Madam Speaker, last November, the government introduced Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act. Among other measures, Bill C-59 proposed significant amendments to our Competition Act.
I am proud to share that the Standing Committee on Finance has recently completed its review of the bill and has made several amendments to further strengthen existing proposals. Before I get into some of the key details of this critical piece of legislation, I feel it is important to highlight the economic context in which this legislation is being introduced.
Countries around the world are dealing with higher inflation due to a global pandemic, further exacerbated by geopolitical uncertainty. Despite the fearmongering of the Conservative members opposite, Canada's economy is remarkably strong and resilient. That is truly due to the hard work of Canadians themselves. A few proof points demonstrate this: Canada's net debt-to-GDP ratio is well below that of our G7 peers; our deficit is declining; and we are one of the only two G7 countries with an AAA credit rating from independent experts. Something that we can all be quite proud of is that Canada received the highest per capita foreign direct investment in the G7 in the first three quarters of 2023. Some may ask why those facts matter. These proof points show that Canada is in an enviable position when it comes to fiscal management. That position is exactly the reason our government can afford to make transformative investments in improving housing affordability and making life cost less.
Unlike Conservatives, who cut support for Canadians, we believe in supporting the middle class through growth and investment. I hear from my constituents often that their top concerns are being able to find an affordable place to live and wanting to find ways to make their day-to-day expenses cost less. This legislation addresses these two core issues head on.
For many years, Canada's markets have been described as overly concentrated and not competitive enough. In fact, a landmark Competition Bureau study last year, based on Statistics Canada data and analysis from a University of Toronto professor, made critical findings in this respect, showing that competitive intensity has been on the decline over the past two decades, reflected in a number of important indicators.
Bill C-59 was introduced to help build a stronger domestic economy through more competition and contestable markets, to bring lower prices, more choice and better product quality for consumers across all sectors. The measures in this bill include strengthening provisions with respect to merger review, enhancing protections for consumers, workers and the environment, and broadening opportunities for private enforcement.
We should not underestimate just how critical these reforms are for modernizing our law and promoting competitive markets. The Commissioner of Competition has stated on multiple occasions that the amendments in Bill C‑56, the affordable housing and groceries act, which was ultimately passed by this Parliament in December 2023, and Bill C-59, are generational. I would therefore like to highlight some important reforms that have been proposed.
To begin with, anti-competitive collaborations between competitors will be under increased scrutiny, as the bureau will be able to examine and, if necessary, seek penalties against coordinated conduct that lessens competition. The expansion of private enforcement and the ability for the Competition Tribunal to issue monetary payment orders in cases initiated by private parties is also a significant change to our existing enforcement approach.
More competition is always beneficial to consumers, but the bill also takes some more direct approaches to protect consumers. These include strengthening provisions on deceptive marketing so that vendors must present the full cost of a product or service upfront, without holding back mandatory fees, which is known as drip pricing. Businesses making environmental claims about their products will be required to have undertaken adequate and proper testing before advertising those benefits. Together, these changes would ensure that consumers have accurate and complete information about products and services to make informed purchasing decisions.
We have also made strides on the right to repair. Thanks to the bill, a wider variety of service providers would be able to offer more options to consumers when they are choosing where to repair their products. These reforms, along with various administrative changes aimed at facilitating efficient enforcement of the act, are crucial to ensuring that Canadian markets remain competitive and in line with international best practices.
It has been acknowledged by all members of the House that our competition framework requires reform, and my colleagues have engaged in thoughtful discussion on ways to modernize the existing marketplace framework. The committee members were notably quite interested in enhancing protections for consumers and the environment, and I would like to draw attention to some now.
First, clarifications were made to ensure that in the Competition Act's various provisions on drip pricing, the only amounts that can be excluded from the upfront price, are those imposed by law directly on the purchaser of the products, such as sales taxes.
Next, with the committee's amendment, sellers advertising reduced prices would be required to be able to prove that the regular price is authentic to publicize discounts. On the topic of doubtful environmental claims, or so-called greenwashing, the law would also require that those who make environmental claims about their business or business activities, not only specific products, have adequate and proper substantiation in hand to support such claims.
This bill goes beyond making generational changes to competition in Canada. It also takes concrete action to build more homes faster, including new rental housing. Bill C-59 proposes to eliminate GST on eligible new housing co-operatives built for long-term rental, as outlined in the fall economic statement. This is just one of many measures our government is proposing to ensure that more people across all provinces and territories find the housing they need, at a price that they can afford.
