, and the amendments included in Bill C-69 take into account the feedback received. These changes would do the following: eliminate the UHT filing requirement for entities that are substantially or entirely Canadian; reduce the minimum non-filing penalties from $5,000 to $1,000 for individuals, and from $10,000 to $2,000 for corporations; introduce a new employee-accommodation exemption that would be available in areas of Canada that are rural or otherwise not densely populated; and, finally, make several technical changes to ensure that UHT applies in accordance with the policy intent. These proposed amendments aim to facilitate compliance while ensuring that the tax continues to apply as intended, and that is to discourage having non-resident, non-Canadian-owned residential property sitting vacant and off the market.

When it comes to enhancing the home buyers' plan to help Canadians buy their first home while at the same time we increase supply, the federal government is also enhancing the tax-free savings plans that help young prospective buyers save for a down payment. Support to help first-time buyers save must keep pace with market prices. That is why the government launched the tax-free first home savings account in 2023. To great success, more than 750,000 Canadians have already opened an account to save for their first down payment.

That is also why, through budget 2024, we propose to enhance the home buyers' plan. To effect that enhancement, Bill C-69 proposes to amend the Income Tax Act to increase the home buyers' plan withdrawal limit from $35,000 to $60,000, enabling first-time homebuyers to use the tax benefits of an RRSP to save up to $25,000 more for their down payment or, if they are in a partnership, $50,000 and almost $120,000 toward their first down payment. The newly increased limit would be effective since the budget was tabled on April 16. Bill C-69 also proposes to temporarily extend the grace period, during which homeowners are not required to repay their home buyers' plan withdrawals to their RRSP by an additional three years.

Of the two million net new homes I mentioned earlier, we estimate that the recent policy actions taken in Canada's housing plan in budget 2024 and in fall 2023 would support a minimum of 1.2 million net new homes. Budget 2024 investments for increasing the supply of affordable homes are necessary and timely, and they are part of the investments we are making for the prosperity of every generation. We will build more homes. We will make life cost less. We will invest in our small businesses. We will grow our economy in a way that works for everyone, and I encourage all hon. members to support this bill.

[The Clerk]

In the past when a meeting was suspended, 106(4) requests had been accepted in order to have a meeting between two suspended meetings. That's happened in the past, and this is a precedent that has happened, as I just said. That's the advice I gave to the chair, and that's why he called meeting 143, while meeting 142 was suspended.

The committee's directorate had a discussion when this happened and decided to change the way they were going to deal with the situation, and they no longer permit having a new meeting, while the meeting is suspended—between two suspensions.

The committee's directorate is where all the committee clerks work, including management and the logistics officer. It's the entire directorate that we work for.

The directorate, my managers, decided this would change. They told me to inform the chair that meeting 143 would be removed and would be replaced with the resumption of meeting 142 in order for the chair to fulfill the request of Standing Order 106(4) to let the committee decide what it wanted to do—if it wanted to discuss the subject of Standing Order 106(4) or resume the debate of Bill C-69, which we were in.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join and participate in today's debate in support of Bill C-69.

This legislation would advance many of the government's key priorities in budget 2024, “Fairness for Every Generation”. Budget 2024 is our government's plan to build a Canada that works for every generation, where younger generations can get ahead, where their hard work completely pays off, and where they can buy or rent a home of their own. It is our plan to ensure that everyone has a fair chance at a good, middle-class life.

The government is working to implement this bill quickly, because Canadians deserve bold investments in housing, in a stronger social safety net and in economic growth that creates good-paying jobs.

Bill C‑69 will have a positive impact across the country, and I am already optimistic about the impact in my riding, London West. With budget 2024 and Bill C‑69, we are taking action to ensure fairness for every generation and to drive the kind of economic growth that will ensure every generation can reach its full potential. We are aiming for nothing less. I would now like to talk about some of the measures we are putting forward to achieve that goal.

Our government understands that more needs to be done to build more homes faster and make housing more affordable. I am delighted to see that we are quickly moving forward with the bold measures that are in Bill C-69. For example, we are enhancing the homebuyers' plan to help first-time homebuyers at a time when saving for a down payment is more difficult. More specifically, we are increasing the withdrawal limit from $35,000 to $60,000 and temporarily adding three years to the grace period before homebuyers are required to start making their repayments to an RRSP.

We are also cracking down on short-term rentals by denying income tax deductions on income earned from short-term rentals that do not comply with the provincial or local restrictions. By doing so, we are unlocking more homes for Canadians to live in, because that is what Canadian homes should be for. They are for Canadians to live in. Also, to ensure that these homes are available for Canadians to live in and not used as a speculative asset class for foreign investors, we are banning foreign buyers of Canadian homes for an additional two years. This means that the ban will now be extended until January 1, 2027.

The government is also taking action to make life more affordable for Canadians. For example, Bill C‑69 amends the Telecommunications Act, making it easier to find better Internet, home phone and cell phone services.

We are making amendments that will give Canadians more flexibility to renew or switch plans, with a clear understanding of the choices and services that will best suit their needs. We will also launch a consumer-driven banking framework, also known as open banking or consumer-directed finance, to provide Canadians and small businesses with safe and secure access to a wider range of financial services and products.

Another way we are making life more affordable is by giving law enforcement agencies the tools they need to protect Canadians from auto theft. We will also introduce more serious criminal offences related to auto theft as well as new restrictions on the possession and distribution of devices used to steal vehicles.

I am also particularly proud of the measure that would benefit many firefighters and search and rescue volunteers. We are going to double the volunteer firefighters tax credit, and the search and rescue volunteers tax credit as well. These credits would go from $3,000 up to $6,000 in recognition of the essential roles and the sacrifices that the volunteers make to keep Canadians safe. These are volunteers who are Canadian heroes and they deserve all the recognition.

Budget 2024 is also about growing Canada's economy. In Bill C-69, we are including many measures that would do exactly that. We would grow Canada's economy by further advancing indigenous economic participation through the indigenous loan guarantee program. Thanks to the creation of this program, indigenous communities across Canada would be able to share in Canada's prosperity and benefit from new opportunities ahead.

This new loan program, with up to $5 billion in loan guarantees, will unlock access to capital for indigenous communities to create economic opportunities and support their economic development priorities as well.

We are moving forward with investment tax credits that are designed to boost investment and secure Canada's competitiveness while supporting our country's goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.

In budget 2024, the government recently announced the next steps in our plan to attract significant investment to Canada. These investments will help us create good-paying jobs in Canada and accelerate the development and deployment of clean energy and clean technology.

More specifically, in Bill C-69, we are also going to deliver two investment tax credits, the up-to-40% clean hydrogen and the 30% clean technology manufacturing investment tax credits. Passing these two tax credits into law means that we are going to secure a cleaner and more prosperous future for Canadians today and tomorrow by securing more private investment in our country.

To wrap up, with budget 2024, our government is putting forward a plan to deliver fairness for every generation in Canada. We are introducing measures to give everyone a fair chance at a middle-class life here in Canada.

As discussed, we are moving forward in Bill C-69 with measures that are going to make housing more affordable, make our communities safer and continue to grow Canada's economy while creating clean and good jobs. All Canadians will greatly benefit from the measures that are included in Bill C-69. I am already eager to see the multiple benefits that are going to happen for the Londoners of London West.

Bill C-69 is a good bill, and I invite all of my colleagues to join me and vote in favour of this important legislation for Canada's future.

It is a shame that there are members of the House who have already indicated that they will not be voting for this budget. This means that they are voting against the food program that we have put forward for children, as well as the dental care for seniors and for young children. They are voting against Canadians, basically. It is a shame.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight to participate in the debate on Bill C-69. The debate has been treated by some speakers as a debate on the whole budget. That is fair enough as it is the budget implementation bill. I certainly appreciated very much the remarks by my colleague, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, moments ago, who focused on some aspects of Bill C-69 and the budget that I will not be able to address in my remarks.

In the time I have available, I want to dive deeply into one part of Bill C-69. For those who are observing tonight's debate, perhaps I can just back up and say that this is what is called an omnibus budget bill. It is exactly the kind of bill that, in the 2015 election platform by the Liberals, they said they would not be using. It is an omnibus budget bill in that it deals with many aspects of things that are in the budget, and particularly a reference in the budget to the court case on impact assessment legislation.

What is tucked into a bill that is over 400 pages is, from page 555 to page 581, a section I do not believe should be in there. I will be very clear from the start that it is a rewriting of substantial sections of the Impact Assessment Act. The irony is probably not lost on people who have tracked the debate on environmental assessment in this country that when the Liberals brought in repairs to the environmental assessment legislation that they had promised would be done in the election platform of 2015, that bill was also called Bill C-69.

I voted against that bill. I will be voting against this one too. This speech is my effort to try to persuade government members, and particularly the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Justice, to rethink things and to pull what is called part 4, division 28, of Bill C-69 and instead bring in what was promised in 2015, repairing what had happened to our impact assessment legislation, which is usually called environmental assessment legislation in this country.

I do not have much time to set this out, so forgive me for taking the time it takes to explain it. In 1975, this country held its first federal environmental assessment, ironically, of the Wreck Cove hydro project in my home province of Nova Scotia, on my home island of Cape Breton Island, and I attended those hearings. The federal government at that time was operating under something called the environmental assessment review process, a guidelines order by order in council to the federal cabinet. It set out basically that when the federal government did something, the federal government reviewed its own actions.

There is no question of constitutionality because the federal government was reviewing its own actions. The rule under the guidelines order was that if it was on federal land, involved federal money or permits given under certain kinds of acts, one had to have an environmental assessment. That general formulation went into the drafting in the late 1980s, under the government of the late Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, of an environmental assessment process that again started with the four corners of federal jurisdiction, including whether something is on federal land and involving federal money. It evolved into something called the law list permits, which were given under various acts.

The whole scheme worked very well. It evolved. There were many amendments over the years. It had a five-year review process. By the time 2012 rolled around, one could talk to almost anyone in the industry about it and hear the same thing. It was predictable. With the Mining Association of Canada, for instance, I remember the CEO, Pierre Gratton, asking why the Conservatives were trying to wreck the act now. He said that we had just finally made it right and liked the way it worked.

A federal environmental assessment act was brought in under Brian Mulroney and enacted under former prime minister Jean Chrétien. It had evolved over the years. In the spring of 2012, in an omnibus budget bill called Bill C-38, the government of former prime minister Stephen Harper set out to destroy the legislation. It was repealed in its entirety and was replaced with something called CEAA, 2012.

At the same time, it also went after the pieces of legislation that triggered environmental assessment, the law list sections, the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and so on.

To fast-forward, in the election of 2015, the Liberals promised in the platform to repair and fix what had been done by Harper to environmental assessment, to the Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In 2016 and 2017, various ministers went to work. The current Minister of Public Safety, who was the then minister of fisheries, actually did fix the Fisheries Act. He got it back to what it had been before and even improved it. The former minister of transport, our former colleague, the Hon. Marc Garneau, really fixed the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Somehow or other, our former minister of environment, Catherine McKenna, was persuaded, I believe by officials in her department, not to fix it. The single biggest change that was made, besides repealing the Environmental Assessment Act, was to ditch the criteria that tethered environmental assessment to areas of federal jurisdiction if it was on federal land, involved federal money or under a permit given by the federal government.

Instead, Stephen Harper's government created something called the “designated projects” list, which could be anything the ministers thought they wanted to put on the list. It was project-based but not decision-based, and it could be anything, at the minister's discretion. That was CEAA 2012. It meant we went from having 5,000 to 6,000 federal projects a year reviewed, and they were mostly paper reviews that went quickly, to fewer than 100 reviewed every year. We can see perhaps the attraction for people in the civil service to not go back to actually reviewing the federal projects every single year and to keep it to fewer than 100.

Somehow, the federal government, under former minister Catherine McKenna, put forward Bill C-69 and decided to reject the advice of the expert environmental assessment panel, under the former chair of BAPE Johanne Gélinas. It kept the key elements Stephen Harper had put in place, which was that the Environmental Assessment Agency was no longer responsible for many assessments, and regulatory bodies such as the National Energy Board, now the Canada Energy Regulator, the offshore petroleum boards or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would do their environmental assessments separately. It also got rid of the idea that we are tethered strongly to federal jurisdiction. It remained discretionary. That is why I voted against Bill C-69..

Former Alberta premier Jason Kenney said that this was the anti-pipeline act. I said that it was completely discretionary to the minister in a different government and that it was the pro-pipeline act. Where is the rooting to federal jurisdiction? Where is the commitment to review everything the federal government does to make sure we have considered its environmental impacts? Those were all thrown out the window. I may have been the only one in the pro-environmental assessment community, although I do not think I was the only one, who actually cheered on October 13, 2023, when the Supreme Court of Canada said that the designated projects list was actually ultra vires the federal government. It would just ask a minister to say what project they want on a list, but it was not rooted in federal jurisdiction the way it had been from 1975, under a guidelines order, to 1993, when it became law, right up until 2012 and Bill C-38 when Harper repealed it.

Then, for some crazy reason, and I use the word “crazy” advisedly because I do not know the reason and I am not referring to anyone in particular, the Liberals decided to keep the designated project list, which is the part that the reference in the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada said was ultra vires the federal government and now stuffed in an omnibus budget bill that we were told we would never see. We get amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act that keep the designated projects list.

I do not think this new version in Bill C-69 is going to get Supreme Court of Canada approval. I know it will not get environmental assessments for projects across this country that need to be assessed. It will not get environmental assessment for Highway 413. It will not get environmental assessment for things that are squarely within federal jurisdiction. What it will do is be a quick and dirty fix that only goes to the finance committee for study.

With that, I will close my opening remarks with what I can only describe as disgust.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

The motion as a whole reads.... I'll just go through it so that people watching will understand what we're doing. Basically, it was a Liberal motion to program out the rest of our meetings through to the end of this session, which is probably going to be around the third week of June. They put forward a motion that.... Ironically, this motion was given to Mr. Davies the night before it was introduced at committee but it was not given to Mr. Hallan, so it was a surprise to us when this motion was dropped.

In fact, it's interesting to hear the Liberals talk about hearing witnesses because we had half of the public servants at the finance committee here the moment that Mr. Turnbull dropped this motion that resulted in this filibuster. It's a bit rich to say that we're holding up hearing from witnesses when they started this whole debacle in the first place. In any event, it is what it is. We have now this programming motion in front of us. I'm just going to go through it because I think it's important that people understand and that they're grounded in what it is that we're discussing.

It says:

As relates to the committee's future business, it be agreed that:

i. the committee dedicate its meeting on Thursday May 9th, 2024, to hearing from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, and officials, on the subject matter study of Bill C-69....

Now, I just want to say that I know Mr. Turnbull made the point a moment ago that the Minister of Finance came already for an hour. However, this is his motion, so he clearly wants her to come here again. He can't say that he doesn't because the first thing in his motion calls for the Minister of Finance to come to this committee. Am I not right? That's what it says. I don't know why he's now saying that he doesn't want her to be here. It's very strange. Maybe he'll vote against his own motion now.

Then it says:

ii. the committee dedicate its regular meetings on May 9th, 21st, 23rd, 28th and 30th, 2024, to consideration of the subject matter study of Bill C-69....

Now, I think it's important to also mention to people watching that Bill C-69 actually isn't even here at this committee. It's still in the House of Commons, interestingly, because the Liberals can't seem to manage their legislative affairs. We're actually debating a programming motion about a bill that this committee isn't even seized with. Go figure. We're the ones who are blamed for delaying it, but it's still in the House. In fact, to get it out of the House and to committee, they had to bring forward a motion to cut off debate today. Of course, the NDP voted with them again.

I don't know why the NDP keeps carrying water for the Liberals. I mean, I can understand, you know.... They signed a supply and confidence agreement, but what's interesting is that they vote with the Liberals on almost everything. In fact, Mr. Davies voted with them to shut down our Standing Order 106(4) motion on Friday, which was just to study money laundering. Why is the NDP voting with the Liberals to stop studying money laundering? I don't understand it, Mr. Chair. I do remember there was a time when the NDP was actually an opposition party, when they had substantial leaders, like Jack Layton—may he rest in peace—and Tom Mulcair, who would grill Prime Minister Harper relentlessly in question period. However, they're not that party anymore. They've become sycophants for the Liberals, and I don't really understand why. Anyway, the great political minds in the NDP party, I guess, think that this is somehow a good idea.

Then comes my subamendment. It says that, on the week of the 28th, one meeting be dedicated to hearing from the minister for two hours and one meeting be dedicated to hear from Mark Carney for three hours, and that clause-by-clause not begin until the aforementioned witnesses appear for the requested times.

On the subject of the Minister of Finance, one of the reasons.... I want to touch on this issue of money laundering as well, and it is relevant, I assure you, Mr. Chair. If you bear with me for a few minutes, I'm going to make sure that this committee and its members understand exactly how money laundering is relevant to the Minister of Finance appearing at this committee, which is why it's in my subamendment.

The reason is very simple. The Minister of Finance wrote a letter to you, Mr. Chair, on October 6, 2023. Let's see: November, December, January, February, March, April and May. It was over seven months ago that she wrote a letter to the Honourable Peter Fonseca, P.C., M.P., chair of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Dear Mr. Fonseca:

I am writing to request your assistance with the fourth five-year parliamentary review of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA).

Pursuant to section 72 of [that Act], a committee of Parliament is to conduct a review of the Act's administration and operation every five years. This legislative requirement helps to ensure that the PCMLTFA remains dynamic and responsive to emerging money laundering and terrorist financing threats—

That is very serious business, Mr. Chair.

—and is consistent with evolving international standards aimed at combating those crimes.

That was seven months ago. Then she wrote:

The last review of [the Act] was completed in November 2018.

By my count, that's more than five years. We have a statutory obligation to review this legislation after five years, and now we're in the sixth year—seven months after the minister wrote the letter to this committee.

It says that:

The PCMLTFA does not designate a specific committee of Parliament to undertake the review. I am requesting that the Standing Committee on Finance conduct the review.

After conducting the review, the Committee would be required to submit a report to Parliament recommending any changes to the PCMLTFA or its administration. I suggest the review of the PCMLTFA be initiated this fall—

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly want to echo some of the comments from my colleagues. I would be happy to sit in a late sitting tonight if we were speaking with witnesses, but to sit in another filibuster is not why I put my name forward as a member of Parliament. It is not what my constituents are asking me to do, especially in these final weeks of the sitting session.

To ensure that I remain relevant, I'll be very clear. Mr. Carney is welcome to come to the committee. If the Conservatives would like to put his name forward as a witness, that's their choice, but as a private citizen.... I have not heard a single argument in these very painful hours that we've been in a filibuster that supports why we should bring a private citizen to this committee.

My colleague Mr. Turnbull referenced that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance was at committee on May 9 and she did answer our questions on the BIA.

I want to highlight and reiterate just very quickly a couple of the points Mr. Turnbull made on some of the key social programs and health programs that I know my constituents want to see moving forward. It is incredibly important: the continuation of child care and the expansion of spots; the national school food program—this is so important for children, for families, and this is food security—and pharmacare with contraceptive supports and diabetes supports.

One of the things that I haven't heard spoken about enough is how important the diabetes medication supports are in a preventative sense. Indeed, it can ensure that someone in the early stages of this chronic disease process is able to be stabilized and to not move to the much more invasive and difficult aspects of diabetes, if they have access to the necessary medications and testing tools.

To hold up these these important programs in a filibuster when we really need to have witnesses before committee who will once again continue to speak about how important this is, I don't believe is a good use of our resources.

I want to spend a few moments to speak about the housing initiatives, because I hear so often in the House about how important housing is to Canadians, and I agree that it is. I'm very proud of the work the Liberal government is doing to ensure we address this problem. Within this budget implementation act—and again, these are the things that we should be debating—is the availability of public lands for home plans: to be able to build on Canada Post properties, National Defence lands and in office buildings. This is something that I have heard the Conservative opposition members speak about over and over. It's in our budget. Let's talk about it.

We're building more rental apartments. Again, it's something that we hear about over and over in debate, both in the House and in committee. There's $15 billion in new loan funding for the apartment construction loan program. That could bring a total of 131,000 new homes by 2031. Let's talk about that.

We're launching the Canada builds initiative, a team Canada approach to building more affordable homes for the middle class on underutilized lands across the country. This program brings forward federal low-cost loans with provincial and territorial investments to scale up construction—again, a solid program that can expand the availability of housing for middle-class Canadians.

We're providing a $400-million top-up to the $4-billion housing accelerator fund. This program is in my community of St. John's East. It's incredibly important. It is welcomed by the community. My constituents want to see us move forward on this program.

We're launching a $1.5-billion Canada rental protection fund to protect and grow the stock of affordable housing in Canada, and providing $1 billion for the affordable housing fund to build affordable homes and launch a permanent rapid housing stream—again, very important. This is also part of homelessness prevention by having homes available along a continuum of need from true homelessness to market investment and investing an additional $1.3 billion in Reaching Home Canada. That is the Canadian homelessness program.

Yes, we have to do so much to help the most vulnerable in our community to have a respectable place to call home. Let's talk about that. Let's look through the important allocation of funds within the budget so we can ensure that we have the rollout of supports for all Canadians across the country.

I can continue. There's streamlining foreign credential recognition for construction sectors, working to narrow the housing gap in indigenous communities and incentivizing Canada's educational institutions to build more housing for students. We heard this through the FES. We heard it in the pre-budget consultation. We hear it from our constituents—at least, I hear it from my constituents. I hear it in the House continually. I hear it in committee. We need to address housing concerns.

This is a robust plan to help all Canadians have a place to call home. I plead with opposition members to let us have a vote. Let's end the debate on the subamendment. Let's move to the work that Canadians have sent us to this important House of Commons, this Parliament, to do. It's the work of ensuring that we meet the needs of all Canadians.

I refuse to take up another 20 minutes just reading notes, but I absolutely ask my opposition colleagues to stop this. Let's get back to the work we are here to do. I'm happy to sit with witnesses. I'm happy to do what needs to be done to move this budget forward, but this filibuster needs to stop.

Thank you.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

It's really great to get back to what I was saying. I was just talking about the good-faith attempt we made to work with the Conservatives to come up with an agenda for this committee that would move us through May and June in an orderly fashion to accomplish all the things we had on our agenda, including some of the studies that were before the committee but haven't been completed. That included, obviously, the first order of priority, which is the budget implementation act.

The Conservatives withheld support for that. That's fine. It's their prerogative to do so, but for them to come to committee and suggest that I somehow table-dropped a motion.... The motion I brought to committee was exactly what we had discussed in our previous meeting, so it wasn't a big surprise. Everybody knew what priorities we had identified. I think the Conservatives knew very quickly that they were in the minority in the membership of this committee. That's why we're in a filibuster today.

The Conservatives put forward an amendment and then a subamendment. The subamendment is what we're debating now. It is exactly what the Conservatives are avoiding a vote on. Really, what we're doing here is listening to five and a half hours—I guess it's now going on six and a half hours just today—of a filibuster from the Conservatives. I'm just pointing out what it is for anybody who's still paying attention and still has the patience to pay attention to these committee proceedings. I hope they are paying attention.

In reality, the Conservatives know the vote isn't going to go their way on the subamendment. Therefore, they're holding this committee hostage by continuing to talk ad infinitum. What we heard from MP Chambers earlier was him reading, for over an hour, the transcript from a podcast of Mark Carney on The Herle Burly. We had him reading that into the record, which is certainly not the most creative filibuster I've ever heard by far. Anyway, I guess some Conservatives lack imagination. That's okay.

In reality, all we want to do is get down to business on the budget implementation act. Why? In my view, that's what the 142,000 members of my community want to see me working on. The budget implementation act entails key supports for Canadians.

Conservatives are citing.... One of their members here did a kind of drive-by, insulting me and then leaving the committee room. It was Mr. Jivani. I would invite him to come back and continue the conversation.

What's interesting is that he talked about food banks and food bank lineups. We hear the Conservatives every day in the House of Commons citing food bank lineups as if they truly care about the people in those lineups. We're putting forward a national school food program, which is going to feed 400,000 children across Canada over the next five years. That's a billion dollars of investment.

How can the Conservatives, while sitting there, literally filibustering and blocking important work on the budget implementation act, tell me they actually care about people in food bank lineups? They're blocking real support for Canadians, such as dental care, additional child care spaces, pharmacare, the national school food program and the Canada disability benefit. These are key supports for those very families they say they care about.

I find it a bit rich. It's hard for me to accept them at face value when they're sitting here, spouting stuff off as if they really care about Canadian families. I don't believe it. It's just misleading. I don't know how I can interpret that as authentic and genuine commitment for their constituents.

I know my constituents care about a national school food program. They care about the clean technology manufacturing and clean hydrogen tax credits. They care about the Canada carbon rebate for small business. They care about enhancing the homebuyers' plan and extending the ban on foreign investment in Canadian housing by two years. They care about the Canada Education Savings Act and the automatic enrolment we're putting forward in the BIA, as well as many of the other things that are included in the BIA.

What's interesting, though, just to go back to last week, which was our constituency week.... I understand the Conservatives wanted to put forward a Standing Order 106(4) to call an emergency meeting. What's interesting is that I had indicated to the Conservatives in the previous week that I was more than open and that our whole side of the committee here, in terms of Liberal members, was open to studying anti-money laundering.

They used valuable committee resources and then came and got upset because they tripped themselves up. Their Standing Order 106(4) motion was during a week that we had previously suspended a meeting, so they ended up having to continue their filibuster on Mr. Morantz's subamendment. They didn't like that, of course. They, again, tried to flip it around—flip the script—and blame the Liberal members.

In reality, the budget implementation act has numerous significant measures to enhance combatting money laundering. I note that several of my colleagues have already read into the record portions of the BIA that deal specifically with anti-money laundering. I won't go into depth on that. However, I do feel that it's important to point out the fact that Conservatives say they want to study anti-money laundering, yet they're blocking the budget implementation act and the study of that budget bill includes anti-money laundering measures that are really significant.

