44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 07, 2024
- Bill C-323 is an amendment to the Excise Tax Act in Canada. It aims to exempt psychotherapy and mental health counseling services from the goods and services tax (GST). The bill recognizes that many Canadians have unmet mental health needs and that publicly funded services are often not easily accessible when needed. Canadians often have to pay for these services privately, but many do not have private coverage. The bill seeks to make mental health services more affordable and accessible by removing the GST on these services. The bill will come into effect six months after it receives royal assent.
- Yea (327)
- Nay
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to my hon. colleague from Cumberland—Colchester's bill, Bill C-323. In truth, I wish I had another hour to speak to this because I do not believe that we do it justice when we talk a bit about this every so often. However, I will agree with our hon. colleague from Winnipeg North that we have taken significant steps toward combatting mental health and mental illness in our country. Sadly, there are still far too many barriers for those struggling or suffering silently in the shadows.
It has been said before, and I will say it again. As I sat here today and listened to our hon. colleague talk, I reflected on just how many people we have lost to suicide in my family alone or in the House. The House has even been affected by suicide. In the last debate, I thought about young Carson Cleland, who was 12 years of age, in my riding of Cariboo—Prince George. It was 12 hours after the first point of contact with an online predator that he took his own life. I think about my best friend when I was 14. His death has fuelled me, at every step of the way, to do whatever we can so that families do not have the same experience.
That is why I championed and pushed for Canada to adopt 988, a simple three-digit suicide hotline that is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Six months after being launched, over 200,000 Canadians have accessed it, either by call or by text. In April alone, 25,000 Canadians have either called or texted 988. It speaks to the fact that we are failing Canadians when it comes to mental health and mental illness. We need to do more. It is not enough just to talk about it. We need to do whatever we can to remove any barriers for those seeking help.
Eleven Canadians die by suicide each and every day. If that statistic is not staggering enough, a further 200 Canadians will attempt suicide each and every day. That is 73,000 Canadians. I get emotional when I talk about it because I believe that we can do more. Treatment for mental health and mental illness is not one-size-fits-all. There has been some great debate in the House today, whether with this reading or with previous readings of this bill, we need to do more, and a great first step, with respect to Canadians seeking treatment, would be to remove the GST and the HST. Passing Bill C-323 would be a great first step in helping reduce the cost of mental health services.
I could stand up here forever and talk about this, but sadly, my time is being cut short. With that, I would be remiss if I did not mention massage therapy, which poses a significant cost for the average Canadian. It has been proven to have incredibly beneficial impacts on Canadians' mental health.
Therefore, I move:
That Bill C-323, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services), be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Finance for the purpose of reconsidering Clause 1 with the view to amend the clause so as to include massage therapy among the health services to be exempt from the Goods and Services Tax, and the Committee be invited to consider reporting the bill back to the House within 15 sitting days following the adoption of this order.
606 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to commend the member for Cumberland—Colchester on his bill. I had the chance to mention this earlier, but I think that mental health is an important issue. It is something we do not talk about enough. It is often taboo. The purpose of this bill is to give a little help to those who use mental health services by removing the goods and services tax from these services. This will help them out budget-wise. Some are in a good financial positions, but there are others whose finances are very tight.
What is more, there is an injustice here. I will share a few examples. There is a long list of professionals who offer services that are tax-free: optometrists, chiropractors, physiotherapists, podiatrists, osteopaths, audiologists, speech language pathologists, occupational therapists, psychologists, midwives, dieticians, acupuncturists and naturopaths. However, a psychoeducator or a sexologist has to charge tax. That is discrimination.
That is also problematic because we know that the pandemic and other things have put a major strain on people's mental health. In a way, society has grown or has at least become more aware of the fact that mental health is sometimes fragile. It is obvious that, when people are put in lockdown, they miss having social interaction, and that can impact their mental health, which can trigger issues.
The situation has not necessarily improved since the pandemic. There has been inflation and rising interest rates. That means that households are really struggling financially, which can also have an impact on everything else. Traditional services, such as those of a psychologist, are already tax-free, but the others are not.
However, there is a shortage of psychologists and professionals offering mental health services. We cannot rely solely on psychologists, who are overworked. There are other professionals who can meet these needs. There are social workers, psychoeducators and sexologists who can help. Why not enable these professionals to receive the same benefits as the others, given that they provide the same services?
I would also like to point out that Bill C‑323, which we are debating at the moment, is interesting, even if, at the end of the day, we may not get to vote on it. It does, however, deserve credit for having triggered a debate. In a way, the bill forced the government to realize that this is a problem. The government included it in its economic update, in Bill C‑59 , which is currently being studied by the Senate. Since it is being studied by the Senate, we can assume that there is a good chance that it will be passed. Since Bill C‑59 is likely to pass, Bill C‑323 will lapse.
In any case, I took the initiative yesterday to submit an amendment to the Clerk's office. Unfortunately, it will not be voted on. The purpose of my amendment was to add a clarification to Bill C‑323. Let me explain. The amendment would have clarified that guidance counsellors, psychoeducators, criminologists, sexologists and couples and family therapists would indeed be included among the professions covered by this bill.
I submitted this amendment because the bill, which the government copied word for word, is vague. If we examine the exact words used in the bill, we see that psychotherapy and mental health counselling are the proposed additions. Since these are not professions per se, but services, we do not know how will this ultimately be interpreted by the people responsible for enforcing the legislation. In parliamentary committee, my colleague from Joliette asked certain officials some questions. He asked how Bill C‑323 would work in practical terms. However, this was more in the context of the study of Bill C‑59.
I say this because Bill C-323 has been pushed through somewhat quickly, since it was Bill C-59 that was studied in committee. The response was that those professions would be considered. In theory, they should therefore be among the professions that will be exempt, especially since they are already eligible for the tax credit in Quebec. Not only are they eligible for the tax credit in Quebec, but they are also regulated professions.
Psychoeducation, unlike psychology, is not aimed at making a diagnosis. Other people can practise it, including guidance counsellors, criminologists, occupational therapists, nurses, psychoeducators, sexologists and social workers. These are all people who can practise psychoeducation if they have received the necessary training, completed the internships and hold a licence from the Ordre des psychologues du Québec. This involves roughly 765 hours of university courses, 600 hours of practical training and a master's degree in mental health. Not just anyone can practise this. These are serious people who have completed the necessary studies. They are professionals who are fully qualified to do this work.
To us, there was still some uncertainty. The fact that a public servant tells us that they should be covered is not a strong guarantee. What is more, some psychoeducators contacted us to say that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's analysis of the changes to the excise tax used occupation code 621330, “Offices of mental health practitioners”. It would seem that is not exactly the same code that psychoeducators use. Since it is not the same code, the psychoeducators wondered if that meant they would be excluded, since the Parliamentary Budget Officer's analysis did not specifically talk about their profession. Is there a mistake here? I would like to know.
We wanted to be sure that these people did not slip through the cracks. We wanted to be sure that everyone was covered, that everyone could benefit from not having to charge these taxes for services that are essential, that people need. I proposed the amendment, but unfortunately it was deemed out of order. I am not necessarily discouraged. I am disappointed, obviously, but I do hope that at the end of the day, the interpretation will go our way. If we could have at least ended the uncertainty, that would have already been something.
That is why I wanted to point it out in my speech today. I think it is important for every profession where people do serious, professional work to be recognized. I understand that psychoeducation and sexology are two professions that are not as common in English Canada as they are in Quebec. That is because Quebec is ahead of the curve. Quebec launched the first such programs and also ensured that the profession is regulated, which is not necessarily the case in the rest of Canada.
I recognize that it can sometimes create legal issues when a legal framework is set up at the federal level but will not be exactly the same in Quebec. Credits and subsidies will be recognized but will not be eligible in Quebec. In fact, if there is one reason why we would like Quebec to be independent, it is so that there are no more problems, no more being penalized by the federal government every time Quebec innovates. We know our stuff. There are many other areas where Quebec is at the forefront and ahead of the curve in Canada. Just think of child care. Quebec is at the forefront of all sorts of issues compared to Canada. Unfortunately, we are still being somewhat held back by the federal government.
All that being said, I want to once again commend the work of the member for Cumberland—Colchester and the work of all members of the House. Everyone seems to have realized how important it is to support mental health care.
In closing, I would like to add that the federal government's approach is predatory. We know that the federal government likes to give lectures and to tell Quebec how to manage its jurisdictions, but we also know that it is making cuts to health care funding. One of the consequences of those cuts is that Quebec sometimes does not have the money to hire the staff it needs to provide the services that people need. I hope that the federal government will hear that. I hope that, one day, the federal government will finally listen to the needs of Quebec and increase health transfers, at least before Quebec becomes independent. I especially hope that, when it comes time to implement Bill C‑59 or Bill C‑323, if it is passed, the federal government will have listened to the opinions of professionals in Quebec and will understand the reality in Quebec, which can be a bit different from the reality in the rest of Canada, so that these professionals will not be penalized compared to other professionals and so that they can provide quality services to Quebeckers.
1473 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to approach this bill in a couple of ways.
First, to deal specifically with Bill C-323 and the issue of mental health, and to pick up on the point I put forward to the member in the form of a question. Over the years, we have seen a substantial change in attitude towards the issue of mental health.
Back in late 1980s, I can recall a wonderful doctor. He was my favourite doctor. Every so often I talk to him, and I still call him my favourite doctor. Dr. Gulzar Cheema was a health care critic back in the day, in the late 1980s. I would like to think that he was one of the pioneers in trying to raise the importance of mental health. He worked very closely with Sharon Carstairs, the leader of the Liberal Party at the time, where there was a great deal of emphasis on this.
One thing that he had advocated for was the need to recognize mental health to the degree that the province should actually establish a mental health department. That was to amplify just how important mental health is to our health care system. He went on to run as an MLA in British Columbia and was elected. That is where the first mental health department was actually established, from what I understand. I could be corrected on that, but I believe it was one of them, if not the first one at the provincial level.
Fast forward to today, and we have a government that has recognized the importance of mental health, from a department perspective. The member made reference to a substantial commitment of literally hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars that, as a government, we have not only talked about but also put into place. We are talking about somewhere in the neighbourhood of $5 billion over a set period of time to encourage provinces to look at ways in which we could ultimately see better mental health care services.
In fact, the creation of the youth mental health fund can be found in the most recent federal budget. It is substantial fund of money, somewhere in the neighbourhood of approximately $500 million. Again, it is there to support young people and organizations and to assist in dealing with the important issue of mental health.
The budgetary measure, a way in which we can contribute to mental health, is something we have been very aggressive on. I have often made reference to the $200-billion investment in health care that we have announced for the next 10 years. When we break down the investment, a considerable percentage of that is going to go towards the issue of mental health, either directly or indirectly. I believe that speaks volumes in terms of the way the national government can ensure that we have some form of standards and can encourage all the different provinces and territories, in our own way, to see more delivery of mental health care services.
It is one thing that I think distinguishes us from the Bloc and the Conservative Party. They do not see the benefits of the national party playing a stronger role in health care, in terms of the Canada Health Act and the type of programming we can put in place. It would ensure that, no matter where Canadians live, whether it is in British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia or anywhere in between, or up north in the Yukon, there would be programs throughout our different communities. That is really important.
