44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 22, 2023
- This bill outlines changes to various tax laws, including allowing the Canada Revenue Agency to use electronic filings and increasing deductions for tradespeople's tools. It also includes measures in relation to money laundering, digital assets, and strengthening complaints against banks. Additionally, it implements changes to the Excise Tax Act, Customs Tariff, and Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, as well as the creation of the Canada Innovation Corporation. These changes aim to promote economic growth and strengthen Canada's ability to take economic measures against certain individuals.
- Yea (241)
- Nay (174)
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is a joke going around that says, “It's not knowing that a politician can be bought; it's knowing how little they'll let themselves go for.” For a member of the NDP caucus right now thinking that this is the misery they are suffering in the polls, the misery they are suffering nationwide, which is the same misery Canadians are suffering, this is all they managed to get out of the supply and confidence arrangement with the government today.
It is not a pharmacare program. Health care is actually a provincial jurisdiction. It should be delivered by the provinces. The bill would simply be adding contraceptives and some diabetes measures into it. I guess, on the surface of it, that is a good thing, but to the tune of $1.5 billion. If viewers watching at home actually believe this is all it is going to cost them, I will remind them that the government bought a $7 billion pipeline and built it for about $40 billion. Therefore, if history is any predictor of the future when it comes to what things cost under a Liberal-NDP coalition, then they should be looking at least to that example if not more.
To us, as Conservatives, the issue is one of provincial jurisdiction. I come from Alberta, and this is a very important issue to our province and to our premier. This is just another intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. We think that, during these financial times, when Canadians are struggling to make ends meet, pouring more fuel on the inflationary fire is certainly not going to help. It is another financial albatross in the making, which Canadians cannot afford and are not willing to pay for.
It is not just me saying this, and it is not just Conservatives saying this. John Ivison eloquently stated in a piece that he published back on February 29, when the bill or this notion first came out, that this is “the woebegone child of a loveless Liberal-NDP marriage.” This is basically what we are dealing with.
It has become clear to me that the bill before us is basically the cost of keeping the NDP support for this Parliament under supply and confidence, and the coalition partners can take this until October 2025. It was supposed to be October 20, but it is going to be extended by another week to make sure that certain people here get the financial benefits they think they are entitled to. However, it just goes to show that there is only one serious opposition in the House, and that is the Conservative Party.
The NDP is not an opposition party but a willing accomplice to everything that the Liberal government has in its agenda. Its members have been witting partners in creating a massive inflationary deficit; setting restrictive policies towards, for example, lawful gun owners and natural health products, which they signed up for two years ago without even knowing they were going to vote in favour of that in Bill C-47 last year; impeding upon provincial jurisdiction time and time again, which is, of course, front and centre with this piece of legislation; continuing to cover up for the government's scandals, covering for it at committee and also here in the House of Commons; introducing soft-on-crime legislation or supporting that soft-on-crime legislation, which has turned our justice system into a revolving door; sending Canadians to food banks en masse, at a couple of million visitors, which is up over 300%; allowing housing prices to skyrocket; and neglecting our military to the point where our soldiers are basically relying on food donations while they are in Ottawa for training. I could continue, but I think members get the gist of what I am trying to say.
It is bad enough that NDP members backed budget after budget and shut down our work to hold the government to account at committee, but they are telling Canadians that they are doing their actual work as an opposition party. Well, they cannot have it both ways. They cannot be in opposition while they support everything that the government does. I do not buy it, and neither do Canadians.
A December 2023 Leger poll indicated that only 18% of Canadians listed the establishment of a national pharmacare program as a health care priority, and the promise was not included in the 2021 Liberal platform. Canadians did not vote for a party promising pharmacare, yet here we are, thanks to an NDP party that is keeping this weak and basically lame-duck government in office. It is no wonder that some provinces are already saying publicly that they are choosing to opt out.
Let it be known that the absence of the NDP as an opposition is also keenly felt in other areas. Just last year, as I was mentioning, the NDP-Liberal coalition passed Bill C-47.
I do not suppose anybody in the NDP was told, when they signed on to this supply and confidence agreement back in March 2022, that they would be asked to regulate natural health products in the same way as therapeutics, but they did it anyway. As a matter of fact, they made that commitment a year before the bill was passed, and it is going to basically shut down our supplements and natural health product industry when they are classified and rebranded as pharmaceutical drugs.
What did the New Democrats do when this came up for debate? They backed the budget instead of forcing the government to remove those four little clauses from Bill C-47, the budget implementation act. They had a chance. They could have flexed their muscles and said they were not going to support the budget implementation act unless the government removed them, but no such request was forthcoming, and the bill passed. It has caused unforeseen chaos in the natural health products and supplements industry across this country; consumers, of course, are rightly worried. In response, I had to table my own private member's bill, Bill C-368, to reverse these changes. This is just part and parcel.
New Democrats say one thing to Canadians but actually do another. Could anyone imagine such a thing as being the House leader of the NDP, for example, standing up and saying time and time again how much one does not like omnibus legislation, and yet gleefully passing Bill C-47. The NDP House leader has said this for the 18 years that he and I have been in the House together. However, he told the government that New Democrats would continue to pass every budget and every budget implementation act henceforth after March 2022. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot stand up and say New Democrats are going to hold the government to account while continuing to give it the keys to the house to do whatever it wants.
In the case of natural health product governance and regulations, New Democrats tell Canadians they are against omnibus legislation and that they are keeping the government accountable. However, as I said, they voted for Bill C-47, threw that industry into turmoil and then criticized me for giving them an off-ramp on the Bill C-368 debate last week. I was giving them a pathway to redemption, and all they could do was basically blame Stephen Harper for the mess that the country is in. I cannot even make this stuff up.
The most common questions I get from Canadians are these: When are we going to have an election? Who believes anything anybody in the NDP has to say anymore, when their actions are completely 180° opposite from what they say with their words?
It should also be highlighted that the bill was introduced with no public consultations whatsoever, which comes as no surprise to Conservatives. This piece of legislation has been pushed from a government with a terrible record on transparency. It is a government that regularly rushes massive changes with little regard for those people the changes may impact. It talks about the intended consequences, but it never fully understands the unintended consequences of the things it does, which is why we are in the mess we are in today.
The Conservative position on Bill C-64 is that the Liberals know this project is an expensive boondoggle. That is why they abandoned it in their 2019 election promise. Even former finance minister Bill Morneau noted in his book that a single-user system would cost an additional $15 billion a year. We cannot believe the $1.5 billion number, and that is why my colleagues here on the Conservative side and I will respect provincial jurisdiction and vote against this piece of legislation. We encourage New Democrats to change their ways before their party actually fades into oblivion forever.
1491 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-368, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, natural health products.
In a time when we are seeing more businesses close than open each month and when business insolvencies are skyrocketing, the last thing we need to be doing as Parliamentarians is putting higher costs and more red tape onto the backs of small business owners in the natural health sector.