Amidst a period of inflation and growing affordability concerns, it is crucial that our markets remain resilient and open to competition. Bill C-59 would reform Canada's competitive landscape, encourage greater innovation and improve affordability for Canadians. It would also get more rental housing built faster so that we can ensure housing is affordable for every generation.
I would urge my colleagues from all sides of the House to work together to expeditiously pass this crucial piece of legislation, instead of doing what we have seen in committee, which is to slow the bill down. We continue to see the Conservatives try to obstruct key pieces of legislation that are helping Canadians in their time of need, and that is not what we have been put here to do.
1123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Bill C-59 creates a federal department of municipal affairs, which will bring with it more interference, bickering and delays, when the housing crisis requires fast action.
Members will recall that Pierre Elliott Trudeau attempted something similar in 1971, when he created the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, which was an abject failure. The Ministry of State for Urban Affairs was a source of contention with the provinces for its entire existence and never managed to play a useful role. It was finally disbanded in 1979.
Why is the government trying to do the same thing again when it was such a failure the first time around?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have a question for the minister.
Bill C‑59 provides for more than $30 billion for the oil industry. For example, there is the $12.5-billion credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage. I would like to quote what his former colleague, Catherine McKenna, said about it and then have him share his comments with us.
It should never have happened, but clearly the oil and gas lobbyists pushed for that....We are giving special access to companies that are making historic profits, that are not investing those profits into the transition and clean solutions. They are returning those profits to their shareholders, who for the most part are not Canadian, and then they ask to be subsidized for the pollution they cause, while Canadians have to pay more for oil and gas for heating.
What does the hon. minister think?
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister about affordable housing and what Bill C-59 offers on affordable housing. My community in London, Ontario, is challenged with homelessness, as are many communities across the country.
What is also interesting, and I would love to hear commentary on this too, is that I never hear anything from the Conservatives about a plan to address homelessness or a plan to address the challenges we see on Canadian streets. This is something, if the Conservatives want to put themselves up as the official opposition, they have a responsibility to speak to, but they never talk about it.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in the over 20 hours of witness testimony that was heard at the Standing Committee on Finance, we heard from industry about the importance of the investment tax credits that our government is launching, two of which are rolled out in Bill C-59.
Could the minister speak to the importance of those investment tax credits, in particular, the carbon capture, utilization and storage and the clean technology investment tax credits, in terms of their ability to mobilize capital to build a clean economy here in Canada?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I know the government is approaching that issue with all the seriousness with which the Conservatives come up with their slogans, but I will move on to the House agenda.
This evening, we will resume debate on Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023. Tomorrow morning, we will call Government Business Motion No. 39, concerning the pharmacare legislation. We will go back to debate on Bill C-59 in the afternoon.
Upon our return following the constituency week, we will resume debate on Bill C-69, the budget implementation act. I would also like to inform the House that Thursday, May 23, shall be an allotted day.
On the extension of sitting hours, I request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the next sitting be 12 midnight, pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 28.
Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), I would like to designate Thursday, May 23, for consideration in committee of the whole of the main estimates for the Department of Justice. Furthermore, debate on the main estimates for the Department of Health will take place on the evening of Wednesday, May 29.
197 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my hon. colleague to actually read Bill C-59, which would double the rural top-up. I would encourage him to actually read the letter from 300 economists across the country who say that eight out of 10 Canadians get more money back. Rather than simply axing the facts, he should do his homework.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this issue merits proper examination. At this hour, we have heard from many speakers that this must be taken seriously.
Will the member agree that this should be referred to PROC as soon as possible? Obviously, we gathered here to debate Bill C-59, which has issues of great importance to the citizens we represent. Will the member agree to speeding up the process and moving this to PROC as soon as possible?
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate to work with my hon. colleague on the Standing Committee on Finance. He always has a thorough knowledge of the issues and makes constructive suggestions.
I want to ask him about the amendment to the Competition Act. He referred to it in his speech. For years, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry has been announcing a comprehensive reform. However, the reforms have come in bits and pieces, in Bill C‑56 and Bill C‑59.
The commissioner of competition told us it was not enough, that it would take this and that. Public officials replied that if we did such and such, it would affect something else that was not in the bill. In fact, we were supposed to have a bill to reform the entire Competition Act.
Does my colleague think that doing things this way amounts to incompetence on the part of the government?
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be from Simcoe North.