It is one of the differences between the political parties here today.
When we think of Bill C-323, we think of psychotherapy and mental health counselling, and the fine work these people perform day in and day out in addressing such an important issue. We need to provide direct support to them and one of the ways we can do that is by exempting them from having to pay GST and HST.
I am grateful that the member recognized that and brought it forward in the form of a private member's bill, even though, as the member made reference to, it was incorporated into the fall economic statement. I am not going to get into what came first, the chicken versus the egg, in regard to this issue. However, I can say both sides agree that it is the right thing to do.
To that end, I am grateful because we do know that one of two things will happen. Either Bill C-59 will pass, and the psychotherapy and mental health counselling exemption for the GST and HST will take place, or the member across the way and I will be knocking on doors, because Bill C-59 is a confidence vote. That means it will be passing.
In that sense, it is a good thing. It is only a question of time. We might differ a bit in terms of the timing because there are a number of initiatives within Bill C-59, and if we dig a bit deeper than just the number of the bill, it is the fall economic statement. That is a piece of legislation that we were hoping to pass long ago.
One of the problems with having a substantive legislative agenda, as we do as a government in trying to support Canadians, is that time is a scarce commodity on the floor of the House. As a result, we are not necessarily able to pass as much legislation as we would like in the limited amount of time we have. It does not take too much to throw things off, unfortunately. Hopefully, Bill C-59 will pass relatively shortly through the Senate. When that happens, the psychotherapy and mental health counselling exemption will take effect. I think members on all sides of the House would recognize that as a good thing. No one owns a good idea. Let us just appreciate it for what it is worth.
There was another area I wanted to make reference to, and I wanted to talk about it in the spirit of what has been proposed. The government, along with the opposition, have been also talking about the 988 suicide crisis line. It has been an initiative that both the official opposition and the government have been very supportive of. As a result, we now have that suicide crisis line in place. I think by having that 988 number today, it does make a very positive impact, both directly and indirectly. The primary purpose for having the line is for those who will be using it, and that is stating the obvious. There is also a great deal of benefit because it raises the importance of mental health issues.
That is where I will do the full circle in terms of my comments today on the legislation that we are talking about. Mental health is a part of good health. It is not just being in a hospital with a broken arm. Mental and physical health are equally important.
1181 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that Bill C-323, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services), be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, whenever we have an opportunity to bring a private member's bill to this House, it is an important and exciting day. I know some of my colleagues on both sides, or at least over here, have had the opportunity to do that, and some of them even successfully, which is a great feeling, especially when private members' bills speak on behalf of the people who asked us to do this work on their behalf. It is a significant opportunity that can have a very personal meaning attached to it.
Bill C-323, as you, Mr. Speaker, have spoken about, has had a bit of a tumultuous course in this House, even having been adopted in the fall economic statement, in some form at least. Many would suggest that it should be taken as a great compliment that the NDP-Liberal government would see the wisdom of things that we do on this side of the House, which happens very rarely, I would suggest. We should be happy that it happened. Since it is Friday, we will just be happy that it happened, nonetheless.
The original form of Bill C-323 recognized that psychotherapy and mental health counselling services are not exempt from GST and/or HST, thereby making it significantly more expensive when Canadians have to pay out of pocket for those things. If we do the math associated with it, depending on where one lives, removing those services from GST or HST could mean that every seventh or eighth session would, in essence, be free, although we know nothing is free. Certainly on this side of the House, we get concerned with the use of the word “free”.
That being said, one significant type of therapy that was omitted originally was registered massage therapy services. When we look at how people recover from their mental health stress, distress and illnesses, we do know that registered massage therapy services can be a significant part of that. Many people choose to use registered massage therapy services on a regular basis as maybe a health maintenance type of program. Of course, many people choose to use it with injury and other illness as part of their ongoing self-care regimen. When we look at the utility of registered massage therapy services, I would suggest that adding it to this private member's bill would make perfect sense with the way it dovetails with self-care that Canadians so desire.
I know that I have talked a bit about this before, but it is worth repeating. Mental health difficulties and, indeed, perhaps even the crisis that exists in Canada are ongoing. In a more cumulative sense, we know that after age 40, one in two Canadians will have had a mental health diagnosis during their lifetime. Those fortunate enough to have someone sitting beside them can look at that and understand how significant that really is, when we realize it is every other person in Canada at the current time.
I will try not to irritate the NDP-Liberal government too much, because I do want it to pass this bill, but I cannot not say that I am incredibly disappointed with its announcement of the $4.5-billion Canada mental health transfer, which has never been allocated. I know that the folks on the other side of the House will say that they have allocated it in a different way, and this and that. I am not entirely convinced of that. I would like to see the numbers and understand where the $4.5 billion is.
That being said, I am not trying to be irritating to the NDP-Liberal government, but it is a bit of a cruel trick to say to Canadians that this country values mental health treatment and support for people who suffer with mental illness. The NDP-Liberal government effectively said, “We will transfer $4.5 billion to provinces to help strengthen mental health treatment and diagnosis”, and then, of course, it did not happen. That is the proverbial rug being pulled out from under people, and it is a sad day when that happens. It was a big announcement, but it just did not happen; that is the way it went.
To further underscore the severity of mental illness in this country, we know from studies being done that the cost to the economy of our great nation is about $51 billion every year in lost productivity, direct health care costs and mental health quality-of-life issues for people who suffer from mental illness. It is not insignificant; even though we talk in the House easily about billions of dollars, $51 billion is a heck of a lot of money. How do we put a price on individual suffering and the angst and distress that it causes?
I think one of the things that has been done reasonably well in our great country is the ability now that people have to understand that, first, mental health issues are incredibly common, and also, second, that it is important that we have the courage and the ability to speak out about them. Certainly initiatives like the Bell Let's Talk Day have been important. I will also give a shout-out to Kids Help Phone because I think it has done incredible work.
There is also the advocacy work of my colleague, the member for Cariboo—Prince George, with respect to the 988 suicide prevention hotline. I am absolutely thrilled to tell members that he will speak to Bill C-323 later. His passion and his compassion for Canadians always come through in everything that he says. When he speaks, it really comes from the heart, which has a significant amount of meaning for me. I am happy to call him a friend and a colleague.
In that vein, we do know, sadly, that 11 Canadians die every day by suicide. It goes without saying, of course, that is 11 Canadians too many. When we think about it deeply as an individual, we begin to think how bad must things be in a person's life that they think their only option is to take their own life, that things are that incredibly difficult and that there is no future they can possibly see. However, certainly if they have the opportunity to realize there is a 988 number, and they think, “Hey, I can reach out to this number and have someone answer me”, then we know the likelihood is hopeful that they may see a different picture when they are finished with some talk therapy, as we might say.
However, accessing talk therapy, accessing help from a therapist of whatever kind one may choose, has become exceedingly difficult in this country. We know that it has become more and more difficult because Canadians do not have access to primary care. Seven million Canadians do not have access to primary care in this country. Why is that important? It is important because the majority of the way we access care in this country is by having a primary care provider. If they are unable to meet someone's service needs themself, they will reach out on their behalf and help find someone who can.
Even in the town of Truro, Nova Scotia, where I live and where I was a family physician for many years, when people finally make the decision to present themselves to me, for example, as a former family physician, and have made the decision that they need to get some help, they do not want to wait months or weeks to get that help.
I know that they have struggled with that decision, often over many weeks and months, and that when they finally make that decision, it is important that they get help in a timely fashion. Sadly, at the current time, the timely help that Canadians need is just not available to them, and we need to be more responsive, as a country, to Canadians who need mental health care. This is not just for financial reasons but, most important, for the mental health quality of life that Canadians want to experience, and for their inclusion in and enjoyment of society.
We also have to talk a bit about the opioid crisis when we were talking about mental health in this country. People with a mental health diagnosis are twice as likely to suffer with substance use disorder and misuse of substances as well. We all know in the House that this is a crisis in this great country. I am not going to stand here to say that we do not, perhaps, disagree on how it is being treated. However, it is important that Canadians understand that we all would agree, and certainly I do not think I will get much push-back from my colleagues, that there is a crisis with respect to opioid use in this country. We also know that incredibly, sadly and disappointingly, 22 Canadians are dying every day from opioid overdoses.
As I said, we may differ on how this should be tackled. That being said, we do know that resources need to be given to help with things such as prevention. How do we help ensure that future generations of Canadians do not suffer with substance use disorder the way that we are seeing in our country now? We still also believe in this country that there needs to be disruption of those who deal drugs and profit from the suffering of others. That has to be an important part of it and, of course, recovery has to be a part of it, as well as what quality, meaningful recovery looks like. We can argue about that, but we need to make progress with respect to recovery in this country, especially for those who want to choose to attend recovery programs, get their lives back in a meaningful fashion and mend those relationships that have become very difficult to mend.
People need vocational training. They need housing. They need support. We all know that, and it does not matter from which side of the House one is arguing that point. This is a huge problem. In spite of the fact that we know there are differences in how we want to approach it, we have seen compassionate testimony on the health committee. I know, by virtue of the fact that all of us agreed to extend the study on opioids in Canada, that we know that this is a significant problem for many Canadians.
Therefore, we turn our attention to unmet mental health needs. A third of Canadians have unmet mental health needs. That is a significant number of people, and we know that currently 20% of Canadians are suffering with mental health issues. When we do the math, based on 40 million Canadians, that is quite simply eight million Canadians. This is a significant problem in our country, and we need to devote some resources to fixing that problem.
Bill C-323 is not a cure-all. It is not a panacea. It does not mean that, if passed in the House, suddenly all of the mental health issues are going to be gone for Canadians. Boy, I wish I had that opportunity.
For people who are seeking help and are paying out of their pocket, Bill C-323 would help. The bill would mean that, as a country, we would not charge them GST and HST on psychotherapy, counselling therapy and registered massage therapy services. If the House sees fit to, hopefully, pass the amendment and ensure that this bill is significantly different, it would be sent to the finance committee, since it deals with taxes and not to the health committee. The health committee does not want us to deal with money there, but just other important health-related issues.
I will leave it at that. Hopefully, Canadians now have a good understanding of the compassion and concern that we on this side of the House, shared with our NDP and Liberal colleagues, have for Canadians who are suffering out there, and that we see fit to help alleviate that suffering in some way, shape or form, today, here in the House.
2076 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The Chair wishes to draw the attention of the House to a particular situation concerning Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act regading mental health services, standing in the name of the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.
The bill was previously the subject of a ruling on December 12, 2023. The Chair addressed the similarity between Bill C-323 and Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.
Both bills would amend sections 1 and 7 of part II of schedule V of the Excise Tax Act in order to exempt psychotherapy from GST, along with “mental health counselling services” in the case of Bill C-323 and “counselling therapy services” in the case of Bill C-59.
As explained in a ruling regarding Bill C-250 of May 11, 2022, which can be found on page 5123 of the debates:
The House should not face a situation where the same question can be cited twice within the same session, unless the House's intention is to rescind or revoke the decision.
Government and private members' bills belong to different categories of items and are governed by different sets of rules and precedents. Standing Order 94(1) provides the Speaker with the authority to “make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of Private Members' Business”.