I have heard from small business owners across Canada that the government has turned its back on them. They simply cannot keep up with the higher costs and burdensome red tape that the Liberals, with the support of the NDP, keep piling on them. According to Statistics Canada, more businesses closed than opened in December, and this is the fifth time in six months that this was the case.
On January 1, the government increased payroll taxes. In February, insolvencies rose 58.1% year over year, according to the superintendent of bankruptcy. In March, the senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada called the lack of productivity in Canada's economy an emergency. On April 1, the government hiked the carbon tax by 23% and, just last week, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business reported a drastic decline in both short-term and long-term business competence, with both dropping by 5.4 points in their monthly business barometer.
What does all of that have to do with natural health products? Last spring, the NDP-Liberal government passed Bill C-47, which allowed Health Canada to regulate natural health products in the same way as therapeutic synthetic drugs.
Canadians depend on natural health products, which include vitamins, protein powders, probiotics and even fluoride-free toothpastes. Members can think of the young guy in the gym taking a supplement or the mom who uses eastern medicine and frequents the local Chinese herbal medicine shop. Those are the people Health Canada is going after.
As a British Columbian, I would be remiss if I did not mention that, at the same time the government is trying to prevent our teenagers from getting the supplement powder they want, it has legalized possession of fentanyl, which led to record deaths from illicit substances the very same year, over an argument about stigmatization in British Columbia.
After nine years, Canadians can see clearly that there is no common sense in the approach that the government is taking for natural health products. The changes made will reduce choice, increase costs for consumers and drive businesses, investment and product development out of Canada.
What is exactly changing for natural health products? First, Health Canada is implementing new regulations that treat natural health products the same as over-the-counter synthetic drugs, placing significant red tape on the small- and medium-sized businesses that produce and sell these products. This will result in fewer options for Canadians, pushing consumers to foreign online retailers, where consumers may have no idea where the product came from or what, in fact, is in it. Second, Health Canada is introducing new fees on licensing, manufacturing, labelling, importing and packaging that could cost a business more than $100,000. I looked up cost of those fees before my speech tonight. There is a licensing fee of over $20,000, a site amendment fee of close to $5,000, a class III product license application of up to $58,000 and a product license amendment of up to $23,000.
I have spoken to owners of health food and supplement stores in my riding and across Canada. They are terrified about what these changes will mean for their businesses and their customers. These new fees and regulations will mean fewer products at higher prices on their store shelves, potentially depriving consumers of the benefits they rely on for their health and well-being. For many stores, these changes could mean they close entirely.
Mike Bjørndal is a buddy of mine. We went to high school together. He left a stable job. He started a small business with a few other partners in the natural health food supplement industry. Mike told me directly that if these changes go through, they are moving their shop to America, reducing their taxes paid in Canada and shutting their doors. That is the consequence of what Health Canada is doing right now.
Then, there is the Vanderwall family. Mrs. Vanderwall runs a side business of supplements, which adds a little to her husband's income, just to get by with their seven kids. They rely on the current regulatory framework to pay their monthly bills.
The natural health product industry continues to introduce new ideas and improve products. However, higher licensing fees would discourage companies from investing in research and development, meaning fewer new products being developed or manufactured here in Canada. Natural health products play a crucial role in addressing unique health concerns that conventional medicine may not adequately address. Higher fees would invariably lead to fewer options, and consumers would be forced to turn to pharmaceutical alternatives or products that are not made in Canada.
I referenced the alarming statistics on business insolvencies earlier, and these changes are only going to make things worse in an industry that generates billions of dollars in economic growth in Canada. Given all that, I am very proud to stand and support the member for Red Deer—Lacombe's bill, Bill C-368, to repeal specifically sections 500 to 504 of Bill C-47 and to restore the status quo on natural health product regulations. As he mentioned in his speech, under the current rules, the government can already have a stop-sale order provision. It has seizure provisions and inspection provisions, and it already pre-authorizes the products on Canadian store shelves.
Health Canada's 2019 summary report, “Adverse reactions, medical device incidents and health product recalls in Canada”, highlighted that of the 96,000-plus adverse reactions filed, only 3.8% were related to the natural health sector. We know that these products are safe and that existing regulations are sufficient.
Since last spring, my office, like the member for Richmond Hill's, has heard from literally thousands of people who are concerned about what the government is doing and about the increase in red tape it is suggesting through these regulations. Instead of saying that we need these regulations because of the growth in the industry, I would point out that his constituents, like mine, are simply scared of more government overreach that is going to impact their economic well-being and the viability of their businesses.
No matter where one goes in Canada, on every main street, in practically every single shopping mall in our country, we are going to have a natural health or supplement-style store. These stores provide valuable products that keep Canadians healthy and that improve our mental and physical well-being. The last thing we should be doing right now is attacking those very businesses that millions of Canadians rely upon.
With that, I implore everyone in this chamber to support this legislation and to stand behind our small businesses and our wealth creators who provide real and adequate services for Canadians under the existing regulations.
1213 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I said earlier, in thanking the member of Parliament for Red Deer—Lacombe, that we support this legislation. We support Bill C-368 for a number of reasons.
I want to start by saying that, as are over 70% of Canadians, I am a consumer of natural health products. I use those products, as 70% of the population does. This includes vitamins and minerals, herbal remedies, homeopathic medicines and probiotics. Many Canadians use traditional medicines, such as traditional Chinese medicines or indigenous medicines, as well. There are a wide variety of products on the market.
As has already been stated, the reality is that we have a very robust natural health product sector that is carefully regulated in a way that ensures that the products are of good quality. That is why, when we look at the natural health product sector, we see so many Canadians consuming them and, at the same time, we see no side effects or downsides to the consumption of those products.
It is because the products are effective. If they are not, we stop using them. I have tried a number of products over the years. Some work really well; others, not so much. As consumers, we have that ability to distinguish and make sure we are choosing products that are appropriate for us.
This is not the pharmaceutical sector. These are not prescriptions that are given out. I have a family doctor who is very good at sometimes suggesting products that are not part of a prescription, but simply a suggestion. He has turned out to be right every single time about the kind of products we can take.
As an example, there is magnesium, which is a vitamin product. My friend from Red Deer—Lacombe mentioned it earlier as well. Some of us are on flights back and forth across the country, travelling 5,000 kilometres twice a week, every month. My colleague from North Island—Powell River is in the same situation. We are going around this planet every month in terms of the amount of time we spend on airplanes, getting back to our constituency to ensure that we are serving our constituents and then coming to Ottawa to do the important work we do here.
The reality is that, when we are doing this, we are in a cramped space. We need to ensure we take magnesium if we want to avoid leg cramps. My doctor was the one who suggested it, and ever since then, I have made sure that I take the appropriate product. It makes sense. I know you agree, Madam Speaker, even though you do not have as far to go when you go back to your constituents.