As I was mentioning, at a time when Canadians are facing an affordability crisis, the government's stated policy objective is to make energy more expensive. We are the only country on the planet that has increased the cost of energy through direct carbon tax increases and now also through an indirect increase by imposing additional taxes on public utilities, which is commonly referred to as the EIFEL restrictions. Therefore, it is with great pleasure that I speak to this bill tonight, especially on the short title.
I think we can think of many better titles for this bill, including “the Government of Canada wants people to pay more”, “the Government of Canada does not think people pay enough for energy” or “the Government of Canada is just out of ideas”. Those would be far better titles for the bill.
There were some competition provisions in this bill, which also raised some concern. The government has made very significant and substantive changes to competition policy in the last three budget bills. Each time, interestingly enough, it says that these provisions are monumental and that it has made these great changes to the competition policy that have never been seen before, but only a few months later, it brings in some more changes. I say that because it has had a lot of time to think about what it would do with competition policy.
The government proposed a number of substantive changes, and I have to give my NDP colleague credit, who is now the new member of the finance committee. He sliced up and diced up the government's competition provisions in this bill like never before. In fact, the government should be embarrassed that the competition provisions it put forward in Bill C-59 were completely redrafted by its coalition partner. It had multiple months and years to think about the provisions it wanted to change. When it finally said that it had the best changes, it got absolutely railroaded by its supply and confidence partner. That should be embarrassing for the government.
That is why we are here debating this bill and debating the title. If members want another title for the bill, as this is a government that is out of ideas, how about, “we think people can pay just a little more”. That is what the bill should be called because energy bills are going up for people in Nova Scotia with this bill.
In addition, the number of drafting errors in this bill are significant. There was a provision called the dividend deduction rules. As soon as the budget bill was tabled, some smart individual did not think that the government understood how it was going to affect individual life insurance policyholders and that maybe somebody should call it and give it a lesson. It took eight months for it to explain how a particular life insurance product worked when participating in whole life insurance. It eventually brought in a significant amendment to fix it. This bill was delayed because of all the drafting errors in it and because the government did not even understand how these significant changes would affect the cost to Canadians.
These are the reasons for which we are trying to delay the bill. The government does not have a sweet clue about what some of these amendments do.
Now the government is saying that it has to pass the bill because the market is asking for the investment tax credits. Guess what? We can pass the bill tonight if the government wants to, and no one can use the investment tax credits because the CRA and Natural Resources Canada still have not put out the guidance required for companies to take advantage of the investment tax credits. If the government was so serious about getting this bill passed, it would have had all of its homework done, but it does not. Maybe the dog ate it. I do not know what the excuse is, but the Liberal government is not ready. It is out of ideas. It chose to delay this bill until now. It was the government that had drafting errors in the bill. It decided to make energy more expensive in the bill.
The government tried to indirectly make life insurance products more expensive in this bill, but then it realized that five million Canadians would have to pay more for their life insurance products because they were trying to find revenue somewhere and tax the big banks more and tax financial institutions more, not realizing that those costs for that product are passed directly to consumers.
I was very pleased to speak against the short title of this bill, if that means we can keep energy costs lower for some Canadians for just a little longer. I welcome the wonderful questions from the member for Winnipeg North, as I know he always has a zinger.
837 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this chamber.
Before I start my remarks on the bill, I seek the Speaker's indulgence for just a moment.
I was notified earlier today that a dear friend and former colleague of mine, Matthew Vaccari, had passed away. He succumbed to cancer. He leaves behind two children and his wife, Heather. Matt and I worked very closely together at Canada Life. I know a number of people at that organization who are very upset and sad and, of course, his family. Matt was a wonderful human being, someone who was full of energy and who always had a positive attitude. It is with a heavy heart that I extend my condolences to his family for their loss and to all the people who worked with him and who knew Matt. He was a wonderful human being.
It is a pleasure to speak to any financial legislation that the government brings forward. I know that there is a lot of debate tonight about the short title and some words, but the truth is that we are talking about a bill that would increase energy costs for Canadians.
In Bill C-59, the EIFEL restrictions would impose an additional cost on public utilities in this country. We had witness testimony at the finance committee from a public utility in Nova Scotia that said that the bill would directly increase the energy costs of ratepayers in Nova Scotia. I understand that it may be inconvenient for the government, or for other parties who support the government, that Conservatives are doing their due diligence, taking their time and looking at ways to slow this legislation down because it would increase the cost of energy for Canadians at a time when they can least afford it.
