Mr. Speaker, if the government's response to Questions Nos. 2620 to 2623, 2625 to 2631, 2634, 2636 to 2638, 2640, 2642, 2644, 2645, and 2648 to 2650 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in electronic format immediately.

With regard to audits conducted by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), broken down by province or territory and fiscal year since 2015-16: (a) what is the total number of audits that determined a tax-payer had failed to withhold tax on rent paid to a non-resident landlord; (b) of the audits in (a), what is the total number of audits where (i) an adjustment resulting in more tax owing, (ii) an adjustment resulting in less tax owing, (iii) no adjustment, was made; (c) what is the total dollar value of payments received by the CRA as a result of the audits in (a); and (d) what were the total costs to the government related to 3792391 Canada Inc. v The King, 2023 TCC 37? With regard to the government's decision to decrease the amount of the carbon pricing revenues rebated for small businesses from 7% to 5%: (a) why is the government decreasing the percentages; and (b) on what date will the decrease take effect? With regard to any arrangements the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) has with banks or other financial institutions to back up their financing in the event that the CIB is dissolved: what are the details of any such agreements, or similar type of agreements that the CIB has entered into, including who the agreement is with, when it was signed, whether there is a cost to taxpayers, what collateral or guarantees are involved, and how much is being paid to each of the financial institutions? With regard to the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada Client Support Centre, in its Montreal offices: what is the number of (i) unilingual anglophone, (ii) bilingual, (iii) unilingual francophone, agents? With regard to the government's safe supply, safer supply and prescribed alternatives programs, broken down by year for the last two years: (a) which companies were allowed to import drugs into Canada that were to be used under the programs, broken down by drug that they were allowed to import; (b) how much of each drug was each company (i) allowed to import, (ii) importing, into Canada; and (c) what are the details of all contracts the government has had, or currently has, with companies related to providing drugs for the programs, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) value of the contract, (iv) amount of drugs provided as part of the contract, in total and broken down by substance? With regard to Public Services and Procurement Canada and the “mPersona“ application: (a) what was the total amount paid to the 34 employees tasked to use the “mPersona” application created by Symaiotics; (b) what was the total amount paid to Symaiotics and any other company during the application’s trials, and, if there were other companies, how much was each company paid, broken down by company; and (c) how many hours did the 34 employees work on the application? With regard to the claim on page 29 of the 2024 budget document entitled “Tax Measures: Supplementary Information,” that the federal government returns more than 90% of direct proceeds from the fuel charge to individuals through the Canada Carbon Rebate: (a) what indirect or other proceeds from the carbon tax does the government receive; (b) how much money was received by the government in the last fiscal year from each of the indirect or other proceeds listed in (a); and (c) if the government does not track how much revenue it receives in indirect or other proceeds from the carbon tax, (i) why not, (ii) why does it make claims about people benefitting from the carbon tax knowing that it does not track this data? With regard to those fatalities and serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with Pfizer's and Moderna's COVID-19 mRNA-based vaccines and tracked by Health Canada (HC) and the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC): (a) did HC or the PHAC or any other federal agency or entity or agency contracted by the federal government detect a safety signal when examining, (i) the VAERS data from the USA, (ii) the EudraVigilance data from Europe, (iii) the Yellow Card data from England; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative for either (i), (ii) or (iii), what are the safety issues and how is the federal government addressing them; (c) what are the respective provincial numbers of vaccine-associated fatal and non­fatal heart attacks, strokes and other cardiovascular events recorded in Canada's vaccine surveillance program(s), between December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2023; (d) given the data from (c), has HC, the PHAC, or another federal government body such as the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) undertaken the research to determine if there has been an increase in the events described in (c) compared with their baseline values prior to the COVID-19 vaccine roll-outs; (e) what does the temporal association between the fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in (c) and the timing of the mRNA­based vaccine roll-outs (primary series and boosters) show, per age group; (f) has the submission of any provincial health agencies' reports of vaccine-associated fatalities been denied by Canada's vaccine surveillance program(s); (g) if the answer to (f) is affirmative, how many reports of fatalities were denied by Canada's vaccine surveillance program(s) and for what reasons; (h) how many fatalities and SAEs associated with any drug or medical devices removes that item from the market; (i) how many fatalities and SAEs associated the mRNA-based vaccines will be deemed sufficient, as a threshold safety signal, to shut down the distribution of the mRNA products and what agency has established this benchmark; and (j) in consideration of cumulative reports of fatalities and SAEs during Pfizer's 3-month post-marketing phase, and in Canada and other jurisdictions around the world associated with the mRNA products, why was this vaccination program permitted to continue and who made that decision? With regard to bonuses paid out at VIA HFR – Dedicated Project Office in the 2023-24 fiscal year: (a) what was the amount paid out in bonuses (i) in total, (ii) to executives; (b) how many individuals received payments; (c) what percentage of officials that received bonuses were (i) at or above executive level or equivalent, (ii) below the executive level or equivalent; (d) what is the average amount of payments (i) at or above executive level or equivalent, (ii) below the executive level of equivalent; and (e) what is the highest amount of payment? With regard to end-of-life marine vessel decommissioning and recycling, colloquially known as Shipbreaking, since January 1, 2016, broken down by year: (a) how many oversea tows of retired laker or coastal ships did Transport Canada approve; (b) how many of the oversea tows of retired lakers or costal ships that Transport Canada approved changed their final destination once in international waters; and (c) how many retired laker or costal ships were recycled in Canada?