There is a wide range of products that are available and that make a difference. For consumers who find that their products just are not up to speed, they can change, try another product or simply decide they are not going to use something anymore.
What is already a flourishing and effective sector was diminished by the government incorporating into Bill C-47, an omnibus legislation, these clauses that simply put natural health products in a completely different situation. They are heavily regulated with costs, which a number of speakers have already indicated were absolutely inappropriate. Ever since I have been here, and certainly for years before that, the NDP caucus has decried omnibus legislation.
We saw this under the former Harper Conservative government. We see this under the current Liberal government. There are massive budget implementation acts that are 700 or 800 pages. Incorporated within them are really what I call poison pills. Certain clauses are put in there that ultimately serve as changes in legislation. However, then we can see they have regulations that are not part of Parliament's purview or the government's purview, and they can actually have detrimental impacts.
This was the case with Bill C-47. This was tried before with Bill C-51 under the Harper Conservative government.
The government tried to, very heavily and inappropriately, apply additional regulations to natural health products. That was pushed back on, but with Bill C-47, as omnibus legislation that led to the regulatory changes, we are in the situation that we find ourselves in now, and that has to change. That is why we are supportive of Bill C-368.
What it would do is provide for the kinds of hearings at the committee stage that would allow us to really determine the full extent of how the existing sector is regulated effectively and how detrimental these changes are, both those suggested in Bill C-51 a few years ago and those currently in Bill C-47, to the industry itself, which is a Canadian success story, as well as the impact on consumers who are using these vitamins, probiotics and homeopathic medicines effectively and potentially finding it more difficult to access these natural health products because of the actions of Health Canada and the actions of the government.
As such, it makes good sense to take Bill C-368, to put it in place, to have those hearings, and then to determine what is appropriate. It is very clear that those regulatory changes were absolutely excessive and have had a profound negative impact.
What we are saying is that the government, through Bill C‑47, is taking action with Health Canada without holding consultations and without conducting an impact study or a management fee study. As my colleague mentioned, this means that small businesses that market natural health products are now subject to a regulatory framework that is far better suited to the pharmaceutical industry.
The pharmaceutical industry is the most profitable industry in North America. It makes huge profits, which is why the NDP is pushing for pharmacare. In countries with pharmacare, pharmaceutical companies have been forced to lower their prices. The case of New Zealand, where the price of some pharmaceuticals has dropped by 90%, is often cited.
These pharmaceutical companies are extremely powerful. It makes no sense to establish a regulatory framework that puts small businesses, which are safely selling a whole line of products to smaller markets, on the same footing as big transnational pharmaceutical companies that are raking in huge profits. That is why the government's approach was inappropriate. It was inappropriate to include this small provision in omnibus legislation that is several hundred pages long. The consequences of this regulatory change are unclear, which has led to the outcome before us today.
It is clear to the NDP that this bill is important, because it was unacceptable for that provision to be included in an omnibus bill. It was unacceptable for the former Harper government to do that, and it is unacceptable for today's Liberal government to do the same.
Thanks to the bill introduced by my colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe, we have the opportunity to correct the mistake that was made and to really look at this provision's impact on the natural health product industry. We have the opportunity to determine the financial impact and the impact on consumers. We have the opportunity to see the full impact of the decision that was made last year to include this provision in an omnibus bill. The NDP has been very clear in this regard: We support the bill and we look forward to the important discussions that will take place in committee.
1248 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will begin my speech this evening with two images. The first is that the cure is worse than the disease. The second is that we should not use a bazooka to kill a fly, but rather the appropriate tool, in other words, a fly swatter.
The government is being sneaky about it; that is the worst part. That is the story behind Bill C‑368. The government introduced this provision under the radar, in an annex to budget 2023, in Bill C‑47. From day one we have always made a distinction between natural health products and drugs, and rightly so. In the drug industry, in the pharmaceutical industry, people may have to bear the recovery costs, but they have 20-year patents. They are able to break even. What is more, there are no taxes on drugs.
The government makes a lot of money in taxes on natural health products so it can afford to pay for an inspection service that will guarantee the effectiveness and safety of natural health products. When we met in September, everyone agreed that consumers deserve to have effective products that are safe. Health Canada has to do its job in that respect.
What did the Auditor General's report reveal? First, in my opinion, there was a minor methodological problem. Rather than proceeding randomly, products, places and companies were targeted where problems were known to exist. Obviously, if problems are already known to exist, the audit will reveal a high percentage of problems.
There are approximately 91,000 natural health products. Of that number, 75 were analyzed in a targeted way, leading to the conclusion that Health Canada has not been doing its job to ensure product safety since 2014. That is what was found after checking the sampled products. Health Canada was caught with its pants down, so to speak. It played tough, tried to assert its credibility and brought out the big guns.
As legislators, we have always wanted to ensure that there is a balance when it comes to natural health products and access to those products, in order to guarantee free choice for consumers while also ensuring that when Health Canada approves products, it does its job after the fact and inspects those products. From 2004 to 2014, 53 recommendations were made. In September, when we heard from Health Canada representatives and the chief scientist, we realized that the answers were not credible.
I asked whether an impact study had been done on the industry, on small and medium-sized businesses, concerning the recovery costs required. I was told that it was based on Treasury Board guidelines. I imagine that the Treasury Board's main interest is getting its money's worth. What kind of service is it going to provide when, after all this time, and with all the taxes generated by the industry, it has not even been able to ensure an audit or any inspections throughout its mandate?
There are a few problems today. I asked the chief scientist how many adverse reactions there had been to natural health products in 17 years. I asked her to provide the numbers. We have yet to get an answer to that question. I also asked her what the numbers were for adverse reactions to pharmaceutical products. She replied that she had some numbers, but she still has not provided those either.
We know very well that, even though they are approved by Health Canada, pharmaceuticals can still sometimes have very serious side effects. However, that is no reason to discredit the entire industry. We are just doing our job and making sure that we do it properly. Contrary to what people might think and what the government tried to have us believe, the shell game that I am talking about, the one in Bill C‑47, happened in June, when we were voting on the March 2023 budget. Now we are getting letters and the public is starting to find out about this.
As legislators, we do not have any say over the regulations. We vote on laws. Regulations are then drafted on how the legislation should be applied. The problem is that we need Bill C‑368 to be sent to committee so that we can do our job as parliamentarians and look into the regulation that was brought in under which natural health products are now considered therapeutic products under Vanessa's Law.
It is very clear that we would not be where we are today if the government had been a little more transparent, if it had carried out the consultations it needed to and if it had worked with everyone to find some common ground to ensure that no harm would come to an industry that Quebeckers and Canadians have the right to have access to by choice. Natural health products are not forced on anyone through a prescription. No one is forced to buy them. When people choose to buy them, it is because, in a way, they have educated themselves.