The House passed Bill C‑59 at third reading and sent it to the Senate on May 28, 2024. To comply with the principle that the House should not face a situation where the same question can be cited twice within the same session, the Chair may not put the question on the motion for third reading of Bill C‑323 unless, of course, the House takes other measures to substantially amend the bill before that stage is reached.
For now, the Chair will give the House the opportunity to do so and allow the member for Cumberland—Colchester to move the motion for third reading of Bill C-323.
If no changes are made to Bill C‑323, the Chair will delay the vote on the bill at third reading until the process surrounding Bill C‑59 has been completed by the Senate. If Bill C‑59 is passed by the Senate and Bill C‑323 is still in its current form when the time comes for the question to be put on the motion for third reading, the House will not be able to vote on it.
452 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here this evening to finally give this speech, which I have been looking forward to doing for quite some time. I would like to start by saying that there are some good measures in Bill C‑59. As everyone knows, this is an omnibus bill. It would have been terrible to not have anything to sink our teeth into. Of these good measures, I have identified a few that I think are worth highlighting in the House.
First, Bill C‑59 seeks to make it more difficult to use tax havens by cracking down on two schemes. The Bloc Québécois has wanted to crack down on tax havens for a long time. It is not perfect, but the government is nevertheless tackling two schemes, specifically interest deductibility between subsidiaries and hybrid mismatch arrangements. This measure was recommended by the OECD working group on tax evasion.
One of the schemes involving tax havens is the creation of financing subsidiaries. Simply put, the primary function of a subsidiary in a tax haven is to lend to the Canadian parent company. The interest paid by the Canadian company is thus diverted to a tax haven where it is essentially not taxed. That is the loophole that Bill C‑59 aims to close. This is a good measure. As for the implementation of rules on hybrid mismatch arrangements, this is consistent with the OECD and the Group of Twenty base erosion and profit shifting project recommendations regarding cross-border tax avoidance structures.
This bill also picks up on the idea of Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act regarding mental health services, which was sponsored by my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester and passed unanimously at second reading. The Bloc Québécois supports that bill. Quebec is a pioneer in psychotherapy legislation and has inspired several provinces, like Ontario, to regulate psychotherapy. Anyone who wishes to offer psychotherapy services in Quebec and who is not a doctor or psychologist must obtain a licence from the Ordre des psychologues du Québec. However, the different tax treatment afforded to the various professional associations is unfair. For doctors and psychologists, psychotherapy falls within their scope of practice and is therefore not taxable, but all other categories of professionals must charge tax on the services they provide. The bill would address this unfairness and would come as a welcome change, given the growing need for mental health services. The bill also includes a review of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. At first glance, this is a small step in the right direction.
In the House, if a bill is good for Quebec, then the Bloc Québécois votes in favour of it. If a bill is bad for Quebec, then my colleagues and I vote against it. As I said in the beginning, there are some good things about Bill C‑59, but mostly it is a bad bill. That is why the Bloc Québécois will be voting against it. Bill C‑59 is an omnibus bill that is almost 550 pages long. It sets out 60 different measures and amends or creates 31 laws and regulations. I would like to remind the House that there are some good things in the bill but that the Bloc Québécois will be opposing it at second reading because of two measures.
There are two things that the Bloc Québécois still does not like about the bill. That will not change, regardless of the political party sitting on the other side of the House. The first thing is that this is the umpteenth time the federal government has tried to infringe on provincial jurisdictions. The second thing is the subsidies that the government is giving to oil companies at Quebeckers' expense. This bill gives $30.3 billion in subsidies to oil companies in the form of tax credits. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change is telling us that his government has put an end to oil subsidies, but he should have read his government's bill because that is not what it says. We are talking about $30.3. billion that is being taken out of taxpayers' pockets and given as a gift to oil companies so that they can pollute less, when they obviously do not need that money. One thing is certain, I highly doubt that the official opposition will do much to oppose that, even if it is “wacko”, as they say.
Another crazy idea in this bill is the creation of a federal department of municipal affairs called the department of housing, infrastructure and communities, which will lead to more federal attempts at interference, more endless discussions and more delays, when the housing crisis requires swift action.
On top of these two very bad measures, the government made no attempt to address the Bloc Québécois' priorities, priorities that reflected the real and urgent needs of Quebeckers. When my colleagues and I are on the ground, in our ridings, we connect with our constituents and take calls every day at our offices. People talk to us about these needs.
Worse yet, in response to Quebec's requests, the federal government decided once again to disregard provincial jurisdictions. Housing, local infrastructure, land use, municipal affairs: none of that falls under federal jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, Bill C‑59 creates the department of housing, infrastructure and communities. By creating a designated department, Bill C‑59 gives the minister the capacity to interfere even more. This department will allow the federal government to impose even more conditions on the provinces and municipalities and, of course, make the delays even worse.
Former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau tried a similar stunt when he created the department of urban affairs in 1971, and it failed miserably. To prevent the federal government from meddling in municipal affairs, the Quebec government amended its Act respecting the Ministère du Conseil exécutif to prohibit municipalities, RCMs, school boards and crown corporations from dealing directly with Ottawa. That law remains in effect.
The department of urban affairs caused endless bickering between the federal government and the provinces for its entire existence and never managed to deliver anything useful. It was finally shut down in 1979, which was good for Quebeckers, under pressure from a certain PQ government led by René Lévesque.
Despite this disastrous experiment, the federal government is trying something similar today. After the national housing strategy was announced, it took more than three years for an agreement to be signed between Quebec and Ottawa. Just recently, the federal government refused to give $900 million to Quebec to create housing, with no strings attached. It is hard to imagine that negotiations will be streamlined under a new department.
The picture is not much brighter if we look at the other federal parties. The government is essentially proposing more and more centralization. The Conservatives display the same centralizing tendency, only they are also threatening to cut investments if housing construction targets are not met. This is a disturbing trend among all the federalist parties in the House.
It will come as no surprise to learn that we will not support the creation of a department whose main mission is to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions. We will not support Bill C‑59 either. The Bloc Québécois will continue to oppose all forms of federal interference in Quebec's jurisdictions for as long as it takes, for one very simple but exceedingly important reason: Quebec never has been and never will be dictated to by the federal government.
Once again, we have proof that this government, this institution, the federal Parliament, does not respect the Quebec nation. It will not respect the Quebec nation until the people of Quebec decide to create a true nation with all the tools needed to achieve Quebec's sovereignty and independence.
When that time comes, we will congratulate them on creating a new department of no consequence to us.
1381 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that Bill C-277, an act to establish a national strategy on brain injuries, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is indeed a great and rare honour to be able to stand in the House of Commons to sponsor and present a piece of legislation for all of my colleagues to consider. With that being said, I am pleased to kick off the debate respecting Bill C-277, the national strategy on brain injuries act. Before I get into the details of the bill, I want to start by sharing three personal stories so members of the chamber who are listening can get a real sense of why the national strategy is so important.
I want to tell the story of Kyle Mockford from my riding, who in 2012 was brutally attacked from behind, being struck up to 20 times in the head before collapsing, unconscious. For months after, he experienced severe headaches, balance problems, fatigue, poor coordination, and reductions in reasoning skills, concentration and memory. This was followed by bouts of depression, anxiety, compulsive-aggressive behaviour and PTSD, all of which got progressively worse after the attack. In his words:
I expect I’ll never get back to being completely normal, but I’m finally doing the proper things to get back to normal as much as is possible after falling through the cracks for so long. I want to shine a light on how serious brain injuries can be, and that they can and will have long-lasting consequences and effects on a person’s life.
I also want to tell you the story of Derrick Forsyth from Victoria, a man who has 85 criminal convictions and who was caught up in a vicious, repeating cycle of doing time in prison, getting out and doing time again. A series of undiagnosed brain injuries dating back to his childhood led to frequent interactions with our criminal justice system and to an addiction to drugs. However, with proper support, he has turned his life around. Derrick still faces symptoms of brain injury, including extreme fatigue, which will never go away, but he says that dealing with the injury has taught him how to be more giving, understanding and compassionate.
Finally, I want to tell you the story of Abbotsford resident and school trustee, Shirley Wilson, and her late son Jacob:
Jacob suffered a traumatic brain injury after he was struck by a pickup truck in August 2018 at the age of 21 while he was walking along Marshall Road in Abbotsford.
He was resuscitated three times by medical teams that night.
Over the last years of his life, the devastating injuries he sustained led to isolation, psychosis, drug addiction and [eventually] his death by an accidental fentanyl overdose on Nov. 11, 2021.
He was just 24 years old.
Here are the statistics. Brain injuries are often known as the hidden epidemic because the people who have them do not always bear physical scars. Acquired brain injuries can very generally be separated into the traumatic and the non-traumatic kind. Traumatic brain injuries can come from assault, from playing sports or from motor vehicle accidents. Non-traumatic acquired brain injuries can come from strokes, overdoses and aneurysms.
It is estimated that over 160,000 new cases of brain injury happen annually in Canada, and that there is an estimated national prevalence of over 1.5 million cases. Traumatic brain injuries are 44 times more common than spinal cord injuries, 30 times more common than breast cancer and 400 times more common than HIV/AIDS. In fact the incidence and prevalence of brain injuries surpass that of HIV/AIDS, spinal cord injury, breast cancer and multiple sclerosis combined.
We know that brain injuries contribute to homelessness, incarceration, substance use and mental health issues. We know that brain injury survivors face a 200% increased risk of struggling with addictions, and their risk of suicide increases by 400% after a brain injury.
Despite these stark statistics, funding for awareness, prevention and treatment pales in comparison with that of many other ailments impacting the health and well-being of Canadians. We all know about Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and the Canadian Cancer Society, and the good work that they do, but knowledge of Brain Injury Canada and how common brain injuries are in Canada pales in comparison.
The rate of traumatic brain injury increases in older groups. We do have an aging demographic, and we know that those over 60 account for 29% of all head injury hospitalizations. We also know that seniors with brain injuries can experience accelerated aging effects and that there can be an increased risk of Alzheimer's disease and dementia.
In response to all of these facts and to the many champions who are working to get this strategy into place, I worked to introduce Bill C-277, the bill that we are considering this evening.
This bill did not develop in a vacuum. I want to single out a particular individual from my riding, from the city of Langford, Janelle Breese Biagioni. I have known her for quite some time. She is a very persistent constituent who is very passionate about these issues. It was through conversations with her that I first came to develop the idea of putting in place a national strategy to address brain injuries. Her story is very personal. Her late husband, Constable Gerald Breese, was once a member of the RCMP. While he was on duty on his motorcycle he was involved in a motor vehicle accident. He went into a coma and unfortunately, eventually, succumbed to his injuries. For her, this is very personal.
This eventually led to my introducing the original Bill C-323 in the previous 43rd Parliament. It was then that it got the attention of Brain Injury Canada. I really want to recognize the people at Brain Injury Canada, especially Michelle McDonald. It is a tremendous organization. It does such incredible work from coast to coast to coast. Through consultations with Brain Injury Canada, we developed the bill we see today. This bill was very much co-written with Brain Injury Canada. I cannot thank it enough for its valuable input and the stakeholders it has reached out to.
Truly, this bill has taken on a life of its own. There are so many people with lived experience and so many organizations and people working in research who have reached out to my office and who are mounting a campaign outside of my efforts inside of the House of Commons to raise awareness. I think of March of Dimes Canada, all of the provincial injury associations, the Cowichan Brain Injury Society from my own riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, the Concussion Legacy Foundation of Canada, but also prominent individuals like Dr. Gabor Maté, who has also lent his support to this bill. What an honour to have such a learned individual, who has been so active in this field, lend his support.