With regard to federal housing investments for Vancouver Island, since February 1, 2006, broken down by year: (a) how much federal funding was provided to support the construction of non-profit or community housing and how many units were developed; (b) how much federal funding was provided to support the construction of cooperative housing and how many units were developed; and (c) how much federal funding was provided to support the construction of purpose-built rental housing and how many units were developed? With regard to the statement by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada in the House of Commons chamber on April 18, 2024 that, “In the budget, we have already announced that we are going to increase the maximum sentences for auto theft”, for each auto theft offence: (a) how many people have been convicted of each of the related offences since January 1, 2016, broken down by year and offence; (b) of those convicted in (a), how many offenders received the maximum sentence, broken down by year and offence; and (c) how many offenders have received the mandatory six months imprisonment for a third offence? With regard to government patronage, contracts and funding provided to the individuals who signed the document entitled "An Open Letter from Economists on Canadian Carbon Pricing": (a) which of the individuals who signed the document have received government contracts since November 4, 2015; (b) what are the details of all contracts in (a), including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) description of the goods or services provided, (v) manner in which it was awarded (sole-sourced versus competitive bid); (c) what are the details of all grants or contributions issued to the signatories or the institutions they represent since November 4, 2015, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) recipient, (iii) amount, (iv) purpose of the grant or contribution; and (d) which of the signatories has received an Order in Council appointment from the government or have served on any type of government advisory body since November 4, 2015, including, for each, the (i) name of the individual, (ii) body or organization for which they were appointed or served, (iii) position? With regard to the trip to Washington, D.C. by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry on April 27 and 28, 2024: (a) what was the minister's detailed itinerary on the trip; and (b) what are the details of each meeting attended by the minister on the trip, including the (i) date, (ii) time, (iii) purpose, (iv) list of attendees? With regard to Canada-wide Early Learning and Child Care Agreements, broken down by province or territory and by year, since October 1, 2019: what was the (i) total number of early learning and child care spaces available during the fiscal year, broken down by age group of child and type of setting, (ii) number of net new spaces created during the fiscal year, broken down by age group of child and type of setting, (iii) total number of inclusive spaces created or converted, broken down by age group of child and type of setting, (iv) average daily parental out-of-pocket fee for regulated child care spaces at the end of each fiscal year, (v) number of children 0 to K receiving fee subsidies, broken down by families receiving partial and full subsidies, (vi) number or proportion of child care service providers who provide services that are adapted to the needs of children with disabilities and children needing enhanced or individual supports, (vii) number and percentage of staff working in regulated child care programs who fully met the province's certification and educational requirements, (viii) annual public expenditure on training and professional development of the early childhood workforce, (ix) indicator data related to the wages of the early childhood workforce according to the categories of certification, including any wage enhancements, top-ups or supplements? With regard to the 2023 Canadian federal worker strike: (a) what was the total amount mistakenly paid out to striking employees; and (b) what is the amount that has not been collected back by the government? With regard to sole-sourced contracts entered into by the government related to products or services for ministers or their offices, including the Office of the Prime Minister, since January 1, 2019, broken down by each minister: what are the details of each such contract, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) description of goods or services? With regard to expenditures related to the Cabinet retreat which took place in Montréal, from January 21 to 23, 2024, including expenses incurred by the Privy Council Office as well as by other departments or agencies, and including travel expenses incurred by ministers, ministerial staff, and others: (a) what are the total expenditures related to the retreat incurred to date; (b) what is the breakdown of the expenditures by type of expense (accommodation, hospitality, audio-visual, etc.); (c) what are the details of all expenditures in excess of $1,000, including, for each, the (i) amount, (ii) vendor, (iii) description of the goods or services provided; and (d) what are the details of all travel expenses incurred by ministers and their staff, broken down by individual, including, for each, (i) the title, (ii) the amount spent on airfare, (iii) the amount spent on other transportation, (iv) the amount spent on accommodation, (v) the hotel or venue name, (vi) the amount spent on meals or per diems, (vii) other expenses, broken down by type? With regard to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC): how much advertising revenue did the CBC receive from government departments, agencies, and other Crown corporations during the 2023-24 fiscal year? With regard to expenditures on public relations or media training, or similar type of services for ministers or their