It is true that they can pose risks, and it is also true that people have to follow their pharmacist's instructions. There are interactions, true. However, these interactions are between drugs prescribed by a doctor versus a pharmaceutical product that I am going to buy. We are not trying to trivialize anything, but just because there are a few bad apples in one industry does not mean that the entire industry should be discredited. That would undermine small and medium-sized businesses, which want to sell safe products. Their main motivation is people's health.
We would not be here if there had been a bit more transparency and if the people who came to testify in September had the courage to point this out to us. When they were told that their cost-recovery model was modelled on the pharmaceutical industry, they did not say one word, as if we would not figure out Bill C‑47's sleight of hand at some point. They took the entire model from the pharmaceutical industry and transposed it to the natural health products industry without allowing us to debate it. That is why there were two meetings on this. It was to get information about the problem.
There have been no more consultations so far. That is why we are going to vote in favour of Bill C‑368. We want to ensure that the legislator, who never has access to the regulations and can never review them through legislation, brings this to committee. There we will be able to work on it and find a balance regarding the government's claims that 88% of the 91,000 natural health products are deficient and have misleading labelling. This is a serious methodological bias that does not reflect reality, because in 2015, a randomized study showed that more than 90% of products were fully compliant. What happened in the meantime, then?
Maybe if the people at Health Canada did their job and carried out inspections, and maybe if they sent people their criteria, guidelines and information about where they want people to focus so that, during production, they can be certain that the product is okay, we would not be here today. The Bloc Québécois will indeed vote in favour of the bill.
1234 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am honoured to speak before the House today to discuss an issue of paramount importance to the health and safety of Canadians, which is the safety and the availability of natural health products, also known as NHPs.
In order to make the natural health products market safer for consumers and support Canadians in making informed choices, last year our government expanded Vanessa's Law to include NHPs. Doing this allows the government to act when serious health and safety risks are identified, such as the ability to require a recall if products are unsafe. Our number one priority is to keep Canadians healthy and safe. Bill C-368 would remove the government's ability to ensure the safety and the efficacy of these crucial health products. Passing this bill would mean that the government could mandate the recall of a tube of lipstick or a head of lettuce, but not a contaminated supplement. That is why the government will be opposing this bill.
I am aware that some members of the opposition may be supporting this bill. We look forward to it going to committee, if that is the case, to further cover the points I am about to cover. My remarks today will delve into the vital role that NHPs play in the lives of Canadians, the current landscape of NHPs and the need for greater oversight of NHPs to guarantee public safety.
Before proceeding further, I must highlight the exceptional engagement from the community of Richmond Hill on this matter. Our office has received over 1,200 communications, including emails, petitions, phone calls and pamphlets from constituents who are deeply concerned about the regulation and the safety of NHPs.
Since 2020, I have also met with the Canadian Health Food Association, which represents many NHP small business owners in my riding. One of those businesses is Platinum Naturals, whose team I met with this past February to hear their important feedback and their concern with respect to the impacts of the NHP regulations on their business. This overwhelming response from my constituents underscores a national discourse on the necessity of a regulatory framework that ensures the safety of NHPs and that supports small businesses operating in the industry, as well as respects the autonomy of Canadians in their health management practices.
As I delve into the implications of Bill C-368, I want to first focus on the vital role NHPs play in the lives of Canadians, followed by the current landscape of NHPs and, lastly, the need for greater oversight to guarantee public safety.
NHPs, which include vitamins, minerals, herbal remedies and daily-use products like toothpaste and sunscreen, are part of our integral health care practices. Their popularity is undeniable, with the number of authorized products in Canada skyrocketing from around 50,000 in 2004 to over 200,000 today. This demand underscores the critical importance of ensuring these products are not only effective, but also safe for Canadian families.
It is fundamental to understand that although NHPs are lower risk, they are not without risk, especially if products are contaminated, advertised in a misleading manner or used improperly. As much as NHPs offer potential health benefits, the risks associated with substandard or improperly labelled NHPs underscore the need for appropriate oversight.
I will now highlight the previous and the current legislative landscape of NHPs.
In Canada, NHPs are regulated under the Food and Drug Act, and specifically under the natural health products regulations established in 2004. A pivotal moment in Canadian legislative history was the enactment of the Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act, also known as Vanessa's Law, in 2014. This introduced improvements in Health Canada's ability to collect post-market safety information on drugs and medical devices and to take appropriate actions, such as issuing a mandatory recall when a serious risk to health care is identified. However, NHPs were not yet incorporated under the scope of this law. As a result, for close to a decade, Health Canada's ability to take action on NHPs when health and safety issues occur has been limited.
This lack of equivalent safety power for NHPs has compelled Health Canada to depend on voluntary intervention by industry, which has not consistently worked in the past, to protect Canadians against real health and safety risks.
A significant shift in NHP regulations was marked by the adoption of Bill C-47 in 2023, which incorporated NHPs under the scope of Vanessa's Law. This empowered Health Canada with enhanced authorities to better protect consumer safety, such as by recalling unsafe products from the market and mandating label changes where serious harm to health is identified. This goes into my third point, which is the pertinent need for greater oversight of NHPs.
Between 2021 and 2022, Health Canada conducted inspections to assess the regulatory compliance of 36 NHP manufacturers and importers. All of the inspections identified compliance issues ranging in severity, with 15 of the 36 sites reporting issues serious enough to be considered non-compliance. Between 2021 and 2023 alone, there were also 100 voluntary recalls of licensed NHPs due to safety concerns, including contamination risks and the presence of harmful substances. These figures are not mere statistics. They represent potential harm to Canadian families and highlight the need to have stronger tools available to protect consumers from serious health and safety risks.
With all that said, it is important to consider the crucial need for oversight of NHPs as we consider the implications of Bill C-368, which could significantly alter the government's ability to regulate the safety and efficacy of these important products. As the NHP market has grown significantly over the years in Canada and continues to grow, we continue to support access to a safe NHP marketplace for Canadians to maintain and improve their health. The extension of Vanessa's Law to NHPs underscores this commitment.
As we navigate this conversation, let us prioritize the safety and trust of Canadians in their health product choices and ensure that the regulatory mechanisms in place are equipped to address the complexity of the NHP industry.
I am thankful for the opportunity to voice these considerations on behalf of my constituents in Richmond Hill and Canadians everywhere who rely on NHPs for their health and well-being.
1056 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate both the member who is presenting this legislation and also his speech, which was well-informed and provided good information for Canadians.
The member is right to point out that this provision was included in Bill C-47, omnibus legislation, which is something that the NDP has always opposed, both under the former Harper Conservative government and under the current government. The idea that the government would put, in the budget implementation bill, a whole range of other measures simply does not allow for the legislative scrutiny that is so important. The member is right to point out that Bill C-47 did that. It made those changes, just as Bill C-51, under the former Harper Conservative government, purported to do the same thing.
I thought he was very eloquent about the fact that we need to move forward with this legislation. The NDP will be supporting this legislation at second reading. We want to send this to committee. We want to have the committee do the fulsome work of finally consulting the industry and natural health practitioners, so that we finally get something that has not happened under either Bill C-51 or Bill C-47, which is the scrutiny that is so important.