We've also indicated that we would happily study that after we finish the work on the BIA. That's not good enough for them either. Not only are they blocking essential work on anti-money laundering through the BIA, but they're also not willing to concede that we're being reasonable and working in good faith, saying that we're willing to have meetings on anti-money laundering if the Conservatives want to continue work on that topic. We're more than happy to do that. Why? It's because we have a record that, every single year and every single FES and budget bill, there have been additional measures on anti-money laundering. Our government feels confident that we're moving forward and that we take those issues seriously. There are things that we can continue to study and offer solutions and measures on to continue to combat money laundering, which is a serious topic.

I just think it's a bit rich that Conservatives are sitting there claiming that we're essentially not.... They basically claim that we're blocking our own BIA, when the truth is that the Conservatives are filibustering on their own subamendment. That's what's challenging for me to accept.

I'm just pointing out what is, honestly, before the committee. To me, this is eating into valuable committee time and resources that could be dedicated to hearing key witnesses on the budget implementation act.

I had a member from the Conservatives say earlier—I think it was MP Hallan—that he had criticism, critiques and questions for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. She already appeared at this committee and took questions for an hour from the members of this committee on the BIA. It doesn't quite jibe—what the Conservatives have said here at committee today and the actual truth, which is that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance has already answered significant questions that have come from opposition parties. I think that's important. We felt it certainly was important that the minister come and answer those questions.

I think the other thing for me is this: When you have members who read the transcripts of a podcast into the record, whether they're related to the subamendment or not, it just shows that they're intent on wasting time and that they're not really interested in studying affordability. They're not really interested in dealing with any of the issues that they say they want to deal with, considering that the budget implementation act deals with affordability issues and anti-money laundering.

We've said that if you want to invite Mark Carney as a witness, go ahead. I understand that their interest is purely partisan.

I think MP Davies when he was here covered that quite well in demonstrating that Conservatives have said from the beginning that they only want to have Mr. Carney come to committee for their partisan purposes. They want to speculate on his intentions, and I just don't see.... Fine, invite him, but working him into a motion clearly has an alternative motive that I think is an abuse of parliamentary power and we shouldn't be doing that unless there's a good reason to do so. We have seen in the past Conservatives use a summons and try to summons private citizens to committee. I think we should only do that in very limited circumstances.

From my perspective—it would be really great—if Conservatives really want to get down to business on anti-money laundering, or any host of other issues that they've cited, then why don't we vote on the subamendment and why won't Conservatives allow us to vote here today on the subamendment that they put forward? Is it because they know they are going to lose that vote, or is it that they just don't really want to get to the study of the budget implementation act?

It's pretty clear to me that they don't want to study the budget implementation act at all, because if they did we could be using the valuable time and resources we have this week to hear from witnesses, which would be, I think, valuable.

I have 300 witnesses I bet would be willing to come before this committee and speak to the national school food program and the importance of it across Canada, not to mention many other witnesses for many of the other measures that are included in the budget implementation act. I think it would serve our constituents well if we were actually doing the work that this committee is tasked with doing, which is actually studying the budget that's before this committee.

I would say let's get to a vote. I don't have high hopes for the Conservatives allowing that to happen because of the obstruction that we have seen throughout this committee and many other committees. I know that it's not just this committee that they are obstructing. We saw it on the sustainable jobs act. We have seen it on the updates to the Atlantic accords. We have seen it in very many other circumstances.

Since I have been here since 2019, I have seen many a Conservative filibuster. They don't want to get down to the work of this committee even though in good faith we have said, yes, let's study AML after we finish the budget implementation act. That's not good enough. They want to have it their way, and they don't want to do the work that is, I would say, the top priority of a finance committee, which is to study the budget implementation act.

Okay, I'll leave it there, Chair. Thanks very much.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is another example of a positive initiative that is not in Bill C-69, but it is in the budget. It is important funding. We do not have a friendship centre in Waterloo Region. It is something that indigenous leaders have been calling for, both in terms of land and funding to build, and it is certainly an important measure that is in the budget.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to the budget and Bill C-69, as well, which implements some of its measures. When I think about folks in my community, the long and short of it, in my view, is that this budget just does not meet the moment that we are in. If anything, it just seems to be a similar story again where the government over-promises and under-delivers or, in some cases, breaks promises altogether.

I would like to start with a couple of items that I appreciate and that will help folks in my community. First, it is important to point out that there are good measures in the implementation bill. One example is that there is a provision included to deny income tax deductions for non-compliant short-term rentals. It was first announced in the fall economic statement. It is a really important measure to move ahead with as we look to address the housing crisis and remove various incentives that are in place for those who are actually removing rental units from the housing market. Second, for parents who are mourning the loss of a child, there is a provision in the bill that will extend the Canada child benefit for six months after a child's death. This is the least that the federal government can do to support parents in such a difficult, unimaginable time.

On the whole, though, when taking a step back to look at the budget and Bill C-69, I am concerned that it just does not follow through on the big promises that the government made. First, there is the promise about the Canada disability benefit. The promise made in 2021 in the Liberal platform was that “this new benefit will reduce poverty among persons with disabilities in the same manner as the Guaranteed Income Supplement and the Canada Child Benefit.” Those are both programs in the tens of billions of dollars a year. Instead, what is proposed in the budget is nothing that the disability community has called for and not what the government had promised. The maximum amount being proposed, $200 a month, is far too little to actually reduce levels of poverty among folks with disabilities. I will point out that 40% of people living in poverty across the country are people with disabilities. I have since asked at committee for the minister to table a list of people with disabilities who would be lifted out of poverty as a result of what is proposed in the budget. I have yet to get that list.

I am also still waiting for a list of people with disabilities who asked for what was proposed in the budget. We were told that it would take three years to wait for consultations from the disability community. I am waiting for a list of people with disabilities and organizations that serve people with disabilities who asked for this $200 a month and asked for the Canada disability benefit to be delivered through the disability tax credit.

Second, this is an incredibly burdensome tax credit to apply for and receive. That flies in the face of the requirement in section 11(f) of the Canada Disability Benefit Act, which is an amendment that I was successful in securing; it requires the benefit to be barrier-free. It remains my concern that what is being proposed in budget 2024 actually contravenes the Canada Disability Benefit Act, because the delivery of the Canada disability benefit is required to be barrier-free. However, the disability tax credit has an incredibly burdensome application process.

Third, the benefit itself is not even proposed to start until July 2025, leaving people with disabilities at the exact same level of poverty as they are in right now. As of that point, they will get an extra six dollars a day or so. As Krista Carr at Inclusion Canada put it, “Our disappointment cannot be overstated.... This benefit was supposed to lift persons with disabilities out of poverty, not merely make them marginally less poor than they already are.”

Another promise the government made in this budget was for tax fairness. The simplest place to start, if we are going to talk about tax fairness, would be an excess profit tax on the largest oil and gas companies in the country. In 2022, the top five biggest companies in Canada made $38 billion in profits after they paid shareholders $29 billion in increased dividends and share repurchases. The government already introduced, in the pandemic, an excess profit tax on banks and life insurance companies. It called it the Canada recovery dividend.

I proposed in Motion No. 92 for the government to do the same thing and apply it to oil and gas companies. It has been advocated for by groups like Environmental Defence, the David Suzuki Foundation, Climate Action Network Canada and Canadians for Tax Fairness because it is a reasonable measure. With a one-time tax on profits, even just 15% of those profits over a billion dollars, it would generate $4.2 billion that could be used to help Canadians with day-to-day life, to help incentivize more public transit, reduced fares and increased service.

It could help with incentives for home energy retrofits as folks in Ontario and my community continue to wait for the new version of the greener homes grant program, for example. What did we get in this budget? We got whispers that it was in the budget a few weeks before it came out, but the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers had 30 meetings with the federal government in the three months before the budget came out and Pathways Alliance had another 23 meetings in the months before the budget came out. I guess their lobbying blitz was successful, for them at least, for their corporate greed, while the windfall profit tax is nowhere to be seen. However, when it comes to our children's future, when it comes to being serious about the climate crisis and at least making sure that these companies pay some measure of additional tax if they are going to gouge us at the pumps, it is nowhere to be found.

The budget promised to make housing affordable. What does it deliver? There is a plan that counts, in its projections, 800,000 new homes that are going to be built as a result of other levels of government being impressed with the government and there is a reduction in funding for non-profits that want to build the deeply affordable housing we need. I am really concerned about the rapid housing initiative, for example, and this is true for MPs across the country who have non-profits in their communities that want to build affordable housing. The stock of social housing in this country is down to 3.5%. It is the lowest in the G7. If we doubled social housing, we would still just be middle of the pack. When it comes to the rapid housing initiative, it used to be $750 million a year. As of this year, it looks like this budget is proposing only $100 million in total right across the country.

The budget also promised to fix the Impact Assessment Act. What did it deliver? It delivered a complete renouncing of federal jurisdiction over nationally significant greenhouse gas emissions of major projects, for example, like Highway 413 in Ontario that the Ontario government currently plans to move ahead with.

Here is what 14 leading environmental NGOs, including West Coast Environmental Law, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, and Greenpeace had to say about what is in this bill, “The Supreme Court said Canada should have explained when and how GHG emissions become a matter of national concern. The federal government should seize that opportunity, not abandon its responsibilities to Canadians and the environment.” I know my colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, will have more to say about this.

There are also some items in this bill I am not going to have time to get into that were not promised at all, including a plan to expand immigration detention into federal prisons being panned by former Liberal cabinet ministers. On the whole, though, the government needs to do more to follow through on the big promises it makes. It is true that whether it is young people thinking about their climate future or folks with disabilities, we are going to need far more organizing to get the budget and the legislation that we need.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Response to Order Paper Question No. 2221

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to lead off second reading debate for His Majesty's loyal opposition on Bill C-69, the NDP and Liberals' budget implementation bill. I am disappointed that there will be so few Conservatives allowed to speak on this bill. That being said, we will deal with it at a later date in committee. I know the House will be shocked to learn that I will be voting against this budget bill, and I will tell members why.

As the opposition critic for industry, I have been focused on Canada's declining prosperity since 2015. The public policy choices of the Liberals have caused this decline in prosperity because of three major choices the Liberals made. Number one is that we have too much debt in Canada. Number two is that the world no longer buys enough of what Canada makes, our exports. Number three is that too many oligopolistic industries are charging Canadians too much for their services.

Let us start with the first point: too much debt. When the government debt grows faster than the economy, which is how the Liberals have been managing the country's finances, we eventually hit a wall. Liberal debt has caused inflation, which has caused interest rates to rise. Liberal inflation and interest rates have doubled housing costs and have hurt Canadians. For the ninth year in a row, the NDP-Liberals are running a huge deficit. This year alone, it is $40 billion, and a balanced budget is not even in their thinking.

Let us look at the numbers the budget the Liberals are so proud of proposes. The Liberal spending spree continues with $61 billion in new spending initiatives. The national debt will rise to a record $1.37 trillion. Interest on the national debt will rise from $26.6 billion in the last year of the Harper government to $64.3 billion. Debt interest payments will be more than what Ottawa spends on health care and twice what it spends on national defence.

The budget projects the government's spending to grow to $608 billion, which is $328 billion more than the first year of the Liberal government in 2015. That is a 117% increase in spending alone under the Liberals. That increase alone is more than the entire Harper budget of the last year. In case someone is worried about it, revenue, which is taxes, will rise from $282 billion in 2015 to $586 billion. In other words, government tax revenue has gone up by $304 billion, or 108% under the Liberal government. However, spending has gone up 117%, hence the debt.

If government spending made for a stronger economy and for more powerful paycheques for Canadians, we would be leading the world on our standard of living. However, that is not what Canadians are experiencing. Instead, what we have is a homegrown affordability and productivity crisis. The price of everything has gone up, and productivity per worker has declined. Since 2022, inflation-adjusted GDP per capita, which is an indication of living standards, declined from $60,000 to $58,000 in only a year and a half into 2023 and is now below where it was in 2014, a decade ago.

In other words, declining incomes at a time of rising costs of food, fuel, heating and everything, while our incomes are sliding back, make it more difficult for people to afford daily life. It is a double hit on Canadians thanks to the NDP-Liberals. Clearly, the record spending by the NDP-Liberal government, with the Liberal finance minister adding 62% of Canada's national debt, is not making people better off; it is making things worse.

This is the result of the disastrous policy choices of the NDP-Liberals on deficits, spending, government manipulation of the free market and policy choices to destroy Canada's competitive advantage over other countries, and those are our natural resource industries.

Let us turn to my second point. The world is not buying enough of what Canada creates anymore. As a small nation globally, in terms of population, Canada needs to export in order to maintain and to grow our living standards.

I spent most of my career in business, and when one's company has a competitive advantage, one innovates and works extremely hard to grow and to protect that competitive advantage, otherwise one's business declines and eventually dies. To export what Canada does successfully, we need to offer something other countries do not. In the world of nations, what is Canada's competitive advantage? It is our natural resources. Those include renewables, such as agriculture, fisheries and forestry, and non-renewables, such as minerals, oil and gas. We have been blessed like few others. We need to lead in exporting those commodities and the technology to harvest them.

We do not hear Saudi Arabia saying that they are glad they do not have all those forests to manage like Canada. We do not hear Germany saying that they are glad they do not have all that Canadian oil and gas to manage. In fact, Germany is begging for our oil and gas. However, In 2016, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau—

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Continuing on, this costly coalition Liberal-NDP government, which I am allowed to say, blocked their own legislation. Let's not forget that, when those witnesses were here, we were hearing testimony. Mr. Turnbull, the parliamentary secretary, for the first time in the history that I've been here table-dropped a motion to block his party's own legislation on Bill C-69.

What would Chrystia Freeland think about that? Is it that maybe Mr. Turnbull supports Mark Carney in his bid to become Liberal leader? He recently tweeted him, which could be an endorsement, but we don't know. Maybe out of that he tried to trick Chrystia Freeland. We just don't know. That's why it's important for Mark Carney to be here and for Chrystia Freeland to be here at the same time.

Let's not forget that Don Davies and Ryan Turnbull came here at the same time. It seems like they already had an agenda preset before they got here and have been trying to stiff-arm and use a heavy hand since they got here.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to my colleague, Mr. Jivani, for his very eloquent speech and recap of today's reality of what Canadians are facing after nine years of this Liberal-NDP government.

Other colleagues have tried to recap how we got here today, and it's important to find out why we are where we are today. Let's not forget that as a committee we tried to get Mark Carney to this committee. It was actually Mr. Davies who blocked that proposal, in whatever deal he brokered with the Liberals. We're just not sure yet, but whatever it was, it worked. Mr. Davies was the first to jump on that. He tried to block that, and he was successful. Let's turn to why we are where we are today.

This was the first time in my entire parliamentary experience I'd seen a parliamentary secretary, Mr. Turnbull, block the government's own legislation on Bill C-69. Let's not forget we had witnesses in this room, and Mr. Turnbull decided to table-drop a heavy-handed motion, which was not discussed beforehand. We know for a fact that the NDP got that motion the night before. The rest of us from the Conservative side and the Bloc side, as far as we know, did not get it, but Mr. Davies knew about it. They tried to use a heavy hand, as they always do. They have been doing that for the last nine years with their costly coalition. They've tried to stiff-arm us—

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I'm ready to vote on that subamendment any time the Conservatives would like to allow us to vote on it. We're happy to do so.

I was talking about small businesses because I know they're anxious for any type of support from our federal government. We've already provided them with a number of supports. Many of them that I talked to are very happy that our federal government has negotiated with Visa and Mastercard. Starting this September, they will be getting a 27% reduction in the credit card fees they're paying to Visa and Mastercard.

When I tell them about the Canada carbon rebate, they're very happy to hear about it. What's also great, as many people might not know, is that we're proposing that this rebate be retroactive for up to three years. That is a game-changer for a lot of small businesses, and I will tell you that any small businesses listening right now are saying to get on with it: “Stop wasting time, finance committee. Get on with passing Bill C-69 because we need that money. We need to invest back into our businesses, back into our local economies.”

We also have some additional support and additional information around the clean hydrogen investment tax credit and the clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit. This builds on the investment tax credits that we had in the fall economic statement.

One of the key messages we heard from industry, which I would say was unanimous, was to get going on the investment tax credits. Businesses need reliability. They need an idea about when these tax credits will be available or they will not be able to move forward on planning—planning for today, planning for tomorrow, planning for jobs and planning for how they can ensure their companies are competitive and prosperous, both today and tomorrow. If we heard through the fall economic statement that the timeline and implementation were critical and urgent, then I bet they would say the same about the clean hydrogen investment tax credit and the clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit. However, to be honest, I would prefer to hear from them directly, and my biggest fear is that we'll continue to waste time, because the Conservatives are forcing us to have this filibuster, and we won't hear from any of the witnesses. I would love to hear directly from witnesses.

I also want to relate to this committee, and remind particularly my Conservative friends, what else we are holding up right now that would be very helpful to all Canadians. Indeed, we have an affordability crisis in our country after a massive global pandemic and subsequent inflation, and a lot of transitions are happening in our world. I'm very proud that in this budget we have introduced a number of measures that are going to be very helpful to Canadians.

What's been mentioned before is the national school food program. There's rarely a day in the House of Commons that a Conservative doesn't talk about how there are families and kids who are struggling. We have a very direct additional measure that we are planning to put in place through the national school food program. I can tell you that it is absolutely lauded unanimously as a positive program. It has been much asked for by Canadians of all political stripes right across the country. By us filibustering, by us not moving forward on Bill C-69, we are holding up the implementation of the national school food program.

It isn't just the school food program that we think is going to help support Canadians. It will be the continued implementation of the national child care program, the dental care program, phase 1 of our pharmacare program and phase 1 of our disability tax credit. The disability tax credit, which is in phase 1, and phase 1 of our pharmacare program are also being held up by us not moving forward with Bill C-69 and discussions here at the finance committee.

Regarding the student loan forgiveness program, there are a number of measures in Bill C-69 that are going to provide some additional supports to students. Specifically, what Bill C-69 has, which I'm really happy about, is Canada student loan forgiveness for family doctors and nurses. Essentially what we're trying to do is provide a student loan forgiveness program to health care professionals if they work in a designated or underserved rural or remote community. The benefits act as an incentive to graduates who are paying back their federal student loans to work in underserved communities that have challenges accessing care services.

Too many Canadians do not have access to primary care in this country, and we desperately need to provide incentives for nurses and doctors to go into rural and hard-to-serve communities across this country. By not moving forward with Bill C-69, that is another big program that we are slowing down and stopping from being implemented that will help Canadians, particularly in rural and hard-to-serve communities.

On the Canada Education Savings Act, many of us who come from immigrant families know—and I think that's all of us in some generation—that education is the salvation to create better lives for ourselves and for our families moving forward. I was really pleased to see that we have made some adjustments to the Canada Education Savings Act. Essentially what we are proposing in Bill C-69 is automatic enrolment in the Canada learning bond, which I think is really fantastic. We're trying to make sure that children are automatically enrolled in the Canada learning bond. It is a way for us to help families save for their children's education, and that really bodes well for Canada's economic prosperity both now and moving forward.

I could go through many other sections, but I'm going to go through one other one: “Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing, Sanctions Evasion and Other Measures”.

One thing that I've been very disappointed in our Conservative colleagues about is that they seem to give the impression that our federal government does not care about money laundering or about terrorist financing. Indeed, we have been investing in anti-money laundering heavily since 2017 in subsequent budgets, and we've taken a number of steps. I'll be reading through the steps we've taken because I think they're important.

There seemed to be a concern from the Conservatives that we're not doing very much and that whatever we're doing is not very effective. I'd like to say to my Conservative friends that not only have we done quite a bit—and I think they'll be very proud to hear the list of all the things we are doing—but there's a significant section on money laundering, terrorist financing, sanctions evasion and other measures in Bill C-69. They continue to force us to do this filibuster, which I do not want to be a part of. I would rather hear from witnesses. I would rather be considering the different sections of the the budget implementation act, and I would rather be asking questions that would make sure this budget is accountable and responsible to Canadians.

I'll read some key sections, just because I think they are relevant.

What we indicate as part of the budget implementation act is that since 2017, our government has undertaken significant work to crack down on financial crime. We've invested close to $320 million since 2019 to strengthen compliance, financial intelligence, information sharing and investigative capacity to support money laundering investigations. We are creating new integrated money laundering investigative teams in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, which convene experts to advance investigations into money laundering, supported by dedicated forensic accounting experts. We launched a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry for federal corporations. It was launched this year, on January 22, 2024. Our government continues to call upon provinces and territories to advance a pan-Canadian approach to beneficial ownership transparency.

We're modernizing Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing framework to adapt to emerging technologies, vulnerable sectors and growing risks such as sanctions evasion. We're also establishing public-private partnerships with the financial sector, which are improving the detection and disruption of profit-oriented crimes, including human trafficking, online child sexual exploitation and fentanyl tracking.

In federal budget 2024—and it's covered by the budget implementation act—we take further action to protect Canadians from financial crime. Here's what we're doing.

In budget 2024, the government intends to introduce legislative amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act—the PCMLTFA—the Criminal Code, the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act. Proposed amendments to the PCMLTFA will enhance the ability of reporting entities under the PCMLTFA to share information with each other to detect and deter money laundering, terrorist financing and sanctions evasion, while maintaining privacy protections for personal information including an oversight role for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner under regulations.

We're also proposing, in budget 2024 and under Bill C-69, to permit the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, FINTRAC, to disclose financial intelligence to provincial and territorial civil forfeiture offices to support efforts to seize property linked to unlawful activity, and permit Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to strengthen the integrity of Canada's citizenship process. We'll enable anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regulatory obligations to cover factoring companies, cheque-cashing businesses, and leasing and finance companies to close a loophole and level the playing field across businesses providing financial services. We will also allow FINTRAC to publicize more information around violations of obligations under the PCMLTFA when issuing administrative monetary penalties to strengthen transparency and compliance, and we'll make technical amendments to close loopholes and correct inconsistencies.

Proposed amendments to the Criminal Code include the following: allowing courts to issue an order to require a financial institution to keep an account open to assist in the investigation of a suspected criminal offence; and allowing courts to issue a repeating production order to authorize law enforcement to obtain ongoing, specific information on activity in an account or multiple accounts connected to a person of interest in a criminal investigation.

We're also proposing amendments to the Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act, which will ensure Canada Revenue Agency officials who carry out criminal investigations are authorized to seek general warrants through court applications, thereby modernizing and simplifying evidence-gathering processes and helping to fight tax evasion and other financial crimes. In addition, through our Canada financial crimes agency, in budget 2024 we're proposing to provide $1.7 million over two years, starting this year, 2024-25, to the Department of Finance to finalize the design and legal framework for the CFCA.

Just because I don't want the Conservatives to think we're not trying to implement as many measures as possible to tackle what we all know is a really serious issue in Canada—although I'd say this is an equally serious issue around the world—in addition to that, we also have a number of measures to fight trade-based fraud and money laundering. What we plan on doing in the budget is build on the work that was already proposed in the 2023 fall economics statement, which announced enhancements to the Canada Border Services Agency's authorities under the PCMLTFA to combat trade-based financial crime, with the intent to create a trade transparency unit. Building on this work, we're providing an additional $29.9 million over five years, starting in 2024-25, with $5.1 million in remaining amortization and $4.2 million ongoing, for the Canada Border Services Agency to support the implementation of its new authorities under the PCMLTFA to combat financial crime and strengthen, for our allies, efforts to combat international financial crime. Furthermore, we're continuing to modernize our anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing framework to adapt to emerging technologies.

What we're doing in this budget is proposing to introduce amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, the Criminal Code, the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act, with consequential and coordinating amendments to other statutes, to strengthen the supervision, enforcement and information-sharing tools of Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing framework.

I know we had a discussion on Friday about the importance of us spending a number of sessions looking specifically at anti-money laundering and what more we could be doing. There are some national examples that the Conservatives wanted us to focus on. I want Canadians and anybody who's listening to know that, indeed, we take this seriously.

Since 2017, we have been investing very heavily in this area. We've been working with international bodies to make sure that we're coordinating our efforts on this. In addition, in this budget and the budget implementation act, we're introducing a significant number of measures that will be very helpful in tackling money laundering, terrorist financing, sanctions evasion and other measures. I know that's important not only to us, but to all those within our Parliament.

I'll mention two other things.

I always say to Mr. Davies that he steals all my lines, because there are a lot of things I want to say, and he's often one step ahead of me in saying them. They really are part of my notes.

This is my fourth year on this committee. I'm very privileged to be part of it. Last year, we had 60 hours of filibustering and it was very painful. The only people who didn't benefit from it was Canadians. To be honest, we as a committee also didn't benefit, because we didn't hear from witnesses. I think we really had an opportunity to listen to witnesses.

We have an opportunity now to listen to witnesses. There's still some time left. If we decide we're going to vote on this programming motion and the amendments that are part of it, we might get to a few days of witnesses to hear from them, particularly on key sections that really concern us. They can make very thoughtful suggestions about ways we could strengthen Bill C‑69.

I predict what's going to happen when we get to a point where Bill C‑69 is before this committee is that the Conservatives will say we have no time to hear from witnesses and that the Liberals are really awful because we're trying to pass this legislation really quickly. I want to say to all Conservatives that there is time right now—not a lot, but maybe some time—for us to listen to witnesses and hear from them and to ask questions of our officials. There is time to give this bill, which is a significant piece of legislation with a lot of really outstanding measures for Canadians, the real consideration and review that Canadians expect us to do as part of our jobs and as part of this committee.

This is the final point I'll make, and Mr. Davies also mentioned it. Part of what I'm starting to hear from the Conservatives in the House, and I hear it sometimes at this committee, is that it's almost as though we want to prove that Parliament isn't working. We want to prove that committees aren't working. To them, our House of Commons—everything—is broken. However, I think what can happen is that we actually break things. We make it seem like things are broken when they're really not broken.

We have an opportunity to do the job that Canadians have elected us to do. I would encourage Conservatives to allow us to get to a vote on the amendments before us and the original programming motion before us. Allow us to do a few meetings where we have some witnesses, and allow us to move forward and hopefully pass Bill C-69, pass the budget that we know will have tremendous benefits for many Canadians and that has a tremendous number of sections that set our economy up for prosperity both today and tomorrow.