offices, including the Office of the Prime Minister, since March 1, 2022, and broken down by minister: what are the details of each such expenditure, including the (i) date of the contract, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) individual providing the training, (v) summary of the services provided, including the type of training, (vi) person who received the training, (vii) date of the training? With regard to planned funding by the government related to "safe" or "safer" supply programs: how much does the government plan on spending on such programs, broken down by department, agency, and initiative in the current fiscal year and in each of the next five fiscal years? With regard to the Royal Canadian Navy's Halifax-class frigates: (a) what is the number of (i) sea days, (ii) non-sea days, that each frigate has had for each of the last 48 months, broken down by month and by frigate; (b) what is the breakdown of the reasons for non-sea days, including the number of days each month that each frigate was not at sea for each of the reasons; and (c) what is the percentage of frigate fleet readiness each month for the last 48 months, broken down by month for the (i) total fleet, (ii) Pacific fleet, (iii) Atlantic fleet? With regard to government expenditures related to preparations for committee appearances by ministers, government officials, or representatives of any government department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity, or for appearances by any former official, since January 1, 2019: what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) date of the contract, (ii) vendor, (iii) description of goods or services, (iv) date of the committee appearance, (v) name and title of the individual or individuals appearing at committee, (vi) name of the committee, (vii) manner in which the contract was awarded (sole-sourced or competitive bid)? With regard to government dealings with Pollara Strategic Insights (PSI) since January 1, 2020: (a) what are the details of all contracts signed between government departments and agencies and PSI, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) description of goods or services, (iv) manner in which the contract was awarded (sole-sourced or competitive bid), (v) topics of research or polling covered by the contract, if applicable; (b) what are the details of each poll conducted by PSI for the government, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) questions asked, (iii) results; and (c) what are the details of all meetings held between government officials, ministers or ministerial staff and PSI owner Don Guy, including, for each, the (i) list of attendees, (ii) date, (iii) location, (iv) purpose of the meeting? With regard to government dealings with economists Jim Stanford, Andrew Sharpe, Mostafa Askari, Mel Cappe, Marc Lévesque formerly of the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, Don Drummond, Kevin Milligan, Stephen Gordon, Andrew Leach, Paul Beaudry, Pierre Fortin, and Mike Moffat, since November 4, 2015: (a) which of the economists above have received government contracts; (b) what are the details of all contracts with these economists, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) description of the goods or services provided, (v) manner in which it was awarded (sole-sourced versus or competitive bid); (c) what are the details of all grants or contributions issued to these economists, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) recipient, (iii) amount, (iv) purpose of the grant or contribution; and (d) which of these economists have received an Order in Council appointment from the government or have served on any type of government advisory body since November 4, 2015, including, for each, the (i) name of the individual, (ii) body or organization for which they were appointed or served, (iii) position, (iv) start and end dates? With regard to firearms which were prohibited as a result of the May 1, 2020, Order in Council SOR/2020-96: (a) how many have been (i) turned in, (ii) seized, (iii) confiscated, (iv) otherwise obtained by the government broken down by how it was obtained; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by those firearms which were previously in the possession of individuals versus businesses; and (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by make and model? With regard to Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada's Northern Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program: (a) how much has been spent to date on the Giant Mine, in total and broken down by the (i) purpose, (ii) recipient, of the funding; (b) how much is allotted to each purpose and recipient in (a), in total and broken down by (i) purpose, (ii) recipient; and (c) what are the details of all consultant contracts for the Giant Mine and the Giant Mine Oversight Board, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) description of the goods and services, (v) manner in which the contract was awarded (sole-sourced or competitive bid), (vi) start and end dates, if applicable? With regard to the review by Health Canada (HC), the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), or the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, of a pre-print study posted on October 15, 2023 of which six authors are associated with the US Food and Drug Administration that found "a new signal was detected for seizures-convulsions after BNT162b2 (2-4 years) and mRNA1273 COVID-19 vaccinations (2-5 years),": (a) which federal health agency, organization, committee or department(s) or outsourced contracted firm is responsible for reviewing or identifying studies such as the pre-print titled "Safety of Monovalent BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), and NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) COVID- 19 Vaccines in US Children Aged six months to 17 