Now, to the language of the bill, essentially this is a national strategy that is going to require the Minister of Health to consult with representatives of provincial governments, with indigenous groups and with relevant stakeholders to develop this strategy to support and improve awareness, prevention and treatment as well as the rehabilitation of persons living with a brain injury.
The strategy includes a number of measures, 11 in total. I will not go through all of them in detail, but very briefly, they include measures like identifying the training, education and guidance needs of health care and other professionals who work in this field; promoting research and improving data collection on the incidence and treatment of brain injuries; promoting information and knowledge sharing; creating national guidelines on the prevention, diagnosis and management of brain injuries; and also fostering collaboration with and providing financial support to those associations that do this important work.
However, there are two items I really want to highlight. The bill would ask the Minister of Health to encourage consultation with mental health professionals, particularly in educational institutions, sports organizations and workplaces, to provide persons who are suffering from the effects of a brain injury, including mental health and addiction problems, with a support system within the community. It also asks the minister to identify challenges resulting from brain injury, such as mental health problems, addiction, housing and homelessness issues and criminality, including intimate partner violence, and to work to develop solutions in collaboration with stakeholders.
I think if we canvass members in the House, we can all agree that those are issues affecting all of our ridings and all of our communities within them.
Let us get to why we need this bill. I first want to apply a gender lens to this bill. Professional sports get a lot of attention with respect to head injuries, but I want to leave people with this startling fact: For every NHL hockey player who suffers a concussion in sport, more than 5,500 Canadian women sustain the same injury from domestic violence. Women in families also tend to have a disproportionately higher burden in terms of the responsibility of providing care to loved ones.
I also think we need to spend time talking about the intersection of brain injury with our criminal justice system. Brain Injury Canada has done a lot of work on this. Evidence shows that sustaining a traumatic brain injury increases the risk of involvement with the criminal justice system. There are many common cognitive, emotional and behavioural symptoms or impairments that can increase the chance of a negative interaction with police and the justice system. These can include anger management issues, challenges with processing information, engaging in high-risk behaviours, inappropriate emotional responses, lack of impulse control, memory impairments and poor judgment.
I know this from speaking to police in my role as the public safety critic. I have also spoken with members who work in our federal correctional system, both the program officers within and the parole officers who work on the outside. Certainly, their first-hand accounts of undiagnosed brain injury within our prison system was absolutely startling testimony to hear directly. Therefore, it is a very real problem, and if we want to be serious about addressing some major societal issues, such as criminality, addressing undiagnosed and even diagnosed brain injuries is going to go a long way to helping these people lead productive lives.
I also want to talk about the intersection with opioid use in our communities. One existing challenge with the treatment of substance use and brain injury at the same time is that current programs are not equipped to handle both. The majority of brain injury rehabilitation, community and support programs require participants to be sober. Similarly, the centres and programs that specialize in addiction support are not able to handle the complex needs of someone who has a brain injury. Again, these are two very real problems that are often interconnected, but we do not yet have adequate support and treatment systems to deal with them at the same time. I know this is an issue in the communities I represent, and I think it is the same right across Canada.
I want to wrap up by saying that there is very much a poor understanding of brain injury and its consequences in both the health and social care systems. I think it is well-known among some segments of the population, but I do not think we have a firm grasp on the situation policy-wise. I believe that, by legislating this requirement for a national strategy, we can truly start treating this major societal problem with the urgency and resources it needs. I hope all members will support me in this. It is a bigger problem than any one province or territory can handle on its own. We know that, with proper treatment and support, many people with brain injuries can return to productive and engaging lives.
It is amazing that I already have support from the cities of Victoria, Langford, Nanaimo and the municipality of North Cowichan. I think many more municipalities are going to follow suit, given the problems they are dealing with in their populations.
I sincerely hope all colleagues are going to join with me in supporting the principle of this bill and send it to the health committee where it belongs.
I want to end with a quote from Dr. Gabor Maté, who stated:
Brain injury is one of the hidden epidemics, too often unrecognized, that exacts a heavy toll on sufferers and their families and caregivers. It has many health implications, which may last a lifetime. Children with brain injuries, for example, are at elevated risk for depression. Other potential consequences of traumatic brain injury include loss of behavior control, aggression, memory loss, dementia and, potentially, substance abuse. Nearly half the homeless population have endured brain injury. A national strategy that entails the proper education of health personnel, teachers, social workers, law enforcement people, service providers and policy makers at all levels is urgently needed. Based on my clinical work and on my extensive reading of the research literature, I fully support this initiative.
I urge all members to listen to those wise words. I would ask the many people campaigning for this bill to give their support to send it to the standing committee. I thank all members in the House for their consideration.
2260 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
It being 3:21 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Finance concerning the extension of time to consider Bill C-323, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services).
Call in the members.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act with respect to mental health services. The committee is requesting an extension of 30 days to consider Bill C-323.
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Both the economic statement of fall 2023 and the budget of spring 2023 are very long and complex documents. As indicated in its title, “An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023”, Bill C-59 indeed contains many measures; some stem from the budget documents, others from the economic statement.
However, some measures are not to be found in either. The Chair takes the view that the main purpose of the bill is not the implementation of a budget, and the exception provided in Standing Order 69.1(2) does not apply in this case.
The Chair must now determine whether a common element connects the various provisions of Bill C-59 and, if not, to what extent all or some of the provisions are closely related. A broad common theme is not sufficient. As explained on November 7, 2017, at page 15095 of the Debates, the Chair must decide “whether the matters are so unrelated as to warrant a separate vote at second and third reading.”
In deciding whether a link exists, the Chair may consider several factors. Different measures may have a single objective or common elements, as the Chair found in its decision on Bill C‑4 on September 29, 2020, whose common element was a public health crisis. Cross-references between parts of a bill, or a lack thereof, may also be an indicator.
After completing this analysis, the Chair believes that Bill C‑59 should indeed be divided for the purpose of voting. As my predecessor noted on November 28, 2022, on page 10087 of the Debates, “[t]he objective here is not to divide the bill for consideration purposes, but to enable the House to decide questions that are not closely related separately.”
First, the measures in clauses 1 to 136, 138 to 143, 168 to 196, 209 to 216, and 278 to 317 appear in the 2023 budget. Since their purpose is to implement certain budget proposals, they would be grouped based on this unifying theme and voted on together.
Second, the measures that can be grouped under the theme of affordability, clauses 137, 144, and 231 to 272, will be subject to a different vote. Clauses 197 to 208 and 342 to 365 will also be grouped for voting because they amend the Canada Labour Code. Clauses 145 to 167, 217 and 218 will be subject to a separate vote because they relate to vaping products, cannabis and tobacco.
The remaining divisions of Bill C-59, consisting of clauses 219 to 230, 273 to 277, 318 and 319, 320 to 322, and 323 to 341, will each be voted on separately because they are not linked to any of the common themes mentioned earlier. In all, nine votes will be held. The Chair will remind members of this division when the bill comes to a vote at second reading.
Finally, I would like to remind members of the Chair's ruling on December 12, 2023, which also dealt with Bill C-59. The Chair found that Bill C-318 and Bill C-323 can continue through the legislative process.
I thank all members for their attention.
558 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on December 12, 2023, by the House leader of the official opposition, concerning the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.
According to the House leader of the official opposition, Bill C‑59 is an omnibus bill and therefore he asked the Chair to apply Standing Order 69.1(1), which provides as follows:
In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.
The member relied on Speaker Regan's decision of November 8, 2017, to argue that Bill C-59 should not benefit from the exception provided by Standing Order 69.1(2). This exception stipulates that section 1 does not apply if a bill “has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation.”
The House leader of the official opposition contended that the implementation of measures announced in the economic statement of November 21, 2023, is not enough of a common element to justify grouping them for voting purposes. He also asserted that an economic statement is not, properly speaking, a budget. The member said that Bill C-59 should be divided in 16 for the purpose of voting. He further stated that two of the 16 pieces, which are similar to bills C‑318 and C‑323, should simply not be put to a vote at all, given that the House has already passed those bills at second reading.
In response, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader pointed out that Bill C-59 mainly contains provisions implementing measures announced in the 2023 budget, along with some measures announced in the fall economic statement, whose common theme is addressing the affordability challenges facing Canadians. Consequently, he concluded that the measures included in the budget and those announced in the fall economic statement should be voted on together.
The Chair must first determine whether the main purpose of Bill C-59 is to implement the budget and whether it therefore falls within the exception provided by Standing Order 69.1(2).
The Standing Orders place very specific conditions on the consideration of budgets. For instance, a particular order of the day must be designated. Debate lasts a certain number of days, and votes take place at certain points in time. From start to finish, budgets are an integral part of the business of ways and means.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, defines financial statements as follows on pages 901 and 902:
On occasion, the Minister of Finance makes an economic statement to the House, generally referred to as a ‘mini‑budget’, that provides basic economic and fiscal information that will be the subject of policy review and public debate leading up to the next budget. Unlike a budget presentation, these statements are delivered without notice and do not precipitate a budget debate. Notices of ways and means motions are also tabled on these occasions.
Budget presentations and economic statements are therefore related concepts, but each has its own unique characteristics.
664 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I am now ready to provide the House with an explanatory ruling on the admissibility of Ways and Means Motion No. 19. On November 29, 2023, I ruled that the order for consideration of the motion, and the subsequent bill based thereon, be allowed to proceed further.
On November 28, 2023, the House leader of the official opposition challenged the admissibility of the motion. He pointed out that Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents), and Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services), both currently in committee, were substantially the same as provisions covered in Ways and Means Motion No. 19, tabled earlier that day.
Concurrence in a ways and means motion constitutes an order to bring in a bill based on the provisions of the motion. This is indeed what happened with the subsequent introduction of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.
The House leader argued that the two private members’ bills had already been the subject of decisions of the House at second reading. The ways and means motion and Bill C-59 would violate a procedural concept, the rule of anticipation, which he described as the “same question rule”. Quoting from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 568, the member seemed to suggest that a ways and means motion could not anticipate a matter already standing on the Order Paper and which was contained in another form of proceeding. He asserted that Bill C-318 and Bill C-323 were more effective tools to accomplish the desired intent than Ways and Means Motion No. 19. As such, both these bills should have priority over the motion.
He also cited precedents in relation to bills that could or could not proceed further, based on the fundamental principle that the same question cannot be decided twice within a session.
The member further suggested that Ways and Means Motion No. 19 be put in abeyance pending the outcome of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, based on the rule of anticipation.
For his part, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader countered that further consideration of Ways and Means Motion No. 19, as well as subsequent proceedings on an associated bill, was in order. He referenced past precedents about similar bills. He made the point that the provisions in Ways and Means Motion No. 19 contained numerous elements that are not found in Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, which indicates that the principle and scope of the ways and means motion are broader than what is found in either of the bills. As such, Ways and Means Motion No. 19, and the bill based thereon, constituted different questions.
In his intervention, the House leader of the official opposition quoted from page 568 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on the rule of anticipation. The Chair would like to read, from the same page, prior to the quoted passage. It states:
The moving of a motion was formerly subject to the ancient “rule of anticipation” which is no longer strictly observed.