Our committees can function better. I would say this to all of us: Let's do the work that Canadians expect us to do.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I'm sad to be taking part in this filibuster. I do so reluctantly because I'd rather be listening to witnesses. We have a huge budget implementation act before us, which contains a number of measures that would help address some of the top issues that Canadians are facing today. There are also a number of measures in here that would help set Canadians up for current and future economic success, and it's really important that we get to them.

I'm very sad, because this money- and time-wasting Conservative filibuster will not allow us to have many witnesses, if any. It will not allow us to delve into some very important aspects of the budget implementation act. It will not allow us to talk to officials. It will not allow us to contemplate amendments that might make this budget implementation act even better than it is.

We started off today's meeting with Mr. Chambers reading a transcript of a Herle Burly online interview that Mr. Carney did in the past. It is not uncommon—and I don't think this is a surprise to anyone around the table—for former Bank of Canada governors or, indeed, business leaders to comment on a federal budget put out by a Liberal government, a Conservative government or any government. We have had a lot of business leaders and former bank governors comment on federal budgets, but I don't think that's reason enough to include Mr. Carney as part of the programming motion we have before us.

I want to reiterate, probably for the hundredth time now, that Conservatives can add Mr. Carney to their witness list once we get through this programming motion. Nobody disagrees with Mr. Carney being added to the witness list. The Conservatives can take the liberty of doing so.

What I didn't like about Mr. Chambers' intervention this morning is that it seemed like it could leave the public with the impression that this committee doesn't want Mr. Carney on the witness list. However, that's not true at all; we would be very happy to have him speak here, again, as an invited witness. It's the prerogative of all parties and this committee to include him on our witness list.

It's important for us to continue to reiterate that it is not the finance committee's job to interview possible future politicians. I plead with our Conservative colleagues, who I know care about their constituents and this country, to stop using the finance committee for fishing expeditions, because it is stopping us from playing our important role in reviewing, improving and passing critical legislation that has come before us. Right now, we have limited time to do the work around Bill C-69, which we know we have to delve into and look at.

There are a lot of really important initiatives in Bill C-69, and it's really important for us to run through some of them. However, our Conservative friends have decided to engage in this time-wasting filibuster at the finance committee, and they are stopping us from moving forward. The faster we move forward on Bill C-69 and make sure we get it right, the faster we can get it back into the House of Commons to go through the legislative process, and the faster we can put it into action.

I'll go through some of the key components.

One key part is the doubling of the volunteer firefighter and search and rescue tax credits. We all know wildfire season is already upon us, and we know that a historic number of forests burned last year in Canada. We have to double down on our efforts and come up with a different plan to make sure we are being more preventative in fighting forest fires and are better supporting our communities, firefighters and all the different stakeholders involved in keeping Canadians safe. We're trying to tackle the direct effect of climate change. Not looking at doubling volunteer firefighter or search and rescue tax credits is a key problem.

The next thing is that we're enhancing the Canadian journalism labour tax credit. I'm a very passionate supporter of independent, fact-based Canadian journalism. Canadian journalism—I would say journalism around the world—is going through a massive transformation and transition. We have to help our Canadian media through this transition. It's about looking at the Canadian journalism labour tax credit and making sure it's right. Making sure we continue to support independent, fact-based journalism here in Canada is critical. We say this a lot, but it is true: Working from the same facts and having strong, independent, fact-based media are critical to the strength of our democracy in Canada. We are being stopped from talking about that.

There's also the Canada carbon rebate for small businesses. Often, the Conservatives—and I would probably say all of us—talk about how concerned they are about our small businesses and what they're struggling with: the high costs of inflation, how business has changed coming out of the pandemic, how buying patterns have changed and how costs have increased because we had a global pandemic and subsequent inflation. Small businesses are struggling to come up with new business models. I think part of how we as the federal government can support small businesses is through this Canada carbon rebate.

We know we have to tackle climate change. We have a responsible plan to do so. One of the key promises we made when we put a price on pollution—also called a carbon tax or carbon pricing—was making sure not only that eight out of 10 Canadians would get more money than what they pay, but also that we would provide additional funding for small businesses and rural Canadians. Small businesses have been waiting for this carbon rebate. They have been waiting, in my opinion, a little too long. I'm very anxious to get this Canada carbon rebate discussed and passed as part of this bill. Small businesses will be very happy to know they will be getting this carbon rebate back.

The House resumed from May 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Bill C-69—Time Allocation Motion

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that I am very excited about in Bill C-69 is that 25% of the new spending is proposed for indigenous priorities, including a major loan guarantee for which indigenous partners have been calling for economic reconciliation, to ensure that when natural resource projects or other major projects in the country go forward, indigenous people also prosper, stopping what I would say is a pattern of exclusion. This is going to enrich all of us. I look forward to the member's support.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister's comments addressed parts of Bill C-69, but unfortunately, as we know, it is an omnibus bill. As an omnibus bill, it includes other parts that are not intended to help Canadians who are most in need or help indigenous communities, but to push through, without proper study, quick and dirty amendments to the Impact Assessment Act.

I intend to move a motion later today to ask that the impact assessment portions of this omnibus bill be removed so they can be properly studied, not by the Standing Committee on Finance but by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I wonder if the minister has any thoughts on that.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the House, we have seen the Conservatives blocking the dental care legislation.

Six thousand seniors, on average, in each of the Conservative MPs' ridings, have actually signed up for dental care so far, and we know that millions more are joining as we speak. Tens of thousands of Canadian seniors have benefited from dental care.

We have seen the Conservatives opposing the pharmacare legislation, even though 17,000 of their constituents, on average, would benefit from the diabetes medication components, and 25,000 people in their ridings, on average, would benefit from contraceptive coverage.

We now have the Conservatives blocking Bill C-69 as well. We are talking about affordable housing. These are all things that the NDP has forced the government to put forward in a minority Parliament. This is important.

My question to my colleague is simply this. Why are the Conservatives systematically opposing measures that would help people in their ridings?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister why her party hates democracy so much. The fact is that we have not had a single hour of debate on Bill C-69, a 657-page piece of legislation, and the Liberals are already limiting debate. I know that the Liberals' leader once said that he most admires China, and I know that they find the opposition's questions and perhaps having a different perspective gets in the way. The member for Waterloo said that she thinks it is terrible that the opposition would actually have a different perspective. Why do the minister and the government think that debate on government bills is something that should not happen?

Industry and Technology

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed. I came here believing that we would be debating budgetary measures on Bill C-69, something that Canadians are very much concerned about and would ultimately like to see passed.

I am wondering why it is that the Conservatives have now made the decision to try to have a discussion on an issue that we have already had a debate on. It is in the committee. Why not allow the committee to do the work and continue to do the work that it has been doing? There is nothing the member has said that previous governments have not done.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology that, during its consideration of Bill C-27, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, the committee be granted the power to divide the bill into two pieces of legislation:

(a) Bill C-27A, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, containing Part 1 and the schedule to section 2;

(b) Bill C-27B , An Act to enact Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act, and an An Act to enact the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act, containing Part 2 and Part 3.

Madam Speaker, I rise today on an important debate that is coming from the industry committee. Right now, we are studying what seems to be the unending study of Bill C-27, which is privacy legislation.

I have risen in this House before at least one other time on this matter, as have other members of the Conservative Party and other parties, including the NDP. We are rising today to request that this bill be split into two parts. One would be the privacy legislation replacing PIPEDA in the tribunal, and the second one would be AIDA, or the AI portion of this bill.

The reason for that is twofold. It is taking a long time to pass this bill mainly because of the government. The government produced a bill that was flawed, and because of this flawed bill, when it presented the bill, it presented 55 amendments to the bill. We have been going through them at committee, and we are now just getting through the definitions part of clause-by-clause on the first part, which is PIPEDA. We are finding there has been 16 table-drops to this bill for amendments.

This bill was not ready to come to the floor. We are looking at the need for privacy legislation, which we do agree with. Conservatives have stood in this House and said we believed that privacy should be considered a fundamental right for Canadians. When we look at that aspect of the bill, and it is very important, the second part of this bill, the AI, the AIDA, portion of this bill, is so flawed that it is holding up the first part of the bill.

The parts never should have been put together; they should have been separate. There were some fundamental reasons why the government wanted to put them together. With 55 amendments and 16 subamendments to the main part of the bill, this bill is so flawed we cannot even get through the first part. We are worried if the bill is not separated into two votes, and we do not have AIDA separated and perhaps have it come back as a whole new legislation, we are not going to get the first part of the bill through, which is privacy legislation that Canadians are desperately asking for.

After nine years, Canadians have never had less privacy. We look at the fact that we have Alexa, or AI of any form, and when our children are on their iPads, that data is being scraped off the Internet and collected. None of it is private. We do not have any privacy with our data.

This week, we are looking at privacy, and we are trying to discern the difference between normal privacy and sensitive data. Sensitive data would be looked at under the act, but would be a bit more heightened. It would be looked at with greater penalties for those who breach it. We are certainly looking at everyone's privacy in the coming years with AI and the advancement of computers.

The one that we are specifically looking at is financial data. All of the transactions that we do through Interac, our banking system as a whole, our bank accounts, and the interactions that we have online, like with Apple Pay or on our cellphones, are all held by the banks. Many Canadians would be surprised to know they do not own their financial data.

A bank has someone's data, and that can mean anything from their credit history, where they spend their money, how they get their income or where they are paying their taxes. All of that data right now is not held as sensitive, and more importantly, it is not held under that person's consent. Financial data across Canada needs to be regarded as sensitive.

Perhaps the biggest breach of that within the last two years was when the government enacted the Emergencies Act and bank accounts were frozen under the act. The government has the ability to freeze bank accounts because that data is not sensitive. Through the government, when it took away the rights of Canadians, that data was then held by those banks against consumers' will.

In this country, we want to be able to have open banking. The idea with open banking is to have Canadians control who owns their data, and, with their consent, who can have their data. That is really the crux of this bill. When we talk about sensitive financial data, it is the ability for someone, as a consumer, to control where their data is and where it goes.

Open banking, of course, brings competition to our banking sector, which allows not only the six big banks to have our business, but also hundreds of other financial tech organizations that want to have our business and right now are only able to get it through screen scraping. This is taking data off screens or having their clients take screenshots of their financial history in order to get it to a financial tech organization so it can compete for their business. However, financial data should be sensitive information, and when we look at how that relates to AI, well, it is a whole different component of the bill. Also, when we look at location data, and the ability for someone to know from a person's phone where that person is right now, that is also sensitive data. However, the advancement of AI has allowed all of that information to be out in the open and to be emulated.

When we look at the AI bill, the most important part that we are going to be standing up for, as Conservatives, is to ensure that computers cannot emulate human beings without their express consent. However, when we look at privacy as a fundamental right, AI allows the ability of one's image, likeness and voice to be replicated and used all over this planet, which, of course, is bad when we talk about fraud. We have all the heard stories of parents who thought that their children were calling them for help and to ask for money. It sounded like them, they laughed like they did, but at the end of the day, it was an AI program that emulated an individual to cause an act of fraud.

Right now, Scarlett Johansson is in the news. If anyone has used ChatGBT lately, version 4, which is the new version, they would find that Sky apparently uses Scarlett Johansson's voice without her permission. AI does this right now. It can scrape images and likenesses off the internet, and there is no recourse to ensure that it is taken care of. However, having this AI bill attached to Bill C-27, the privacy act, is slowing this process down and, because of that, Canada is falling further and further behind. It should be a separate bill, and we are asking that the bill before us, of course, be put into two separate votes, as we have before.

I am splitting my time today, because I have some knowledge, but we have greater expertise coming from the member from South Shore—St. Margarets.

I will end with where we are with AI in general. It was announced last week on the budget bill, Bill C-69, that the government is going to put money into AI, figuring that, finally, Canada should have been a leader and should be a leader on this. However, another article, just released yesterday, effectively said, “Ah, too late”, and that the money the government wants to put into AI and infrastructure, Meta Llama 3 has just made obsolete. Of course, Meta, Microsoft, Google and so many other companies have already put money and resources into AI, and Canada is falling further and further behind because, after nine years, Canada has lost almost all of its IP in AI to the rest of the world. China had 13,000 patents in AI just last year, which was more than all patents filed in all sectors in Canada. The U.S. had close to 20,000 patents. So, now, when we put money into IP for AI in Canada, it is not Canadian IP. Once again, we are just investing in American and international companies in Canada. Canada is becoming a branch-plant state. We take our taxpayers' hard-earned money and we put it into intellectual property and multinational corporations that do not provide the GDP that Canada needs but just jobs, which is what we are left with.

We have a bill that was not properly done. It has 55 amendments from the government side and 16 subamendments. I could not believe that, the other day, the government was filibustering its own bill. We were in committee, and the government was talking it out. It did not like that we were talking about financial data as sensitive information. I had never seen this before. However, the bill is flawed and it needs to be split in two. We are happy to make sure that happens and that we get the bill right. Do not worry, a Conservative government will get it right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the continuation of meeting number 142 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting to discuss the subject matter of Bill C-69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to Standing Order 15.1.

Before we begin, I would like to remind all members and other meeting participants in the room of the following important preventative measures.

To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents that can cause injuries, all in-person participants are reminded to keep their earpieces away from the microphones at all times. As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all members on Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents. All earpieces have been replaced by a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black in colour, whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please use only a black, approved earpiece. By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of the meeting.

When you're not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the middle of the sticker for this purpose, which you will find on the table as indicated. Please consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. The room layout has been adjusted to increase the distance between microphones and reduce the chance of feedback from an ambient earpiece.

These measures are in place so we can conduct our business without interruption and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. Thank you all for your co-operation.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For members in the room, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” button on the screen. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as well as we can, and we appreciate your understanding in this regard.

I remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

On that, members, I hope you had a good week last week. I was not here on Friday. I guess a speakers list was not captured as far as who was on that list when we last left off on Friday, so the speakers list is open.

We are on MP Morantz's subamendment.

I saw the hand of an eager MP Chambers just go up, so we have MP Chambers on the list. Anybody else can let me know as we go along.

I see MP Davies, then MP Morantz and then MP Dzerowicz.

We'll get started with MP Chambers.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

I had intended to speak to the point of order, so I'll briefly do that. Then I'll go back to the subamendment, Mr. Chair, if I may.

Mr. Chambers makes some good points. What I would add to this is that different consequences flow from a meeting being suspended versus being adjourned. When a meeting is suspended, there are advantages that members can take from that. For instance, when you come to the next meeting, you pick up where you left off, which, for some parties' purposes, may be advantageous. Second, you preserve the speaking order, which can be advantageous as well.

I will point out that when the meeting was suspended last time, nobody objected. Sometimes parties want a meeting to be suspended for the purposes I just mentioned, and at other times it should be adjourned. I agree with him, though, that were a future government to abuse the distinction between those two, that would be cause for concern, and it would be up to the parties and Parliament to amend the Standing Orders to deal with such a situation. In my 15 years of Parliament, I have not seen any government of any stripe or any committee chair ever abuse this by suspending every meeting to prevent a Standing Order 106(4) request.

I'm going to speak briefly about why I took the position I did on the request, and it wasn't because I'm opposed to the substance of the motion to study money laundering. I think that is a good thing to study, which I'll talk about briefly in a moment.

Here's what I got when the Standing Order 106(4) request came in, which, by the way, I was not asked to sign, nor was I even aware of it going in. I looked into this, and this is the advice I received. The information sent by the committee directorate regarding finance's meeting on Friday says that as the committee has a meeting that is currently suspended, it cannot simply convene a new meeting on a 106(4) request. It must first deal with the business from the suspended meeting even if it is to simply set that business aside and move on to the 106(4) meeting. It goes on to say that in such a situation, the committee clerk would discuss with the chair in order for the chair to determine how best to proceed in the circumstances, and the clerk could suggest that the chair discuss with the vice-chairs about the approach for the meeting.

I think it's quite clear that we had to begin this meeting—because it had been suspended—with the business under consideration, but Mr. Chambers is correct, and I think this speaks to his point about how a future government could control this. If every meeting were to be suspended, it still is open to committee members at the next meeting of the suspended meeting to adjourn that debate and address the Standing Order 106(4) request. A government can't stop a that simply by suspending meetings. It will always be open to the majority of members at the committee to end the suspended meeting and begin a Standing Order 106(4) request, which we could have done today.

Let me just speak briefly about the merits of the subamendment, which I'm going to say for the moment is not restricted to Mr. Carney. The subamendment says to call the minister for an hour as well. When the Minister of Finance is called to this committee, that leaves it pretty wide open to talk about any issue one could put to the Minister of Finance. I've been listening carefully to people's points of order and what's relevant or not. Maybe the part about Mr. Carney might be relevant to Mr. Carney, but if the subamendment calls for having the minister come, I think there's much more latitude when speaking.

Here's why I have taken the positions that I have today. I agree that money laundering and terrorist financing sanctions and other measures are a critical issue that this committee should look at, but I want to point out, if we're all being completely frank here, that the Conservatives are engaged in a filibuster right now to prevent us from considering the BIA, the budget implementation act.

I want to read to you a bit of what's in the BIA.

Part 4, division 34, proposes amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, the Criminal Code, the Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act to support stronger anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing compliance, enhance information sharing and continue to provide new tools for financial crime investigations, prosecutions and asset recovery. It goes on to describe that in detail.

The first area is on strengthening supervision and the anti-money laundering, anti-terrorist financing framework. Here it says that amendments proposed would enable the introduction of regulations to cover cheque-cashing businesses and factoring, leasing and financing companies. Coverage of these sectors under the legislation would ensure comprehensive and consistent coverage of businesses providing financial services in Canada. I'll skip the rest of it.

The next major heading is on enhancing the sharing of information and financial intelligence. Here it says that amendments are proposed to the legislation to enhance the ability of businesses with obligations under the Act to share information with each other. Information sharing between private sector entities can improve their risk mitigation practices and promote higher quality reporting to FINTRAC, Canada's AML-ATF regulator and financial intelligence unit. This, in turn, can lead to better intelligence in support of financial crime investigations and prosecutions. Amendments are also proposed to permit FINTRAC to disclose financial intelligence to provincial and territorial civil forfeiture offices to support their efforts to seize assets linked to unlawful activity, and also to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to administer the Citizenship Act. This would help ensure citizenship applicants do not pose national security or organized crime concerns.

Another major heading is on improving tools to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. Here it says that amendments are proposed to the Criminal Code, the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act to strengthen investigative powers and support the operational effectiveness of Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime. Two amendments are proposed to the Criminal Code to support the enforcement of laws dealing with money laundering and associated crimes. First is a new order to keep an account open or active for a limited period of time to assist in the investigation of a suspected criminal offence. Financial service providers often close accounts suspected to be linked to criminal activity, which can hinder investigations into financial crimes. Second is a new repeating production order to enable law enforcement to obtain information regarding ongoing activity in an account believed to be linked to criminal activity on pre-established dates over a set period of time. This would provide law enforcement more consistent and timely information to support criminal investigations and would include robust safeguards to respect charter-protected rights.

I'll just stop there. Those are measures in the BIA on money laundering and anti-terrorist financing that are being held up by the Conservatives' filibustering. They put a Standing Order 106(4) motion in today that wasn't properly drafted, meaning that we had to first deal with the suspended meeting. However, we could deal with this next week. We could call witnesses from FINTRAC, TD Bank and the RCMP next week to talk about these provisions in the BIA, and we could work towards getting this bill passed to provide legislative measures to address the very concerning stories we saw in the media this week about TD Bank, the Royal Bank and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

I'm new to the committee, so please forgive me for any mistakes, but from my research, I'm pretty sure this committee has already started its mandatory statutory review of anti-terrorist financing laws or the money-laundering laws. I believe there was one meeting at which we heard from officials. I see Mr. Chambers nodding his head, so I look forward to his correcting me on that, but that's my information.

We have proposed that if we can get this budget passed by late May or maybe early June, we will have six or eight days of hearings for this committee in June, out of which I would be more than open to devoting at least two meetings to anti-money laundering or anti-terrorist financing. I've had discussions with everybody from all sides of the House, and I think everybody would agree to that, including those on the government side.

I think it's important to note for the record that I believe all of us want to get at these issues. We're in politics, so we can be a bit partisan, but I don't think it's correct or fair to assert that nobody is interested in this. I will say, however, that there is a clear pathway to getting at these issues, and that is by stopping the Conservative filibuster and getting to the BIA and the scheduling of hearings in June, to which we could be calling witnesses and hearing evidence on this right away.

On Mark Carney, I just want to say a couple of things.

I don't think it's unfair to say that the Conservatives have spoken extensively on why they want to call Mr. Carney. Some of their reasons are stronger than others, but what is absolutely clear—and they've put it on the record repeatedly—is Mr. Carney's potential political ambitions. I won't out the colleague who said this last time, but last meeting, a Conservative member spoke about how unfair it was to speculate on his motives. However, all I hear on this issue is speculation about Mr. Carney's motives. I don't think that's fair either. The point is that the basis upon which the request to call Mr. Carney has been made is not exclusively his thoughts or ideas on any matters under consideration. It's been repeatedly pointed out that he might be a potential future Liberal leader, and that's why they want to call him to committee.

Now, if we talk turkey here, the Conservatives don't just want to proceed with the business and call Mr. Carney as a witness, which they have every right to do. They could call him next week if we proceed with the BIA. They're worried that Mr. Carney won't come. He may or may not; I don't know. I do know that he testified before a Senate committee a week or two ago, so he's no stranger to coming to Parliament.

He may have different reasons, depending on the motivation. If he's being called to be grilled on his political ambitions, that may make him less interested in coming than if there's a bona fide interest in hearing his comments on, say, money laundering. The Conservatives said that they want to call him for money laundering because he has expressed that money laundering is troubling. Well, that's hardly insightful. Who wouldn't say that? I could probably call 55,000 Canadians who would say that money laundering is troubling. That's not a basis to call someone before this committee.

More importantly—and this is my main concern about this—I think it would create a very improper if not dangerous precedent—I'll get that word on the record too—for us to explicitly use the rare power of a parliamentary committee to issue a summons. Let me stop there. That's why the Conservatives want there to be a motion of this committee to call Mr. Carney. It's because if there's a motion passed by this committee and Mr. Carney doesn't come, we're in a position to potentially issue a summons. This is what I find to be a dangerous precedent. For a parliamentary committee to use its ancient and very rare power to summons—essentially subpoena—a private citizen to this committee to be grilled on his or her political views or political ambitions is, I find, an improper use of the power to summons.

With great respect to my colleagues in the Conservative Party, they could not be clearer that that's why they want to call him. What's next? If I don't like the political prospects of the person who wants to run for the Conservatives in my riding and I want to use my power as a parliamentarian to haul that person before this committee so I can grill them on their political ambitions, that is improper, in my view. Worse, it's dangerous. Again, you can go back to the record and read any number of interventions from the Conservatives—even today—showing that that's why they want to call Mr. Carney.

Now, if Mr. Carney was the current Bank of Canada governor, if he was currently in the position, there might be a basis for calling him to this committee. However, he's a private citizen now. He has every right to talk to the media and talk to any economic club to express his views like every Canadian does. These are the basic fundamental charter rights of freedom of expression, assembly and association. You shouldn't have to risk being hauled before a parliamentary committee to be grilled on your views for partisan purposes. Unfortunately, again with great respect to my Conservative colleagues, that's exactly what they want to do. They said it themselves. That's why I am resistant to this.

It would be easy to pass a motion to call Mr. Carney as a witness. However, having knowledge that this bona fide request is contaminated by overtly partisan reasons makes me absolutely opposed to misusing the power of our committee for that purpose. I would say that to any government of any hue. If the Liberals were trying to call a potential Conservative leader here and said they wanted to bring him before Parliament because he might be the next Conservative leader of this country, that is the politicization of the finance committee. It's worthy of a third world dictatorship. It's banana-republic politics, in my view.

That's why I wanted to put on the record why I've taken the position I have today. We must follow proper procedure at this committee. That's why the suspended meeting meant that we had to start this meeting with the suspended business. It also meant that we could have moved to the Standing Order 106(4) request. It would have been improper to begin with that, but we could have suspended and gone to the Standing Order 106(4) subject matter if we'd wanted to.

I find that to be disingenuous, because everybody here knows that we could be talking about these very subjects next week, but the Conservatives are blocking that. We could be scheduling this in June, so I don't believe the Standing Order 106(4) request to get to money laundering this week is entirely sincere. Certainly, it cannot be said by anybody on this committee that the Liberals and the NDP, or anybody else for that matter, are not interested in dealing with money laundering or anti-terrorist financing, because we have taken the position we have today. I want us to be dealing with that very issue on Tuesday. However, we can't unless the Conservatives release their filibuster.

My understanding is that when we come to the finance committee next week, the fifth last week of Parliament, we're going to face a filibuster. There will be endless talking about all matters under the sun, such as the price of tea in China and the mating rituals of the wombat. We're going to talk about everything except the BIA, which includes anti-terrorist financing and money laundering provisions. Those are the facts.

Again, for Mr. Carney, I've already said my piece. I have never met Mr. Carney, and I have no track or trade with Mr. Carney. I wish him all the best as a private citizen. However, it doesn't matter to me what his views are. I'm a New Democrat. His potential participation in other parties is of no interest to me. If I felt that he had relevant evidence for the BIA, I would be happy to call him as a witness, but I do not see a basis for taking the very unusual step of issuing a summons to call him before this committee to be grilled for partisan purposes. I just don't think that's appropriate.

I respect each and every one of my colleagues, and I have been very impressed in my three weeks on this committee by the degree of knowledge, commitment and, I think, bona fide interest. We have different views on financial matters, and that's what makes a democracy a vibrant and interesting place.

There are good ideas on all sides, but what I don't think is appropriate is for us to be holding up and stalling the business of the finance committee at a critical time in May, when we have a budget to discuss. I don't think that is appropriate, especially holding up the business because one party wants to grill a particular private citizen on his potentially partisan, political interests. I don't think that's an appropriate use of the filibuster.