Wisdom has been chasing the Liberal government for a long time, but it has just not caught up with it yet. How is it possible that, in an affordability crisis, the government thinks it makes sense to introduce tax legislation that would directly increase the cost of energy for certain Canadians in this country, in particular Nova Scotia? There is no debate about it. There is no—
370 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in Bill C‑59, there is a $17.8-billion tax credit that will help oil companies reduce their use of natural gas by financing the installation of small nuclear power plants to extract bitumen from the tar sands. The gas would then be exported to Asia, including from the LNG terminal in British Columbia.
Does the member believe that this is an environmental plan to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions?
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this place as the representative for the great riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill and discuss important issues of the day.
However, I must say that, this evening, I have a bit of a challenge in discussing this motion. It is a disgusting motion that we are discussing, actually, because it has been put forward to delete the short title of a very important bill, Bill C-59. Just to be clear, the long title of the bill is “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 long title is a mouthful; therefore, as is the normal course of business, the bill has a shorter title. The short title is simply the “Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023”. The motion put forward by the Conservatives tonight, requiring debate for five and a half hours, is to delete that short title. Just so that everyone is clear, because I know this is a very important motion for the Conservative Party, we are talking about deleting the title “Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023”, not the long title.
Why would we be discussing this motion this evening? That is a question I have asked myself. There is no good answer; the answer really lies in the work that the official opposition party is doing, which we have seen them do over the past year, at least. That is to ensure that there is not productive conversation or debate and that we do not get things done in this place.
Earlier this evening, a member opposite made a comment implying that I do not speak to the constituents in my riding, but that is what I try to do most of. In fact, I think that all of us here should take the responsibility of being the representatives of our constituencies very seriously. Certainly, spending five hours here tonight to debate this motion to delete six words from a bill is not time well-spent. In fact, I could be using this time to speak to constituents. We could be saving money. As the member for Vancouver Kingsway has so aptly pointed out several times, this exercise is costing taxpayers, including my constituents, a lot of valuable money that need not be spent.
The Conservative Party purports to care about fiscal matters and represent common sense. It is quite astounding to me that Conservatives would put forward this motion to debate this evening, especially when we have a piece of legislation in front of us that actually has a lot of important content that we could be discussing or debating.
Knowing that there is a lot of leeway given on what we can discuss, even given a motion as silly and wasteful as the one in front of us, I will comment on a few of the measures in this very important bill that the Conservative Party has continually filibustered on and tried to block, as it has done with most things our government has been doing.
In fact, I would refer to something that happened just a couple of weeks ago. As the chair of the women's caucus, I was actually very discouraged to see the chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women removed.
I do not sit on that committee, but I spoke to every member. To a person, they felt that the work being done by the chairperson and by the committee involved collaborating very well to get important things done for the women of Canada. They felt that the chairperson was removed simply because she was allowing constructive work to be done in this place.
Members of that committee are all saddened by the fact that this member has been removed from her position. The reason I mention that in relation to this very important motion that was put forward to remove the short title of the bill is that this is another example of how the opposition party is trying to block, delay and stall any good work being done in this place.
Let us look a little at what the bill contains and what is being held up by this wasteful motion that the Conservative Party has put forward. We have heard a lot about how Canadians are struggling. In my riding, when I speak to my constituents, I hear how people want relief, particularly on the cost of food. I sit on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I was part of the study that looked at addressing stability in food prices, given their recent increase. A lot of the recommendations that came up from witnesses were regarding the need for increased and improved competition in Canada.
Bill C-59, which we can still refer to by its short-form title, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023, has many measures that are being blocked now to do just that: to modernize our Competition Act, to give it more teeth and to ensure that it can fight against the practices that have been occurring and have increased food prices in Canada.
Another thing in this important bill is support for adoptive parents, including surrogates, with a 15-week shareable employment insurance adoption benefit. To many families, this is a very important measure. My husband and I are adoptive parents. I know that, when someone brings a child into their home, especially an older child, having that time to spend where one can just be with that child and not worry about other things is very important. While I am not a child psychologist, I read a lot about adoption before we adopted two of our children, and it makes quite a difference. This is a very important measure that many parents and families would benefit from.
For me, as someone who has experienced this, I feel it is reprehensible for the party opposite to be wasting our time tonight talking about removing the short title of a bill in order to obstruct and to delay it. There are parents like me out there who would very much like those 15 weeks to spend with their adoptive children.