Further down on the same page it says, “While the rule of anticipation is part of the Standing Orders in the British House of Commons, it has never been so in the Canadian House of Commons. Furthermore, references to past attempts to apply this British rule to Canadian practice are inconclusive.”
Even though the notion of anticipation is described in our procedural authorities, and the expression is sometimes colloquially used in points of order and even some past rulings dealing with similar items, it is indeed a very difficult concept to apply in our context.
Establishing a hierarchy between bills and motions, or between categories of bills, and giving precedence to some, may prove difficult, except in very specific cases, detailed in House of Commons Procedure and Practice. Bills and motions are different by nature and achieve different ends.
What the Chair is seized with in reviewing the current matter is the rule forbidding the same question from being decided twice in the same session. It is different from the concept of anticipation and, in the view of the Chair, the one that should apply.
In his submission, the House leader of the official opposition cited various recent precedents, and the Chair thinks it pertinent to describe some of their procedural subtleties.
The first example, from the last Parliament, pertained to two bills not identical, but substantially similar: Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding sports betting, a private members' bill, and Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding single event sport betting, a government bill. Both were at second reading and both were very short bills touching the same section of the Criminal Code.
By adopting Bill C‑218 at second reading, the House had agreed to the larger principle of repealing the very portion of the Criminal Code that Bill C‑13 also sought to amend. This sequencing left the House with a situation where Bill C‑13 could not move forward as long as Bill C‑218 continued its course.
The second example, from earlier this session, described a budget implementation bill, Bill C-19, and a votable private members’ bill amending the Criminal Code regarding the promotion of anti-Semitism, Bill C-250. The latter, introduced on February 9, 2022, contained provisions that were subsequently included in Bill C-19, introduced on April 28, 2022. However, of the two bills, the government bill was the first to be adopted at second reading and referred to committee. One of the key differences was that the two bills were not substantially identical. Bill C-19 was much broader in scope than Bill C-250. By agreeing to Bill C-19, the House de facto agreed with the principles presented in C-250. No decision having yet been made on Bill C-250, the Chair ordered that it be held as pending business until such time as royal assent be granted to Bill C-19.
Finally, the member referenced rulings dealing with two votable Private Members’ Business items, Bill C-243, an act respecting the elimination of the use of forced labour and child labour in supply chains, and Bill S-211, an act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to amend the Customs Tariff. The two bills had the same objective and only one was allowed to proceed further. The Chair indicated at the time that the case involved an unusual set of circumstances, since normally one of them could have been designated as non-votable by the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business had the sequence of events been different.
The House leader's main argument hinged on the question of whether provisions contained in Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and therefore Bill C-59 are similar or identical to Bills C-318 and C-323.
Bills C‑318 and C‑323 have been both read a second time and referred to committee, while no decision has yet been made on Bill C‑59. An exhaustive review of its provisions shows that it does contain some similar provisions found in the two aforementioned private members' bills. However, Bill C‑59 cannot be described as substantially similar or identical to them.
Its scope is vastly broader, containing many more elements than what is included in Bills C-318 and C-323, including taxation legislation and provisions requiring a royal recommendation
The bills are similar in part, but are not substantially the same. The principles of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, as adopted at second reading, are indeed included in the broader Bill C-59, but the reverse is not true. Therefore, the decision the House will take on Bill C-59 will not be the same. Accordingly, there is no procedural reason to stop the bill from continuing its journey through the legislative process.
To be clear, when a government bill and a private member's bill or when two private members' bills are substantially similar, only one of them may proceed and be voted on. Once one of the two has passed second reading, a decision cannot be taken on the other within the same session. Where bills are only similar in part, the effect of adopting one might have a different impact on the other depending on their principle, scope and, of course, which bill is adopted first.
I note that the House leader of the official opposition rose earlier today on a different point of order considering the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-59. I wish to inform the member and the House that I am reviewing the matter closely and I do intend to come back with a ruling in a timely manner.
Nonetheless, for the time being, the Chair sees no reason to rule that Bill C-59 be put in abeyance. As for the two Private Members' Business items currently in committee, it seems premature for the Chair to intervene at this time.
I thank all members for their attention.
1590 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order pursuant to Standing Order 69.1, to ask that you treat Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as an omnibus bill, and divide it for voting purposes at the second and third reading stages.
This argument is, of course, without prejudice to the arguments which were made last week by me in respect of the rule against anticipation and Ways and Means Motion No. 19, which preceded the introduction of Bill C-59, for which the House is still awaiting a ruling from the Speaker.
Section (1) of Standing Order 69.1 provides that “In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting". Section (2) of the same standing order makes an exception for budget implementation bills, stating, “if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation”.
As Speaker Regan ruled on November 8, 2017, at page 15143 of the Debates, where a budget bill contains measures which were not part of the budget, this budget bill exemption applies only to those elements which were in the budget itself. The non-budget elements can be divided under the provisions of Standing Order 69.1(1).
In the case of Bill C-59, calling it a budget implementation bill would be exceedingly generous. While reference to the March budget can be found in the long title, the short title ignores this, calling the bill the “fall economic statement implementation act, 2023”. Not even the government House leader, the manager of the government's parliamentary program, used it as a budget implementation bill, judging by her remarks in the last two weekly business statements. On November 23, she told the House, “it is the intention of the government to commence debate next week concerning the bill relating to the fall economic statement”. This past Thursday, she said that priority will be given to the second reading of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement. Therefore, I would argue that the evident treatment given to Bill C-59 by its own proponents, would mean that its main purpose is, indeed, not the implementation of a budget. Accordingly, it would follow that the exemption found in Standing Order 69.1(2) cannot apply here.
I would further argue that Speaker Regan's November 2017 ruling can be distinguished from the facts at hand today, namely that he dealt with a budget bill with a few extra add-ons. Here, we have a bill that is not even being treated, in the main, as a budget implementation bill and that, therefore, cannot even benefit from a partial exemption, since the main purpose of Bill C-59 is not to implement a budget.
Having addressed that matter, I now wish to turn to the matter of treating the bill as an omnibus one, “where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked”. In my respectful view, the fact that a series of measures may have been previewed in a fall economic statement does not amount to a so-called common element. Given that fall economic statements are often popularly dubbed “mini-budgets” and that the House itself recognizes that budgets often string together otherwise unrelated things by creating the budget implementation bill exemption in Standing Order 69.1, it is my submission that the mere inclusion of an item in a fall economic statement cannot be sufficient to overcome the treatment required for an omnibus bill.
Even if the Chair might be persuaded that all of the measures are, in one form or another, a matter of broad economic policy, I would refer you to Speaker Regan's March 1, 2018, ruling at page 17551 of the Debates:
In presenting arguments relating to Bill C-63, the hon. member for Calgary Shepard raised an interesting concept from the practice in the Quebec National Assembly. Quoting from page 400 of Parliamentary Procedure in Québec, he stated:
“The principle or principles contained in a bill must not be confused with the field it concerns. To frame the concept of principle in that way would prevent the division of most bills, because they apply to a specific field.”
While their procedure for dividing bills is quite different from ours, the idea of distinguishing the principles of a bill from its field has stayed with me. While each bill is different and so too each case, I believe that Standing Order 69.1 can indeed be applied to a bill where all of the initiatives relate to a specific policy area, if those initiatives are sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate decision of the House.
In this particular instance, I have no trouble agreeing that all of the measures contained in Bill C-69 relate to environmental protection. However, I believe there are distinct initiatives that are sufficiently unrelated that they warrant multiple votes.
Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton dealt with another similar situation when he ruled on June 18, 2018, at page 21163 of the Debates, in respect of a former Bill C-59, stating it:
...does clearly contain several different initiatives. It establishes new agencies and mechanisms for oversight of national security agencies and deals with information collection and sharing as well as criminal offences relating to terrorism. That said, one could argue, as the parliamentary secretary did, that since these are all matters related to national security, there is, indeed, a common thread between them. However, the question the Chair must ask itself is whether these specific measures should be subjected to separate votes.
He goes on to state, “In this particular case, while the Chair has no trouble agreeing that all of the measures contained in Bill C-59 relate to national security, it is the Chair's view that there are distinct initiatives that are sufficiently unrelated as to warrant dividing the question.”
Therefore, I would suggest that today's bill, Bill C-59, should also be divided for voting purposes at second reading and, if necessary, at third reading.
After a brief review and analysis of the bill's contents, it seems that it could actually be divided into several groupings: clauses 1 to 95, proposing amendments to the Income Tax Act and consequential amendments to other enactments, as well as the bill's short title; clauses 96 to 128, proposing the creation of a digital services tax; clauses 129 to 136, 138 to 143 and 145 to 167, proposing amendments concerning the excise tax, other than the exemption of GST for mental health services, which is also contained in Bill C-323, a matter to which I will return later; clauses 168 to 196, proposing amendments to the laws governing financial institutions; clauses 197 to 208, proposing to create a leave entitlement related to pregnancy loss and to amend the law concerning bereavement leave; clauses 209 to 216, proposing the creation of a Canada water agency; clauses 217 and 218, proposing amendments to the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act; clauses 219 to 230, proposing amendments to the Canadian Payments Act; clauses 231 to 272 proposing various amendments to competition law; clauses 273 to 277, proposing amendments exempting post-secondary schools from the laws concerning bankruptcy and insolvency; clauses 278 to 317, proposing various legislative amendments concerning money laundering, terrorist financing and sanctions evasions; clauses 318 and 319, concerning the information which is published by the government respecting certain transfer payments to the provinces; clauses 320 to 322, proposing amendments concerning the Public Sector Pension Investment Board; and clauses 323 to 341, proposing the creation of a department of housing, infrastructure and communities.
Additionally, I would propose that clauses 137 and 144, concerning the exemption of GST for mental health services, mirroring the provisions of Bill C-323, as well as clauses 342 to 365, creating employment insurance and job protection benefits for adoptive and surrogate parents, replicating the substance of Bill C-318, should also be separated out from Bill C-59. However, in this instance, I would suggest that, instead of a separate vote, these provisions would simply not proceed further given that the House has already taken a decision on the principle of those matters when it adopted the common-sense Conservative private members' bills at second reading.
Approaching it in this fashion might be an elegant solution to squaring the circle in the ruling that remains pending on Ways and Means Motion No. 19.
In short, Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation bill, is an omnibus bill under Standing Order 69.1. It qualifies in no way for the budget bill exemption in that rule. It can and should be divided into separate votes, about 14 or so based on the thematic groupings of the bill's clauses. It would, if so divided, offer an elegant solution for a pending Speaker's ruling to reconcile the long-standing rules and precedents of the House respecting multiple decisions on the same question that, for reasons we are awaiting, did not apply to Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and that saw the House vote, yet again, on the principles found in two Conservative private members' bills that had already been adopted at second reading.
1639 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the second point of order is a little more detailed.
I rise to respond to a point of order raised on Tuesday, November 28, by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle respecting the inadmissibility of the notice of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and two items of Private Members' Business.
The crux of the argument by the member opposite is on the principle of a bill at second reading stage. This is the heart of the argument. I would humbly point to the purpose of the second reading debate and the vote at that stage, which is on the principle of the bill.