I consume a lot of natural health products—
219 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that Bill C-368, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (natural health products), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today and talk about the changes that have been made to Canada's natural health product regime by the Liberals, with the support of the NDP and the Greens, in the budget implementation act, Bill C-47. For Canadians watching at home, what is Bill C-47 and what happened? Last year at about this time, Bill C-47 was passed in the House of Commons. This is a budget implementation act. It is supposed to only change the law insofar as what the budget policy of the day is talking about. However, somebody snuck a few clauses into the bill that changed the definition of “natural health products” to be the same as that of therapeutic products, such as drugs that require a prescription and have a drug identification number. That is the problem.
The underlying problem with all that, for folks watching at home, is that the industry was not consulted at all about these particular changes. As a matter of fact, I do not remember a single member of Parliament debating that during the budget implementation act debates. I do not remember it coming up at committee. Nobody from the industry was called to the committee to testify about these issues. It was only several months after the bill had passed that people began to wake up and realize that Health Canada was proceeding with its self-care framework, because it had these new-found powers under Bill C-47.
That basically goes back to Health Canada now trying to get care and control of natural health products to the same effect that it has with therapeutics. However, if we go back to 1998, the health committee in the House of Commons issued a report with 53 recommendations. It basically said, in no uncertain terms, that natural health products are not therapeutic drugs. I will remind everybody in this House that this happened under a majority Chrétien government, so there would have been a majority of Liberals on that committee at the time. That is the conclusion they drew, and that was the template going forward.
If we fast-forward to 2014, when Vanessa's Law was passed, there was a lot of debate and discussion at that particular point in time. Again it was reaffirmed that natural health products are not therapeutic products and are exempted from Vanessa's Law. Then, if we fast-forward to 2021, the Auditor General's report came out. The Auditor General was very critical of Health Canada's ability to properly manage certain aspects of the natural health product regime, particularly when it came to looking at post-market monitoring, testing samples of the products that were on the shelves and so on.
Most importantly, in that report, the Auditor General took the strange step of actually taking 75 products. These were not random products off the shelf in Canada; these were 75 products that were deemed problematic from the beginning. The Auditor General used that for a false narrative that somehow natural health products in Canada are unsafe. I can assure everyone that this is simply not true, but Health Canada, nonetheless, is using this information to claim that it needs the powers under Vanessa's Law. What would that entail? Health Canada would now have a self-funding methodology, so it could apply massive amounts of licensing fees and product registration fees to a very small industry, when we compare it to the size of the pharmaceutical industry. According to everybody in the industry, this would likely cause a massive loss of products and a lot of chaos. The primary impact, for Canadians watching at home, is cost.
For those who do not already know, people should know that Canada is already the most regulated natural health product industry in the world. As a matter of fact, Canada's brand on natural health products is better than that of the United States, Mexico and virtually anywhere in the world. Our products, manufacturers and exporters already had in place, prior to Bill C-47, the best regulatory reputation out there. We are a growing industry in this country. The industry is growing so fast, in leaps and bounds, because of the proper regulation that existed prior to Bill C-47, whether in terms of our producers, manufacturers or distributors, as I said.
However, under the new self-care framework, Health Canada started out with these new site licences. People might not know this, but manufacturers, packagers and distributors have to have something called a site licence from Health Canada. They cannot conduct business without a site licence. This was free up until Bill C-47; with the new proposed regulations coming into force, the initial site licence fee was going to be $40,000 per year. I think it has been negotiated with the industry down to $20,000 a year.
Just imagine if someone has a traditional Chinese medicine establishment, or is doing Ayurvedic medicine or homeopathy, and has to get a site licence fee of $20,000 every year. Everybody, basically, in those three parts of the natural health product industry has already said that this is going to shut them down. It is a very onerous fee. There would then be a new product fee. For any new natural health product that one wanted to bring to the market, it would be upward of $4,000 to get one's natural product number. If someone buys their vitamin C, they go to the store and there is a little natural product number on it. There are about 50,000 natural products registered in Canada right now. If someone is going to bring a new product to the market, it will cost them an additional $4,000 per product. In that particular year, if one has a site licence and a new product, one is looking at $24,000 before one even gets anything coming in for revenues.
If a person is practising traditional Chinese medicine, and if somebody needs a new remedy and the practitioner needs to import some of the ingredients from China or someplace else in the world, they are going to bring those products in and be paying thousands of dollars to get a product registered in Canada. One might be in the market to sell only 10 bottles to a client that has a need for a very specific thing. This is going to basically kill traditional Chinese medicine practice in Canada. Of course, the right-to-sell licence that Health Canada is bringing in for each product will be over $300 per product, so now one is dealing with thousands of dollars every year for this industry. It is going to kill innovation. It is going to stifle growth. It is going to basically drive the innovation and product development out of Canada.
What is the impact? The industry experts are saying that up to 70% of products that are currently on our shelves in Canada with a natural product number on them, and it is very important that they have that natural product number, will be likely disappearing in the years to come when Health Canada implements the self-care framework. Three out of five manufacturers, retailers, practitioners and distributors say that they will actually have to close their doors. We are basically losing approximately 60% of the industry if Health Canada goes ahead with implementing the cost recovery fee program for the natural product industry. The job losses are direct and indirect. People may be interested to know that right now about 54,000 people in Canada are directly employed in the natural health product industry. They figure that about 66% of those jobs will be negatively impacted once the self-care framework is brought in.
One would think that the Prime Minister, being the self-professed feminist that he is, would have actually done a gender analysis on the impact of Bill C-47 when it comes to natural health products, but there was no gender-based analysis. One might be surprised to know that over 80% of the consumers of natural health products in Canada are women, as well as 90% of practitioners, such as homeopathic doctors and so on. Well over 50% of the micro-businesses are female-owned in this particular industry, and 84% of direct-to-customer sellers are women. This is very important. It is a very important industry to women in Canada, and we are going to lose these businesses.
It is too bad, because we are already, like I said, one of the safest and most well-regulated environments around the globe when it comes to natural health products. Over 80% of Canadians, according to the most recent information that we have, are users of natural health products. Of those 80%, when one asks them how satisfied they are with their natural health products, over 99% say they are very confident that the natural health products that they acquire from the shelves in Canadian stores are safe and healthy and work for them. That is true. One will find that across the country. I have been travelling across the country and can say without any hesitation whatsoever that Canadians are very concerned about losing access to the only part of their health care system that they have care and control over, which is natural health products.
For those who are interested, Deloitte has done an audit on some of the findings that Health Canada has been using. It has claimed that over 700 people over a two-year period were adversely affected by natural health products, but if someone actually digs down into the data, and it is Government of Canada data, they will find that only 32 people over three years were actually affected. Unfortunately there were three deaths, but if one takes a look at the other factors associated with those deaths, all of those people were also taking prescription drugs at the same time. There is a lot more misinformation out there right now that is attacking the industry unnecessarily.