There has also been a lot of talk about affordability and the effect of the pollution pricing regime on Canadians. I have heard, because I have some constituents who live in a semi-rural area, that there are not always the same options. Therefore, the rebate that is being given back to Canadians, which gives back more money to 80% of our families, is being adjusted to ensure that Canadians living in rural areas receive more. They would get a 20% top-up on the rebate that is given to other families.
Members of the party opposite often speak about rural ridings, people living in rural areas and the importance of agriculture, and I share their views. Therefore, how, in good conscience, can they talk about this?
I will conclude by saying that there are a lot of important things we could be—
1205 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was not expecting such a lively debate tonight. I thank the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway for his speech, and I congratulate him on the six amendments that he was able to get passed in committee. He touched on them briefly. I would like him to tell us more about that, but I will ask my question.
There have been a lot of changes and improvements to the Competition Act, some of which were requested by the commissioner of competition. When it comes to the Competition Act, we know that Canada had a long way to go. Bill C‑56 improved the act, and Bill C‑59 and its amendments are improving it even more.
Does the member think that the system is now robust enough that consumers can expect healthy competition at all times, or is there still more work to do in that regard?
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member should know about free things from government, because he gets free dental care, and so do his children. I do not see him giving that back. I have not heard of a Conservative giving back their free dental care yet.
By the way, dental care, of course, is not free; it is paid for, but we believe on this side of the House that, collectively, by pooling our resources, we can make sure that every person can get access to primary health care. It is the foundation of our Canadian health care system, so I think that is a wise expenditure of money.
More to the point, I have already gone through a couple of examples where Bill C-59 would return money to taxpayers. It would take 5% of the GST off new homebuilding, which is returning money to our home builders. It would take 5% off the GST for counselling services, returning money so that people can maybe afford to get the mental health support they need.
What I would ask my hon. colleague is this: Why does he not support the bill, which would return money to important parts of our economy, instead of holding us up and costing taxpayers $450,000 tonight to have this absolutely avoidable and nonsensical debate?
218 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, for anybody who may be watching tonight, I think a brief explanation of what their tax dollars are going to is in order.
Tonight, beginning at about 6:30 p.m., due to the Conservatives' motion, we are spending five and a half hours of debate, an entire evening sitting in the Canadians' House of Commons, to debate a Conservative motion on Bill C-59, which is a bill to enact provisions that were announced in the fall economic statement in 2023.
In this long bill with hundreds of provisions in it, the Conservatives' motion and contribution to Canadian democracy is to strip the short title of the bill. I think we have already heard that this has necessitated a late sitting of the House, which is probably going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and hold up all sorts of legislation that is of prime importance to Canadians.
Now, one thing that I think we all agree on is that Canadians across this country, millions of them, are in fact enduring pain, hardship, worry, insecurity and need. Bill C-59, while not perfect and certainly with a fair number of problems and omissions, does contain a number of important measures that would address those needs in a myriad of ways.
While the New Democrats are working constructively as an opposition party to move that legislation forward so that Canadians can get the relief they need, the Conservatives are holding it up. When the Conservatives claim to care about the needs of Canadians who are struggling with economic uncertainty, they are going to have to explain to Canadians why they are holding up the very measures that are contained in the legislation before the House that would help ameliorate those needs.
I also want to say a few things about the business community in this country. On the finance committee, along with my colleagues, I sat through testimony for 20 hours, hearing Canadian stakeholders comment on the provisions of this bill. When they did so, there were two very clear statements that were made to us repeatedly by Canadian businesses. Number one, they wanted this bill passed quickly. Number two, they wanted certainty.
As I will talk about in a moment, this bill contains a number of measures that would provide important tax incentives and tax credits to stimulate business activity, and businesses across this country are waiting for this. They are actually holding their investments. They are holding up creating jobs. They are holding up purchasing machinery and equipment, as well as research in technology, until this bill passes.
What is the Conservatives' reaction to this? They hold the bill up. If that is the Conservatives' concept of common sense, I do not think I share the same definition.
I want to talk about some of the important things in this bill. One of the things in this bill is a measure to implement the NDP's dental care plan. It would introduce an amendment to the provision that authorizes the sharing of taxpayer information for the purposes of administering the Canadian dental care plan.
We all know that, as of May 1, about a week ago, the first one million seniors who successfully applied to the CDCP started to access the dental care they need. Over two million seniors have already applied, with children under 18 and people living with disabilities, with a disability tax certificate, able to apply in a little over three weeks.