years;"; (b) has any federal health agency, organization, committee, department(s) or outsourced contracted firm reviewed or been made aware of the forementioned study or learned about the new safety signal of seizures/convulsions among children following monovalent COVID-19 vaccine; (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, has HC or any federal health agency, organization or committee issued any statement to the Canadian public or any communication to the provinces or the medical community to create awareness of this new safety signal; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what was the statement or communication provided; (e) if the answer to (c) is negative, why not; (f) how many episodes of seizures-convulsions have been reported in children under 17 years in Canadian Adverse Events following Immunization Surveillance System records, from (i) May 1, 2021 to April 30, 2023, (ii) May 1, 2018 to April 30, 2020; (g) what provincial and territory data is the federal government relying upon to monitor risk of seizures and convulsions in this cohort in real time; (h) how far out is the government monitoring this data (e.g. 28 days post-vaccine, up to 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, beyond 12 months post-COVID-19 immunization); (i) what are the Canadian government's threshold values for marking the likelihood of a vaccine serious adverse event as transitioning from an extremely rare, to a rare occurrence, and from a rare to a common occurrence; (j) what is the threshold whereby a safety signal of seizures or convulsions would shut down the mRNA vaccine program in children under the age of 17 years; (k) why are children's seizures-convulsions not listed on HC's webpage denoted to children's side-effects which was last updated on October 27, 2023; (l) with real-time monitoring, what other safety signals has HC, the PHAC or any other federal agency or department discovered post-mRNA vaccine injection for (i) children under age 5 years, (ii) children 6-17 years, (iii) persons 18-25 years, (iv) persons 26-35 years; (m) is HC receiving any data directly from provincial datasets to monitor increased usage of provincial health systems by Canadian children post-vaccination; (n) has any federal health agency or entity such as the Canadian Institute for Health Information or outsourced contractor tracked the number of episodes of myocarditis and pericarditis in young persons under the age of 35, post-vaccination, using billing or ICD-10 data from physicians and hospitals across Canada both before and after the COVID-19 injections had commenced; (o) if the answer to (n) is affirmative, (i) for what period of time post-immunization are they tracked, (ii) is the rate of myocarditis and pericarditis in persons under 35 years following the roll-out of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines greater or less than the baseline rates of myocarditis and pericarditis from 2016-2019; (p) if there were deviations from the baseline found in (o)(ii), by how much did this occur and by which method has the determination of any difference, or lack thereof, been made; (q) if the answer to (n) is negative, why is this data not being tracked; and (r) when examining the risk-of-harm to benefit ratio of the COVID-19 mRNA products and when considering the combination of serious adverse events such as seizures-convulsions, myocarditis and pericarditis in young persons, what is the combined threshold of serious adverse events by which mRNA products would no longer be available to (i) children under the age of 5 years, (ii) children 6-17 years old, (iii) persons 18-25 years old, (iv) persons 26-35 years old, and who determines these thresholds, when, and based on what data? With regard to Correctional Service Canada, broken down by year since 2008: what is the capacity of federal institutions and the number of those incarcerated (i) in total, (ii) by region, (iii) by correctional institution? With regard to Health Canada (HC), the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and the reporting processes of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) and the implementation of the Brighton Collaboration Case Definitions of AEFIs: (a) in what ways does HC’s Canada Vigilance Program (CVP) differ from the PHAC’s Canadian Adverse Events Following Immunization Surveillance System (CAEFISS) reporting system; (b) what purpose does it serve for Canada to have two reporting systems; (c) how, if at all, is the CVP and CAEFISS data amalgamated; (d) regarding HC’s relationship to the Brighton Collaboration (BC), (i) does one exist, and, if so, when did HC or the PHAC start using the BC criteria as a requirement for AEFI recognition, (ii) what is the BC’s purpose in the vaccine space in Canada; (e) regarding the implementation of the BC criteria, (i) when was it communicated to health care practitioners, (ii) how was it communicated; (f) were there any definitions of AEFIs that were changed after January 1, 2019 by (i) the BC, (ii) HC, (iii) the PHAC, (iv) the National Advisory Committee on Immunization; (g) if the answer to (f) is affirmative, (i) which ones were changed and by which agency, (ii) how were they changed, (iii) why were they changed; (h) is HC aware of the entities, such as the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, which partner with the BC; (i) if the answer to (h) is affirmative, what are those entities and corporations along with their inherent conflicts of interest (COI) in the vaccine space; (j) what or who are the other funding and non-funding entities who partner with the BC; (k) is HC aware of those individuals who constitute the BC’s Board of Directors and those who have been trained at the BC, including the members of the Advisory Committee on Causality Assessment; (l) if the answer to (k) is affirmative, (i) what percentage of those individuals are working, have worked, or