We've all done it. There are appropriate uses of a filibuster, like if there's a very important matter of principle or there's an important political narrative, but it doesn't resonate with me that holding up the entire budget of Canada so that we can have a three-hour grilling session with Mark Carney is appropriate. I really hope we can get to the business of the people, battle out the budget and grill it, criticize it and praise it—it probably deserves all of those things—in the next couple of weeks. Then we'll have a democratic vote on whether it passes or not. That's what I sincerely hope this committee can get back to next week.

Thank you all, and thank you all for not interrupting me with points of order.

Bill C‑69—Notice of Time Allocation

[Pascale St-Onge, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

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

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

Report Stage

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her wonderful speech on the environment. It was very clear and straightforward.

I would like to ask her the following question. Does she see any interference in Bill C-59 and does she see even more of it in Bill C-69?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Dzerowicz.

Thank you, Minister.

We're right at one o'clock.

We want to thank you for coming here before our committee on Bill C-69, the budget implementation act.

We thank you even more in bringing all of us together in cheering for the Canucks or the Oilers. Hopefully a Canadian team goes on to win the Stanley Cup. We are all in agreement on that.

Thank you and have a wonderful day today.

We thank Mr. Jovanovic for coming here and being with us.

Members, we are suspended now.

[The meeting was suspended at 1:01 p.m., Thursday, May 9]

[The meeting resumed at 2:08 p.m. on Friday, May 17]

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

Thank you for your answers and comments, as well as for your show of respect toward Quebec and the provinces, their areas of jurisdiction and institutions such as the caisses populaires Desjardins.

However, the choice put forward in Bill C‑69 is to stay in the 20th century or to move forward into the 21st century. However, if institutions under provincial jurisdiction want to move forward into the 21st century, the first step is to regulate open banking. Given the architecture of Bill C-69, that step goes through the province, which must voluntarily relinquish its jurisdiction and announce to institutions that the portion of their operations under open banking will be regulated by the federal government from now on.

Ultimately, it is worrisome to see that it's the province that would give up one of its areas of jurisdiction. In addition, institutions that would remain under provincial jurisdiction would have to double their legal services in order to comply with the requirements of the province on the one hand, and those of the federal government on the other hand, as a result of open banking. That would be a competition issue. Why would an institution want to remain under provincial jurisdiction if costs were higher?

So there is a real fear that the federal government will go for a power grab and could use its power over the banks to regulate all businesses that interact with them. In my opinion, what your government is trying to do with this bill is to squeeze out Quebec and the provinces in the world of finance. Based on the skeleton of the proposed system, that gives me some concerns.

In order to respect jurisdictions, could you not instead consider a system such as the one for securities, or a system such as Interac, where there is self-regulation?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Minister and Mr. Jovanovic. Thank you for being here.

There are four areas I'd like to discuss today, if I have time. However, I'm going to focus on just one topic during this round.

I'm talking about the part of the bill that regulates open banking. We understand that there will be a follow-up to Bill C‑69 in the fall to regulate consumer protection and other aspects. In this bill, though, you're laying the groundwork for open banking.

I am really concerned because the purpose of the proposed regulations is to ensure that everything is controlled by the federal government. However, you could have chosen to use the co‑operative model in the area of securities, where each province has equivalent standards and there is mutual acceptance among the provinces.

So I am concerned about the possibility of a two-tiered system. Banks in Toronto are under federal jurisdiction, but caisses populaires such as Desjardins, credit unions and financial institutions such as Alberta Treasury Branches Financial come under Quebec and provincial legislation. If those institutions want to enter the 21st century and participate in open banking, they must have the authorization of their province, which must then give up its right to legislate to the federal government.

It would be a concentration and a centralization of powers. In addition, based on what we have heard, the provinces were not consulted on this until very recently.

Why did you choose to do that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We're back.

First let me say, Deputy Prime Minister—Minister Freeland—thank you very much for extending an opportunity to have you come here before our committee, and the members have agreed to that. You'll be here with us from 12 o'clock to one o'clock. We will be discussing the budget and Bill C-69. On that, Minister, you may have some opening remarks.

I also want to welcome Mr. Jovanovic.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

To be candid, it's a little disappointing that we don't have the ability to talk to the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister, Chrystia Freeland, today. We were looking forward to having a robust discussion. I've personally had many interesting discussions with Ms. Freeland about such things as the gap in GDP per capita between Canada and the U.S. and some of the financial struggles.

Just to set the stage, as it were, for the discussion—and unfortunately I suspect it will be a lengthy discussion on where we are right now—I don't want to tell tales out of school, but I did have a discussion with the parliamentary secretary, who was very upfront this morning. I appreciate his candour. However, the challenge is that we started off on the wrong foot. He surprised us with a programming motion. For those in the media or simply watching at home, a programming motion sets up the organization of business. Normally this is done through a collaborative, co-operative process, even when parties are having a very heated exchange over their various different ideas and thoughts as to how the government.... There have to be certain administrative and procedural agreements.

In the last couple of years, while sitting on the finance committee, I've had the privilege of negotiating those with various Liberal members, including Mr. Terry Beech. Yvan and I have also had some chats in the interim. They were not always friendly, but they were always respectful. Mr. Beech, for example, would nearly always give me the opportunity to discuss and have input on a motion prior to it being brought forward. While we didn't always agree, I very much appreciated that from the former parliamentary secretary, whose title is now “minister of fixing government” or something like that, I believe.

As I said, I try as much as possible to be an advocate for the truth. In fairness, there was a subcommittee meeting, but that meeting broke down. I would have expected maybe a courtesy call, as I got this morning, and I appreciated that.

Mr. Turnbull, I would very much have appreciated a call beforehand, and maybe we would have had a discussion. What we have is a programming motion that calls for, really, a very small amount of testimony. I understand that the government and the NDP brought a subamendment to increase it, so that's a positive sign. However, this programming motion is still deficient in a number of different ways, and I want to characterize it correctly. It's not that I'm objecting on behalf of Philip Lawrence or on behalf of the Conservative Party or Pierre Poilievre. I'm objecting on behalf of the people of Northumberland and the people of Peterborough South.

This is a massive document. It's over 600 pages, and I think even just some of the finite tax provisions in it could be the subject of lengthy debate and discussion, because anytime you're amending the Income Tax Act—it's a massive document—there are nearly always knock-on effects from that amendment. We need significantly more. I am pleased that Mr. Davies brought a subamendment to expand that. I think that's a step in the right direction.

The challenge is that Conservatives really want to know what the direction of the government is. In order to know the direction of the government, we need to hear from them. We've certainly heard enough from their current leader, but we need to hear from their future leader to know what the direction is to help us understand it so we can convey that to our constituents.

For example, we have seen Prime Minister Trudeau be absolutely unequivocal that he's going to continue with his carbon tax. He's actually going to quadruple that carbon tax. It is said that there will be no variation from this plan. In fact, his environment minister has said that if there's any deviation from the carbon tax, he will resign. That is absolutely crystal clear. What we don't know is what the Liberal plan is with respect to the carbon tax going forward if there is a change in leadership.

We have the Deputy Prime Minister, who is, of course, one of the likely Liberal candidates, for one hour. It's not really sufficient enough to discuss even her role as Minister of Finance, much less as a future potential leader of the party. We have an hour to discuss a 600-page document that will affect every Canadian through one provision or another. Some of these are quite in-depth; these are not simple provisions.

We can talk about some of the tax changes specifically. One of those changes could easily take up two or three hours. I suspect that many individuals haven't had the briefing they need to fully understand some of the ramifications of tax policy. We really need Ms. Freeland, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, for at least two hours.

There's another challenge that Conservatives have. We would really like to hear from Mark Carney. It's no surprise that to many Liberals that he is the heir apparent as we move forward. I don't know whether we'll see a resignation from the Prime Minister; I don't know if he knows that. Clearly, things are not going well. While it doesn't appear that Liberal members will push the Prime Minister out the door, it does appear as though he's frustrated. Clearly, the economy and other factors are pointing to an early exit. With that being the case, there's a high likelihood that we're going to have Mark Carney as the new Liberal leader.

What we're asking for is to have Mr. Carney, who has in the past been an outspoken advocate for the carbon tax, appear. He's a huge proponent of the consumer-driven carbon tax. However, in recent days, including in recent Senate testimony, he has seemed to equivocate. When asked directly about it, he wouldn't give a yes or no answer. In fact, he quite adeptly equivocated, I guess getting ready for his career in politics. We want to ask him whether a Carney-led Liberal government have a consumer carbon tax.

We've heard the NDP equivocate on this point in recent months with the leader of the NDP stating that maybe the consumer-led carbon tax was not the best direction to go in, while they continue to support and prop up the regime of Prime Minister Trudeau's Liberals, which is on track to quadrupling the carbon tax. Canadians deserve to know whether the future Liberal leadership candidates, whether it's Deputy Leader Freeland or former governor of the Bank of Canada Mark Carney, would indeed support a consumer carbon tax.

The other issue that I would really like to talk to Mr. Carney about is what his thoughts are on the actions of the current Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem. Of course, during the pandemic, Mr. Macklem said that interest rates would be low for long, and many Canadians relied on that. They selected variable mortgages and had shorter renewal terms on their mortgages thinking that interest rates would be, as Mr. Macklem said, unequivocally I might add, low for long.

I would really like to know whether Mr. Carney would criticize Mr. Macklem's actions. I'd also like to know, because inflation doesn't seem like it's going down, as is often the case with inflation.... We saw this in the 1970s and in the 1980s. Getting that first part of inflation down is oftentimes the “easy part”. It's in that last mile that inflation gets really sticky and hard to remove.

We've heard past comments from Tiff Macklem that excessive government spending is unhelpful because it boosts demand, which increases the prices and costs of nearly everything and raises inflation. I'd love to hear from the future Liberal leader on whether he would reduce spending or continue with the $54 billion of interest at which the debt is being paid. That's more than the entire amount in health care transfers. Just imagine if we did not have a national debt in Canada. We would be able to double our health care spending. That's really amazing.

Another issue was pointed out by Thomas Mulcair, former leader of the NDP. What he said, which is interesting, is that the amount of interest is equal to the entire revenue collected by the goods and sales tax, the GST, across the country. If we didn't have that $1.3-trillion national debt, we would be able to cancel the GST, which was a Liberal promise from many years ago that still has yet to come to fruition.

I think that having Mr. Carney here is an absolutely reasonable request. He went before the Senate, so he's clearly not shy, and he has a willingness to go before public officials. It does get to me. I try not to, in politics—or as little as possible—speculate on people's intentions, because I believe that most people's intentions are good. I think you get into a dangerous world when you start speculating on the intentions of our colleagues. It's hard to look into someone's heart, but it does make you wonder where the brakes are here.

What is the Liberal government so afraid of that they will not allow Mr. Carney to testify in front of the finance committee? Maybe they're protecting.... Maybe the Prime Minister prefers his successor to be the Deputy Prime Minister, and he doesn't want Mr. Carney to come here and outshine him. Maybe it's a Paul Martin-Jean Chrétien type of thing, where they're afraid Mr. Carney will make too much of a splash.

I hope it isn't that Mr. Carney is afraid to answer questions. Clearly, as a former governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, he's hopefully faced tough questions. In fact, I'm mindful of an exchange that I saw between the current leader of the official opposition, Mr. Poilievre, asking Mr. Carney some difficult questions. I don't think anyone can say that Mr. Carney did a great job of answering those questions, but if I were him, I might want an opportunity to redeem myself and come before the finance committee. If nothing else, for altruistic reasons, I would think Mr. Carney would want to share his experience with us.

Specifically on that, I have talked at length about productivity and the importance of economic growth in bringing prosperity to our country. I'm not the only one, of course; there's a wide symphony of voices across economic experts. I can rattle off the names of Bill Morneau, John Manley, the C.D. Howe Institute and the Fraser Institute. Even the current finance minister, Chrystia Freeland, has talked about it. Of course, most recently, Carolyn Rogers gave her famous “break the glass” speech about productivity. Do you know who else has spoken about productivity? It's Mark Carney. He's criticized this government for their lack of focus on economic growth and their lack of focus on productivity, so I would welcome him into the discussion.

It is a nut that Canada hasn't been able to crack. Out of fairness, it has been a 30-odd-year problem, but it's gotten significantly worse over the last 10 years. You can see that; it comes through in the numbers. If you look at a chart—I tried to show the chart to the Minister of Finance, but the chair said I wasn't allowed to use props—a clear departure between GDP per capita in the United States of America and GDP per capita in Canada started in about 2015 and 2016. The gap is now wider between income per Canadian and income per American. It has never been wider in recent history—in the last 100 years.

Of course, the productivity crisis has led us to the lost decade in Canada. We have had virtually no economic growth in the last 10 years. Our GDP per capita has more or less been flat. That really is an outlier. We are the worst in the G7 in the last five years in growth of GDP per capita, and we continue to be a laggard. Actually, our GDP per capita is, I believe, in its seventh negative quarter. I would have asked the Minister of Finance some questions: Have you looked at these numbers? Could you explain to the committee why our economy is the worst in the G7, looking at a GDP per capita lens? Why do Canadians have to suffer through the seventh quarter of declining GDP per capita?

These were the questions I would have asked Minister Freelandand quite frankly, I'd put them to former governor Mark Carney as well. We really need to have these discussions for the BIA, because I think it's important for Canadians. We need to have these discussions now about the economic changes that Canada needs in order to get back on a strong footing.

As I said, it's not just me talking about this. It is the C.D. Howe Institute. It's Bill Morneau. It's John Manley. It is the Fraser Institute. It's Ian Lee. It is Jack Mintz. They're noted economists, and it doesn't really matter whether they're left, right or centre. There's a near consensus across this country that the numbers are the numbers and that we are struggling mightily when it comes to productivity.

These challenges will continue to plague our country as we go forward. We really need to have a discussion, not just at the boardroom tables on Bay Street but at the coffee shops on Main Street, about how Canada can get out of this economic hole. As my colleague Damien Kurek talked about a bit in his speech last night in the House, when you're at the beginning of piloting a boat or a plane and you have a long journey, even a slight error in navigation early on in that journey can have massive consequences down the line.

We actually saw this under Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Of course, Pierre Elliott Trudeau ran up massive deficits, and that left the Mulroney government in a difficult position. It ran structural surpluses, meaning that if you took out the debt that was accrued under the Trudeau government, every year under the Mulroney government, it took in more than it spent. Part of that was because of tremendous economic growth, no doubt spurred on by the free market policies of the Mulroney government. The challenge was that they carried along with them a Pierre Elliott Trudeau legacy.

We're really, sadly, at the beginning of a debt or deficit crisis if we don't get ourselves back on course. Right now, we're at $54 billion in interest. If the minister were here, I'm sure the first response to some of my economic questions would be that we have a AAA credit rating, and that's true for now. The reality is, though, that if we don't course correct on the debt and deficit, we won't, because sooner or later the interest will get to be such a big force. In fact, Albert Einstein said that the most powerful force in the universe is compounding numbers or compounding interest, meaning that if you are on the wrong side of this—and we are now on the wrong side of it, with $54 billion of interest being paid—it starts consuming more and more. Eventually, it will get to a point where Canada will no longer be able to pay its bills. Already we're at the point where we're spending more on interest than we are on health care, and there's more interest being paid than the entire amount collected by the GST. Alarms should be going off.

The challenge, too, is that there is a bit of a spiral effect. The more resources in general—and I'm sure my NDP colleague might add some caveats here—that businesses have for spending on investment and on their workers.... Quite frankly, I agree with him on that, but in general, the more resources the private sector has, the more effective it can be at investing and innovating, at becoming competitive and at creating prosperity for the country.

As you suck more of the revenue, the wealth, from the private sector and give it to the public sector, not for goods and virtuous services like some of our social safety nets, our health care or our productive resources, but to banks and bondholders in the form of interest payments, you reduce the efficiency and the effectiveness of the economy. Then the economy actually starts to shrink, which means there's less revenue and the government has to increase rates. Then it goes back again: The economy shrinks more and rates go up more, and you get into a negative debt-spiral trap. We've seen this in non-advanced economies, and it has had devastating consequences. We've had many economists talk about this, so we need to get our spending under control.

The leader of the official opposition has put forward a dollar-for-dollar plan, saying that every new dollar we need to spend—and there will certainly be new dollars we have to spend—will be matched with savings from somewhere else. The Liberal government has talked about potential savings, but as the member for Simcoe North has talked about, while the government has planned to generate savings through attrition in the public sector, it has yet to publish any type of plan that will allow that to happen. All we see is a government that continues to spend more and more money.

As Ed Fast, the member for Abbotsford, has talked about many times, we can't let that spending get out of control. The reason is not that Conservatives want, in any shape or form, any type of austerity when it comes to government or otherwise, but that it would prevent the type of austerity we saw during the nineties era, under the Chrétien-Martin Liberal government. They dramatically cut health care transfers because the debt, which was largely accrued under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, got to a point where banks and bondholders basically cut the country off. That led to very dramatic reductions in health care transfers and other spending. Conservatives want to protect health care and other government spending by making sure that we are fiscally responsible now.

If the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister were here, she would no doubt tell me that we are on track to hitting all three of our guardrails. The reality, though, is that that's on very shaky ground, and I'll tell you why: A number of the economic forecasts in the budget are very positive, bullish forecasts, such as increasing GDP.

The other issue is that we haven't yet seen capital gains legislation, and to make that budget work, they need $7 billion in the first year from capital gains. Otherwise, they miss two of the three guardrails. I confirmed that with testimony from the PBO. Those guardrails would be the debt-to-GDP ratio not increasing and the deficit not increasing. They would miss two out of three of those guardrails. Quite frankly, right now that capital gains legislation hasn't appeared.

You might say, “Well, Mr. Lawrence, we have the whole year to gain additional revenue from capital gains, so just relax. We might even get some retroactively.” However, no, that's not the case here because the government has set up an artificial fire sale by saying that the legislation goes into place on June 24 or June 25. I have no doubt that there are Canadians right now preparing to sell their property to take advantage of the current capital gains rate as opposed to what it will be. Until there's certainty and Canadians know that the capital gains rate will go up through the introduction of legislation, I'm sure many will just wait to see whether this legislation comes into place. We're quickly approaching—I think it's June 24, but I can never remember if it's the 24th or the 25th—that timeline. If the government doesn't introduce this capital gains legislation—which, for political purposes, they decided to pull out of the budget—they will not hit two out of three of their guardrails. That means we will have more spending, which is going to put us further down the debt and deficit spiral going forward and will worsen our economic growth.

When last I checked in, Mr. Davies wasn't sure whether he agreed with me. However, I'll say it again, and maybe he'll have a chance to agree or disagree. We'll see. It's my contention that, while Canada's GDP growth has been just high enough to keep us out of a technical recession, if you look at GDP per capita or the economic reality of the average Canadian, it has been negative for much more than two quarters continuously, which is the definition of a technical recession. We're at seven quarters, and that means that while Canada as a country is not in recession, Canadians are. In fact, we are in one of the longest recessions to occur since the Great Depression, and that is a great segue into talking about what Philip Cross said on GDP per capita or the economic circumstances of the average Canadian: We are in the worst economy since the Great Depression.

When we look at the severity and the seriousness of the economic situation we're in, I don't think Conservatives are being unreasonable—I really don't—by asking for three things in total. One of them has already been agreed upon, which is additional hours of study. For 665 pages, I don't think 30 hours is much. In fact, I've thought about a good change in process. For those who don't know, parliamentarians get a technical briefing for maybe a couple of hours, and we are responsible for, within 24 hours, reading 665 pages of extremely technical information. By the by, I say 665 pages, but those 665 pages are amending thousands of other pages. In order to understand those 600 or so pages of amending legislation, you have to understand the other thousands of pages of legislation.

While I have the floor, one of the changes of process I'd love to put forward to the government for the next budget would be to have the bureaucrats, many of whom have great depth of understanding of these changes and the context around them, give a presentation of five or 10 minutes on the substance of the changes. In a budget, there might be 100 different substantive changes, so it might be a couple of days. I would sign on to working from dawn until sundown to fully understand that and to have some of the knowledge held in our bureaucracy transferred to the politicians. That's one of the changes I thought would be a great idea.

I was a little bit surprised, although Mr. Davies did, in fairness, ask for additional time. I appreciate that, and Conservatives agree. He said that some of the testimony got repetitive. I didn't really see that, but to the extent that it did, I think that we could have eliminated that by having the public service put forward a substantive discussion of each of the provisions being changed. I don't think it would be unreasonable, when you look at the provisions in place that would affect literally every Canadian from coast to coast with millions, billions or, in some cases, if you look at it globally, trillions of dollars, to have a discussion on each one of the objects for five or 10 minutes and let them present to parliamentarians the substance of the issue. I think if we did that, we would give parliamentarians a good base for having fruitful, meaningful and constructive discussions about the individual areas.

The way the budgetary process works is that when we have the briefing, it is within 24 hours. By the by, the night before, we were working hard at the finance committee trying to get the fall economic statement through, which left us very little time to study those 600-odd pages and to fully understand that budget. Then, instead of being briefed on some of the technical provisions, we were told to ask any questions we wanted to.

I certainly did my best to try to review and understand it, but it's hard to consume such a massive amount of information in a very short period of time. That's why I believe a great change to the budgetary process would be to have members of the bureaucracy brief us on each one of those changes. Therefore, as I said, if there are 100 changes at five or 10 minutes a pop, it might be 500 or 1,000 minutes. I'm sure each one of those minutes would be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in changes that we would effect in each minute. I would throw that out as a constructive suggestion.

I do want to respond to what I expect will be some comments from the parliamentary secretary, among others, that Conservatives are holding up this legislation. I think, quite frankly, our track record, specifically over the beginning of this year, rebuts that quite conclusively. Clause-by-clause consideration is where the rubber meets the road and where we as parliamentarians decide what will be in the legislation and what won't be in the legislation. Conservatives were actually agreeable, candidly, to the NDP's request to start grouping sections so we could move quickly. In fact, my colleague Mr. Singh Hallan actually withdrew some of his amendments so that we could get through the fall economic statement quickly. I would also point to the fact that it was a very constructive process in which my colleague Mr. Chambers said he had not, in his considerable experience, seen a budget amended as thoroughly as the fall economic statement implementation act was, so it was also a thorough process.

Conservatives were willing to do that going forward. We have, I think, a very reasonable—I won't even put it as a demand—request to have Mr. Mark Carney for at least three hours and then to have the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance for two hours.

Quite frankly, I don't like it when people speculate on my intentions. I don't think it's fair, and I try not to do that as well. I would just throw this out as free advice to that side. Minister Freeland is a very intelligent, eloquent speaker, and so if I were one of them, I would try to get Minister Freeland up as much as I could, and Mr. Carney has always acquitted himself fairly well. I'm not exactly sure why they're afraid of having two of their future leaders answer some questions.

As Minister Freeland has said before, certainly our exchanges in the past have been respectful. I don't believe I asked Minister Freeland any inappropriate questions. Maybe I asked tough questions, but that's the job. It's my job to ask those questions to make sure that the people of Canada and the people of Northumberland—Peterborough South, soon to be Northumberland—Clark, are given the answers so they know, so they understand.

In context, of course, during the early part of our calendar every year as parliamentarians, a fair amount of our time is spent in our constituency. Like all other 337 of my colleagues, I spend a lot of time at events talking to people. Soon we'll be on the barbecue circuit again, talking to thousands of people. In all sincerity, it really hit home. I've never had a series of interactions of the kind I have had in the last two or three months, with nearly every individual saying one of two things, or both. One is, “I am really struggling. I've never had these economic conditions before. I've never gone to a food bank. In fact, I have a lifetime of donating to food banks, and now I'm a recipient of the food bank.” These are very serious issues. I'm sure we've all received those calls or emails or have had those direct one-on-one interactions. I don't think I'm in a vacuum at all.

Quite frankly, I think having the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance here for two hours and having the future Liberal leader, Mark Carney, here for three hours to explain their economic plans, their commentary on why Canada is in such a terrible economic shape, is reasonable.

Right now we will agree to the scheduling put forward by the NDP and the Liberals. All we're asking is that we get a little bit of insight for two hours from the current finance—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Welcome to the continuation of meeting number 142 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting to discuss the subject matter of Bill C-69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders.

Before we begin, I'd like to remind all members and other meeting participants in the room of the following important preventative measures.

To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents that can cause injuries, all in-person participants are reminded to keep their earpieces away from all microphones at all times. As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all members on Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents.

All earpieces have been replaced by a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black in colour, whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please only use the approved black earpieces. By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of a meeting. When you're not using your earpiece, please place it face down in the middle of the sticker for this purpose, which you will find on the table. Please consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.

The room layout has been adjusted to increase the distance between microphones and reduce the chance of feedback from an ambient earpiece.

These measures are in place so that we can conduct our business without interruption and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. Thank you all for your co-operation.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For members in the room, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your understanding in this regard. Also, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

We are resuming debate on the motion of Mr. Turnbull, the amendment of Mr. Hallan and the subamendment of Mr. Morantz. Going back to my speaking order, MP Morantz is not here, so I have MP Hallan next to speak.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the wonderful opportunity to be able to speak to Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, on behalf of the residents of Davenport, who I am so privileged to be able to represent.

I voiced support for Bill C-69 right off the bat for a very simple reason. As do many of us here, I want a better future for young Canadians, who are going through adulthood in a world that is plagued by crises ranging from war and climate change to global inequality and economic instability. Our federal government wants their hard work to be rewarded, as it has been for us.

We want them to see and believe that our country can work for them and for their future children. That is why budget 2024 is so important.

Budget 2024 is our plan to build a more resilient, affordable, inclusive Canada where every Canadian can afford to buy or rent their own home; where everyday bills are not a major source of stress; where corporations no longer take advantage of hard-working, middle-class families; and where everyone has a fair chance at a good middle-class life. Passing Bill C-69 is how we will arrive at that destination.

I am going to focus on three key sections of what is a very big budget implementation act, but I will say that the theme of the overall budget this year is fairness for every generation. While I might focus a lot on gen Z and the millennial generation, there is fairness for every generation in our budget and in our budget implementation act.