I want to stop for a moment, because I heard the Conservatives talk about Canadians who are suffering. Let us think of a senior right now who is at home suffering with dental pain, someone who does not have dentures that fit properly or maybe does not have dentures at all. They are unable to eat an apple. They have pain in their mouth. They have a choice to make: they continue living in pain, or they scramble together some form of money and try to go to a dentist, and pay out of pocket.
The Conservatives say they care about people who are suffering economically, yet they are holding up legislation that would help get the CDCP in place so seniors can go to the dentist and have their needs paid for. Imagine a single mother with a couple of kids at home, and a five-year-old or a seven-year-old has dental pain and they do not have enough money to go to the dentist. Like every parent in this room, we know what we would do. We would do whatever we could. We would sell something, take an extra shift or borrow money to get our child to the dentist. That is what Canadians are doing.
What will the Canadian dental care plan do? It will provide that dental care at no cost to Canadians, freeing up their funds. At a time when Canadians are suffering, what could be of more direct assistance than to have the federal government champion a national dental care plan, which, by the way, the Conservatives do not support and will take away? Funnily enough, every one of them on that side has their dental care needs taken care of by taxpayer dollars. They get to go to the dentist, and their kids get to go to the dentist, paid for by taxpayer dollars, but they do not think that senior, that five-year-old and that single mother have the same right.
I will tell members this. To the NDP, dental care is primary health care, and everybody gets to go to the dentist regardless of their ability to pay. That is what this bill will help facilitate, and it is what the Conservatives are stalling. Is that the Conservative common sense? I cannot wait to go to the doorsteps in the next election and put that definition of common sense to my constituents.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Don Davies: Madam Speaker, I hear laughing on the Conservative side. Bring it on. Come to Vancouver Kingsway. I will debate Conservatives anywhere, any time, on any doorstep. We will ask the people in my riding whether they think that getting dental care free for everybody in the riding, regardless of their income, is a good move for them, and the Conservatives can make their case why it is not. I will live and die by the results of that discussion.
There are 6,500 oral health professionals who have signed up to participate and are ready to provide for these patients. Later this month, according to the fall economic statement, it will establish the oral health access fund, which will further reduce barriers that prevent Canadians from accessing oral health care. We all know that in rural and remote areas, people cannot get access to the same health care we can get in urban centres, so what did the NDP do? We insisted that there be a $250 million oral health access fund, available in every corner of this country for stakeholders to apply to, to come up with innovative programs like mobile dental clinics, or allowing hygienists to go into old folks' homes, or maybe even outfitting a train car to travel to rural areas to provide necessary dental care to people in their communities. These are the kinds of innovative programs that are just waiting and that the Conservatives are holding up. That does not sound like common sense to me.
This bill does a lot of other things. It takes the GST off counselling services. I have heard Conservatives talk about their concern for people's mental health during COVID. We all know that counsellors across this country have to charge GST, and this bill would take that GST off counselling services, making it a bit more affordable for people. The Conservatives are holding that up. That is not good for Canadians' mental health.
This bill has measures to support affordable housing construction. It would remove the GST on new rental home construction. Conservatives talk about axing the tax. This bill does axe the tax. It takes the GST off new rental home construction. What are the Conservatives doing? They are delaying it. It seems that they only want to axe certain taxes, but they do not want to take the GST off new home construction. If we talk to any builder in this country, they will tell us that this does not make any sense at all. Not only is it not common sense; it is wrong.
There are measures to support workers in this bill by introducing labour requirements to ensure that Canadian workers benefit from Canada's clean economy investment tax credits. They would require job sites to pay union wages and provide apprenticeship training by requiring a minimum of 10% apprentice positions on every job site to get a tax credit. That is not only good for working families, but also to get more young people into the trades.
The leader of the Conservatives claims to care about working people. This is a direct, explicit provision that will help working families and help create more trades. What are the Conservatives doing? They are stalling it tonight. Is that common sense? Not at all.
I want to talk briefly about some of the amendments we made that would help protect consumers and strengthen the Competition Tribunal's ability to prevent unhealthy mergers in this country, which is bad for our economy. The NDP got six different amendments passed to this bill, things that would allow for more honesty in pricing, putting the onus on sellers who claim false prices to prove why those prices are accurate. They would help the Competition Tribunal police mergers by making an assumption that any merger that results in a market share of over 30% will presumptively be bad for competition and reversing the onus. These are amendments that were asked for by the Competition Tribunal itself.