have consulted for a pharmaceutical company, (ii) how many work in Canada; (m) of the individuals identified in (l) as Canadians, (i) what are their names, (ii) what are their conflicts of interest, (iii) what positions do they hold in other entities; (n) how much does the Government of Canada, and any entity related to the Government of Canada, provide monetarily to the BC; and (o) is the BC associated, either directly or indirectly, with any vaccine manufacturers or related organizations? With regard to the Canada Border Service Agency's (CBSA) releasing detainees, who would otherwise be held in custody pending deportation, due to a lack of detention capacity: (a) how long has the government known about the problem; (b) how many meetings has the government had on this issue; (c) what steps has the government taken to address this issue; and (d) how many detainees does CBSA project will have to be released due to lack of capacity? With regard to the government’s approach to the Chinese state owned CRRC Corporation Limited: (a) has the government identified any threats to national security from CRRC, and, if so, what are the details of each; (b) has the government identified any safety or performance issues with the operation of CRRC rolling stock in Canada, and, if so, what are the details of each; (c) since January 1, 2016, and broken down by year, how many projects involving CRRC have been approved by Transport Canada; and (d) since Canada joined the Asian Infrastructure Bank on March 19, 2018, is the government aware of (i) any CRRC projects that received funding from the Asian Infrastructure Bank, (ii) any other funds received by CRRC from the Asian Infrastructure Bank, and, if so, what are the details of each?

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker, finally, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to stand in the House to debate on matters on behalf of the great people of Steveston—Richmond East. Today, it is to continue on the debate on Bill C-69, the budget Implementation act for budget 2024, which is about reinforcing the promise that all Canadians should have a fair chance to build a good life, and about continuing to build a country that works for everyone. We are going to do that by building more affordable homes, by making life cost less and by growing the economy in a way that is shared by all. Today I would like to talk about one element of Bill C-69 that could improve financial outcomes for Canadians: consumer-driven banking. Every Canadian deserves access to affordable, modern banking services to help them pay their bills, save money, receive their government benefits and build their credit. Budget 2024 includes measures to lower banking fees by capping non-sufficient fund fees, modernizing free and affordable bank account options, expanding financial help services, doing more to crack down on predatory lending and launching new consumer-driven banking tools. Consumer-driven banking, also known as open banking or consumer-driven finance, provides a way for people and small businesses to securely transfer their financial data to different service providers, including banks, credit unions and accredited financial technology companies, fintechs. This could include apps that use data to provide automated budgeting and savings advice, help keep track of bills, secure a loan, find a better deal on insurance or on a currency exchange rate and track monthly rent payments to build up credit. Consumer-driven banking provides real-time access to all financial accounts, products and services in one place and access to personalized tools and products to help improve financial health. It can play an important role in the future of the Canadian economy and increase consumers' choice and control over their financial data. It can help make life more affordable and even help young Canadians when it is time to buy a first home. However, so far, in the absence of a framework, fintechs have been limited in their ability to develop new financial tools, largely due to a reliance on an unsecured process called screen scraping, which pulls data from a bank account by reading the account information. This requires consumers to share their banking credentials with fintech companies. An estimated nine million Canadians currently share their financial data this way, which raises security, liability and privacy risks to consumers and the financial system. I presume there may be hon. members present who have gone through this process and felt uneasy about it, as I have. As first announced in the 2023 fall economic statement, the government published Canada's consumer-driven banking framework along with budget 2024, in order to drive an innovative consumer-driven banking system in Canada. As announced in budget 2024, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, FCAC, is mandated to oversee, administer and enforce Canada's consumer-driven banking framework. FCAC's existing financial literacy and consumer education mandate make it well placed to help guide consumers who engage in consumer-driven banking. The mandate was informed by an extensive review of international jurisdictions and is in line with international best practices, offers administrative efficiency and allows for the timely delivery of consumer-driven banking in Canada. At this point, I should also stress that the government would not be privy to any personal information or data. I will move now to the bill before us. Bill C-69 introduces legislation to implement key components of the framework, including a new act, the consumer-driven banking act, and amendments to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act. These legislative updates would establish the foundational elements of the framework, including governance and scope, as well as criteria and the process for the technical standard. The amendments to the FCAC Act would create a