We certainly should not be making a hasty decision in this place by bringing legislative changes in the back door like we did with Bill C-47.
I want to talk a little about consumer protection because I think this will be the argument the government will use. Members may also not know this, but if one buys products online from outside of the country, those are not necessarily regulated in the same way. In fact, I can guarantee they are not regulated in the same way they are in the Canadian marketplace. They will not have that natural product number on them.
One can buy a 90-day supply. Right now, Health Canada allows one to buy a 90-day supply. It can be shipped in with Amazon, or any number of these direct-to-customer purchasing apps or opportunities out there, and it will all be unregulated by Health Canada. They very likely will not have a natural product number on them.
These are marketed to Canadians on social media, such as Facebook, and through other types of marketing methods, and Canadians are buying them. Umary is an example. It is made in Mexico and marketed as a natural health product to seniors. Seniors are buying this product up, but it contains diclofenac, which is a prescription drug. This is the problem, not the industry within the borders of Canada.
Health Canada, in its attempt, would do the opposite of what its intended results. It is going to drive the businesses through regulatory burden costs and overhead. Businesses are going to say they can go operate in Mexico or the United States far cheaper than they can operate in Canada. They are going to be down there in the same environment selling direct-to-customer over the border with 90-day supplies. Health Canada is going to lose care and control over the quality assurance Canadians have come to depend on. It is not good for consumers at all.
I should let people know who are watching Health Canada already has incredible powers. We are going to hear some members of Parliament stand up in this place to debate this bill and say that Health Canada has no mandatory recall when it comes to natural health products. However, I will list some of the powers one might not know Health Canada already has. It already has the ability to issue a stop sale, and it does that from time to time. A stop sale order will go out, and that means that all that product on all the shelves in all the stores in Canada has to immediately stop being sold.
Health Canada does have the power, if it chose to implement it, for personal use import at the border. If it wanted to take a look at what was coming across the border, it would be a great place for Health Canada to start looking for opportunities to keep Canadians safer. It has the ability to seize. It has seizure provisions already in the legislation and regulations, which means it can seize any product from any of the points along the line, from manufacturing through packaging through distributing at the retail stores. It already has seizure capabilities in the law and regulations.
Health Canada can revoke the site licence for any manufacturer, any packager, any labeller or any importer. It already has the power to revoke that site licence. It has the ability to mandate a label change. If there is a health concern brought up from the Canadian public, it can investigate and then can tell the manufacturer or the labeller they need to change the label to reflect some health concern or some other information. It can do that.
Health Canada can inspect any site that has a site licence. It can go automatically into a manufacturer. It can go into a producer anywhere where a site licence is required. It can go in and conduct an audit anytime it wants. It can inspect any product off the shelf. It can take it, send it to the lab and do a verification check. It approves every natural product number being sold on the shelf right now. Nothing is sold without its pre-authorized consent. As well, it can revoke a natural product number anytime it wants.
That is already an immense amount of power. It does not need more. When we hear about the mandatory recall, that is simply a red herring. Health Canada already has an immense amount of power.
When something is defined as a therapeutic drug, that also subjects them to $5-million-a-day fines. There is nobody in the natural product industry who can afford a $5-million-a-day administrative penalty fine. Health Canada would unilaterally, without an ombudsman, without any process to appeal, have the ability to basically shut this industry down at its earliest whim or convenience. It is already causing a chill in the industry. It is driving businesses away from Canada.
We need to stop this. Canadians need to call their Liberal MP, their NDP MP or their Green Party MP and tell them to change how they voted on Bill C-47. They need to get them to vote in favour of Bill C-368. Let us get this bill to committee. Let us have an actual proper consultation with the industry. If there is something that needs to be changed, we can at least have an honest conversation and Canadians can be involved in a transparent way.
Passing this bill through the back door, tucking it into a budget implementation act, is shoddy law-making and shoddy policy-making. It flies in the face of everything we have done to this point. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C-368.
2697 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-368, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (natural health products).
He said: Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce my private member's bill, which would amend the Food and Drugs Act. This bill would reverse the changes made by the NDP-Liberal government in its omnibus budget bill, Bill C-47, earlier this year. It would return natural health products to the status quo, ensuring these products are not classified as therapeutic products, like synthetic drugs, and are therefore not subject to the same regulatory regime as other drugs.
Previously, natural health products were classified separately from pharmaceuticals due to the minimal risk they pose to their users. However, after the NDP-Liberal coalition passed Bill C-47, bureaucrats in Health Canada can now implement their self-care scheme, which, according to the Natural Health Products Protection Association, will reduce choice, increase costs for consumers and drive businesses, investment and product development out of Canada.
The existing regulations already keep Canadians safe. As such, I urge all members in this House to listen to their constituents and the overwhelming amount of correspondence they receive and vote for this bill.
After eight years, enough is enough. It is time to undo the damage done by Bill C-47, kick out the gatekeepers and save our supplements and vitamins.
228 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, after years of inaction under the Conservative government, our government became the first to adopt a regime to protect passenger rights, establishing a common set of obligations that all airlines must respect. To strengthen this regime, additional measures were introduced in Bill C‑47, creating even stricter regulations for airlines and ensuring that passengers are always protected.
Can the minister provide an update on this work?
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time I have had the opportunity to address you, allow me to congratulate you on your election as Speaker.
I present a petition on behalf of Canadians across the country who are very concerned with the loss of the freedom of choice in health care, and who are becoming increasingly alarmed by the legislation and statutory changes that were embedded, and buried, quite frankly, in Bill C-47, the Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1.
Canadians are competent and able to make their own health decisions without state interference. Therefore, the petitioners are calling upon this Parliament to guarantee the right of every Canadian to health freedom by enacting the charter of health freedom, which was drafted for the Natural Health Products Protection Association on September 4, 2008.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has included a number of aspects in his question. I will do my best to address them in the time provided for in this particular instance.
I think it is important to recognize that, in any given instance, reasonable people can disagree on the appropriateness of a procedural measure used in the House of Commons. In this particular instance, where there is widespread agreement and where there has been sufficient debate, I think it is entirely appropriate.
The member cited Bill C-47, the budget implementation act. With enormous respect to all members of this House, I did not hear a novel argument put forward in that debate. We had an opportunity to debate the measures that were included in the budget. We had an opportunity to further debate some of the measures that were being implemented in Bill C-47.
My view is that with the supports that were going to be delivered to Canadians, including tax breaks for skilled tradespeople, advancing child care, other pieces of law that were dealt with previously and getting grocery rebates to people, there was an opportunity for us to deliver the supports that people had counted upon expeditiously. In my view, having not heard novel arguments being presented in the House of Commons, and needing to get supports to people in a timely manner at a time when those supports were most needed, it was also appropriate.