The NDP used Parliament to get those things done. What have the Conservatives done? I think we know tonight. They are stalling, and that is not common sense.
1688 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I also really appreciated my colleague's speech.
It is interesting to me that the members of the Standing Committee on Finance were able to work together. I completely understand that, and an amendment proposed by my Bloc Québécois colleague was even adopted. Nevertheless, he said in his speech that he will be voting against Bill C-59. I am trying to understand why.
I would also like an answer regarding this evening's motion. Is he for or against the short title?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to work with my hon. colleague from Joliette on the finance committee.
At the committee hearings on Bill C-59, the opposition members worked together to strengthen many provisions of the bill, as the member pointed out in his speech. I think at least six or seven different amendments were made to strengthen consumer protection and empower the Competition Tribunal's ability to police mergers. In particular, I want to congratulate my colleague, as we had similar motion to strengthen the greenwashing provisions in the Competition Tribunal and in consumer legislation. His motion was the one that was passed. Could he elaborate a little on why he thinks that is an important amendment to the legislation?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as we know, Bill C-59 is an omnibus bill that is nearly 550 pages long. It contains 60 different measures, about half of which are tax measures, and it amends or creates 31 acts and regulations. We studied this bill at length in committee. We raised various issues, and I think we managed to partially improve it. In my opinion, we made improvements in three areas.
The first good thing that we did was to strengthen the part of the legislation governing greenwashing. We worked with various stakeholders, including the Centre québécois du droit de l'environnement, Quebec's environmental law centre, which has a lot of expertise in this area. The compromise that we managed to come to does not solve all of the problems, but it reminds us of the importance of regulating that practice. I want to recognize the Liberal member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country and the NDP member for Vancouver Kingsway, who made important contributions on this subject.
The second good thing that we did was to strengthen the Competition Act. The testimony of the commissioner of competition was very important. The consumer advocacy group Option consommateurs also made a very valuable contribution. Last but not least, I want to once again recognize the member for Vancouver Kingsway for his hard work. Unfortunately, we did not have time to compare the commissioner's analysis with the senior departmental officials' analysis, which meant we had some tough decisions to make.
The third good thing we did was to strengthen the right to repair.
During the committee study, I came away very disappointed about one aspect that still has not been clarified. I am talking about how the association representing Quebec's orders of mental health professionals is being treated. This association represents the Ordre des psychoéducateurs et psychoéducatrices du Québec, the Ordre des conseillers et conseillères d'orientation du Québec, the Ordre professionnel des sexologues du Québec, the Ordre professionnel des criminologues du Québec, as well as the Ordre des travailleurs sociaux et des thérapeutes conjugaux et familiaux du Québec. We are talking about 2,500 professionals in private practice who must charge their clients tax.
However, clause 137 of Bill C‑59 seeks to remove the GST from psychotherapy and counselling services. The professionals represented by the orders I just listed work in professions that have been covered by Quebec's Professional Code since 2012, such as mental health and human relations. Ordinarily, they should therefore be included in the measure set out in Bill C‑59.
I would like to quote Mr. Soucis, president of the Ordre des psychoéducateurs et psychoéducatrices du Québec, who said:
However, the Canada Revenue Agency's notice 335 concerning the exemption for counselling therapy states that the professional services provided by a person could be exempted if the person “has the qualifications equivalent to those necessary to be so licensed or otherwise certified in another province”.
Under this interpretation of the bill, it would be confusing and time-consuming, for all of the authorities that participate in such a process, for a professional to have to ask another Canadian authority to verify a qualification when it has already been attested to by the permit that authorizes the person to practise their profession. In its present form, the bill would require the members of Quebec's professional orders to verify with a regulatory agency that oversees the profession of counselling therapy in another province, as is the case in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, that they have qualifications equivalent to the qualifications of the professionals in the province in question.
We would point out that under the Professional Code, our professional orders have a mandate to be the regulatory and supervisory body for their profession in Quebec and that they are capable of doing that.
In committee, the department told us that these Quebec professionals would not have to charge GST and would be included in the measure. However, this conflicts with what the Canada Revenue Agency and Revenu Québec are saying. We tried to clarify this part of Bill C‑59, but we were unsuccessful. I sincerely hope that Quebec professionals are not excluded from the measure.
That was a summary of some of the work we did in committee.