senior deputy commissioner for consumer-driven banking, who would be responsible for the supervision of the framework. The commissioner of FCAC would retain full administrative control of FCAC and would continue to report to the Minister of Finance and Parliament. As well, the consumer-driven banking act would require FCAC to maintain a public registry of participating entities in the framework. Once implemented, the framework would regulate access to financial data, providing Canadians and small businesses with safe and secure access to financial services and products that would help them manage and improve their finances. The framework would also align with those of our largest trading partners, including the United States. In order to facilitate oversight of provincial entities while respecting their jurisdiction, provincial entities would be able to opt in to governance, supervision and participation. In the case of provincial credit unions, provinces would retain the authority to impose their own requirements. Importantly, the functional scope for participating entities would be limited to “read access”. This means that participating entities would only be able to see, not change, the data held by another participating entity should a consumer request it. The scope would not include payment initiation, or “write access” as it sometimes is called. Furthermore, data could be obtained only if a consumer provides consent to the participating entity. Access to data would be limited to what is specified in the legislation, which includes chequing accounts and savings accounts, investment products and lending products such as credit cards, lines of credit and mortgages. Regardless of an entity's size or business model, due diligence of its security controls would be conducted before allowing it to participate in the framework. This would help set an equal and high bar for security measures and give confidence to consumers that their data is safe. Participating entities would be required to comply with existing privacy legislation as well. The framework would also include additional privacy rules that are unique to financial data sharing to address the provision of express consent to access data, consent management, and revoking access to data shared by a consumer. Participants would be required to have a standardized process for consent and revocation that would be done in a clear, simple and not misleading manner. The proposed legislation represents a culmination of long-term engagement with industry, consumer groups and experts, and would deliver a made-in-Canada solution to the issue of screen scraping. There is alignment among stakeholders for the government's proposed approach, including fintech and the Canadian Bankers Association. The government would continue to engage with industry, which would lead on the implementation of the framework in key areas, including technical standards, with oversight from the FCAC. This collaborative work would refine more complex elements, such as the accreditation framework and common rules for privacy, security and liability, to be introduced in additional legislation later this year. Canada's consumer-driven banking framework, with government-led oversight of security requirements, technical standards and consumer protections, would enable consumers to securely and confidently exercise their right to use and move their data. Once the framework is operational, the government would consult with stakeholders to determine how and when to phase out screen scraping. This would include review of other jurisdictions' approaches to screen scraping. Canada has a strong, well-regulated financial sector that has proven to be stable, resilient and trusted by Canadians. Consumer-driven banking would contribute to the strength of the sector and protect financial consumers, part of the government's plan to grow Canada's economy in a way that works for everyone. I encourage all hon. members to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage the member opposite to look at the responsible measures taken in the spending review right now. If we look at all of the measures in the budget, we see that they are all about productivity. Whether we are talking about $5 billion in loan guarantee programs or whether we are delivering major economic investment tax credits, it is all to increase productivity.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear my colleague talk about banking services. That is something that Bill C-69 does not talk much about. I have two short questions to ask him about banking services. First, does he recognize the authority of Quebec and the provinces in this sector? Second, does he realize that Bill C-69 will give all of Canada's big banks a huge advantage over the smaller ones like Caisses Desjardins in Quebec?

Mr. Speaker, a tremendous number of initiatives respect what Quebec has to offer. If we look at the budget, there is $3.4 billion to support young researchers in Canada and Quebec, billions to fight homelessness, $780 million in support for creative industries and $1.5 billion to protect and expand affordable housing. There is a lot in this budget that respects how we are working with Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate my hon. colleague's remarks. Every day we hear in the House the Conservatives talk about the cost of living pressures that Canadians are under. Obviously, they continually make it sound like global inflation has been caused by our government. We know that is not true, and it is misleading to imply that. We see in this budget numerous measures that would help Canadian families save money on their bills: more child care spaces, the national school food program, dental care, pharmacare and others. Could my hon. colleague speak to how our government is there for Canadians in helping them out with the cost of living pressures they are under?