The first section I am going to talk about is with regard to cheaper Internet, home phone and cellphone plans. A major part of our plan is making life cost less.

Inflation has now been back within the Bank of Canada’s target range for three months in a row. However, more work is needed to help reduce the cost of living, including the cost of essential services in day-to-day life.

Last year, we made a commitment to reduce the cost of cellphone plans by 25%, as too many Canadians still pay far too much for their cellphones and Internet. That is why budget 2024 announces our intention to amend the Telecommunications Act, to better allow Canadians to renew or switch their Internet, home phone or cellphone plans.

Through these amendments, carriers would be prevented by the CRTC from charging Canadians extra fees to switch companies. In addition, they would be required to help customers identify new plans, including lower-cost plans that exist, at the end of a contract, and they would also have to provide a self-service option for customers to switch between or end their plans.

Together, these amendments would help more Canadians save money by getting fairer prices and paying fewer fees, no matter where they live. In addition, to ensure that Canadians can keep their expensive devices working for longer, budget 2024 announces that we will launch consultations this June to develop a right-to-repair framework with the goal of increasing product durability and repairability. On top of saving consumers money, this framework would aim to facilitate a more circular economy by reducing the number of products in landfills, a win-win if I have ever seen one.

The next thing I want to talk about is more affordable and modern banking. “Fairness for every generation” also means a banking system that is more flexible. We all know that banks charge a multitude of fees, from ATM fees to monthly service fees and non-sufficient funds fees, or NSF fees, which are charged when there is not enough money in a bank account to cover a cheque or pre-authorized transaction.

Budget 2024 states our intention to support Canadians who are struggling financially by introducing regulations that will cap these punitive fees at $10. These new regulations would also require banks to alert consumers when they are about to be charged an NSF fee, provide a grace period to deposit additional funds and restrict multiple fees for the same transaction and the number of fees that may be charged in a 72-hour period.

I know that a number of banks already do some of these things already. What we want to do is make this uniform right across all financial institutions in Canada.

Because more and more transactions happen online, our government is also working to modernize the services offered by Canadian banks to keep up with the needs of Canadians.

Budget 2024 announces that the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, or FCAC, is in negotiations with banks to secure enhanced agreements to offer modernized zero dollars per month and up to four dollars per month bank accounts that reflect today’s banking trends, including more transactions. This would especially help youth and students who are just opening their first bank accounts.

That is not all. Bill C-69 also includes legislative amendments to expand the mandate of the FCAC to supervise Canada’s consumer-driven banking framework. Budget 2024 proposes to provide $1 million to the FCAC to support preparation for its new responsibilities and to begin development of a consumer awareness campaign. It also proposes $4 million over three years to the Department of Finance to complete the policy work necessary to establish and maintain oversight over this framework, including a national security regime.

However, before we go any further, let me explain what this could mean for Canadians. Known to many as open banking, consumer-driven banking allows consumers and small businesses to safely transfer their financial data to service providers through a data-sharing channel known as an application programming interface, or API. This happens quite literally at the click of a button. Currently, an estimated nine million Canadians share their financial data by providing banks, credit unions and other providers with their confidential banking credentials. This process, known as screen scraping, is incredibly unsafe and puts both consumers and our entire financial system at risk.

A Canadian consumer-driven banking framework would empower Canadians to access and share their financial data without having to share access to their bank account. It would also provide access to new products and tools to help Canadians better manage bills, track a budget, make more informed financial decisions, secure a loan and even help young Canadians when it is time for them to buy their first home.

An era of open banking is here, and Canada deserves to be part of it. I would add that it cannot come too soon. We know that most countries around the world have already moved forward with open banking. Also, having spoken recently to the Canadian Bankers Association, I know it is very supportive of open banking and has indicated that open banking will also put a regulatory regime in place that will protect against fraud and other risks to Canadians online.

The last section I want to talk about is doing more to crack down on predatory lending. In terms of protecting Canadians, our federal government is also working to prevent more vulnerable individuals, like newcomers, low-income Canadians and youth, from being deceived and trapped by illegal lenders who try to bypass the criminal rate of interest. Last year, our federal government advanced amendments to change the definition of “criminal rate” in the Criminal Code from an effective annual rate of interest that exceeds 60% to an annual percentage rate, or APR, that exceeds 35%.

Building on these changes, federal budget 2024 proposes additional Criminal Code amendments against offering or advertising credit at a criminal rate of interest. These amendments empower law enforcement by prohibiting offering credit at a criminal rate of interest and allowing for prosecutions of illegal and predatory lenders without needing the approval of the Attorney General.

Federal budget 2024 also announces that we intend to work with provincial and territorial governments to harmonize and enhance consumer protection measures in respect of consumer lending, focusing in particular on high-cost loans and payday loans. Actions taken could include everything from capping the costs of optional insurance products for high-cost loans, including payday loans and strengthening payday loan regulations, to enhancing monitoring and data collection practices in the high-cost loan market. These proposed measures would limit the risk of harmful debt cycles and help more Canadians keep more of their hard-earned money in their pockets.

Our government is taking action to build a fairer Canada, with transformative measures that will give people back control over their personal finances and banking choices, cap banking fees and give Canadians better access to digital banking, lower-cost accounts and stronger consumer protection. We can unlock the promise of Canada so that younger generations can build a better life, as their parents and grandparents did before them, but we cannot do it alone.

I hope that my hon. colleagues will support Bill C-69 and join us in our vision of a better, brighter future.

The House resumed from May 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in today's debate in support of Bill C-69, the budget implementation act.

Today, too many young Canadians feel as though the deck is stacked against them. They can get a good job and work hard, but far too often the reward of a middle-class life, a life that is secure, comfortable and prosperous, remains out of reach.

That is why we are taking action today to ensure fairness for every generation, and why we are stimulating the kind of economic growth that will allow every generation of Canadians to reach their full potential.

To ensure every Canadian succeeds in the 21st century, we must grow our economy to be more innovative and more productive. To do this, the government's economic plan is investing in the technologies, incentives and supports that are critical to increasing productivity, fostering innovation and attracting more private investments in Canada. This is how we will build an economy that unlocks new pathways for every generation to earn their fair share.

A competitive economy is a clean economy. What better proof could there be than the $2.4-trillion in net-zero investments made around the world last year? Canada is at the forefront of the global race to attract investment and seize the opportunities that come with a clean economy.

That is also why our government announced an economic plan to achieve net-zero emissions that includes investments of more than $160 billion. The plan includes an unprecedented package of investment tax credits to help attract investment with incentives totalling $93 billion by 2034-35.

In budget 2024, the government announced the next steps in its plan to attract major investment to Canada to create well-paying jobs and to develop and deploy clean energy and technology faster.

The important piece of legislation that I am here to discuss today delivers two investment tax credits: the clean hydrogen and the clean technology manufacturing investment tax credits. Passing these two tax credits into law will secure a cleaner, more prosperous future for Canadians today and tomorrow.

The clean hydrogen investment tax credit would support investments in projects that produce clean hydrogen through eligible production pathways. This refundable tax credit, which would be available as of March 28, 2023, could be claimed when eligible equipment becomes available for use, at a credit rate that is based on the carbon intensity of the hydrogen that is produced.

The clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit would be available as of January 1, 2024. This is a refundable investment tax credit equal to 30% of the cost of investments in machinery and equipment used to manufacture or process key clean technologies, and extract, process or recycle certain critical minerals essential to clean technology supply chains.

Now we are coming to one of my favourite subjects, which is the mineral exploration tax credit and critical minerals. Another piece of important legislation in this bill includes the one-year extension of the mineral exploration tax credit. The mineral exploration tax credit provides important support to junior mineral exploration companies working to unlock Canada's incredible mineral wealth, creating jobs and growing our economy. This extension is expected to provide $65 million to support mineral exploration investment.

Our country's abundant minerals and metals play a key role in the Canadian economy. Canada has the talented workforce, the infrastructure, the innovation and the environmental management capacity to develop these natural resources sustainably. As a result, Canada can create well-paying jobs that contribute to economic growth.

By investing in mining and exploration, the government, through its economic plan, is helping to promote sustainable resource development, create good jobs, grow the economy and foster indigenous economic participation.

We also plan on further advancing indigenous economic participation through the indigenous loan guarantee program. An economy that is fair for everyone is one where everyone is able to fully participate.

With budget 2024, we are taking action to ensure indigenous communities are able to share in Canada's prosperity and benefit from the new opportunities ahead. Bill C-69 would help launch the indigenous loan guarantee program, with up to $5 billion in loan guarantees to unlock the access to capital for indigenous communities, create economic opportunities and support their economic development priorities.

Under this program, successful applicants will be able to obtain loans from financial institutions at lower interest rates.

The budget also provides for an investment of $16.5 million over two years to Natural Resources Canada, including $3.5 million over two years to provide funding for capacity building in indigenous communities. This investment will help indigenous communities apply for the program and support its implementation.

Establishing the indigenous loan guarantee program is a very important step towards indigenous self-determination as well as reconciliation between Canada and indigenous peoples.

The measures I touched on today will support our efforts to attract investment, increase productivity, boost innovation and create good-paying, meaningful jobs.

We are at a pivotal moment: We can choose to renew and double down on our investment in the economy of the future, choose to develop a more productive and competitive economy, or risk leaving an entire generation behind.

Let us not take that risk. We owe it to our businesses, to our innovators and, most of all, to the upcoming generations of workers to make sure that the Canadian economy is positioned to thrive in a changing world.

I urge all members to support the speedy passage of this bill so we can implement these important measures to support Canadians. I am thankful for the opportunity to make this case today.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Many people tune in to these meetings, and this meeting's been going on for quite some time. Some people tune in and then tune out. Some members come to sub in for other members. They come and then they leave, so it's a bit of a turnstile. A lot of people are coming and going, so I think it's important that from time to time we recap what we're actually talking about.

Earlier today, we had a regularly scheduled finance committee meeting. In the middle of the meeting, the Liberal member, Mr. Turnbull, tabled a motion on which there had been no consultation with our members. Apparently he had provided it to the NDP member of this committee. They were, I guess, collaborating to try to schedule meetings for this committee until the end of June.

The problem is that the Liberals got fewer votes than the Conservatives in both the 2019 and 2021 elections. They don't have a majority of members in the House of Commons, so for these committees to function properly, they need to collaborate with all members. They can't just be heavy-handed in their approach.

Therefore, Conservative members quite rightly protested. We said, “What is this?” They can't just hammer us with a motion that's going to program the next two months of meetings without consulting.

Because so many people are probably getting off work now, getting home, turning on their computers or looking at their phones, and logging into ParlVu in droves, I think we should remind them or at least bring them up to speed on what we're talking about.

This motion basically blew up the meeting. We had eight or 10 finance officials here to answer questions about the budget, which is massive. I don't know if people realize that it's a huge document. It has 659 pages and 468 clauses, so there are a lot of questions to ask that people want the answers to.

This motion that really derailed the democratic right of elected members of this committee to ask public officials about the budget was this: It starts with the words, “As relates to the committee's future business”.

What they're referring to there is the next couple of months of meetings, through to the end of June. That's the future business that this motion is specifically addressing, Mr. Chair.

It continues, “it be agreed that”. In other words, it's asking that all members agree—or at least the majority of members on this committee—and vote in favour of this motion that would program all of these meetings.

It's to agree that:

i. the committee dedicate its meeting on Thursday May 9th, 2024, to hearing from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, and officials, on the subject matter of Bill C-69.

That's fair enough. Of course, the finance minister should come to the committee. This is her budget, and she would certainly be able to answer a lot of questions for Canadians, particularly around the affordability crisis, the fact that housing prices have doubled under their watch, that inflation went up to 8% at one point under their watch, that the dream of home ownership has been destroyed by her government's policies and all that stuff. All those questions we could ask, as well as about whether she understands—well, I know she understands, but whether she appreciates—the fact that many economists have said that exorbitant government spending has clearly led to inflation, which has jacked up interest rates in this country.

There are many questions like that around monetary policy. I think she probably likes to think about monetary policy—I think she's a thoughtful person—and I know the Prime Minister doesn't, so somebody in cabinet better be thinking about monetary policy, and I think it's likely the Minister of Finance.

I think that paragraph i is reasonable.

By the way, as I go through this motion, Mr. Chair, I'm going to be incorporating the various amendments and subamendments, because people who have just tuned in after work need to understand exactly where we are in the story of this motion.

That brings me to paragraph ii. It says, “the committee dedicate its regular meetings on May 9th, 21st, 23rd, 28th, and 30th, 2024, to consideration of the subject matter study of Bill C-69”. Fair enough; that's the bill we're talking about here. It's the budget bill.

Then there's the subamendment that I added probably 45 minutes or an hour ago. We'll call it the Carney subamendment. It says that in the week of May 28, one meeting be dedicated to hearing from the Minister of Finance for two hours and one meeting be dedicated to hearing from Mark Carney for three hours.

Speaking about the subamendment for a second, what's really fascinating about this is that I know Mr. Davies is okay with this. He said it last week: “I look forward to Mr. Carney's coming to this committee at the appropriate time in the appropriate study, which can happen in the next two months.”

It's the words “in the appropriate study” that I find interesting, because Mr. Carney is going to be at a Senate committee tomorrow testifying on green finance, which is actually one of the subjects that is in the initial iteration of this motion. There we have what would be a great opportunity for my colleagues on this committee to ask Mr. Carney about green finance, and I don't see why they would object to that. I mean, their colleagues in the Senate will be asking questions about that tomorrow.

There are all kinds of reasons for Mr. Carney to appear before the committee, not the least of which is the fact that the Liberals and the New Democrats are trying to program a meeting on green finance, which Mr. Carney is an expert in, and he's going to be speaking at the Senate finance committee tomorrow. There you have it. It's hard for me to understand why that would be objectionable at all.

It goes on to say, “barring referral of the bill to committee”. I think it's somewhat awkwardly worded. It's probably not how I would have written it, but fair enough. It continues, “and that all evidence gathered as part of the pre-study be considered as evidence in the committee's full study of the bill, once referred to committee.” It's a bit jargonic. It has a bit of legalistic jargon there, but the bottom line is that the idea is to basically tell Conservatives, “We're going to program out these meetings and we don't really care what you think.”

I want to back up for one second to what I also find interesting. I really appreciate the fact, by the way, because I made a big deal of this last year, that Mr. Davies doesn't like omnibus bills either. I made the point earlier in this meeting that I think the classic example of why they're bad is the SNC-Lavalin affair. In this case, a clause was inserted in an omnibus bill just like this one for the specific purpose of giving one company a special deal for a deferred prosecution. I don't know whether such a clause exists in this bill. I would like to know, because it has happened before. The Liberals did it before. Mr. Davies doesn't like omnibus bills, and I don't either.

There used to be a time when the NDP was actually an opposition party in this country. Tom Mulcair would cross-examine the prime minister. He was very effective in question period. Jack Layton was an incredible opposition leader. May he rest in peace. I know he is sorely missed.

However, this iteration of the NDP will talk a big game. The New Democrats will talk about not liking omnibus budget bills. You know, I think the New Democrats make a good point when they say they didn't like the amount of the disability payments, but then they'll vote for the budget. They're going to vote for it, despite the fact that they don't like it.

It's a bit rich. I have a bit of trouble getting my head around that. People expect their elected officials to stand on principle. If you don't like something, don't vote for it. If you like something, vote for it. The worst of both worlds is to say that you don't like something and then go vote for it. It's kind of a weird situation, Mr. Chair.

Anyway, for those tuning in right now to this meeting to know what we're talking about, I'm going to go on to item iii of the motion, which says “that any amendments to the bill be submitted no later than 5:00 PM EST on Thursday, May 30th, 2024”. For those watching, what that means and what we're talking about is that the budget was introduced, but the budget isn't legislation. The government then tables a piece of legislation called a ways and means motion for the budget implementation act, which has, in this case, 468 clauses.

Members of this committee have the right to suggest changes or amendments. Every member of this committee has the right to do that, and then the committee will vote at some point on whether those changes are acceptable or not. At the end of the day, the committee fashions a bill that gets referred back to the House of Commons for more debates and more votes.

When it says “that any amendments to the bill be submitted no later than 5:00 PM EST on Thursday, May 30th”, what it's saying is that members like me; Mr. Hallan; my colleagues from the Liberal Party, Mr. Baker and Mr. Turnbull; and of course Mr. Davies can all draft amendments and submit them to the clerk. We will discuss those amendments and debate them.

I think I have that right, Mr. Clerk, don't I? Thank you.

For those watching, that's a very important aspect of this motion. The ability of elected members to actually have an input on the content of the budget bill is fundamentally important to the democratic process. I really appreciate that part as well.

Then it says, under item iv, “clause-by-clause consideration of the bill start no later than 12:00 PM EST on June 3rd, 2024, and that the chair be empowered to set up extended hours and request additional House resources on that day”.

What does clause-by-clause consideration mean? If you're just tuning in.... I'm sure that people aren't really familiar with all of our jargon and what actually goes on. Even though it's a 468-clause bill, we're going to go through every one of them, every single clause. That's why it's called clause-by-clause consideration. We're going to vote. We're all going to have the opportunity to vote. It's part of the democratic process to vote on every single clause. Just like we did last year—and I'm hoping that we will do it again this year—we will actually vote on every single clause, one by one.

I think that's really the most democratic way that we can do it, because that's what we're sent here to do. We're sent here to vote and to represent our constituents. It's the most important thing that we're sent here to do: to vote and to represent our constituents and bring their concerns to the table. The budget is obviously the signature piece of legislation of any government throughout the year. It's a prime time to meet our constituents where they are, to bring their concerns to the budget. Clause-by-clause consideration is a very, very important part.

I think we're going to need a lot of time for it, Mr. Chair, because it will take quite a bit of time to debate and vote on 468 clauses. I'm really looking forward to it, I have to say. I know it's long hours, but I know Conservatives aren't afraid of long hours. We'll stay here morning, noon and night to talk about every single clause to make sure that Canadians are getting the best representation that they can possibly get through the clause-by-clause process.

This brings me to item v, which says that following the completion of the study of Bill C-69, there will be no fewer than two meetings on the study of proceeds of crime and money laundering, a very important study.

I guess it has been proposed to be amended out. We haven't voted on all of this yet, but there's the possibility of a continuation of an existing study we're doing—I think it was Daniel Blaikie's study—on what they call the “financialization of housing”. This is the idea that somehow people are trading houses like they trade stocks on the stock market, but we know that's not true. The vast majority of homes are used for people's residences. They're not trading homes like they are shares in bank stocks. It's a woke approach to the whole real estate market to call it “financialization of housing”, but we'll entertain them and let them talk about their little financialization thing.

Then there's this other issue I talked about earlier. The former governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Carney, is going to be in the Senate tomorrow to talk about the state of play on green finance. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Davies said last week, “I look forward to Mr. Carney's coming to this committee at the appropriate time in the appropriate study”, which can happen in the next two months. If he's talking about the state of play on green finance at the Senate and if the committee decides we're going to have meetings on the state of play on green finance, I don't see any reason that Mr. Davies would object to his coming for that meeting.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

This is actually exactly where I'm going with this.

Mark Carney has, in fact, presented a number of topics that I think are quite relevant. He's done a variety of podcasts that I've had an opportunity to listen to. Subamending this motion to have Mark Carney come will allow us to be able to hear his thoughts and opinions not only on the impacts of the budget, on which we desperately need to hear from him, but also on a variety of other topics. He hasn't limited his views and his sharing to just fiscal policy or monetary policy. We have some questions regarding what the housing policy would be under him. I think all Canadians deserve to understand this.

I understand that the Liberals don't necessarily want to have us go into these spaces, but it's worth noting that he is planning to attend the Senate committee tomorrow, so it is not as though he is somehow afraid of attending a committee. He's more than well versed. I believe there are very few people who have attended the finance committee more times than Mark Carney did in his former role as the Governor of the Bank of Canada. It comes back down to this being a programming motion that is trying to stifle debate.

When I look through the budget, being a northern Alberta member of Parliament, I always look at the budget forecast for West Texas Intermediate, which is the crude oil price, to see what the government expects will be their price for selling crude. This government, which has had no qualms about expressing its distaste for and absolute hatred of, in many cases, Alberta's energy industry and Canada's world-class energy industry, puts the budget forecast at $78 across the board all the way to 2028. It's worth noting, and I've noted it in speeches in the chamber, that the Government of Alberta, which is actually a proponent of oil and gas, was criticized for its rosy outlook on West Texas Intermediate when they put it at $74 a barrel. I highlight this fact because these are all questions on which we need to hear from people, and we need to hear specifically from Mark Carney. I'd love to hear his opinion on whether $78 U.S. is a good number and where he believes they would have found such forecasting or whether he, as someone who is very up and current on a variety of the monetary and fiscal policies of this country and around the world, has any publicly available information and whether he thinks that's a responsible number or that it actually means our deficit is even larger than what has been presented in this current budget. That's one of the big pieces. Frankly that is a large stake in terms of where the budget comes from.

Another thing that I think is worth highlighting in this piece of legislation is that they plan to change the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which on the surface seems okay. However, as I read through it, I'm very curious as to whether this is just an attack on Saskatchewan for refusing to charge people in Saskatchewan the punishing carbon tax. We don't have an opportunity to even have those conversations, because the NDP-Liberal government has decided that they're going to ram through a programming motion.

I think every person in Saskatchewan deserves to have an answer as to exactly what that will mean for them and whether there will be major implications for their provincial Crown. This is a piece of legislation that is not going to have just a small impact on a few people's lives; this is going to have an impact on the life of every single Canadian.

I've had the opportunity, in the last few weeks, to talk to a number of students from right across my riding. The number one concern that was brought up by these students was the cost of living crisis. The number two concern brought to me by these students was their frustration with the fact that members of the NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc seem to attack our energy industry at every opportunity. They don't understand why they hate our region, why they hate the economic driver of not just my riding but also of Alberta's economy as well as Canada's economy.

As I've cited, the Liberal-NDP government has no problem using a very high forecast number for WTI and they have no problem taking the money from the oil industry; they just have a problem supporting the industry and allowing it to grow in any capacity.

We have seen this very clearly with the number of world leaders who have come to the Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, asking him for LNG, Canadian liquefied natural gas. The answer from this Prime Minister time and time again is that there is no business case. This allows countries like Germany, Poland, Japan and others to continue to have to buy their energy from dirty dictators, which fuels Putin's war machine.

I think this is an absolutely insane space, but that is exactly what this Liberal government has done every time it says no to a business case on this. Effectively, by opposing clean Canadian energy, we are supporting Putin. That is exactly what we are doing here. This is something that the finance committee needs to get to the bottom of, going line by line through this budget, to actually ensure that there are no unintended consequences.

However, we know that there are going to be unintended consequences because history is a good predictor of what we're going to see. We know this government has previously hidden things in its budget. This isn't a conspiracy theory or something out of the blue; this is something that has happened in the past.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity that I've had to speak on this bill. I do think that this is critically important.

I think it is also an interesting space. I understand that numbers matter when it comes to Parliament. This is Bill C-69. In my riding, most people don't understand or pay attention to bills. They don't really care about the numbers of the bills. They might possibly know the names of them, but almost every single person you talk to.... Mr. Chair, if you were to come to my riding and talk to people on the street—actively canvass people—and you said “C-69”, they would say, “No more pipelines; that is shameful”. In my area and across northeastern Alberta, they understand the punishing impacts that the bill carried. The fact that this government decided to choose that same number for this budget implementation act shows an absolute distaste for Albertans and the impact that the anti-pipeline bill had on Alberta families and on the hard-working energy workers who keep the lights on and the heat on in our -50° winters.

It is just another point of proof to the hard-working people throughout my riding and throughout Alberta that this government doesn't consider them when it's making decisions. That is quite unfortunate.

With that, I will pass my time on to my next colleague.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will speak to the proposed subamendment in the context of the amendment. I will start by saying a few words about the amendment.

For me, the dates that Mr. Hallan is proposing would enable us to do a better job of studying Bill C‑69. The proposal that the deadline for sending amendments be Thursday, May 30, seems fine to me. I don't feel that the proposal that the clause-by-clause study of the bill begin on June 3 would delay the process very much, since it only adds one week, which is a minimum, in my opinion.

I would like to remind my fellow committee members that, normally, when we study the budget implementation bill, we sit throughout the May constituency week to meet with witnesses. If we don't do it this time, at a minimum we'll have to make up an extra week.

Having said that, Mr. Hallan is proposing four meetings to study proceeds of crime and money laundering. I am certainly interested in this important topic, but other matters have been raised that deserve the committee's attention. So I think we should have a discussion about that.

Concerning the subamendment proposed by Mr. Morantz, as I said at previous meetings, I would like to hear from Mark Carney, for whom I have enormous respect and who has significant political experience. It would really be worthwhile to hear from him on the issues that come under our committee's purview.

I especially hope that we will be able to come to an agreement in committee. I hope the parties negotiate to come to an agreement during this time of debate. Otherwise, we will remain at an impasse; I can tell you from experience because that's how it is every year. Until the parties talk to each other, we won't come to an agreement. Everyone has to do their part.

I am less directly interested in the topics that will be selected for study after Bill C-69. I want to remind committee members that a key measure in the budget, which would help minimize the deficit, is the changes to the tax treatment of capital gains. However, it is not in the notice of ways and means motion or in Bill C-69.

I don't know if this is the case for everyone, but my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I have been receiving tonnes of emails, phone calls, interpretations and requests for meetings on this subject. For the time being, we can respond that the details are in the budget, but that there is still no bill on the matter. Can we make sure that this other bill will be fair to everyone and that we will be able to study it and improve it? This other bill will be referred to the committee by the time Parliament rises in June. In my opinion, once the committee has studied this potential bill, in addition to Bill C‑69, we will almost be in the summer recess of Parliament.