However, given that the bulk of Bill C‑59 was adopted in committee by the majority, we are now seized with the improved text at report stage. At this stage, again, Bill C‑59 contains some good and some bad elements, but the Bloc Québécois is opposing it once again because of two measures.
The first is the $30.3 billion in subsidies to oil companies in the form of tax credits. This means that taxpayers will be paying oil companies to pollute less, when they do not need that money.
The second is the creation of a federal department of municipal affairs called the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities. This is a sign that we can expect more interference, more bickering and more delays, at a time when the housing crisis demands swift action.
Let us look at the oil subsidies.
On April 30, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a study indicating that the latest budget would lead to a shortfall of $39 billion by 2029. The budget includes $61 billion in new spending, including tax expenditures, and there is $22 billion in new revenue, mostly from capital gains.
Bill C‑59 alone contains more than $30 billion in tax gifts to the oil companies. Roughly half goes to wasting public money on carbon sequestration, while the other half would enable them to use nuclear energy to extract the tar from the tar sands. This represents more than 80% of the $39‑billion shortfall that the Parliamentary Budget Officer unveiled in his recent study, the same shortfall the Conservatives are making such a big fuss about.
Since 2022, the government has announced $83 billion in tax gifts for the oil companies. That is twice the shortfall that the Parliamentary Budget Officer was talking about early last week. Need I remind the House that the oil companies do not need any gifts? According to the Centre for Future Work, the oil and gas extraction sector has made record profits these past few years, specifically $38 billion over three years, in 2020, 2021 and 2022, and half of that in 2022 alone. Apparently, 2023 was just as profitable. Since 70% of the shareholders are foreign, that is money that has left the country.
In the last two budgets, the government announced its intention to introduce six tax credits largely aimed at oil companies. According to information provided by the Department of Finance, these tax credits will total a whopping $83 billion by 2035.
Bill C-59 amends the Income Tax Act to create two of these tax credits, which are tailor-made for oil companies: a clean technology investment tax credit and a tax credit for carbon capture and storage. The first, worth $17.8 billion, aims to replace the use of gas to extract oil from the oil sands with nuclear power, all in order to export more gas. The second tax credit is worth $12.5 billion. Instead of accelerating the transition to renewable energy, the federal government would rather help oil companies pump every last drop of oil, hoping that they will pollute less in the course of their operations. That is the aim of this refundable tax credit for oil companies. It is only available to companies in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, and not anywhere else.
As we know, carbon capture and storage is an experimental technique that is supposed to enable major polluters to recover some of their carbon emissions and bury them in the ground, usually in old, empty oil wells. Carbon capture is a central plank of the oil companies' pseudo-environmental strategy, in much the same way as cigarette manufacturers used to argue that filtered cigarettes were better for smokers' health in the 1970s.
The International Energy Agency, an OECD affiliate, believes that countries will be making a serious mistake if they put carbon capture at the heart of their environmental strategy. It believes that carbon capture is an illusion, that the technology is unproven and that, even if could someday be made to work on an industrial scale, it would deliver only marginal results at an exorbitant cost.
Bill C‑59 confirms that the government has acceded to the oil companies' demands. No surprise there. The independent media outlet The Narwhal published a document it had obtained through the Access to Information Act showing that the oil company Suncor had a hand in drafting the government's environmental policy, particularly the section on carbon capture that Bill C‑59 brings to fruition.
This is what former Liberal environment minister Catherine McKenna had to say about the carbon capture tax credit in an interview with the newspaper 24 heures, on December 5, 2023:
It never should have happened, but clearly the oil and gas lobbyists pushed for that.
She went on to say:
We are giving special access to companies that are making historic profits, that are not investing those profits into the transition and clean solutions. They are returning those profits to their shareholders, who for the most part are not Canadian, and then they ask to be subsidized for the pollution they cause, while Canadians have to pay more for oil and gas for heating.
Those are some of the reasons why we are voting against Bill C‑59.
1662 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we have just seen the Minister of Environment announce that there will be a gag order on Bill C‑59, an omnibus bill of nearly 550 pages with 60 different measures and 31 acts and regulations. It is the implementation bill for last year's budget and the fall economic statement.
However, the government delayed introducing it in the House so that we could study it in committee. The government has organized its time poorly and here we are in May sitting until midnight with limited time to debate a subject as important as this.
Does the hon. parliamentary secretary agree with me that the government manages its priorities very badly?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