Mr. Speaker, I have listed a few things in some of the other answers. For example, the member mentioned the dental program. We have over 500 dentists now signed up in my city of Richmond, British Columbia, who are ready to help those who need help the most. I speak to all of these measures as being a way toward productivity. If people can get help and get a leg-up, they can contribute in a better way.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about homelessness. The Auditor General of Canada has said that for the government to meet its target of reducing chronic homelessness by 50% by 2030, it would have to invest seven times more money than it is currently investing. What does my colleague have to say to address the homelessness crisis?

Mr. Speaker, I encourage the member to look at all the measures that were put into this budget. They amount to billions to help with homelessness and to give people another chance.

Before we move on with debate, the Chair wishes to make a statement in regard to the concerns raised earlier today by the member for Edmonton Strathcona about the premature publishing of a tweet on the @HoCChamber X account. In her intervention, the member pointed out that the account had prematurely disclosed the conclusions of the Speaker's ruling on the question of privilege raised by the member for Winnipeg Centre. The member stated that it was inappropriate that the conclusions of the ruling would be shared publicly before members of the House were apprised of them. The Speaker wishes to note that the tweet in question was published in error. According to the process in place, a courtesy advance notice of tweets about rulings is shared with a very small team in the House administration to expedite publication on social media. The instructions are clear: Tweets must never be posted before a ruling is delivered. In this case, the text of the tweet was unfortunately posted as the ruling was being read and not afterwards. To our knowledge, this is the first time this has happened. I should note that at no point is anyone in my office involved in publishing these tweets. On behalf of the House administration, the Speaker would like to sincerely apologize for this error. It is very important to the Speaker that members have the first opportunity to hear the conclusions of a ruling. To ensure that such a thing does not happen again, I immediately requested changes to our internal processes on your behalf. While I am on my feet, I want to address the strong language that was used after the point of order was raised. The member for Winnipeg Centre made a significant point for all members to consider, yet used words that were not acceptable on the floor of the House. There are ways to make one's point without resorting to profanity, and I trust that this will not happen again. I thank all members for their attention. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, you pointing out my language in the House speaks exactly to my point. You commented just now, with all due respect, that my language was unparliamentary, but saying in this House that “he was more likely to reoffend because of his racial background”, which is highly racist, was totally disregarded. In fact, it was not just totally disregarded. The total meaning of that sentence was allowed to be changed. I will not watch unparliamentary language in this House, with all due respect, if racism, bigotry, anti-LGBT bigotry and sexism are tolerated, behaviour that I find highly unparliamentary.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise here this evening to speak to Bill C-69, a bill that enacts certain provisions of the budget tabled back in April. I spoke to the budget at that time, back in the spring, but I would like to add a few comments now that it is before us as an implementation act because it is an important budget. All budgets are important, but this one in particular is important. As we all know and hear every day, Canadians are struggling, especially to find housing, to pay the rent, to dream of paying a mortgage or even to find a roof to put over their heads. They struggle with the cost of groceries and the price of gas at the pumps. Also, we are facing a climate crisis that is bringing us fires, floods and other extreme weather events that cause widespread stress to Canadians, their health, their homes and their livelihoods. Last year's fires in my riding and surrounding areas not only destroyed houses, but put tens of thousands of people on evacuation. They ended the tourist season abruptly in early August, just when all my local businesses are poised to make an income after months of losses. Then a mid-winter freeze caused serious damage to grapevines and peach, apricot and cherry orchards, which are part of the agriculture sector, a real backbone of the economy in my riding. Any budget has to recognize and face the climate crisis head-on. While Canadians are struggling, big corporations and wealthy Canadians are doing better than ever. Big oil companies are making a killing. Big grocery companies are making record profits. Budgets are documents that make choices that will help Canadians. That is what we hope. It is clear that it is ordinary Canadians who need that help, not big corporations and wealthy individuals. The NDP has used its leverage in this minority Parliament to deliver results for people. In this budget alone, we have compelled the Liberal government to build more homes, preserve existing affordable housing, protect renters and bring in universal single-payer pharmacare, starting with contraception and diabetes medications and devices. I want to pause there because, while they are all critical, people may not realize how critical diabetes medications are. A friend of mine, who was 27 years old, died because he could not afford the full cost of his insulin medication to monitor and help his diabetes. That will not happen again. This budget would establish a national food program. Canada is the only G7 nation without a national school food program. A quarter of Canadian kids live in