Before I get into the specific matters involved in the member's argument, I would like to remind my colleagues across the aisle of what a debate and vote on the principle of a bill entails.
Members of the House know that our Standing Orders and practices derive from those of Westminster. If a member would like to look into how debates at Westminster are handled at the second reading stage, they might be surprised. The British House of Commons has 650 members, yet the debate on any government bill at the second reading stage very rarely exceeds one sitting day.
Now I will go to the specific argument raised by my colleague across the way. The two bills in question that are subject to certain provisions containing Ways and Means Motion No. 19 are Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, and Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services).
With respect to the first item, Bill C-318 requires a royal recommendation which would govern the entire scheme of a new employment insurance benefit for adoptive parents. As a result, the bill cannot come to a vote at third reading in the absence of a royal recommendation provided by a minister of the Crown.
The bill was drafted by employees of the law clerk's office who would have notified the sponsor of this requirement. While I would not want to speculate on the intentions of the member who sponsored this bill, there is little doubt that the member knew this bill would not pass without royal recommendation.
As a result of a ministerial mandate commitment to bring forward an employment insurance benefit for adoptive parents with an accompanying royal recommendation, the government has brought forward this measure for consideration of the House in a manner that raises no procedural obstacle to providing this important benefit for Canadians. It is the sole prerogative of the executive to authorize new and distinct spending from the consolidated revenue fund, and that is what is proposed in the bill that would implement the measures contained in Ways and Means Motion No. 19.
Now I will go to the point of a similar question. The example my colleague raised with respect to the Speaker's ruling on February 18, 2021, concerns Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 respecting single sports betting. Both bills contain the same principle, that being to allow certain forms of single sports betting. The approaches contained in Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 were slightly different, but achieved the same purpose. As a result, and rightly so, the Speaker ruled that the bills were substantially similar and ruled that Bill C-13 not be proceeded with.
The situation with Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 bears no resemblance to the situation currently before the House, and the member opposite has been again helpful in making my argument. The member cites the situation with Bill C-19 and Bill C-250 concerning Holocaust denial.
The case with this situation, and the case currently before the House, is instructional for the question faced by the Speaker, which is whether the principle of the questions on the second reading of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, and the question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19, are the same.
The answer is categorically no. The question on both Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question should Ways and Means Motion No. 19 be adopted on the implementing of a bill are vastly different. The questions at second reading on Bill C-318 and Bill C-323 are specific questions on the principle of measures contained in those private members' bills.
The question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question at second reading on the bill to implement those measures is much broader. As the member stated in his intervention yesterday, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 contains many measures announced in the 2023 budget as well as in the fall economic statement. While the measures to implement the fall economic statement are thematically linked to the issue of affordability, they contain many measures to address the affordability challenges facing Canadians. As a result, the question at second reading on implementing legislation is a very different question for the House to consider.
In conclusion, while there have been precedents respecting similar questions on similar bills which propose a scheme for a specific issue, namely Bill C-13 and Bill C-218, this and other precedents do not in any way suggest that the questions at second reading on Bill C-323 and Bill C-318 in any way resemble the question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question at second reading on the implementing bill for the measures contained in the 2023 budget and the fall economic statement.
925 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order challenging the admissibility of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 concerning the fall economic statement implementation bill, which was tabled earlier today by the Deputy Prime Minister. It is my submission that the motion offends the rule against anticipation, sometimes also known as the “same question rule”. That rule is described on page 568 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which reads as follows:
The rule is dependent on the principle which forbids the same question from being decided twice within the same session. It does not apply, however, to similar or identical motions or bills which appear on the Notice Paper prior to debate. The rule of anticipation becomes operative only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with. For example, two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of. If a decision is taken on the first bill (for example, to defeat the bill or advance it through a stage in the legislative process), then the other may not be proceeded with...If the first bill is withdrawn (by unanimous consent, often after debate has started), then the second may be proceeded with.
The rule against anticipation has been building a significant number of precedents in the past few years in light of the NDP-Liberal government's growing pattern of stealing common-sense Conservative private members' bills to add to their own legislative agenda. While our authorities suggest that such points of order should be raised only when the second question is actually proposed from the Chair, I recognize that in light of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 being an omnibus proposal, exceeding 500 pages in length, you, Madam Speaker, might appreciate having the evening to reflect on the issues I am about to discuss before the government intends to call it for consideration tomorrow.
In the present case, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 includes provisions that the House has already adopted in principle at second reading through two private members' bills.
On September 20, the House passed second reading Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, sponsored by the Conservative hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster. The summary printed on the inside cover of the bill reads:
This enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act to introduce a new type of special benefits: an attachment benefit of 15 weeks for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. It also amends the Canada Labour Code to extend parental leave accordingly.
Last week's fall economic statement on pages 43 and 42 states that:
The 2023 Fall Economic Statement proposes to introduce a new 15-week shareable EI adoption...Surrogate parents will also be eligible for this benefit.
The 2023 Fall Economic Statement also proposes to make amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, as well as corresponding changes to the Canada Labour Code, to ensure that workers in federally regulated industries have the job protection they need while receiving the EI adoption benefit.
Those provisions appear as clauses 342 to 365 of Ways and Means Motion No. 19. While the legislative language used varies, the ultimate policy objective and therefore the principle of the matter remains the same as a close examination of the two passages I quoted reveals.
The second private member's bill stolen by the government this week is Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, mental health services, sponsored by the Conservative member for Cumberland—Colchester, which the House passed at second reading on September 27. My colleague's bill would amend sections 1 and 7 of part II of schedule V of the Excise Tax Act to exempt psychotherapy and mental health counselling from GST. Clause 137 of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 would do the exact same thing, except that the government refers to “counselling therapy” instead of Bill C-323's “mental health counselling”. That is, I would submit, a distinction without a difference.
Indeed, I would draw the Chair's attention to clause 144 of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 that makes coordinating provisions if each is enacted, which demonstrates the government also sees these as identical measures, but what is especially galling is subclause 144(5), “For greater certainty, if this Act receives royal asset then the other Act [Bill C-323] is deemed never to have produced its effects.” The government would prefer to toss my colleague's important bill down the memory hole. That is just shameful.
Your predecessor, on February 18, 2021, at page 4256 of the Debates, ruled that government Bill C-13 could not be proceeded with further following the House's adoption of Bill C-218, citing the rule against anticipation. In so ruling, the Chair said:
The House is now placed in an unusual situation where a decision was made on one of two very similar bills standing on the Order Paper.
The Chair recognizes that both bills are not identical; they are, however, substantially similar as they both amend the exact same provision of the Criminal Code for similar purposes....
Consequently, as long as Bill C-218 follows its course through the legislative process during this session, Bill C-13 may not be proceeded with.
As for the technical differences between those two bills, the Speaker offered a common-sense solution to reconcile them: “the Chair notes that other avenues would be open to the House to achieve those same ends, such as through amendments proposed to Bill C-218 during the committee's study.”
I would respectfully submit that if the government has any concerns about the drafting of Bill C-318 or Bill C-323, the solution is to bring amendments to committee, not to bigfoot them by throwing them into an omnibus budget bill, but that is exactly what happened here. It is what happened last year when Bill C-250, sponsored by the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, was scooped up by the government and placed in Bill C-19, a budget implementation bill.
In a May 11, 2022, ruling at page 5123 of the Debates, the Deputy Speaker held:
Bill C-19 was adopted at second reading and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance yesterday. The House is now placed in a situation where a decision was made on one of the two bills that contain very similar provisions....
The Chair recognizes that these bills are not identical, as Bill C-19 is much broader in scope and contains other provisions related to the implementation of the budget.
However, in adopting Bill C-19 at second reading, the House has also agreed to the principle of that bill, and consequently, has agreed, among other things, to amend section 319 of the Criminal Code dealing with hate propaganda. As I explained a few moments ago, these are provisions substantially similar to the ones contained in Bill C-250.
Therefore, the question for the Chair is, should Bill C-250 be allowed to proceed further in the legislative process at this time? In the Chair's opinion, it should not be allowed. The House should not face a situation where the same question can be cited twice within the same session, unless the House's intention is to rescind or revoke the decision.
In the case of Bill C-250, the Deputy Speaker directed that it be held as pending business until the final fate of Bill C-19 could be determined. On September 20, 2022, your predecessor ordered Bill C-250 to be discharged and dropped from the Order Paper, given that Bill C-19 had by then received royal assent. A similar pair of rulings occurred on June 6, 2022, and May 11, 2023, in respect of Bill C-243 in light of its overlap with Senate Bill S-211.
While these rulings are all quite recent, they were not novel. Speaker Michener, on March 13, 1959, at page 238 of the Journals, reached the same conclusion for managing this sort of legislative traffic jam:
Thus I have come to the conclusion that this bill must stand, as well as the other bill in the same terms, or at least in terms for exactly the same purpose, until the bill which was first moved has been disposed of either by being withdrawn, which would open the door for one of these other bills to proceed, or by way of being approved, which would automatically dispose of these bills because the House would not vote twice on the same subject matter any more than it would debate the same subject matter twice.
Standing Order 94(1) empowers and directs the Speaker to, “make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of Private Members’ Business”. That standing order, I would submit, behooves you to safeguard the process of Private Members' Business as much as possible by drawing a firm and bright line for the government to stop poaching common-sense Conservative bills and claiming them as their own.
One final consideration I want to place before the Chair is one that did not arise in the context of the pairs of bills and the precedents I have cited. We are dealing here with a ways and means motion, not a bill. Bosc and Gagnon, at page 568, explain the relevance of this distinction in the role against anticipation:
According to this rule, which applied to other proceedings as well as to motions, a motion could not anticipate a matter which was standing on the Order Paper for further discussion, whether as a bill or a motion, and which was contained in a more effective form of proceeding.
The associated footnote points readers to other authorities for a fuller explanation, such as the U.K.'s Erskine May. That book's 25th edition, at paragraph 20.13, explains:
...a matter must not be anticipated if contained in a more effective form of proceeding than the proceeding by which it was sought to be anticipated, but it might be anticipated if contained in an equally or less effective form. A bill or other order of the day is more effective than a motion....
This principle was explained matter-of-factly by Speaker Casgrain on February 24, 1936, at page 68 of the Journals: “A Bill has the right-of-way and cannot be sidetracked by a Motion.”
In the circumstances, if the precedents and procedural authorities of this House are to be applied consistently, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 must be put into abeyance pending the outcome of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323. I would urge you, Madam Speaker, to so rule.
1823 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place and represent the amazing people of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, as well as all Canadians.
It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but it is breathtaking just how desperate the Liberals have become. In the House of Commons, we are witnessing a curious trend: imitation disguised as Liberal innovation.
The recent flurry of activity from our Liberal counterparts presents a spectacle. It is desperation masquerading as originality.
It is really fascinating. The Liberals have hastily adopted common-sense Conservative strategies to cloak their actions as a remedy for affordability, all the while seeking recognition for ideas that were not theirs to begin with.
Unfortunately, their replica has flaws, and the Liberals know that they need to ram this legislation through before Canadians realize that it is nothing more than a cheap knock-off.
If the government is looking for another idea to steal from Conservatives, maybe it could finally decide to repeal the carbon taxes, which are the real reason Canadians are facing the soaring cost of living.