In closing, I would like to remind my committee colleagues that this is something of a Groundhog Day situation right now. The government has appointed a lot of parliamentary secretaries to the Minister of Finance. Every time there is a new one, it seems as though everything starts over again: We proceed in a cavalier manner, and the rebuttal results in endless hours of debate, unproductive hours, as long as there is no parallel negotiation between the various parties, between the Liberals and the Conservatives. I can tell you from experience that it can go on for days and days. So I hope that the various parties will come to an agreement as quickly as possible so that we can work on Bill C-69.

On that point, we have only had one of the two hours planned with senior officials for parts 1 to 3 of the bill. I hope we can invite them back for at least another hour. For example, if we reached an agreement before Thursday, we could have the minister for an hour on Thursday and the officials we had today for the second hour. As for studying part 4 of the bill, since it contains so many provisions and raises a lot of questions, it would take at least two hours. That would be the minimum in terms of the time proposed here.

I hope my proposal has been heard. I urge the Liberals, their parliamentary secretary and the Conservatives to negotiate quickly.

Mr. Chair, I would ask that the debate be adjourned while they negotiate.

Thank you.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, holy smokes, four out of five are voting in Kingston and the Islands.

Division 38 of Bill C-69 is where the Liberals have put in some amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act with respect to sending detained immigrants to federal penitentiaries. Not only are jails the most expensive way to house a person in this country, but human rights groups like Amnesty International have been sounding the alarm about this. At a time when all 10 provinces have already committed to ending their immigration detention agreements, instead of following the provinces' lead and working to end immigration detention, why is the federal government planning to use federal prisons for immigration detention?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Given the fact that we had to suspend to go up to question period, I thought it would be appropriate to take some time to recap where we're at, for those watching.

Essentially, what happened earlier today was that a Liberal member proposed a motion—a programming motion, as we call them—to basically set out for the committee what we're going to be meeting on through to just before the summer. It was unfortunate, because that member never spoke to Conservative members on the committee to say that they were going to do this.

What was really surprising—because they talk a lot about working together and keep asking why we can't just all get along— was that what they did was kind of sneaky, Mr. Chair. They actually gave a copy of the motion to the NDP member of this committee last night. I know that because he told us. He had a chance to read it.

Obviously the Liberals must have been working on it for a while. They said that they wanted to make sure they had the votes to carry it, but instead of coming to us to see if we might support something like that or at least talk about what we're going to do for the next couple of months, they just went to their coalition partner and said to vote for this. He was happy to oblige them.

Just to recap, so that people who are watching understand, I think it would be appropriate to go through that motion.

Mr. Hallan proposed some amendments, so I'm going to try to capture the motion with those amendments.

It starts off with the sentence, “As relates to the committee's future business, it be agreed that”. The future business that they're talking about is the meetings that are going to take place over the next five or six weeks through to the end of June, when the House will rise for the summer.

Then it says, “i. the committee dedicate its meeting on Thursday, May 9th”—which is in just a couple of days—“to hearing from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, and officials, on the subject matter study of Bill C-69”.

That clause seems reasonable on the face of it, but what's really sad about it is that it talks about meeting with officials. What I think folks watching need to understand is that we had 10 finance committee officials in this room this morning, sitting right here. I know that I was burning the midnight oil preparing my questions. Apparently the Liberals and Mr. Davies were burning the midnight oil cooking up a programming motion plot that has thrust this committee into a filibuster. It's really too bad. It's really unfortunate.

In any event, we had them here and I had questions. I had questions about the short-term rentals, about the journalism tax credit and about the so-called independent advisory board, which is a board that is appointed by the partisan Liberal cabinet. How independent could it possibly be?

I had a question about that, but I didn't get to ask it. Do you know why? Because the Liberals proposed a unilateral programming motion without consulting us, so here we are.

I had questions about the small business carbon rebate. For example, why is it only given to CCPCs? For those watching, I know we throw around a lot of acronyms at this committee. That stands for “Canadian-controlled private corporation”. This completely ignores sole proprietors and partnerships, which are apparently left out. At least, that's the question I wanted to ask to clarify, but I never got the chance to ask it because the Liberals decided to blow up the committee today.

It's really just a very unfortunate set of circumstances, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to ask about the underused housing tax credit. It's been in place for three years. I was curious as to whether or not anyone had paid the $10,000 fine that they're now backing off from. They're reducing it to $2,000. Do those people get their money back? I was going to ask that.

I wanted to ask about the $5,000 fine that individuals were getting for not meeting their filing requirements, which they're now backing off from as well. The underused housing tax is another file that has been messed up by the Liberals for sure.

I was going to ask a couple of other things. I was going to ask about the AMT—the alternative minimum tax—and about what they call “tax relief”. Only in Liberal land can a tax increase be tax relief, Mr. Chair. The excise tax went up by 2% and they cast it as tax relief. The mental gymnastics you have to go through to increase a tax and call it “tax relief” are amazing. It's quite astounding. I wanted to ask about that, but I didn't get the chance.

Here we are, then. It's “only” a 600-page bill, by the way, with 468 clauses. There is a lot of ground to cover. It's an omnibus bill, which is always problematic. There are things in there amending the Criminal Code. I don't know, but people might wonder why the Criminal Code is being amended at the finance committee. There are all kinds of things in there that really shouldn't be in a budget bill, but it's what the government does when they want to get everything, including the kitchen sink, through the House of Commons: They throw it into a budget bill.

That's how we wound up with the SNC-Lavalin scandal, by the way. People shouldn't forget. We need to remind them regularly. I know Mr. Erskine-Smith remembers very well that the clause to provide a deferred prosecution agreement was buried in a bill like this at the finance committee. What was it doing there? I don't know. The committee members probably didn't even know what it was doing there. Maybe someone asked a question about it. I wasn't elected then. No one thought there would be a clause put in a budget bill for the benefit of one single corporation. However, there was.

That's why it's important that we have the opportunity to ask questions about these bills. That's a question I asked last year and that I'd like to ask again. Is there a clause among these 468 clauses in this 659-page bill for the specific benefit of one company or one person? Again, I didn't get the chance to ask that question this morning.

That's part i of the motion. There is a lot to unpack there, but I'm going to move on to part ii.

Part ii says:

the committee dedicate its regular meetings on May 9th, 21st, and 23rd, [and with Mr. Hallan's amendment] 28th and 30th, 2024, to consideration of the subject matter study of Bill C-69, barring referral of the bill to committee; and that all evidence gathered as part of the pre-study be considered as evidence in the committee's full study of the bill, once referred to committee.

Then there's part iii. It says:

that any amendments to the bill be submitted no later than 5:00 PM EST on Thursday, May 30th, 2024

Part iv says:

clause-by-clause consideration of the bill start no later than 12:00 PM EST on June 3rd, 2024, and that the chair be empowered to set up extended hours and request additional House resources on that day

Mr. Hallan asked that the rest of part iv be struck. What he is asking to be struck—because it's important that folks watching know what we're voting on—are the following words:

if the committee has not completed clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 11:00 AM on May 28th, 2024, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate, on all remaining clauses and proposed amendments, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, as well as all questions necessary to report the bill to the House and to order the chair to report the bill to the House as soon as possible

If this motion as amended were to pass, those words would be struck.

Then there's part v. It says:

following the completion of the study of Bill C-69, the committee dedicate two meetings on its study on the financialization of housing, followed by no less than two meetings to consider the draft report on the current state of play on green finance, green investment, transition finance and transparency, standards and taxonomy

Those words would be struck under Mr. Hallan's amendment.

Then part vi says:

the committee dedicate its regular meetings on the week of June 17th, 2024, on the committee's study on inflation in the current Canadian economy.

The provision I want to circle back to is part ii.

There's been a lot of discussion about whether we could have Mark Carney appear at this committee.

I just note that I'm assuming that Mr. Davies will support this idea, because just last week he said, “I look forward to Mr. Carney's coming to this committee at the appropriate time in the appropriate study, which can happen in the next two months.” He is on side with the idea of Mr. Carney's coming to this committee.

Why are Conservatives asking for this? Well, Mr. Carney has been on the lecture circuit. He's been making speeches. He's been making speeches on government policy, and he's been critical of government policy in some aspects and supportive in others. He supports the inflationary deficit spending of this government, a government that doubled the national debt in eight years, which is quite a feat. The total federal debt from 1867 to the day this government was elected in 2015 was $616 billion. Now, it's over $1.2 trillion. The fiscal irresponsibility of this government is really astounding.

Mr. Carney apparently supports those deficits, though, according to his speeches. He also supports the carbon tax, and that's another reason we'd like to have him here, because I think Canadians deserve to know how much he wants to jack up the carbon tax on them. There are questions that we would have for him, and it's also clear that Mr. Carney wants to be the leader of the Liberal Party. He is anything but a random Liberal. He is likely the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, and I think Canadians deserve to hear what he thinks, and that's why we would like him to come to this committee. It's so that we can ask him a few questions.

It is clear that he is angling for that position. He may not want to axe the tax, Mr. Chair, but it's very clear that he wants to axe the Prime Minister. I think that if he wants to be the leader of the Liberal Party, it's time for him to come here and answer a few questions. It's not like he hasn't been to the finance committee before; he was the Governor of the Bank of Canada. He is very familiar with this environment, and I'm sure he would do quite well here.

With all that, what I'm leading to is to introduce a subamendment, Mr. Chair. My subamendment is to clause ii. I'll read it.

The words I would like to add come after the words “to consideration of the subject matter study of Bill C-69,”. After the comma, I would like to add the following words: “the week of the 28th one meeting be dedicated to hearing from the Minister of Finance for two hours and one meeting be dedicated to hear from Mark Carney for three hours”, and then the rest of the clause, starting with the words “barring referral” and ending at the last word of the clause, the word “committee”, would remain intact. Again, it's inserting the words after “Bill C-69,”: “the week of the 28th, one meeting be dedicated to hearing from the Minister of Finance for two hours and one meeting be dedicated to hear from Mark Carney for three hours”.

I don't know if this has been circulated yet or if the clerk has seen it and it's in translated form.

I'm getting the thumbs-up, so we've met all of our procedural obligations with respect to this amendment.

I'm putting that subamendment on the floor for further consideration, and I'm sure it will be an interesting debate.

With that, I am going to cede the floor for the time being to the next speaker, but I'm going to ask my friend Mr. Clerk to add my name back on to the speakers list for later. Thank you.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to lend my voice today in support of Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, 2024. This budget is about what kind of country we want to live in and what kind of country we want to build together.

For generations, Canada has been a place where everyone could secure a better future for themselves and their children, and where a growing economy created opportunities for everyone to succeed. However, to ensure every Canadian succeeds in the 21st century, we know that we must grow our economy to make it more innovative, productive and sustainable. We must build an economy where every Canadian can reach their full potential, where every entrepreneur has the tools needed to grow their business and where hard work pays off.

Building the economy of the future is about creating jobs in the knowledge economy, in manufacturing, in mining and forestry, in the trades, in clean energy and across the economy in all regions of the country. To do this, our government's economic plan is investing in the technologies, incentives and supports critical to increasing productivity, fostering innovation and attracting more private investment to Canada. This is how we will build an economy that unlocks new pathways for every generation to earn their fair share. Bill C-69 is a crucial step in opening up these new pathways.

Bill C-69 takes us forward on the understanding that, in the 21st century, a competitive economy is a clean economy. There is no greater proof than the 2.4 trillion dollars' worth of investment made around the world last year alone in the transition to net-zero economies. Experts say we are at a global inflection point, with clean energy investments surpassing investments in conventional energy, with the cost of renewable technology dropping significantly, including wind, solar and heat pumps, as technology advancements are made and deployed at scale, and with companies that outperform their peers in decarbonizing more competitive and yielding higher returns for stakeholders.

As the big anchor investment decisions around the globe are being made to secure the global supply chains for the emerging clean economy, we need to ensure Canada is best positioned to compete and lead the way by seizing the massive opportunities to attract investment and generate economic growth that will bring decades of prosperity. That is why our government is putting Canada at the forefront of the global race to attract investment and seize the opportunities of the clean economy with a net-zero economic plan that will invest over $160 billion to maintain and extend our lead in this global race.

The cornerstone of our plan is an unprecedented suite of major economic investment tax credits, which will help attract investment through $93 billion in incentives by the year 2034-35. That includes carbon capture, utilization and storage, the clean technology investment tax credit, the clean hydrogen investment tax credit, the clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit, clean electricity and, added in budget 2024, an EV supply chain investment tax credit. These investment tax credits will provide businesses and other investors with the certainty they need to invest and build here in Canada. They are already attracting major job-creating projects, ensuring we remain globally competitive.

For example, just a couple of weeks ago, I attended the announcement in Alliston, Ontario, where Honda made the largest investment in Canadian automotive history, investing over $15 billion. This is a huge vote of confidence in our economy. Out of all the countries in the world, Honda chose Canada to build its comprehensive, end-to-end EV supply chain, which will mean thousands of good-paying jobs for decades to come. The federal investment tax credits were essential in remaining competitive and securing that generational investment. From new clean electricity projects that will provide clean and affordable energy to Canadian homes and businesses to carbon capture projects that will decarbonize heavy industry, our major economic investment tax credits are moving Canada forward on its track to achieve a net-zero economy by 2050.

In November 2023, our government introduced Bill C-59 to deliver the first two investment tax credits and provide businesses with the certainty they need to make investment decisions in Canada today. That bill also included labour requirements to ensure workers are paid prevailing union wages and apprentices have opportunities to gain experience and succeed in the workforce.

With Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, 2024, we would be making two more of these major economic investment tax credits a reality to attract more private investment, create more well-paying jobs and grow the economy.

First, it would implement the 30% clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit, which would be available as of January 1, 2024. This is a refundable investment tax credit for clean technology manufacturing and processing, and extraction and processing of key critical minerals equal to 30% of the capital cost of eligible property associated with eligible activities.

Investments by corporations in certain depreciable property that is used for eligible activities would qualify for the credit. Eligible property would generally include machinery and equipment used in manufacturing, processing or critical mineral extraction, as well as related control systems.

Eligible investments would cover activities that will be key to securing our future, including things like the manufacture of certain renewable energy equipment like solar, wind, water or geothermal. It would cover the manufacturing of nuclear energy equipment and electrical energy storage equipment used to provide grid-scale storage. It would cover the manufacturing of equipment for air and ground storage heat pump systems; the manufacturing of zero-emission vehicles, including the conversion of on-road vehicles; as well as the manufacturing of batteries, fuel cells, recharging systems and hydrogen refuelling stations for zero-emision vehicles, not to mention the manufacturing of equipment used to produce hydrogen from electrolysis. These are the technologies that will power our future.

Bill C-69's clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit would power the investment that is needed to build them today and build them here at home.

The bill would also make the clean hydrogen investment tax credit a reality, which would exclusively support investments in projects that produce clean hydrogen through eligible production pathways. This refundable tax credit would be available as of March 28, 2023, and could be claimed when eligible equipment becomes available for use at an applicable credit rate that is based on the carbon intensity of the hydrogen that is produced.

Eligible equipment could include, but is not limited to, the equipment required to produce hydrogen from electrolysis of water, including electrolyzers, rectifiers and other ancillary electrical equipment; water treatment and conditioning equipment; and certain equipment used for hydrogen compression and storage. Certain equipment required to produce hydrogen from natural gas or other eligible hydrocarbons, with emissions abated using carbon capture, utilization and storage, would also be eligible. Property that is required to convert clean hydrogen to clean ammonia may also be eligible for the credit, subject to certain conditions, at a credit rate of 15%.

It is important to realize that these clean economy investment tax credits work to incentivize investment and remain competitive but also do not stand alone. They are just part of the tool box that also includes legislation like the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act; the Canadian sustainable jobs act and amendments to CEPA, which is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act; regulations like the clean fuel regulations, the carbon pricing and oil and gas emissions cap; programs like the strategic innovation fund and many others; and the blended finance utilities that the government has launched, including the Canada growth fund and the Canada Infrastructure Bank. These all work together, and that is why we are seeing the results we are seeing.

Bill C-69's support for these investments comes at a pivotal moment when we can choose to renew and redouble our investments in the economy of the future, to build an economy that is more productive and more competitive, or risk leaving an entire generation behind.

With Bill C-69, we would not make that mistake. Our major economic investment tax credits are moving Canada forward on its track to achieve a net-zero economy by 2050. I could not be more proud of our work in this area.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. I thank the hon. member from Calgary Centre for his remarks this afternoon as we debate Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, and the measures contained therein.

We have heard a lot of chatter today in the conversation about Canada's growth profile and where our economy is going, so let us talk about that and go down that path for a minute or two. First, in terms of the IMF forecasts that were released in April, about a week or two ago, Canada will be number two in growth in 2024 with a 1.2% growth rate forecast. For 2025, the economic growth forecast for Canada in the G7 is in the top spot, ahead of the United States, ahead of Germany and ahead of the U.K., France, Italy and Japan, at roughly 2.3%.

This is very important, because it means that we have fully recovered from COVID, which we know we have, and that our economy is growing. In terms of global inflation and high rates, I anticipate in the months ahead we will see some rate cuts from the Bank of Canada. That is my personal opinion of course. However, a lot of headwinds are past us. We know we have much work to do, but we are seeing now, from the IMF, from Moody's and even from the Bank of Canada governor, currently, what our prognostications are for the Canadian economy.

When we look at Canada's fiscal position, and I spoke about it in a debate a week or two ago, our fiscal deficit in Canada is just over 1% of GDP. When I compare that to other jurisdictions, including the United States, the United States is at 7%, China is at 6% and many of the European countries are at 4%, 5% or 6%, so at this point where we are in the economic cycle and the growth cycle, a deficit-to-GDP of around 1% is very prudent. It maintains our AAA credit rating, and it allows us to undertake strategic investments in Canadians because, as we know, confident governments invest in Canadians and invest in Canada. That is what our government has been doing.

I will read very quickly the comment from the Bank of Canada governor on May 2, 2024, to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, it says, “growth in the economy looks to be picking up. We expect GDP growth to be solid this year and to strengthen further in 2025.” He also noted that “Overall, we forecast GDP growth in Canada of 1.5% this year and about 2% in 2025 and 2026. The strengthening economy will gradually absorb excess supply through 2025 and into 2026.”

There are some further comments, in terms of interest rates: “I realize that what most Canadians want to know is when we are going to reduce our policy interest rate. The short answer is we are getting closer. We are seeing what we need to see. We just need to see it for longer to be confident that progress toward price stability will be sustained.”

These are very important remarks from the Bank of Canada governor. As many folks know, I did my graduate degree in economics at the University of Toronto. I worked in the financial markets for 20-plus years in Toronto and in New York City, and I understand this well. I have seen many cycles, including the 2008-09 crash, the real estate boom and the tech boom and bust when I worked in New York City, so I have gone through those experiences, understanding full well macroeconomic cycles and the microeconomic policies that underpin them. I know full well where the economy is going, and the Canadian economy is going in the right direction.

There is always work to do, but we are going in the right direction.

As many may know, for a number of years I spent some time at a rating agency. Moody's on May 2, and I printed off its release, affirmed Canada's AAA credit rating. It says, “Moody's view [is] that Canada's significant credit strengths will continue to preserve its Aaa-rated sovereign credit profile.” We are one of only three or four countries in the world that has a AAA credit rating from two agencies. The United States does not have a AAA credit rating from S&P, I believe. The report says this is “underpinned by its high economic strength and very strong institutions and governance.”

As I read further in the release, it says, “these factors provide Canada with a strong foundation for future growth and a very high degree of economic resiliency to potential shocks, supported by robust monetary, macroeconomic and fiscal policy frameworks”, which is stuff I like to read about a lot.

It further states:

In addition, Canada's credit profile has very limited susceptibility to event risks, supported by stable political institutions, a strong and well-regulated banking system, and reserve currency status which underscores the government's deep and unfettered market access.

The next part is very important, and I know the member for Calgary Centre will appreciate this. It reads, “At the same time, despite an initial sharp deterioration in the government's fiscal position from the pandemic”, and that is when when we were there for Canadians and had their backs and the backs of businesses to ensure we would come out strong and robust, “Canada's debt ratios have since materially improved and the government is pursuing a gradual path of medium-term fiscal consolidation that will mitigate the impact of higher global interest rates on debt affordability and the sovereign's overall fiscal strength.”

The individuals who write these reports and do the analysis know what they are doing. They do it on a relative basis. They know Canada's fiscal position in the world, our relative strength and our economic outlook, and it is robust. Yes, we have work to do. Yes, Canadians are and have felt the pressure of global inflation on their pocketbooks, absolutely, but we continue to make those investments that we know will make a positive impact on the standard of living and on the lives of people not only today but into the future.

Let us just talk about some of those investments.

The Canadian dental care program has over 8,000 dentists signed up from coast to coast to coast, and tens of thousands of Canadians have received benefits. If there was one program that the seniors in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge asked for these last eight years it was to implement a dental care program. When many Canadians retire, they do not carry benefits into their retirement years, such as dental benefits, and they are forced to pay out of pocket for private insurance. However, this program is a game-changer, and we will see the benefits of it for years to come. Dental care is health care.

We can look at the national early learning and child care strategy, a $30-billion investment over a number of years to bring down the cost child care to an average of $10 per day in province of Ontario, and I have the privilege to represent one of the ridings in that province. By September 2025, on average, we will see $10-a-day child care.

My family and I were blessed to have a child later on in our years. I have seen the savings that are being delivered to residents in the riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge and across Ontario. We are saving up to $8,500 a year in child care expenses, and these are before tax dollars. It is a real savings.

We introduced the Canada child benefit, which is lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. We are no longer sending cheques to millionaires. This benefit is monthly, tax-free to families. In my riding, it is about $80 million a year the last time I checked.

In terms of growing the economy, ensuring that we see inclusive economic growth so that Canadians from coast to coast to coast benefit from it, we lift all boats in a higher standard of living. We are seeing the investments in the auto sector, with over $46 billion of announced investments in a key sector of the economy, a key sector in manufacturing, in research and development, and in IP. It is happening.

We are partnering with the provincial government, we are getting it done. I look forward to attending more announcements, much like the Honda announcement, with $15 billion being announced in Ontario's economy for manufacturing plants. Thousands of jobs will be maintained. Thousands of jobs will be created. These are the stories we need to tell, because we know that in Canada the best years are ahead of us.

We know that Canadians need help with global inflation, but I am optimistic. We are on the right path. We are on a path to maintain our standard of living and to raise it, and to ensure that all our kids, including my three daughters, have a bright and prosperous future in this beautiful country we are blessed to call home.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

Three weeks ago today, the government's Minister of Finance delivered Canada's budget for this fiscal year. Today we are debating the budget implementation bill. In the current Parliament, it has been titled Bill C-69. That is a vile title. The last Parliament that lasted long enough to get to 69 government bills was the 42nd Parliament, the Liberal government's first Parliament.

It has been downhill ever since. The Liberal government thrives on divide-and-conquer misinformation narratives in order to keep Canadians unfocused on how much worse this country's prospects have become after nine years of aimless management. I say “aimless” benevolently, as if the Prime Minister and his flock do not actually know the harm they are causing the economy and the country.

However, I worry that it is much worse. I worry that Canada being the first post-nation state means we dismantle all that Canada has stood for, all that Canadians value in their institutions and all that new Canadians strive to be part of as they seek to build a new life in this once great nation.

After nine years, we are far less than we have been. Our economy is the sick child of the G7. Our international standing in the world has suffered greatly. Our friends no longer see us as a dependable ally. Our military is limping along, and we continue to underfund our capabilities in what is clearly becoming a more dangerous, less secure world. The world is now seeing more conflict than it has seen since the end of the Second World War, almost 80 years ago.

The Liberal government remains oblivious to what is on the horizon, because it is content to navel gaze and mislead Canadians about where we actually stand in the world.

Bill C-69 still has a clang to it that has crystallized what has been misguided about the government from its outset. The last Bill C-69, from six years ago, was successfully challenged all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. There, finally, the constitutionally offensive parts of the legislation were overruled. However, that was a legal journey that took years.

It was as if it could not be foreseen and avoided. We had years of divisiveness in this country, of project delays and of holding back taxpaying sectors of Canada's economy while shovelling money out the door to well-connected insiders. We had years of economic destruction and of watching our closest competitors move forward in a rapidly changing world while Canada's opportunities were held back. We had years of the Liberal government feeding propagandists billions of taxpayer dollars to trumpet its recycled narrative, to no benefit for the country but much benefit to the pockets of connected insiders.

The previous Bill C-69 was a vile affront like no other, and this one can only pale in comparison.

Budget 2024, as delivered, was a 416-page document, with lots of back-patting and nonsensical narratives, plus a 74-page supplement. It was entitled, “Fairness for Every Generation.” What a great marketing slogan that is. Was the title because excessive overspending would affect every Canadian equally badly? I would caution that it is particularly bad for young Canadians, those who are being saddled with paying for the cost of $1.3 trillion of Canadian debt, which is growing with no end in sight.

How do we tell new Canadians or those entering the workforce, “Congratulations, you are now inheriting your share of debt for money thrown away by a spendy government that knew nothing about fiscal management”? It is $30,000 per head, in addition to the provincial debt that, in many cases, doubles that number; their mortgage debt, if they are lucky enough to own a home; and their student debt, consumer debt and auto debt payments. Is it any wonder that Canadians are considered some of the most indebted people in the world?

Many times, I have clearly stated in the House that the metric the government tries to use, the debt-to-GDP ratio, is neither comparatively useful nor, in fact, honest. It tries to re-collect the amounts that Canadians have had deducted from their paycheques specifically for their retirement, both in the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan. The government pretends that those amounts, over $800 billion, should be used as collateral for the government.

It does not work that way elsewhere, but the Liberal government is content to mislead Canadians so they can use this in their justification of showing financial prudence. It is dishonest.

If the government's backup plan for maintaining fiscal stability in the future is to take back, and I should say “steal back”, the funds Canadians believe belong to them, independently managed for their retirement, then tell that to them directly. The Minister of Finance should directly say, “Canadian workers, all pension earnings are our collateral, used to capitalize our overspending.”