homes that are food insecure. This is another NDP initiative put in this budget. We are very proud of it. The Conservatives voted against it. This budget would reverse damaging cuts to indigenous services. It would invest in accessible, high-quality, non-profit child care, another NDP initiative. It would establish a dedicated youth mental health fund. It would double the volunteer firefighters tax credit. I will talk more about that later. As I said, several elements in this budget are key NDP initiatives. They are the pillar of this budget, I would say. However, they would not be there without the NDP's pressure. This is not an NDP budget. It would be different if it was an NDP government. We would go much further in some areas to help Canadians who need it the most. I will talk about some of the victories, the things that will change the lives of Canadians for the better, and some things that are conspicuously missing. We have the homebuyers' plan, which has been enhanced by increasing the withdrawal limit from $35,000 to $60,000. The government is also cracking down on short-term rentals by denying income tax deductions on income earned. Short-term rentals are one of the big issues in my riding. My riding is a very popular area for people to come visit and spend their vacations at all times of the year. Increasingly, it is becoming more and more difficult to find housing, simply because it is very profitable for people to buy houses simply for investment and to put up as short-term rentals. This will help curb that, along with some important provincial legislation that has just been introduced. That is very welcome news. This budget implements the Canada health transfer 5% growth guarantee. Canadians expect the federal government to support provinces in delivering the health care that we need. We all know that our health care system is struggling as well. This will help keep it going and give us the health care that we need, which we are so proud of, health care that was brought to us, again, by the NDP back in the 1960s. I mentioned the volunteer firefighters tax credit. It used to be $3,000. There are almost 100,000 volunteer firefighters across Canada. They are the people who keep us safe in small communities from one end of the country to the other, and yet they receive so little in return for that brave and hard work. They used to get a $3,000 tax credit. That was raised to $6,000 in this budget, again, based on an NDP initiative by my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni, who put forward a private member's bill to increase that to $10,000. We will take $6,000 as an improvement, but let us keep supporting our firefighters. There is one thing that is not in this budget. With regard to wildfire firefighters who are not part of local firefighting corps but who fight wildfires in the summer, one would be surprised to find that they are not defined as firefighters under the CRA regulations. Firefighters, policemen and other people, such as ambulance drivers, get special dispensation under the Income Tax Act to put more money aside for their retirement. Wildfire firefighters do not. They are specifically excluded, and we need to change that, to call wildfire firefighters “firefighters”. It was not in this budget, but I hope it will be soon. While I am talking about firefighters, another thing that is not in this budget is a national wildfire-fighting force. We need this, and 75% of Canadians have come out in support of such a force, which would be there to support local and provincial firefighting services. We need this help. It is clear that things are getting worse year by year. We cannot go on as we have been. We have been depending on the armed forces to help us. This year, the armed forces have said they are not going to be there this summer. We need to do something different, and I think a national wildfire-fighting force is the way to go. I will also mention the good news about support for research. Finally, the government is putting funding into the scholarship and fellowship funding for young researchers in Canada. That funding had remained stagnant for 20 years. Students were living in poverty, and that has finally been fixed. That is very good news. I will just finish by mentioning the Canada disability benefit, something the NDP has been fighting for, and yet we are very disappointed that this was brought in as a $200-a-month benefit, something that will not get people with disabilities out of poverty. People with disabilities live in poverty all across the country. No province gives them enough money to live above the poverty line. We had a chance to finish that, make it right, and we will continue fighting for people with disabilities, to make sure that they will not live in poverty.

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member's role in our caucus, as well as in this House, with his many years of expertise. One of the parts he mentioned in his speech that really resonated with me was the realities of climate change and the impacts it has on smaller communities and their economies. I am just wondering if he could talk about some solutions that we could be looking at, instead of giving so many dollars to the oil and gas industry.

Mr. Speaker, small communities are really at the pointy end of the stick when it comes to climate change and its effects, whether it is through floods or wildfires. We have to mitigate the effects of climate change, that is, get serious about the emissions we put out by bringing them down through every means possible, but we also have to help these small communities adapt to climate change. Just outside my riding, there are small communities in my area, Princeton, Merritt and Abbotsford, that were devastated by floods, for instance, in 2021. They are still waiting for adequate federal help to pay for the rebuilding of their communities in a way that they will be resilient in the face of future floods or fires. I could go on. We have to support small communities. They do not have the resources, and we should and could help them.