First, let us dissect the fabric of the Liberals' imitation. The Liberals’ newfound fascination with affordable living appears more as a last-ditch effort to mirror our common-sense Conservative initiatives, although it lacks the authenticity and the understanding required to genuinely address the woes of everyday Canadians.
This sudden adoption reeks of desperation. Maybe they have seen the polls. Maybe they are hearing in their ridings that the Conservatives are the only party putting forward common-sense ideas.
Maybe the Conservative message of common sense sounds good to them too, but their leadership comes down heavy-handedly when they vote in favour of our legislation, like the Liberal member for Avalon, who tried to do the right thing for his constituents initially, although he eventually betrayed them and caved to his master like a typical Liberal always does.
The government's thievery of Conservative ideas seems relentless. Were members aware that the fall economic statement contained no less than four Conservative private members’ bills?
For example, there is Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act with respect to mental health services, from the good doctor from Cumberland—Colchester. There is Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code for adoptive and intended parents, from my friend, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster. There is Bill C-294, an act to amend the Copyright Act, on interoperability, from my riding neighbour to the east, the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands. There is Bill C-365, an act respecting the implementation of a consumer-led banking system for Canadians by the amazing member for Bay of Quinte.
While the Liberals eagerly snatch concepts from our playbook, they turn a blind eye to the actual root cause of the economic pains faced by Canadians: their out-of-control debt and deficits, out-of-control spending, a carbon tax that does not do anything for the environment, a rapid housing initiative that cannot build homes and inflation that results from all of their financial mismanagement.
These are the real culprits behind the soaring cost of living, behind escalating interest rates and the burdensome grocery store bills and fuel prices that burden the citizens of this country every day. Our Conservative blueprint for affordable living, particularly our Conservative leader’s building homes not bureaucracy act, stands as a testament to our commitment to the welfare of Canadians.
Our messaging, like the “bring it home” initiative, encapsulates not just slogans but a genuine drive to resolve the housing crisis plaguing our nation.
In contrast, the Liberals’ response to this crisis they partly crafted lacks the depth and innovation required for a lasting solution. Their plan, often confined within the boundaries of existing programs and reannouncements, fails to project a path forward. It is a patchwork of recycled notions rather than a blueprint for real, sustainable change, and they have no problem announcing the same promises over and over again with the same pompous Liberal attitude that most Canadians have grown tired of.
The question remains: Are the Liberals truly addressing the housing crisis or merely engaging in performative arts to mitigate the damage that their policies have caused and the fact that the vast majority of Canadians desire to see them removed from office? Their sudden attempt to provide solutions and then force them on Canadians seems more reactive than proactive, a calculated response to evade accountability rather than an earnest effort to rectify the havoc they created. I can only hope it means they are getting ready for an election.
Liberals may tout their actions as responsive and comprehensive, but in reality, they bear the marks of limited vision and failure of leadership.
The building homes not bureaucracy act, as presented by our Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, is not just a set of words—
837 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today feels somewhat exciting because what my colleague has put forth is a simple, tangible action item that will move the needle in opening access to mental health supports. The member for Cumberland—Colchester, who also happens to be a doctor, has put forth a private member's bill, Bill C-323, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services).
Currently, many health services, including optometry, chiropractic, physiotherapy, foot care, acupuncture and many other services, are exempt from charging goods and services taxes. That means GST or HST depending on which province someone lives in.
However, psychotherapy and mental health counselling are not exempt, meaning the service provider must charge tax. If we remove the tax, that would work out to about every eighth appointment being free. The reality is many Canadians do not have coverage for psychotherapy and mental health counselling. This would make a difference.
This would also help alleviate the administrative stress on the providers. As I outlined earlier, these professionals are already managing an incredible workload to meet the demand. This would be a small but important step in making things more manageable.
According to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, or CAMH, psychotherapy is a general term used to describe a form of treatment that is based on talking work done with a therapist. The aim is to relieve distress by discussing and expressing feelings; to help change attitudes, behaviours and habits that may be unhelpful; and to promote a more constructive and adaptive way of coping. Successful psychotherapy depends on a supportive, comfortable relationship with a trusted therapist.
Psychotherapy can be life changing for many people. It can be maintenance of one's mental health, like visiting the gym to keep one's body healthy. One of my favourite sayings is by Fred Rogers, that anything mentionable is manageable. That is exactly what psychotherapy provides: the ability to identify and name behaviours and feelings so people can better manage them.
I would love to see everyone have access to psychotherapy. This bill is a great stepping stone to making that happen, by making it more affordable and also highlighting how important and valuable this service is.
One of the biggest hurdles in accessing support is asking for help. We have come a long way in how we talk about mental health, but we have a lot farther to go. Acknowledging access to mental health counselling and psychotherapy is a healthy and credible way to take care of oneself and it is wonderful, but now we must ensure people have access when they ask for it and ensure those services are affordable.
The president of the Canadian Paediatric Society said that behavioural and psychosocial problems “serious enough to disrupt functioning and development affect approximately 1.2 million youth in Canada” and “fewer than 20%...receive appropriate treatment.” Furthermore, he told the committee that support services can be very difficult to access and that sometimes this lack of access to specialized services results in a doctor prescribing medications. We have an addiction crisis. We should not discount how much this is connected.
I want to leave everyone with a message from Dr. Stuart Shanker, another witness from the status of women committee. Dr. Shanker studies neuroscience and is a leader in teaching thousands of people about self-regulation. In his testimony, he said, “You can change every single kid's trajectory”. This goes for adults too.
The science shows it takes a lot of different ingredients, but when someone is able to access them, the results can be wonderful and life changing.
I would say to everyone at home that wherever they are in their mental health journey, it is not permanent. There are amazing resources and people to help. Their life matters and they matter.
Today, I ask every member in this House to support Bill C-323, a private member's bill which says to Canadians that this House cares about mental health, that this House recognizes the value of psychotherapy and mental health counselling, and that this House is making it a priority to make it easier to access and to make it more affordable.
707 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, before I get started, I want to spend a minute thanking my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester for tabling this important bill, Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act for mental health services. As we know, this bill would expand the category of health care services exempt from point-of-sale taxes to include psychotherapy and mental health services. As I stated earlier, my colleague from London—Fanshawe tabled a very similar bill a while ago, and I was glad to see that my Conservative colleague stepped forward and moved forward with this bill, because he is much higher in the order of precedence.
We know that physical health services such as optometric, chiropractic and physiotherapy services are already exempt from federal sales taxes. Eliminating federal sales taxes from psychotherapy and mental health services would be a step forward, but, really and truly, there should be no taxes on any health care in this country. A tax exemption would reduce the cost of these services directly, by increasing access to them, but it is not the complete solution, as I stated earlier. Taxes are certainly a barrier, and it would help with that, but many Canadians still cannot afford these services, which are critical, especially in the crisis that we are seeing right now with mental health. In terms of increasing the availabilityof these services, it does not do that, but it does reduce barriers for those who can afford, or barely afford, to access these services.
As we know, right now in Canada, provinces are spending about 5% to 7% of their budget on mental health. Actually, some are even lower. Ontario is at 3%, under its Conservative government. OECD countries are at 12% to 14%. The U.K. is at the higher end of that.
We know we have to do more to create parity between mental and physical health in this country. We have a two-tiered health care system when it comes to mental health in this country; we truly do. We know that Conservatives believe that we should have a two-tiered health care system when it comes to our physical health in this country. As New Democrats, we believe that everybody should have access to mental health supports, including psychotherapy, and we believe that everybody deserves timely access to a full range of a mental health treatments and services regardless of their ability to pay. We talked about the need for parity between physical and mental health in our country and the importance of that.
Like I said, my colleague from London—Fanshawe tabled Bill C-218 to take a step forward and to remove barriers. According to a report by the Mental Health Commission of Canada, almost 35% of respondents report moderate to severe mental health concerns. Fewer than one in three people with current mental health concerns are accessing mental health services. A key barrier to accessing services includes financial constraints and long wait-lists, so this does move a few people along. It is really important that we move forward. We know that counselling and psychotherapy are the most unmet needs of Canadians seeking help with mental health care. We are very appreciative of this bill.
My colleague highlighted earlier, and I really appreciate his doing this, that Canadians' mental health concerns have worsened throughout the pandemic. We have seen that. Again, Canadians are experiencing more and more difficulty making ends meet as they deal with increased inflation, a cost of living crisis and stagnating wages, so reducing the cost of access to services and, of course, treatment is important. Increasing the access to treatment for all Canadians who need it, by reducing financial barriers, is critical. We just want to highlight that one in four Canadians cannot pay right now for a $500 emergency. Mental health treatment can easily far exceed this cost.
I want to talk a bit about our party's history on this. A 2017 NDP-sponsored bill would have removed GST from psychotherapy services. Bill C-218, sponsored by my colleague from London—Fanshawe, would also have removed GST from psychotherapy services. It is currently out of the order of precedence, so, again, we commend our colleague for moving this forward. The same colleague from London—Fanshawe presented a petition to the House of Commons to remove GST from counselling therapy and psychotherapy services. That petition received over 14,000 signatures.
When the Conservatives' order of precedence comes forward, we do like it when they take NDP bills. This is something we are just starting to get used to.
Members will recall that Scott Duvall, my friend from Hamilton, a former MP for Hamilton Mountain, brought forward a bill on pension theft to protect pensioners and their pensions from corporations that were going after their pensions. We were glad to see that a Conservative colleague took his bill and advanced it. The Conservatives had voted against a very similar bill when they were in government before the current Liberal government.
Also the small business transfer really started with the late Jack Layton. He brought that idea forward. It was carried by Guy Caron. We were glad to see the Conservatives advance another NDP bill.
These are important bills. I really think that is the spirit of Private Members' Business, members working collectively together trying to find pathways to support Canadians. This is another example of that.
A 2023 finance committee report included the following recommendation:
Recommendation 32
Exempt counselling therapy and psychotherapy from the application of GST/HST.
This is something that was supported at finance committee and now is being advanced here in the House. This is great news.
We hear from stakeholders who are concerned about the lack of access to mental health services and the lack of availability. As New Democrats, we want to increase both. I stated that this bill might not increase availability, but it will certainly increase access to services by reducing costs.
Almost all Canadians support publicly funding mental health care, making it the same as physical health care, creating parity. Ninety-four per cent of Canadians think that provincial and territorial government health plans should cover mental health care. This was according to a study done as recently as 2019.
My colleague talked about New Democrats always going for the home run. If we want to talk in baseball terms, I would say this is a bunt. It is getting some people to first base. We actually could go for the home run. As New Democrats, we have proven that with our dental care plan to make sure that children under 12 get access to dental care. We hit second base this year with seniors and people living with disabilities. Next year we hit third base with all families that earn $90,000 or less.
We are going to hit a home run. Some day I hope that everybody in this country has access to dental care. If we brought forward a bill saying that we were going to remove GST from teeth cleaning, I do not think many kids would get their teeth cleaned. I will be really honest, it might be a step forward, and maybe a few might get their teeth cleaned, but we believe, as New Democrats, that we actually can hit some home runs in here.
I want to work with my colleague, and I hope he wants to work with me too, to hit a home run when it comes to mental health and making sure that people get access to treatment. I believe we can do it. I think we can do better than a bunt. We can get to first base, second base, third base and a home run, if we set out a plan and if we work together, which is really important.