This budget implementation act that we are debating takes what was in that nearly 490 pages of budget information and puts it into legislative format, 660 pages of legislative changes to be addressed, debated and voted upon, an omnibus bill. It would be interesting if it had much to do with the budget, but as always, it is a mishmash of legislative changes, much of which have absolutely nothing to do with the 490 pages presented in the House of Commons three weeks ago.

I was really looking for the parts of it that were relevant to young Canadians who are trying to buy a home or who are trying to rent a home in a rising housing market with stagnant salaries, while inflation is making their purchasing power for food, rent, clothing, heat, light, education and the basics more challenging.

The budget was presented with much fanfare. It is called “Fairness for Every Generation”. The government seized on the problem being felt most acutely by Canadians, particularly young Canadians, and presented an array of programming to address the real issue of housing, the inability to house Canadians.

The cost of buying a house has doubled under the government's watch. The cost of renting a home has doubled under the government's watch. Has take-home pay doubled? Absolutely not. As a result, the ratio of housing prices and rent to income has doubled in these past nine years. Housing is not just twice as expensive. The ability to fund one's home now takes twice the percentage of one's take-home pay.

Canada's economy has withered in relation to our peers. Nothing gets done in this country unless the government writes someone a cheque to do it: “Please, set up business here with taxpayer money.” It will pay $4 million to $5 million per job provided, as long as it is in the right area or what it thinks is the right industry, flavour-of-the-day stuff, chasing what everyone else is chasing, risky business, taxpayer-funded corporate welfare and funds that will never be recouped in the economy.

I counted the number of initiatives the government would take to alleviate housing concerns, the most resonant concern to the public. There were 53 measures to address housing: building, financing, mortgaging, targeting, bribing, pontificating. I then went through the 660-page bill, and I found two points that were relevant to housing.

The first is the increase to the homebuyers withdrawal plan limit from $35,000 to $60,000. I would like to see the size of that target market, a Canadian who has over $60,000 in their RSP and does not have a home. That is definitely not the financial makeup of the great majority of Canadians who have found themselves squeezed out of Canada's housing market.

The second measure allows the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to increase its mortgage default insurance limit from $750 billion to $800 billion. Remember, that $750 billion was temporarily increased from $600 billion in 2020 to deal with the effects of the pandemic, long passed. I suppose some temporary effects last longer than others.

This is $800 billion of risk that the government bears for mortgages in Canada. That is in addition to the almost $1.3 trillion in debt the Government of Canada owes money managers around the world or the $350 billion of liabilities at the Bank of Canada.

Canada's federal government debt payments now total $54 billion a year. That is more than the government spends on health care. That is more than Canadians pay through the GST.

The issue with housing is a cautionary tale. Housing should be a sound investment, one that holds its value over time, especially if the homeowner provides the proper upkeep, a store of value for years when incomes will be lower. It is a savings plan and it is a contrast to paying rent, where one's payments will always rise with inflation and the value accumulated is paid to someone else. Sometimes that makes sense, but most Canadians benefit from owning a home.

For the sake of young Canadians who hope to one day raise their families in homes like their parents did or like they anticipated when they moved to Canada, let me advise the government to listen to all of the voices that are telling it this, including the Bank of Canada governor: Get the budget balance back. Stop causing inflation. Let the economy grow, and stop punishing sectors that are not its chosen sectors.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, in Bill C‑69, there is, for example, the government's commitment—

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. I cannot hear myself speak.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you.

I was saying that the tax credit for green hydrogen is a pipe dream, according to a number of analysts who specialize in this area. Members may recall that the government announced its intention to end fossil fuel subsidies in 2023, yet in 2023 alone, it gave $18 billion to the oil and gas sector. The government also said that a definition of inefficient subsidies was forthcoming, but to my knowledge, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change is still unable to provide us with this definition.

Over the past four years, as we know all too well, $65 billion of our money, and a significant chunk of the money that comes from Quebec, has been given to the greedy fossil fuel industry. Moreover, if we extrapolate the cost of the measures contained in this budget up to 2035, this greedy industry will end up with a cool $83 billion.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, which met yesterday to study the appropriations. We saw almost nothing for one of Quebec's most promising sectors, the forestry sector. We have been hit hard by forest fires in recent years, but there was almost nothing to support small forestry businesses that will have to deal with situations that are, all in all, quite disruptive.

In closing, I would be remiss if I failed to mention clean electricity and the fact that the federal government wants to meddle in Hydro-Québec's rates. Ottawa is trying to meddle in Hydro-Québec's rates by saying that if it wants the 15% tax credit, it will have to pass this money on in the form of a rate cut, when we know full well that the rates are set by a board in Quebec and that this is therefore completely out of the question. Moreover, Ottawa says that a certain proportion of the people working on Hydro-Québec projects will have to be Red Seal certified tradespeople.

That means that if Hydro-Québec wants the tax credit, it will have to let the federal government select the employees needed to build Hydro-Québec's new infrastructure. This is completely ridiculous, and I do not see why Hydro-Québec should put up with these requirements.

For all these reasons, we will be voting against Bill C-69, and I hope it is clear to my Conservative friends that the Bloc Québécois is not in a marriage of convenience with the Liberals. Practically no one in Quebec is buying this narrative, as far as I can tell. Maybe they should pipe down and stop spinning this line.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is nothing new in Bill C-69. It is merely an extension of the budget, so it continues to indulge the oil and gas sector and maintains this government's predatory federalism without any consideration for Quebec.

My colleague from Manicouagan said earlier that we will be voting against the budget. I want to emphasize that. We will be voting against Bill C-69 because the atmosphere in the House has been going downhill for some time. The Conservatives are trying to lump us in with the Liberals in a very populist way. I saw it again this morning on social media, where the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles tried to associate us and the Liberals with pedophiles, telling people to call our constituency offices. I find this shocking, coming from a party that talks so much about law and order. Instead, we should be talking about law and order and bullying. That is the Conservative agenda, but we will let them play that game. My leader often says that no one should ever wrestle with a pig because they will both get dirty and the pig likes it. We will not be doing that.

I was talking about indulging the oil industry. There is nothing new here. With Bill C-69, Canada is behaving like a unitary state and confirming its role as an oil monarchy.

Before moving on to the truly problematic part, which is to say the power grab that is the consumer-driven banking act, I would simply like to point out that on more than one occasion, the Prime Minister has said that people do not care about jurisdictions. However, a Leger survey shows that 84% of Quebeckers want Ottawa to respect jurisdictions. Accordingly, the federal government is missing a wonderful opportunity to act with the banking act.

This legislation will federalize the entire financial sector and strip Quebec of its powers in this area. Rather than adopting a collaborative approach in Bill C-69, Ottawa wants to unilaterally lay down the rules that apply to banking services, an area of shared jurisdiction. As is the Liberal government's wont, it will give the big financial institutions in Toronto a significant leg up on their counterparts in Quebec, such as the caisse populaire. Under the proposal, the provinces will be excluded from consumer protection or privacy protection once the financial institutions interact with their clients through a technological platform.

To impose this framework, the federal government will need to act in three stages. It must determine the standard, task a federal agency with maintaining a registry of institutions conforming to this standard and designate a federal agency to serve as regulator, which involves verifying the compliance of the institutions on the registry. It is on this third point that there is a major issue jurisdictional interference. By acting in this manner, the federal government is interfering directly with civil law by regulating institutions coming under Quebec jurisdiction and by subjecting them to federal legislation.

This is evidence of what we have been seeing for a while now, namely the government's desire to behave like a unitary state, as though the federation did not exist, as though Quebec did not have its own powers. This is what we have seen with pharmacare. This is what we have seen with dental insurance. This is what we have seen with multiple instances of interference in Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction. It is Groundhog Day for interference.

The same is true of energy. I said right from the get-go that Canada is confirming its status as an oil monarchy. It is also confirming its very cozy relationship with the oil and gas sector. What do we see in Bill C‑69? We see yet another subsidy for the oil companies in the form of the infamous investment tax credit for so-called clean hydrogen.

As we know, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources is no longer interested in talking about hydrogen colours. Previously, there was green hydrogen, made from hydroelectricity, grey hydrogen, made from gas, and another one between the two, called blue hydrogen. The latter is made from gas, but it comes with carbon capture and storage strategies that are as yet unproven. The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources prefers not to talk in these terms anymore.

In Bill C-69, we again see a tailor-made program that would allot tax credits between 15% and 40% for hydrogen production. It is no secret that this is mainly for the gas sector. I went to Berlin with the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and we took part in a meeting with Siemens, a major corporation that told us that the idea of producing green hydrogen from gas was destined to fail. The Siemens people said that the state would need to take on risk, the risk of higher prices. As we are seeing with Bill C‑69, the state will have to heavily subsidize the rollout of gas-produced hydrogen. There is also, however, a technological risk, according to Siemens, because the technology needed for this venture is not ready, and it will again take a massive infusion of public money to get there—

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have the dubious pleasure of addressing Bill C-69 and the implementation of the budget. No one will be surprised to hear that I was quite astonished when I read the budget. I am a member of the Bloc Québécois, a member who believes in Quebec independence, and yet the sheer amount of government interference in provincial areas of jurisdiction managed to exceed even my expectations.

The budget shows how shameless the government is about spending money in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. It is so shameless that I felt ashamed just reading it, because it demonstrated what I have said many times over the years—

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Well, I have to say that it's very disappointing to have this motion thrust upon us in the middle of our consideration of Bill C-69. It's an attempt to program the rest of our meetings before the summer break, literally to the end of June, basically.

Really, what I'm concerned about is that we have I don't know how many officials here. For the people watching, Mr. Chair, do you know how many officials are here from the finance department?

Can I ask you, Ms. Gwyer, how many of your officials are here in the room?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm really disappointed with this motion. I find that it's disrupting the work that the Standing Committee on Finance must do on Bill C‑69. As Mr. Turnbull said, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure has not been able to come to an agreement. Basically, I think we could try to work on a motion that would focus solely on Bill C‑69. As for what happens next, there would be other discussions.

The number of hours proposed for the study of Bill C‑69 is really insufficient. In fact, if I understand correctly, we're going to have very little time today to ask the senior officials questions on parts 1 to 3 of the bill. Personally, I still have a lot of questions to ask. In my opinion, even if we didn't debate this motion, we could run out of time, which means that we would not have the answers to all our questions.

Only one hour to study part 4 is clearly not enough. We need to take the time to do things right. I would remind my colleagues that part 4 implements an open banking system. This is something new, and we need to take the time to reflect on it. In addition, what the government is proposing goes against the wishes of the Canadian Bankers Association and a number of financial institutions, if I'm not mistaken.

This bill is not aligned with the laws of the various provinces. To my knowledge, no consultations have taken place between the government or the departments and their counterparts in Quebec and the provinces. If they did happen, it was very recently. We have a lot of questions about that. In addition, a number of things need to be improved. Several details seem technical, but they will have major repercussions.

I'll give you an example. There's a bank that doesn't call itself a bank in Alberta, and it's owned by the provincial government, the Alberta government. If that institution wanted to be part of open banking, it would have to come under federal jurisdiction, at least for the part about open banking. We have to wonder why anyone would want to duplicate legal services and legal advice. That's a major concern.

It's the same thing with credit unions. If memory serves, in British Columbia, lawmakers didn't allow credit unions to come under federal jurisdiction. What about that part? Are we creating a two-tiered open banking system, that is to say for banks under federal jurisdiction and for other institutions under provincial jurisdiction? We have a lot of concerns about that. So I'm going to have a lot of questions for the officials on this. In addition, the committee is going to have to call many witnesses.

The committee must proceed with the study of a mammoth 660-page bill that affects a number of acts, makes a lot of amendments and contains a number of elements to be covered. Are we saying that we're going to finish studying the bill this week, hear from witnesses for two two-hour periods and move to clause-by-clause consideration immediately afterwards? In my opinion, that's woefully inadequate.

During the pandemic, the government urged us to pass bills. We did it on the fly, but there were a lot of mistakes. A number of things had to be corrected because the committee didn't have the time it needed to do its work properly.

This bill is 660 pages of jargon that's incomprehensible to the average person. It will take time for all stakeholders in society to read it, to reflect on it and to see whether it meets their expectations or causes problems. Therefore, we have to give all stakeholders a little time so that they can get an idea of the bill and contact us individually to share their concerns with us.

There's not enough time allotted, obviously. Let's take the example of Bill C‑59, Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023, which wasn't as significant. We spent 20 hours hearing from witnesses. Four hours are being proposed now for Bill C‑69. The officials will have been here for an hour, maybe a little longer, if we can get through this. A single hour to study part 4 is clearly not enough.

I also want to remind you that, recently, the Minister of Finance has spent only one hour at committee when she comes. However, Mr. Morneau very often stayed two hours to answer our questions. There are so many things to deal with in this bill. One hour is not enough time to ask questions.

In my opinion, it will take much longer than what's being proposed to properly study Bill C‑69, improve it and ensure that everything is in order. We had 20 hours to question witnesses on Bill C‑59, but only four hours have been proposed for Bill C‑69. That's unacceptable.

The minister should come for two hours, as Mr. Morneau did most of the time, if I'm not mistaken. We would also have to extend the deadline in order to do our work properly, which would mean holding meetings during constituency week, I believe. No one wants to do that, but if the government is in such a hurry, we will have to do it. We will also need to have additional meetings at least a week later to make sure that all stakeholders in the economy have had time to take note of the 660 highly complex pages of the bill, that everything is in order and that there's no distortion. Then, of course, we will have to withdraw what comes after the study of Bill C‑69 if we pass this motion.

So I have a lot of reservations about this motion. In my opinion, it's completely unacceptable in its current form and I won't be able to support it. In fact, I find it very cavalier to propose such a motion, which I would describe as a gag order, to take up the debate without warning while the senior officials are here to answer our questions. We have to react to it immediately, as we were unable to read it in advance.

Those are my initial comments. I'm sure I will have more.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

Thanks to all the witnesses for being here today.

I have a motion to move from the floor. I'm sorry for the slight interruption, but I'm hoping that we can deal with it very swiftly and get back to the testimony that is so important to the pre-study that we're doing.

I'll read it into the record:

As it relates to the committee's future business, it be agreed that:

i. the committee dedicate its meeting on Thursday, May 9th, 2024, to hearing from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, and officials, on the subject matter study of Bill C-69;

ii. the committee dedicate its regular meetings on May 9th, 21st and 23rd, 2024, to consideration of the subject matter study of Bill C-69, barring referral of the bill to committee; and that all evidence gathered as part of the pre-study be considered as evidence in the committee's full study of the bill, once referred to committee;

iii. any amendments to the bill be submitted no later than 5:00 PM EST on Thursday, May 23rd, 2024;

iv. clause-by-clause consideration of the bill start no later than 12:00 PM EST on May 27th, 2024, and that the chair be empowered to set up extended hours and request additional House resources on that day; if the committee has not completed clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 11:00 AM on May 28th, 2024, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate on all remaining clauses and proposed amendments, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, as well as all questions necessary to report the bill to the House and to order the chair to report the bill to the House as soon as possible;

v. following the completion of the study of Bill C-69, the committee dedicate no less than two meetings on its study on the financialization of housing, followed by no less than two meetings to consider the draft report on the current state of play on green finance, green investment, transition finance and transparency, standards and taxonomy;

vi. the committee dedicate its regular meetings on the week of June 17th, 2024, on the committee's study on inflation in the current Canadian economy.

I will speak to that. I've sent it to the clerk, Chair, in both official languages.

We tried to schedule the rest of our meetings in the agenda pre-committee meeting. I note that the chair hasn't been able to report anything back, so we did not achieve consensus. Really, we're hoping to take a very collaborative approach and work with all parties. Unfortunately, we've seen that the Conservatives are not willing to collaborate. Yesterday, we saw the Conservatives in the House move an amendment to delay the second reading of the budget implementation act. I'm bringing this motion forward today because the budget implementation act needs to be the top priority, and I believe that Canadians are truly counting on us.

I believe very strongly that this budget includes many measures that Canadians really need right now. The national school food program is just one of many that I know Mr. Davies and I and many others have worked on for quite a number of years. We're finally seeing the commitment to a billion dollars over five years. Feeding an additional 400,000 kids per year is truly gratifying to see in this year's BIA. We need to get that accomplished. Canadian families certainly are relying on us.

The Conservatives stand up every day in the House and cite increasing food bank lineups. I think it's pretty inconsistent with the position that they seem to be purporting to hold, which is that somehow they care about families who are suffering from food insecurity but are then not supporting a budget that's attempting to feed 400,000 more kids in Canada.

We know that the investment tax credits in this budget, as we've already heard this morning—the clean tech manufacturing ITC and the clean hydrogen ITC—are things that industry is asking for. They have been asking for us to fast-track these ITCs. They need predictable timelines for their implementation. Many of the large projects to decarbonize our economy are relying on those ITCs to move forward.

On research funding, I was in my riding and met with researchers at the Ontario Tech University, which is my local university. The researchers were ecstatic about the $3.5 billion for science and research that is in this budget, the tri-council funding, the research infrastructure, and the additional dollars for grads, post-grads and fellows.

Those are things that Canadian researchers are counting on. They'll prevent brain drain in our economy. These things have been cited for quite some time. Many Conservative members have actually advocated to address brain drain in this country. I hope that we're aligned on wanting to get those budget measures through the committee and back to the House as soon as possible.

With respect to housing, I talked to a senior from my riding yesterday who's concerned about rental construction and our need for more affordable rental housing. There is a significant amount of financing for more rental construction in this budget. There are also infrastructure dollars to help municipalities and provinces that are struggling to fund some of the infrastructure for new housing development.

The budget includes the Canada carbon rebate for small businesses. I will note that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business was very vocal about this and the Conservatives were very vocal about it, yet they're going to stand against a budget that will get those returns back to small businesses across the country. I note that the number is 600,000.

There is a major investment in artificial intelligence of $2.4 billion in this budget. It proposes to increase productivity across Canada, and it will have a significant impact in future years.

I will also just note quickly that the employee ownership trust is another measure that's in here. The incentives are included in this year's BIA. They're essential for ensuring that there's an uptake of that option, that succession model that will allow owners to sell to their employees. It is an exceptional measure for the redistribution of wealth in a way that also protects Canadian businesses.

Last, I also will just say that between our last meeting and this meeting, I ensured that I kept my word to the committee. I have secured the Deputy Prime Minister to come to the committee on Thursday for an hour of testimony. I truly hope that we can dispense with this motion quickly so that we don't jeopardize that appearance and can hear the important testimony from our Minister of Finance, who's ultimately accountable for this budget.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for indulging me. I look forward to dispensing with this motion quickly.

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

Thank you very much. The answer is very complete and very clear.

The government has therefore committed to holding discussions with the provinces with a view to transferring at some point some of the revenue generated by this new tax on multinationals. However, there is no mechanism to do so in Bill C‑69.

If I understand correctly, Mr. Repetto expects the government to take steps with the provinces to reach an agreement. As long as it does not propose an allocation mechanism, Bill C‑69, as it currently stands, will see all the revenue generated by this new tax wind up in federal coffers, and the provinces will not receive any of this revenue, apart from the revenue they already receive. Is that correct?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome all the witnesses and thank the senior officials once again for being here. I also want to join Mr. Chambers and Mr. Weiler in thanking them for the incredible quality of the document introducing Bill C‑69, which also includes a questions and answers section. That's very helpful, and we thank them for that.

My first questions will focus on part 2 of Bill C‑69. I am very pleased to finally see a budget implementation bill include the measures it contains. They will bring about significant economic changes by starting to address tax fairness and equity. I commend the government for putting that forward.

However, I'm disappointed to see that part 1(b), which deals with international shipping, seeks to exempt Canadian international shipping companies from this global minimum tax of 15%. I can come back to this question a little later, probably with the officials, to discuss this provision, which I will call “the Paul Martin and family clause”.

Let's go back to part 2, which is 300 pages long with amendments to the Income Tax Act and other acts. I'm not sure I understand all the intricacies that well.

Corporate income tax doesn't just go to the federal government because part of it goes to the provinces. Alberta and Quebec deal with corporate taxes themselves. However, in part 2, there do not seem to be any provisions for sharing the revenue resulting from this new tax between the federal government and the provinces, or even any mechanisms that would allow Quebec and Ottawa to coordinate their measures to achieve the 15% rate. Is my reading correct?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all our witnesses for being here today to answer questions on Bill C-69.

I will start in part 1 with some of the measures that Ms. Gwyer mentioned in her introduction.

I hope that Ms. Gwyer or other officials can explain to the committee how the new investment tax credits, particularly on hydrogen and clean-tech manufacturing, will interact with the other investment tax credits that are being implemented through the fall economic statement.

[Gervais Coulombe, Acting Director General, Sales Tax Division, Department of Finance]

Good afternoon, my name is Gervais Coulombe and I am acting director general of the Sales Tax Division at the Department of Finance.

Part 3 of Bill C‑69 contains various budget measures amending the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act, the Excise Act, 2001, the Underused Housing Tax Act, part 1 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and other related texts.

The first measure under Division 1 would end the temporary GST/HST relief of certain face masks or respirators and certain face shields, which had been introduced in 2020 to support public health during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Division 2 of part 3 would implement, among other things, excise duty rate adjustments for tobacco, vaping and alcohol products. Specifically, it would implement the budget 2024 proposal to increase the tobacco excise duty rate by $4 per carton of 200 cigarettes, effective April 17, 2024. It would also implement the budget 2024 proposal to increase vaping product excise duty rates by 12%.

Finally, as announced on March 9, 2024, it would extend by two years the 2% cap on the inflation adjustment on beer, spirits and wine excise duties, and would also reduce by half, for two years, the excise duty rate for the first 15,000 hectolitres of beer brewed in Canada.

Division 3 of part 3 implements changes to the Underused Housing Tax, in response to suggestions from Canadians. The changes would facilitate compliance while ensuring that the tax continues to apply as intended. Among other things, the amendments would eliminate filing requirements for certain owners, reduce minimum penalties for failing to file a return and introduce a new exemption for residential properties held as a place of residence or lodging for employees.

Division 4 of part 3 implements a measure that would broaden the provisions allowing the disclosure of confidential information in respect of a provincial Crown or its agent that is non-compliant or has stated that it will not comply with the federal fuel charge under part 1 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

Mr. Chair, this completes our opening remarks for parts 1, 2 and 3 of Bill C‑69.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 142 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C-69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to Standing Order 15.1.

Before we begin, I remind all members and other meeting participants in the room of the following important preventive measures.

To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents that can cause injuries, all in-person participants are reminded to keep their earpieces away from all microphones at all times.

As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all members on Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents.

All earpieces have been replaced by a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black in colour, whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please use only the approved black earpieces. By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of a meeting. When you are not using your earpiece, please place it face down in the middle of the sticker for this purpose, which you will find on the table as indicated.

Please consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. The room layout has been adjusted to increase the distance between microphones to reduce the chance of feedback from an ambient earpiece. These measures are in place so that we can conduct our business without interruption and protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.

Thank you all for your co-operation.

I will make few comments for the benefit of the members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For members in the room, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, if you wish to speak please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your understanding in this regard.

I will remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

With us today are officials from the Department of Finance as well as officials from the CRA.

We have a number of officials who will be providing opening remarks. We start with Lindsay Gwyer, who will be providing an opening statement, and then we'll move through a number of other officials. Then, when we get to members' questions, members will all have an opportunity to ask questions to whomever they like, and if someone is in the background, they'll make their way to the table.

Also, we have our clerk, Alexandre Roger, and Ariane Calvert is also joining Alexandre as we go through Bill C-69 here at the committee, so we have the resources and all the help we require.

With that, I will ask Ms. Gwyer to start our opening statements.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, when I think of Bill C-69, I think of a sense of fairness for generations X and Z, and the millennials, and how important it is that, as a government, we provide hope. We have seen this put into practice over the years in budgetary and legislative measures that provide that sense of hope for all, recognizing how critically important Canada's middle class is, and those aspiring to be a part of it. Building a stronger economy, and building and reinforcing Canada's middle class, is good for all Canadians. It would ultimately ensure, as my colleague spoke about before, that Canada would be the best place in the world to call home.

The actions we have taken, to date, reinforce the opposite of what the Conservative Party has been talking about. As Conservatives travel the country, spreading misinformation, talking about Canada being broken, nothing could be further from the truth when things are put into the proper perspective of what is happening around the world.

Canada is doing well in comparison to any other country in the world, I would argue. It does not mean that we do not recognize the issues that Canadians are having to face today. That is why, when we talk about issues such as affordability, interest rates and housing, we not only understand and appreciate them, but also take tangible actions to support Canadians. We do not take that lightly. Much like during the pandemic, when the government stood up in a team Canada approach, working with people and other governments, we were there in a very real and tangible way.

I love the contrast between today's Prime Minister and the leader of the Conservative Party. Canadians really do have choices, which is becoming more evident to the degree that they are opposites. We talk about measures such as a pharmacare program and the national school food funding program incorporated into this budget, and the first-ever Canada disability benefit, not to mention the Canadian dental care plan. There are many initiatives we have provided, both in this budget and in other budgets, which have led to ensuring a much higher sense of fairness. There are taxation policies, whether it is the capital gains, the extra tax on the wealthiest 1% in the first budget we introduced or the cut to Canada's middle-class tax bracket. We can talk about the grocery rebate and the enhancement of the guaranteed income supplement, not to mention the OAS being raised for those who are collecting it over the age of 75.

Compare that to what we hear from the Conservatives today. They say they would to fix the budget. Fixing the budget is code. I would suggest there is in fact a hidden Conservative budget they do not want to talk about because it would put on the chopping block a lot of the work we have been able to accomplish over the last number of years, whether it is with respect to the national child care program of $10-a-day day care, which has received phenomenal support across every region of our country, or whether it is the provinces and territories having signed on to programs such as pharmacare.

Yesterday, we witnessed Conservative after Conservative stand up to say that they do not support the pharmacare program. We saw Conservatives stand up to say that they do not support the investments we are making in health care because they do not believe the federal government has a role to play in health care. The contrast is immense. When the Conservatives talk about fixing the budget, they mean cuts, and let there be no doubt about that.