The wonderful thing about our democracy is that this decision is not made by any one individual, even by the cabinet. It is made by a majority of members who are elected to the House of Commons by the communities who sent them here. In each instance, time allocation has been supported by a majority of members.
I think that is the appropriate way to deal with the present issue, particularly given the widespread agreement and significant debate that have already taken place.
323 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to share my opinion on the gag orders, because judging by what the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the minister are saying, one would have to wonder whether gag orders are not the best thing since sliced bread. I consider gag orders to be a technique used to systematically muzzle the elected members of the House, which is unacceptable.
I believe that when the government invokes closure, it is because the government House leader has mismanaged the time spent on House business. All parties support Bill S‑8. We are now at third reading, the committee did a good job, everything is going well, and I do not think that there were many members who wanted to speak at this stage.
I will give an example. Last night, until midnight, we discussed Bill C‑9. We have discussed this several times before, even before the last election. Why has the government House leader not been able to say that this is important, that it enjoys a fairly broad consensus and that it will be implemented quickly? Instead, it takes years to be adopted and implemented.
I have two other examples. Closure was also invoked for Bill C‑47 , the budget implementation bill. It is hundreds of pages long and all the organizations that wanted to delve into it would have needed time to do so. Imposing closure on such a bill limits the amount of time available to go through it and the ability to correct the flaws in committee.
One last and extreme example dates back to the pandemic, when the government was not taking action. At one point, it came up with a bill that was to go through all stages immediately. We asked for a few weeks to study it. We wanted it to be introduced so that people could go through it and improve it. However, the government did not want to do that and said that everything had to be passed as soon as possible, without any study or review. Well, it then had to present other bills to fix the first one. That is an unacceptable and absolutely amateurish way of doing things.
372 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
It being 3:19 p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-47.
Call in the members.
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is important to be clear about what the government has spent money on. When the Conservatives talk about those deficits, those deficits were spent on such things as CERB, the Canada emergency response benefit, or the Canada emergency wage subsidy, which quite literally kept households afloat during the pandemic.
When it comes to what we are spending on right now, we are spending on such things as the Canada workers benefit. That is in the current budget, which the Conservatives are delaying, and it will help the lowest-income Canadians have more access to more money.
If the Conservatives truly cared about helping low-income Canadians, they would support Bill C-47. They would vote with us, and they would—
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
We are finally at third reading of the budget implementation act, a critical piece of legislation. It is a bill that would enact our economic plan for Canadians. It is about creating more good-paying jobs. It is about growing our GDP, and it is about Canada staying competitive in the global market. This is important to me. It is important to every single member of the government. When I am asked in my riding what my priority is, or when a journalist wants to know what our government’s priority is, the answer is clear: It is the economy.
The Conservative leader, however, has made no secret of what his priority is. He stated it so very clearly. His priority is to “use all procedural tools at our disposal to block the budget from passing including 900 amendments, lengthy speeches, and other procedural tools”. This, I must emphasize, is not how Parliament is supposed to function. These 904 amendments are fake amendments. They are 904 motions calling on the government to delete the 904 clauses of the budget implementation act. It took hours of the Speaker's time just to read out those amendments and four hours to vote on them earlier today. This was after 40 hours of Conservative filibusters on the budget implementation act.
This is not even a serious attempt at preventing the passage of the budget. If that were the case, the Conservative leader would be trying to rally a majority of MPs in the House, but that is not what the Conservatives are doing; they are not trying to convince other parties or other members. These are simply stunts, ones that serve only to undermine the work of Parliament and to obstruct the democratic will of the House. Similar to those stunts, more of the same can be expected tonight. The leader of the Conservative Party said earlier today that he will keep speaking and keep blocking.
While the Conservatives are clapping, they perhaps would like to explain to Canadians why they want to block important benefits and programs: benefits for low-income workers and benefits for families, consumers and homebuyers. The Conservatives are blocking assistance for Ukraine, which is included in this bill before the House. The Conservatives are blocking an anti-flipping tax, when we know that speculation in the housing market is causing pain for Canadians. The Conservatives are stalling the next steps in our dental care plan, when we know that seniors would like to access this important support. The Conservatives are preventing low-income workers in this country from getting the support they need. The list goes on and on. Why are the Conservatives doing this? Why has this minority of members in the House of Commons decided to delay important benefits and programs for Canadians who need them?
It is simply because Conservatives do not believe that climate change exists or that we should take climate action in this country. That is the only logical conclusion, given the debates in the House. They do not believe the 99.9% of climate scientists when they tell us we need to substantially cut emissions if we hope to safeguard our environment for our children and our grandchildren.
As we all know, major economies around the world are moving at an unprecedented pace to fight climate change and build the net-zero industries the world needs now. As a country, we must seize this opportunity. The International Energy Agency estimates that the global market for clean-tech manufacturing alone will triple by 2030, to $650 billion U.S. per year. We cannot let that opportunity pass us by. Budget 2023 is the government's plan to seize that opportunity today and to lead the way in rapidly expanding global industries that will ensure that Canada can and will be a leader in that global economy.
I have to say that, in that race, the recent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act represents a major challenge to our ability to compete in industries that will drive the economy of tomorrow. If we do not act quickly, the magnitude of U.S. incentives will compromise Canada's ability to attract the investments necessary to make our country a leader in the clean global economy.
If Canada does not keep pace, it will fall behind. If we fall behind, that will mean fewer investments in our communities and fewer jobs for a whole generation of Canadians.
As we can see, economic imperatives are leading us toward the development of the green economy. However, that is not all.
It is also critical that we consider the devastating impacts that climate change is having on Canadians. Earlier this year, we witnessed this when an ice storm swept across much of Canada, including my community in Montreal, elsewhere in Quebec, and in Ontario. The damage was significant. Unfortunately, we know these storms will become more frequent due to climate change. Sadly, lives were lost. Now, as we all know, wildfires are ravaging communities across the country, leaving a path of destruction behind and literally making it difficult to breathe.
Today is actually Clean Air Day in Canada, a day meant to recognize how important good air quality is to our health, to our environment and, yes, to our economy. Today, in Ottawa, the air quality is rated at 10 plus, on a scale of 10, which means maxing out the scale entirely. This is the worst level on Environment Canada's Air Quality Health Index, and it indicates a very high risk to human health. If this does not serve to finally wake up the climate deniers in the House, I genuinely do not know what will. These natural disasters serve as yet another reminder of the urgent need to take action against climate change, to get our economy to make the green transition we all need, and to turn this into a real economic opportunity for Canadians as we create the economy of tomorrow. The time for action is now.
The transition to the clean economy will require massive investments, both public and private. For Canada to remain competitive, we must continue to build a framework that supports these types of investments in Canada, and that is what we are doing with this budget.
By making significant investments so that Canada does not fall behind in this period of tremendous change and opportunity, budget 2023 ensures that our clean Canadian economy will create prosperity, jobs for the middle class and stronger communities across the country.