One thing I was really disappointed about, and I have heard this from my colleagues on this side, is that the Liberal government is trying to find barriers to supporting this bill on a definition, on terms of what identifies psychotherapy and mental health. We have some really well-paid public servants who I am sure could make some recommendations at committee. Let us get the bill to committee. Let us do the right thing and work collectively.
This is a step. I support the bunt all the way. Let us get to first base. Let us get this to committee. Let us move this forward. However, the government has to get behind this. It always tries to find a barrier. I do not know what it is about Private Members' Business. Maybe the government feels like it is not going to get credit for it and it just wants to go out and oppose it. There are a lot of really smart people in this House. I want to thank my colleague, because he is one of them. He is a physician. He has experience in this, and he is trying to move things forward.
I want to support him. My team wants to support him. This is supported by a tax-free therapy campaign. This is really important. It is supported by mental health providers.
Also, when it comes to gender parity, women and gender-diverse people are disproportionately impacted by the costs of and barriers to health care. They would benefit from this bill. It is really important that we support the bill.
In closing, I want to thank my colleague. I hope all members in this House will get behind this bill, a bill that we clearly support. We tabled a bill almost identical to it earlier in this Parliament. Let us start removing more barriers from people getting access to mental health care in this country.
1635 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House this evening to speak to Bill C-323, which was introduced by the member for Cumberland—Colchester. I know that my Conservative colleague is a physician and, quite honestly, he is to be commended for introducing this bill. Sometimes we wonder whether we can really make a difference in people's lives as members of Parliament. This evening, I get the feeling that, yes, by supporting this bill, the Bloc Québécois will be helping improve the lives of people who need it.
First of all, it is important to point out that, right now, only physicians and psychologists have the right to GST exemptions. That does not make any sense, because we know that psychotherapy is now carefully regulated in Quebec and that there are professional bodies that have the right to regulate the professional service of psychotherapy using very strict criteria.
When a person in Quebec has a problem, their first instinct is not necessarily to call the federal mental health help line. If a person needs help in Quebec, they will first turn to their local community service centre, or CLSC, which helps people with anxiety, or they will turn to a support group. I am lucky because there are three great mental health support groups in my riding, namely Psycohésion, Ancres et Ailes and Le Dahlia. These groups help people every day and welcome them into their organizations to give them support and foster a feeling of solidarity with others in the group. These services are provided by community groups specializing in mental health, which, by the way, are not funded by Ottawa. They are entirely funded by Quebec.
As far as psychotherapy services are concerned, it may be worth repeating that Quebec passed legislation in 2009 that very clearly regulates psychotherapy. First, psychotherapists are required to be members of a professional association. Having spoken to osteopaths in Quebec, I can say that obtaining a professional designation is an exceedingly long and demanding process. Osteopaths are required to charge GST because their services are not considered psychotherapy. What is more, since they are not yet members of a professional body, they cannot make representations or participate in negotiations. It is very hard to become a member of a professional body. Professional designations are very strictly regulated.
Furthermore, to practise psychotherapy, a person needs to have a master's degree. That means doing an undergraduate degree first and then a master's in a very specific field related to psychotherapy. The person also needs to have 765 hours of training in psychotherapy at the university level. That is a lot, because added to that is 600 hours of a work placement, where the student provides psychotherapy consultation services under the supervision of a psychologist or a member of another professional body that is eligible to provide psychotherapy. In Quebec, it is very strictly regulated. The member introducing this bill is right to introduce it, because the current situation is unfair. It is not right.
As I often mention, I am a social worker and a member of my professional association. If I were to take all the required courses and complete a work placement, I could become a psychotherapist, but my clients would pay the GST. However, if they go see the psychologist in the office next door, they would not pay the GST. That is completely unfair and unjust.
I have a great deal of respect for my colleague, because, as a physician, he has the humility to say that other professionals besides doctors and psychologists have the ability, the intelligence, the competence and the knowledge required to support people through psychotherapy, and he agrees that these people should have the same privilege as he does of not having to charge the GST.
It is very difficult to access mental health services. If these services were provided only by psychologists and doctors, many people in Quebec would not get help. That is why it is a shared responsibility.
Social workers and psychologists may take different therapeutic approaches, but both are equally effective for supporting someone who has a problem or who wants to be supported in a certain decision in his or her life plan, someone who is experiencing upheaval, shock or trauma and who wants to be supported and treated by professionals. The bill recognizes that this professional association has the right to provide psychotherapy based on the criteria I mentioned earlier.
We hear a lot about mental health. I heard the member for Sherbrooke praising her government, but one thing is certain. Our support for this bill is meant as a concrete gesture to make a difference for people who seek help from various professionals who are able to support them in their psychotherapy. It is also our way of telling people that if they need help, there are many professions that can help them and that are all equally professional.
Mental health is a professional field, an action, that belongs to the provinces. Local community service centres and community groups are in the best position to lend support to people in distress. Having a federal crisis line that competes with the Quebec crisis line will not provide better support. It is just confusing.
Go to our ridings and ask anyone who is depressed and thinking about ending their life who they will call first. If they need help, their thoughts will turn to crisis lines like Tel-Aide, Kids Help Phone, or other community agencies in their riding. They will think about the social worker they visited at the local community service centre or the psychoeducator at their community support group who talked to them and treated them like someone who is different, but who has problems.
If a person is really in a bind and really in distress, they would never think to call a federal help line. I have looked at the federal portal that my colleague from Sherbrooke was talking about. It is true that there is a lot of information available there, but Quebec already has a help line. I do not know whether the other provinces do or not, but we have many different help lines for all sorts of people.
I am sure members will understand that I am not thrilled to see the federal government infringing on Quebec's jurisdiction when it comes to mental health, because all that is going to do is cause confusion in Quebec. When someone is not doing well, they do not need a whole bunch of telephone numbers and a big directory to know who to call. They really need to be connected to their community. The best place to be and the best support a person can get in their community is from their family, friends, local community service centre and community groups. Those are the people who will help the individual move forward and get through difficult times.
The Bloc Québécois is really pleased to support Bill C‑323 to make a real difference in the lives of those who need help and to offer them a GST exemption.
1205 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to take part in today's debate on Bill C‑323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act with regard to mental health services.
I want to thank the member for Cumberland—Colchester for bringing forward this important subject. The MP for London—Fanshawe also introduced a bill on this subject.
The bill would exempt psychotherapy and mental health counselling services from the goods and services tax and the harmonized sales tax.
I would begin by pointing out that our government has been taking meaningful action to support mental health care services for Canadians since 2015.
These investments include $5 billion over 10 years to provinces and territories starting in 2017 to improve and increase the availability of mental health and addiction services.
The toxic drug and overdose crisis claims the lives of 20 Canadians a day, on average. Many of them are homeless and have mental health problems. That has a major impact on our communities, our health care systems and our social services.
To address this crisis and save lives, we have invested more than $800 million since 2017. We have restored harm reduction as an essential pillar of our strategy and work to support a compassionate and evidence-based response to the overdose crisis and the stigma associated with it.
Since 2020, we have also invested over $270 million in the Wellness Together Canada portal, which gives Canadians free tools and support for their health and well-being.
Starting in 2021, we began delivering $100 million over three years to support projects for innovative mental health interventions for populations disproportionately impacted by COVID, including health care workers, frontline workers, youth, seniors, persons with disabilities, indigenous people and racialized communities.
Since last year, we have begun investing $1.5 billion over six years to support trauma-informed, culturally appropriate, indigenous-led services to improve mental wellness, including over $825 million through budget 2021 and budget 2022 to support distinctions-based mental health and wellness strategies with first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples.
Building on these historic investments, budget 2023 proposes significant new funding to build upon and complement the substantial existing investments for mental health and substance use supports for Canadians.
On February 7, we announced an investment of nearly $200 billion over 10 years to improve health care services for Canadians, including mental health care services. This commitment includes billions of dollars in additional federal funding transferred to the provinces and territories to improve health and mental health care over the coming years through a combination of an increase in the Canada health transfer and an additional $25 billion over 10 years to support bilateral agreements with the provinces and territories.
The new FPT bilateral agreements include an integrated inclusive approach to mental health in family health services, the health workforce, as well as data and digital tools. These investments will support the health and mental health needs of Canadians and will require provinces and territories to produce detailed action plans.
This approach is the most effective way to integrate mental health and substance use services into the health care system, including primary care, and to ensure transparency and accountability on the part of the provinces and territories as to how this funding is spent and where it is spent.
In addition, budget 2023 proposes to provide a total of $359.2 million over five years starting in 2023-24 to support a renewed Canadian drugs and substances strategy.
Budget 2023 also proposes providing $158.4 million over three years, starting in 2023‑24, to support the implementation and operation of the new national suicide prevention line, 988.
We have partnered with CAMH to oversee the implementation of this new crisis line and we are working closely with our U.S. counterparts to learn from their four-year implementation process for the similar service they launched last year.
We know that the fundamental principle of Bill C‑323 is to make mental health services more accessible and that is a principle we support.
However, our government also appreciates that tax changes, like those proposed in Bill C-323, should ideally be undertaken through the budget process, extensive debate and in discussion with provinces and territories. This enables us to fully consider trade-offs, balance priorities, close potential loopholes and undertake new fiscal commitments only to the extent that they are fair and affordable.
In short, this approach ensures consistency with the tax framework and the uniformity of the entire tax system. Making a tax exemption through the ad hoc passage of a private member's bill such as Bill C-323 has the potential to undermine this process.
Viewed through this lens, this bill raises a number of issues.
Because health care is essentially a provincial responsibility, the federal government uses provincial funding and regulatory practices as criteria to determine which services should be considered basic health care services for taxation purposes.
In this regard, if a service is covered by the health care plan of two or more provinces, it may be considered basic health care and exempted from the GST/HST in all provinces. Likewise, if a profession is regulated as a health care profession by at least five provinces, the services of that profession may be exempted from the GST/HST in all provinces.
However, psychotherapy and mental health counselling are not currently covered by the public health system in any province and are not regulated in at least five provinces.
This means that exempting the GST/HST on psychotherapy and mental health counselling services as proposed by Bill C-323 could undermine the long-standing criteria established for determining the GST/HST status of health care services.
Consequently, this could make it more difficult to make objective decisions about any possible future efforts to exempt other services.
While psychotherapy and mental health counselling services do not currently meet any of the long-standing criteria that were established to determine which health care services supplied by health care practitioners should be exempt, psychotherapy services provided by a psychologist or other regulated health professional such as a physician, nurse or social worker do meet the criteria and are already exempt if the services are within the scope of practice of their profession.
We look forward to exploring these issues through the legislative process. In particular, whether the bill would apply in the same way in each province is an important issue to be explored through debate. This is a basic question of fairness for Canadians.
We look forward to exploring these issues through the legislative process and, in particular, whether the bill would apply in the same way in each province. That is an important issue that should be discussed in this debate.
Canadians deserve to have access to the mental health services they need.
Canadians deserve to have access to the mental health services they need. That is why our government is committed to ensuring that mental health care is treated as an equal and integral part of Canada's universal health care system.
While we do support removing barriers to Canadians' access to mental health support, it is my hope that the considerations that I noted earlier will be addressed through parliamentary debate and review.
1231 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