As we continue to bring in policies, whether they are budgetary measures or legislation, let us be very clear that the objective is to recognize the values that Canadians have and the sense of fairness that they want to see put into things such as budgets. They want to see a government that truly cares about the middle class and about expanding the middle class. The healthier and stronger the middle class is, the better the economy will be. We know that.

The Conservatives can spread false information, but the reality speaks volumes. Let me give two very specific examples. In 10 years, Stephen Harper, as prime minister, generated just under one million jobs. In less time, our Liberal government, working with Canadians and other jurisdictions, has generated over two million jobs. That is also taking into consideration a worldwide pandemic, where there was an economic shutdown in many areas.

Our policies are working. In my mind, one of the most powerful statements from the budget released by the Deputy Prime Minister was around foreign direct investment to Canada, and I referenced that yesterday. Individuals and corporations around the world are looking at Canada and saying that they want to invest in Canada. There is a reason they want to invest in Canada, and it is about economic stability and other factors.

On a per capita basis, Canada is number one of the G7 countries on foreign direct investment. The G7 includes the European Union, England, Japan, U.S.A., France and Germany. We are number one when it comes to foreign direct investment. People are putting their money where they believe the potential is the greatest for being able to expand and to have opportunities. Contrast that to the world. If we do that for the entire world, we will see that Canada places number three for foreign direct investment, based on last year's first three quarters, which is where I got those numbers.

People around the world are looking at Canada as a place to invest, and I think that speaks volumes and is complemented by the fact that we have created over two million jobs, all while recognizing the important programs and the expectations Canadians have that we will be there for them, first and foremost, on the issue of health care. We continue to invest historic amounts of money in health care because we understand what is important to Canadians. Unlike the Conservative Party, we are going to be there to ensure that we have a health care system that we could all be proud of, not only for today but also for future generations.

Those types of commitments and contrasts are what Canadians will see between the Liberals and the Conservatives. We will continue to expand on that contrast in the coming months. In 18 months or so, when there is an election, people will see the leader of the Conservative Party for who he is, a leader who has no problem meeting with groups like Diagolon.

Liberals are meeting with real people, and who is the leader of the Conservative Party meeting with? Who is he listening to, in order to come up with policy ideas that would help Canadians? Contrast who we are to who they are. In the end, we will continue to work with Canadians to build a stronger, healthier economy and society.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do see some irony in the fact that the budget bill is called Bill C-69, because one might remember that the last Bill C-69 ended up being ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because the federal government was sticking its nose into provincial jurisdiction. Here we have, in budget 2024, the government sticking its nose into child care and creating fewer spaces than ever existed and into dental care and not consulting the dentists, and decriminalizing more hard drugs than are actually in its pharmacare plan.

Why is the government pouring $40 billion more on the inflationary fire so that the Governor of the Bank of Canada cannot reduce inflation rates and get inflation down?

The House resumed from May 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, dealing with the last question first, I think a critical part of the Canada disability benefit is that we ensure all provinces and territories come to an agreement with the federal government whereby any additional funds the federal government is providing to people living with disabilities is not clawed back. If that were to happen then people living with disabilities would not receive any benefit at all. That is a critical component for success.

In terms of additional aspects of the budget, which is over 600 pages long, I would point out that Bill C-69 would provide support for small and medium-sized businesses by returning over $2.5 billion in proceeds from the price on pollution to an estimated 600,000 small and medium-sized businesses through an accelerated and automated return process. Rebates would also be provided every year going forward. That is a positive step. Small businesses are the engine of our economy, and many of them are suffering.

The extension of that carbon tax rebate, in the billions of dollars, to small and medium-sized businesses would be an important reason, I think, to support this budget and one that I would be interested in hearing my Conservative colleagues' reasoning as to why they would oppose that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, millions of Canadians are really struggling right now. The cost of living is up dramatically. It is getting much harder to pay rent, to pay a mortgage, to buy food and to pay bills. This has gone on for several years now for many Canadian families, and I think it is fair to say that communities across Canada are really feeling the toll of the economic difficulty facing this country.

However, big corporations and the ultra rich are doing better than ever. They are making record profits, often by gouging Canadians with sky-high prices. Even with corporate profits soaring, the investments in Canadian workers and in the Canadian economy are declining. Major shareholders and top executives are reaping enormous benefits, while the promised trickle-down to workers, communities and consumers, promised by the right to North Americans around the world since the beginning of the century, is as illusory as it has ever been. New Democrats recognize these facts. That is why we are using our power in this minority Parliament to deliver results for people.

In the 2024 budget alone, New Democrats have compelled the government to do the following: to build more homes, to preserve existing affordable housing and to protect renters; to bring in universal, single-payer pharmacare, starting with contraception and diabetes medications and devices; to establish a national school food program; to reverse damaging cuts to indigenous services; to invest in accessible, high-quality, non-profit child care; to establish a dedicated youth mental health fund; to double the volunteer firefighter tax credit and the search and rescue volunteer tax credit; and to take the first step toward tax fairness in this country by making wealthy Canadians pay a bit more on their capital gains profits.

It is funny that while I have been speaking, I have heard nothing but catcalls from the Conservatives, who have opposed every single one of the points I just mentioned. That gives people a flash into what a Conservative government might do for Canadians. I think it is quite clear that it would reverse every one of those measures.

While these achievements illustrate, in part, what a New Democrat government could accomplish, the 2024 budget does not fully reflect our party's vision. This is not an NDP budget, but it was a budget that we were able to influence in a minority Parliament.

Likewise, Bill C-69, the bill under consideration in the House, the budget implementation act, 2024, No. 1, includes many of those positive measures that the NDP was able to compel the Liberal government to implement. However, we acknowledge that the legislation has several and significant shortcomings. In our view, there is much more the federal government can and should be doing to make this easier for people and to provide opportunities for the generations to come. For our part, New Democrats will not stop working to deliver results for people.

I want to cover some positive aspects of Bill C-69 because we have indicated that we intend to support this legislation. First, it would launch the new national school food program. This program would be in place as early as the 2024-25 school year and would help over 400,000 children access the food they need to grow healthy and to learn. This would be an important first step toward establishing a national school food program or national standards. This is a critical gap felt strongly in a time of sky-rocketing food prices.

Across Canada, the reality is that nearly one in four children do not get enough food, and more than one-third of food bank users are children. According to Children First Canada, there has been a 29% increase in food insecurity for children in the last year alone. A national school food program not only would give students in Canada access to nutritious food, but also would make healthy eating a daily lesson for our kids. By integrating lessons on food growing, nutrition, preparation and cultivation into established curricula, a national school food program can encourage children to adopt lifelong healthy eating habits.

We know, from international best practices, that all children benefit from universal school food programs, not just children from low-income households. Countries with a national school food program have documented better academic performance, improved short- and long-term health for children, help for family budgets and improved efficiency in the health care system.

Bill C-69 also includes measures that would make housing more affordable in a few ways. It would enhance the home buyers' plan by increasing the withdrawal limit from $35,000 to $60,000 and would temporarily add three years to the grace period before repayments to an RRSP were required.

Bill C-69 would start to crack down on short-term rentals to unlock more homes for Canadians to live in by denying income tax deductions on income earned from short-term rentals that do not comply with provincial or local restrictions. It would ban foreign buyers of Canadian homes for an additional two years, until January 1, 2027, to ensure homes are used for Canadians to live in and not as a speculative asset class for foreign investors.

Bill C-69 also includes measures that would make life more affordable Canadians in other ways. It would make it easier to find better deals on Internet, home phone and cellphone plans by amending the Telecommunications Act to better allow Canadians to renew or to switch between plans and to increase consumer choice to help them find a deal that works best for them.

We know that Internet and cell services are now core staple utilities for Canadians, and Canadians pay among the highest prices in the world. This happened under the current Liberal government, and it happened under the previous Conservative government. New Democrats know we have to drive those prices down for Canadians to meaningfully participate in work-at-home life.

It would crack down on predatory lending by strengthening enforcement against criminal rates of interest to help protect the most vulnerable Canadians from harmful illegal lenders. It would make it easier to save for our children's education by introducing an automatic enrolment in the Canada learning bond to ensure all low-income families receive the support they need for their children's futures.

It also includes measures that would support workers. Bill C-69 would protect gig workers by strengthening prohibitions against employee misclassification in federally regulated industries. It would establish a right to disconnect to help restore the work-life balance for workers in federally regulated industries. It would extend additional weeks of employment insurance for seasonal workers in 13 targeted regions until October 2026. It would advance employee ownership trusts to enable employees to share in the success of their work by encouraging more businesses to sell to an employee ownership trust.

Bill C-69 would deliver two major investment tax credits to help build a more sustainable future, and those are the 30% clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit and the up to 40% clean hydrogen investment tax credit. I sat in the Standing Committee on Finance, where I heard from businesses across this country that cannot wait to get these tax credits in place so that they start to make the investment in sustainable forms of energy that not only would create the jobs of the future but also would help Canada meet our carbon reduction targets.

I have already mentioned that Bill C-69 would provide support for volunteer first responders and the care economy workers in rural and remote communities. It would do this in a couple of ways. It would expand the Canada student loan forgiveness program to pharmacists, dentists, dental hygienists, midwives, early childhood educators, teachers, social workers, personal support workers, physiotherapists and psychologists who choose to work in rural and remote communities. This would build on existing loan forgiveness for doctors and nurses. We all know our rural and remote areas probably feel the pinch of a health care system that is not providing fast enough or good enough service, and it is important this budget recognizes that and takes some steps toward addressing it.

I want to talk for just a moment about the Canada disability benefit because I mentioned that this bill has some serious deficiencies. In my mind, this is one of the most major ones. Despite its plan announced earlier to provide a maximum benefit to people living with disabilities to lift them out of poverty, which is the claim and the goal, which the NDP agrees with, the Liberal government decided to back that up by giving those Canadians $200 a month.

One does not need to be an economist to know that it does not come anywhere near to lifting anybody out of poverty, but frankly, it is almost an insult. At present, a single adult with a disability will live below the poverty line if they receive funding from any of the provincial programs across Canada, and an additional $200 a month is not enough to bring them even to the poverty line. There are over a million and a half Canadians living with disabilities who live in poverty in this country, yet this plan would also have a restrictive eligibility requirement that would limit access to, at most, an estimated 600,000 people.

We are deeply disappointed to see that broken promise, and we will continue to fight for Canadians living with disabilities. We know they need sufficient income in this country not only to let them get out of poverty but also to meaningfully participate and to live enriched lives, where they can contribute as fully as they can. It is not only good for them, but also good for communities and our economy as well.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, this budget is unacceptable to the Bloc Québécois because it is unacceptable to Quebeckers. Let us keep the suspense for the movies: We are voting against the budget.

This is a budget that, in many ways, feeds on human misery. It is a budget of fiscal imbalance. This budget is the soul of the federal spending power, through which the federal government assumes the right to impose conditions on Quebec in its own areas of jurisdiction. These are areas in which the federal government does not have the right to legislate, such as housing and health care, among others. It is unacceptable.

Quebec has denounced the Liberal government, along with its NDP allies. Last week, the National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion. Not a single Quebec MNA refused to vote in favour of this motion, which called for the right to withdraw with full financial compensation for Quebec in the event of interference into its jurisdictions, as is the case with this budget. These are what we call Quebec's traditional demands.

Every Quebec government dating back to well before I was born made this demand, in particular the Jean Charest-led government, which included the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis. Had she been in Quebec, she probably would have voted in favour of this motion, rather than voting against last week’s proposal by the Bloc Québécois to give Quebec that right of withdrawal.

Last week during question period, a minister, whose name and title I shall not mention since this was partially private, yelled from one side of the House to the other to ask me what was a unanimous consent motion by the National Assembly worth. According to this individual, there is one every month, since the National Assembly is always unanimously criticizing the federal government.

This helps us understand just how wide the gap is between Canada and Quebec from a budgetary standpoint. Rather than turning to Quebec and showing the province a modicum of understanding and respect, Ottawa says Quebec is wrong to ask for respect in its own areas of jurisdiction. There we have it, the Liberal ministers showing the depths of their contempt. Above all, they are showing their total inability to admit that they are wrong and that they should not interfere in areas outside their jurisdiction they are incompetent to manage. No jurisdiction and no competence makes for an incompetent federal government.

This is an omnibus bill. Right off the bat I expect that the member for Winnipeg-North, an outstanding debater, will likely rise shortly, although my saying so now might dissuade him. He is going to tell me there is something or other that is good in the budget, that there are not just bad things in the budget, that some of what it contains is acceptable. Fine, except that this is an omnibus bill, a bill that has everything and anything and that amends numerous acts and regulations.

In such instances, our values must guide us and we must draw a red line. We in the Bloc Québécois have been transparent. We signalled this red line to the government before it tabled the budget. We told the Liberals that if they wanted, then maybe they could possibly consider seeking the Bloc’s support. One never knows, the NDP might leave their side.

In exchange for this support, we wanted the right to opt out of programs under Quebec's jurisdiction with full financial compensation. Is that included in the bill? Not only is it not included, but the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP voted against the amendment to the amendment that we moved to add it to the budget. They voted against Quebec's National Assembly and against all the Quebec governments that have made this request since the 1950s. What the NDP and Liberals are telling us is that they do not think the Quebec government is doing a good enough job in its own areas of jurisdiction and that they do not trust it. However, some of the problems that Quebec is having with health care, education and housing are due to the fact that it does not have full freedom to act, because the federal government is standing in the way.

We asked for old age security to be increased starting at age 65, but that is not in the budget. We asked for an end to the fossil fuel subsidies, but there are fresh subsidies in this budget, and the government is promising a plan. The Minister of Environment said that the government had abolished inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. However, when we asked him what “inefficient” meant, he could not even define it. The reality is that the tax incentives took on a differnt form.

The federal government owes Quebec $900 million. As François Pérusse put it, “a debt is a debt” and must be repaid. The federal government owes Quebec $900 million because we had to give asylum seekers integration classes, French classes, health services and so on. Quebec incurred these expenses and paid for them with Quebeckers' money. This budget is a slap in the face for Quebec.

Instead of granting unconditional housing transfers, the federal government decided to impose even more conditions. Quebec has had permanent housing construction programs for decades. Now, at a time when people are living on the streets, sleeping in tents or in their cars, the government got the brilliant idea to add even more red tape. The Liberals seem to think this is the best Liberal idea this year.

The consequences are serious, tragic and inhumane. For ideological reasons, this government is determined to crush Quebec and its desire to take action in its own areas of jurisdiction. The other provinces can do what they want, but this urge to crush Quebec is having tragic and inhumane consequences. The same is true when it comes to health.

This may not be the worst part, but what makes this bill even more unacceptable is the part about open banking. Banks have changed. The big banks have basically become financial product factories, selling loans, insurance and other financial products. Consumers often use third-party apps to deal with banks. The banks manufacture the financial products, and the apps handle the customer service for those products. This needs to be regulated. These transactions involve personal and private information.

The government had three choices. First, it could have opted for the Interac model, where the industry regulates itself. For instance, take Desjardins in Quebec, provincially regulated financial institutions, and credit unions in the rest of Canada. They coordinate with the banks so that the information that is shared is regulated, customers receive their product and their information is protected. This involves some self-regulation. We are not huge fans of this model, but it could have worked. However, the government said it was not interested.

Then there was the second approach, which is more collaborative and involves securities commissions. This is where Ottawa sits down with Quebec, in particular. Not only is Desjardins the biggest employer in Quebec, but it is also its biggest financial institution. The idea would be to harmonize our laws and regulate the exchange of information to protect consumers, while ensuring that they receive quality service and that new banking services meet their needs. Ottawa, which says it is still working with Quebec, has closed the door on that option.

The government has therefore decided to introduce legislation that will lead to a plan next fall, under which federal financial institutions will be included in the legislative framework. Desjardins and other Quebec co-operatives are literally being told that they have the choice of ignoring Quebec's Consumer Protection Act, ignoring Quebec's Bill 25 on privacy protection and that, if they want, they can come into the federal fold. They will fall under Ottawa's jurisdiction, which contradicts the most basic spirit of co-operation.

That is exactly how the federal government behaved. It not only stomped all over Quebec's jurisdictions, it held a knife to Quebec's throat. It behaved a bit like that when it imposed a securities commission that was supposedly national, but in reality centred on Toronto, before the Supreme Court ruled against it. The government is not open to talking with Quebec.

The Liberals can go ahead and list all the good things they want about Bill C‑69. They can try to convince us that Ottawa knows better than Quebec when it comes to managing hospitals, operating child care and fixing teeth, but that will not not change the fact that this is a bad budget. It goes against Quebec and Quebec's interests as framed by every Quebec government throughout history.

Once again, I am announcing that not only will the Bloc Québécois vote against, but I will be pleased to rise and vote no.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise to start the debate on Bill C-69.

Governments have an opportunity every year to set down in legislation initiatives that could have a wonderful impact. I look at Bill C-69 as a budget implementation bill that would really make a difference in the lives of Canadians. I would like to think that all members of the House would get behind the legislation and the budget for the many positive initiatives the budget would put in place for the benefit of all Canadians, no matter what region of the country they are in.

I personally think there is a theme to be taken from the budget, which I hear many of my colleagues talk about, whether it is the Prime Minister or members of caucus, and that is a sense of fairness. We need to think about generation X and the millennials, and how the government can ensure there is a higher sense of fairness. We saw a good example of that in 2015-16 when we brought in our first budget. Taxation policy is important. Through the legislation and the budget, we will see there is a higher sense of fairness as we are look to the wealthiest in the country to pay a fairer share.

This is not the first time. In fact in 2015-16, we put a special increase on the tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%. Today it is even a smaller percentage. We recognize there is a need for us to provide the good-quality programming the government has had over the last number of years, much of it being enhanced in the budget and legislation. Some of the programs we are seeing for the first time, and others are a continuation. What it really means at the end of day is that we have a government that very much cares about the well-being of Canadians and wants to support them in a fair fashion.

If we look at overall government policies over the last eight-plus years, we will see that, in comparison to other countries in the world, Canada is doing relatively well. I will highlight a few of them. However, before I do that, I want to talk about the last few times the Prime Minister came to Manitoba. In my opinion, they highlight three areas Canadians understand and the fact that they very much appreciate the government's making them a high priority.

Last year, the Prime Minister visited Stanley Knowles School in Manitoba, which is pretty close to the heart of Winnipeg North, to highlight child care. He visited a child care facility at Stanley Knowles School, and the reception was exceptionally positive as people understood what the Government of Canada was doing. For the first time, we have a national child care program that ensures $10-a-day day care. It has had a profoundly positive impact in the province of Manitoba and, indeed, in all of Canada.

The Province of Quebec instituted it many years ago. We took the idea and turned it into a national program. As a direct result, not only are we making child care more affordable for Canadians but we are also enabling more women than ever, on a percentage basis, to get engaged in the workforce. It is no real surprise, as we anticipated that would happen. There are many benefits, as we have seen, of the $10-a-day child care program, the first ever by the national government. Every province and territory has now signed on, recognizing the true value.

For the second visit from the Prime Minister, I was able to participate in a press conference. The single greatest issue I have seen over the last 30-plus years as a parliamentarian, in my constituency and, I would argue, across Canada, is the issue of health care. We love our health care system. We are passionate about it. In fact, when I talk to many people and ask them what makes them feel good about being a Canadian, our health care system is often what comes up as the thing that helps us identify as and feel good about being Canadian.

As members know, working with all the different provinces, the federal government came up with a generational commitment of $198 billion, not million, over 10 years. That would enable long-term financial planning in an area that Canadians are genuinely concerned about. At that particular press conference, we had not only the Prime Minister but also the national Minister of Health, the Premier of Manitoba, the provincial minister of health and the most important people, the health care workers there to witness the announcement for the Province of Manitoba.

What took place in Manitoba is taking place across the country because, for the first time in over a generation, we have a Prime Minister who is committed to ensuring that we have a world-class health care system that deals with the issues we are hearing about at the doors from people. There are concerns about family doctors; concerns about health care workers; concerns about how we are going to be able to get things, such as credentials, recognized; concerns about how we can ensure that health care workers are being valued; and concerns about how we can bring additional health care workers and support staff into the system so that we are able to meet the expectations Canadians have.

We are looking at ways in which we can expand into mental health like we have never done in the past. This is a government that cares about health care and is looking at the Canada Health Act and the benefits it provides every Canadian in every region.

I made reference to child care and gave credit to the province of Quebec. For health care, a great deal of credit goes to the province of Saskatchewan, where it originated. More recently, we had the Prime Minister come to Winnipeg, and this time we were involved in a press conference that included not only the national Minister of Housing but also the premier of the province, provincial ministers and the mayor of Winnipeg. At that particular press conference, we dealt with the issue of housing.

We are very much aware of the needs for housing. I have stood in this chamber on numerous occasions to talk about the importance of the issue of housing. It is somewhat hypocritical of the official opposition to stand in its place and criticize the federal government for not doing enough on housing. I compare what the Conservatives did when they were in government, and in particular the current leader of the Conservative Party, who I think built six non-profit housing units in total. He spent hundreds of millions and was able to get six built, but I did not necessarily want to get to that. It is a bit off track.

The point is that we had a wonderful press conference with different stakeholders out in Transcona, where we had great participation from a wonderful housing complex, and we had the opportunity to talk about some of the things the federal government is doing. Working with the different levels of government, we are going to have an optimum impact on dealing with an issue that is so critically important to all Canadians.

What is providing a great deal of comfort is the fact that it is something we have been talking about for months now, even longer. I would not be surprised if we went back a couple of years, when members might have heard me talking about the issue of housing and how the best way to deal with housing issues in Canada is to have all three levels of government, and other stakeholders, engaged. That is the only way. It is not one level of government that cures all. It is going to take all levels of government working together, as well as the non-profit organizations.

I often talk about Habitat for Humanity. Habitat is a wonderful organization. It has likely done more in building affordable housing than any other non-profit organization, at least that I am personally aware of. In the province of Manitoba, we are talking about hundreds of homes over the years. I believe we are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 600 homes built, all of which are affordable. These homes were provided to individuals who never would have had the opportunity to have housing.

We had the stakeholders, the premier, the mayor and the Prime Minister in Winnipeg talking about things such as accelerating funding, providing supports to the City of Winnipeg so it can speed up its process, working with the province to ensure there is going to be more non-profit housing units built and that the province would be at the table, both in a financial fashion and with other forms of resources. This is to complement other budgetary measures, which dealt with, for example, the GST removal on purpose-built rentals for the country. These are initiatives for which Ottawa is not only taking upon itself and demonstrating leadership on but also working with the different levels of government. We are talking somewhere in the neighbourhood, through this budget, of just over four million new homes as a target in the coming years. That cannot be done by the federal government alone, and we have demonstrated our willingness to work with the different stakeholders, including our partners.

There is also our commitment to indigenous housing and working within indigenous communities. In Winnipeg, indigenous communities stepped up and worked with the Hudson's Bay Company to develop housing in downtown Winnipeg. There is also what is taking place in rural communities across the country.

The budget shows how important it is that we not only have a higher sense of fairness but also that we move forward with a healthy, stronger economy, which is in the best interest of all.

One of the things I took away from the budget, which the Deputy Prime Minister made reference to, is something I want to highlight because, to me, it really does matter. It puts things into perspective. No matter how much the Conservatives want to spread misinformation, the reality is that, in comparison to other countries around the world, Canada is doing exceptionally well.

I will give an example from the Deputy Prime Minister's speech and the stats on foreign direct investment. People and companies around the world looking at where to invest their hundreds of millions and billions of dollars will often look at Canada. Not only will they look at Canada, but they will also invest here. With direct foreign investment, on a per capita basis, Canada is number one out of the G7 countries. That is number one in direct foreign investment.

Throughout the world, per capita, Canada is number three. I would suggest that people, businesses and corporations around the world that are taking a look at where to invest are looking at Canada, and that is not an accident.

Let me elaborate on that. No government in Canada's history has signed off on more trade agreements than this government, under this Prime Minister, has. No government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements than this government has. Canada is a trading nation. We need trade. All of us benefit from it. That is one of the reasons why, I would argue, people around the world are not only looking at Canada but also investing in Canada. They are doing that because they see the stability that is here, along with a myriad of other positive attributes.

Members can take a look at the investments. The Conservatives have been critical. They do not like the fact that we are helping Volkswagen, for example—

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

moved that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Impact Assessment Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ways and Means

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

moved that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the first time and printed.

(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

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

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

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I will, Mr. Chair. I'll speak briefly and have this go to a vote.

It amends clause 249 of the bill to stipulate “that the purpose of an order made against an anti-competitive merger is to preserve or restore the level of competition that would have prevailed without the merger.”

As currently drafted:

Bill C-59 does not address the standard for merger remedies under the [Competition] Act, which remains weak by international standards. Specifically, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that remedies for anti-competitive mergers need only “restore competition to the point at which it can no longer be said to be substantially less than it was before the merger” and, moreover, that we should favour the “least intrusive” remedy that meets this standard.

As well, Mr Chair:

The emphasis, therefore, is on finding a remedy that makes the harm from anti-competitive mergers less bad, or more tolerable, rather than preserving the state of competition. And even then, the Tribunal has discretion not to order a remedy at all—section 92 only says the Tribunal “may” make various orders if it finds that a merger is anti-competitive.

As explained in the [Competition] Bureau's February 2022 and March 2023 submissions, most jurisdictions seek remedies that fully prevent the harm from anti-competitive mergers. This makes sense [to us, given that] anti-competitive mergers generally occur in concentrated markets where there is limited competition and little prospect of new entry in the future such that the effective markets are unlikely to 'self-correct'.

I'll end by further quoting the Competition Bureau. In March 2024, when they wrote this committee, they said:

Merger control should seek to preserve the level of competition in these markets as much as possible rather than allow it to be eroded through anti-competitive consolidation that is only partially remedied.

Accordingly, we recommend that Clause 249 be amended to provide that the purpose of merger remedies ordered under [section] 92 is to preserve or restore the level of competition that would have existed without the merger, consistent with international best practice.

That's exactly what our amendment would do.