The measures set out in Bill C-47 give us the means to match our ambitions, the means to chart a path to net zero and to good jobs for years to come.
Growing a clean economy, both here in Canada and around the world, will depend on our supply of clean electricity.
The good news is that Canada already has one of the cleanest electricity grids in the world. In fact, roughly 83% of our electricity comes from non-emitting sources, such as hydroelectricity, wind, solar and nuclear.
In budget 2023, the federal government is proposing significant investments to accelerate the supply and transmission of clean electricity. We will expand Canada's electricity grid, connect it from coast-to-coast-to-coast, and ensure that Canadians and Canadian businesses have access to cleaner and cheaper energy into the next century.
By way of example, budget 2023 proposes to introduce a 15% refundable tax credit for eligible investments in non-emitting electricity generation systems such as wind and solar; abated natural gas-fired electricity generation; stationary electricity storage systems that do not use fossil fuels in their operation, such as batteries, pumped hydroelectric storage and compressed air storage; and equipment for the transmission of electricity between provinces and territories. Both new projects and the refurbishment of existing facilities will be eligible.
This made-in-Canada plan follows the federal tiered structure to incent the development of Canada’s clean economy and provide additional support for projects that need it. With this plan we are introducing the necessary tools to put Canada’s electricity sector on the path to reducing its emissions to net-zero from the 56-megatonne CO2 equivalent in 2020, and to meeting our commitment to achieve a net-zero electricity grid by 2035.
We know that as we look to seize the opportunities presented to us in growing the clean economy of the future and building the opportunities of tomorrow, we must continue to support Canadians today. Since our election in 2015, our government's main focus has been on investing in the middle class, growing the economy, strengthening Canada’s social safety net and making life more affordable.
We have introduced the Canada child benefit, which has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, including more than 15,000 in my riding alone. We have been giving millions of families a head start in giving their children the best start in life possible. We have increased the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors, increased old aged security and enhanced the Canada pension plan with our provincial partners, because we know that those who have contributed and given to this country for their entire working lives deserve to enjoy a secure and dignified retirement.
We know that without the involvement of women in our workforce, we will never succeed in building the economy we want. Because of that, in 2021 we made a historic investment in a Canada-wide system of affordable early learning and child care. That investment has already delivered a 50% average reduction in fees for regulated child care in this country. It has also brought down fees to just $10 a day in six provinces and territories in this country, with the rest on track to meeting this milestone in just a few years' time.
The statistics speak for themselves.
We have increased our employment by over 900,000 jobs since prepandemic levels. Our unemployment rate sits at just 5%, which is lower than prepandemic levels. Our labour force participation rate is at 65.6%, well above that of the United States, and our labour force participation rate for women in their prime working years is at a record high of 85.2 %. We have also had the fastest year-over-year growth of any country in the G7. That is right. It is right here in Canada.
We have made a lot of progress over the years in supporting Canadians, but we also know that millions still find it difficult to make ends meet. Budget 2023 was developed with a dual purpose in mind: supporting Canadians who need the help and need the government to step in to help them make ends meet today, while laying the foundations to build the economy that Canadians need tomorrow, with good-paying jobs. We cannot have one without the other. We cannot build an economy for the future without supporting the most vulnerable in our society today, and that is a challenge our government is ready to meet.
Predatory lenders often take advantage of some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, including many low-income Canadians, newcomers and seniors, often by extending very high interest rate loans. That is why in our budget implementation bill, we proposed that the federal government lower the criminal rate of interest under the Criminal Code from 47% to just 35% and launch consultations on whether that rate should be further reduced. Today’s legislation also proposes to adjust the Criminal Code's payday lending exemption to impose a cap on the cost of borrowing charged by payday lenders.
Another topic is supporting our young people. Supporting post-secondary education not only is one of the best ways to continue to make life more affordable, but also prepares the next generation of Canadians with the skills they need to succeed. The cost of getting a post-secondary education has risen in recent years for many Canadians. RESPs are an important part of saving for that education. In a typical year, about 500,000 students withdraw funds from their RESPs to support their education. However, the withdrawal limits have not increased in 25 years.
That is why, in the legislation before this House today, we are proposing to increase limits on those withdrawals from $5,000 to $8,000 for full-time students and from $2,500 to $4,000 for part-time students. We are also proposing to allow divorced or separated parents to open a joint RESP for their children, which would ensure more young Canadians have the opportunities they wish.
I would also like to quickly address another aspect of the bill before us this evening. The changes that this bill makes to the Canada Elections Act confirm that Parliament has always intended that the Canada Elections Act should regulate uniformly, exclusively and comprehensively the federal political parties with respect to privacy.
Parliament has already established a set of exclusive, comprehensive and uniform rules for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by federal political parties, requiring political parties to establish and comply with privacy policies governed by the Canada Elections Act.
Some provincial privacy commissioners have questioned this interpretation, and this piece of legislation before us confirms that the intention of the Canada Elections Act has always been that voters across Canada benefit from that same set of privacy rules during federal elections.
Communication with voters is at the very heart of politics, and the collection, use and disclosure of information is essential to that communication. This legislative measure will provide important certainty. MPs, federal political parties, candidates, campaigns, party officials and volunteers will be subject to a single, comprehensive and uniform set of federal rules for the collection, use and disclosure of information, and no province will be able to separately regulate or restrict the ability of MPs, federal political parties, candidates, campaigns, party officials and volunteers to communicate with voters or to collect and use their information.
I would like to conclude by saying that, thanks to the measures in Bill C-47 and others in budget 2023, we have the opportunity to build a clean, prosperous and sustainable economy right here in Canada. This will benefit not just ourselves and our children, but also our grandchildren in every part of this magnificent country. The time has come to seize this opportunity and to move forward.
2415 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to participate in this evening's debate on Bill C‑47, which implements our government's 2023 budget.
The budget sets out a host of measures for supporting Canadians and growing the Canadian economy of the future. That is our government's priority.
This week, the Conservative leader let us know what his priority is. On Monday, he said his priority is to use all procedural tools at his disposal to block the budget from passing. This morning, he doubled down by saying that he intended to speak all night to filibuster this debate. After witnessing the cheap tricks that the Conservatives have been pulling since last week to sabotage the work of this House, it is obvious that all of our Conservative colleagues are following their leader's example.
Of course, this is not a serious attempt to prevent the budget from passing. If it were, they would be trying to rally support from a majority of House members. The Conservatives are not trying to persuade anyone. They just want to block the bill. Not only is this approach an insult to our democratic institution and to the spirit of co-operation that we must strive to maintain, it is slowing the delivery of vital programs and benefits to Canadians.
219 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the third time and passed.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C‑47.
The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 2.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Normally at this time the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at report stage of the bill. However, pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022, the recorded division will stand deferred until Wednesday, June 7, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 730. A vote on the motion also applies to Motions Nos. 731 to 749 and 751 to 904.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
