Bill C-19

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures by
(a) providing a Labour Mobility Deduction for the temporary relocation of tradespeople to a work location;
(b) allowing for the immediate expensing of eligible property by certain Canadian businesses;
(c) allowing the Children’s Special Allowance to be paid in respect of a child who is maintained by an Indigenous governing body and providing consistent tax treatment of kinship care providers and foster parents receiving financial assistance from an Indigenous governing body and those receiving such assistance from a provincial government;
(d) doubling the allowable qualifying expense limit under the Home Accessibility Tax Credit;
(e) expanding the criteria for the mental functions impairment eligibility as well as the life-sustaining therapy category eligibility for the Disability Tax Credit;
(f) providing clarity in respect of the determination of the one-time additional payment under the GST/HST tax credit for the period 2019-2020;
(g) changing the delivery of Climate Action Incentive payments from a refundable credit claimed annually to a credit that is paid quarterly;
(h) temporarily extending the period for incurring eligible expenses and other deadlines under film or video production tax credits;
(i) providing a tax incentive for specified zero-emission technology manufacturing activities;
(j) providing the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) the discretion to accept late applications for the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, the Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy and the Canada Recovery Hiring Program;
(k) including postdoctoral fellowship income in the definition of “earned income” for RRSP purposes;
(l) enabling registered charities to enter into charitable partnerships with organizations other than qualified donees under certain conditions;
(m) allowing automatic and immediate revocation of the registration of an organization as a charity where that organization is listed as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code ;
(n) enabling the CRA to use taxpayer information to assist in the collection of Canada Emergency Business Account loans; and
(o) expanding capital cost allowance deductions to include new clean energy equipment.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to the Excise Tax Act , the Children’s Special Allowances Act , the Excise Act, 2001 , the Income Tax Regulations and the Children’s Special Allowance Regulations .
Part 2 implements certain Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) measures by
(a) ensuring that all assignment sales in respect of newly constructed or substantially renovated residential housing are taxable supplies for GST/HST purposes; and
(b) extending eligibility for the expanded hospital rebate to health care services supplied by charities or non-profit organizations with the active involvement of, or on the recommendation of, either a physician or a nurse practitioner, irrespective of their geographic location.
Part 3 amends the Excise Act, 2001 , the Excise Act and other related texts in order to implement three measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 implements a new federal excise duty framework for vaping products by, among other things,
(a) requiring that manufacturers of vaping products obtain a vaping licence from the CRA;
(b) requiring that all vaping products that are removed from the premises of a vaping licensee to be entered into the Canadian market for retail sale be affixed with an excise stamp;
(c) imposing excise duties on vaping products to be paid by vaping product licensees;
(d) providing for administration and enforcement rules related to the excise duty framework on vaping products;
(e) providing the Governor in Council with authority to provide for an additional excise duty in respect of provinces and territories that enter into a coordinated vaping product taxation agreement with Canada; and
(f) making related amendments to other legislative texts, including to allow for a coordinated federal/provincial-territorial vaping product taxation system and to ensure that the excise duty framework applies properly to imported vaping products.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the excise duty exemption under the Excise Act, 2001 for wine produced in Canada and composed wholly of agricultural or plant product grown in Canada.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Excise Act to eliminate excise duty for beer containing no more than 0.5% alcohol by volume.
Part 4 enacts the Select Luxury Items Tax Act . That Act creates a new taxation regime for domestic sales, and importations into Canada, of certain new motor vehicles and aircraft priced over $100,000 and certain new boats priced over $250,000. It provides that the tax applies if the total price or value of the subject select luxury item at the time of sale or importation exceeds the relevant price threshold. It provides that the tax is to be calculated at the lesser of 10% of the total price of the item and 20% of the total price of the item that exceeds the relevant price threshold. To promote compliance with the new taxation regime, that Act includes modern elements of administration and enforcement aligned with those found in other taxation statutes. Finally, this Part also makes related and consequential amendments to other texts to ensure proper implementation of the new tax and to ensure a cohesive and efficient administration by the CRA.
Division 1 of Part 5 retroactively renders a provision of the contract that is set out in the schedule to An Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway , chapter 1 of the Statutes of Canada, 1881, to be of no force or effect. It retroactively extinguishes any obligations and liabilities of Her Majesty in right of Canada and any rights and privileges of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company arising out of or acquired under that provision.
Division 2 of Part 5 amends the Nisga’a Final Agreement Act to give force of law to the entire Nisga’a Nation Taxation Agreement during the period that that Taxation Agreement is, by its terms, in force.
Division 3 of Part 5 repeals the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act .
It also amends the Income Tax Act to exempt from taxation under that Act any income earned by the Safe Drinking Water Trust in accordance with the Settlement Agreement entered into on September 15, 2021 relating to long-term drinking water quality for impacted First Nations.
Division 4 of Part 5 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of addressing transit shortfalls and needs and improving housing supply and affordability.
Division 5 of Part 5 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act by adding the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation and one other member to that Corporation’s Board of Directors.
Division 6 of Part 5 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to authorize additional payments to the provinces and territories.
Division 7 of Part 5 amends the Borrowing Authority Act to, among other things, count previously excluded borrowings made in the spring of 2021 in the calculation of the maximum amount that may be borrowed. It also amends the Financial Administration Act to change certain reporting requirements in relation to amounts borrowed under orders made under paragraph 46.1(c) of that Act.
Division 8 of Part 5 amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 to, among other things, permit the establishment of a solvency reserve account in the pension fund of certain defined benefit plans and require the establishment of governance policies for all pension plans.
Division 9 of Part 5 amends the Special Import Measures Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that assessments of injury are to take into account impacts on workers;
(b) require the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to make inquiries with respect to massive importations when it is acting under section 42 of that Act;
(c) require that Tribunal to initiate expiry reviews of certain orders and findings;
(d) modify the deadline for notifying the government of the country of export of properly documented complaints;
(e) modify the criteria for imposing duties in cases of massive importations;
(f) modify the criteria for initiating anti-circumvention investigations; and
(g) remove the requirement that, in order to find circumvention, the principal cause of the change in a pattern of trade must be the imposition of anti-dumping or countervailing duties.
It also amends the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act to provide that trade unions may, with the support of domestic producers, file global safeguard complaints.
Division 10 of Part 5 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act and the Insurance Companies Act to, among other things, modernize corporate governance communications of financial institutions.
Division 11 of Part 5 amends the Insurance Companies Act to permit property and casualty companies and marine companies to not include the value of certain debt obligations when calculating their borrowing limit.
Division 12 of Part 5 enacts the Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act . The Act prohibits the purchase of residential property in Canada by non-Canadians unless they are exempted by the Act or its regulations or the purchase is made in certain circumstances specified in the regulations.
Division 13 of Part 5 amends the Parliament of Canada Act and makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts to, among other things,
(a) change the additional annual allowances that are paid to senators who occupy certain positions so that the government’s representatives and the Opposition in the Senate are eligible for the allowances for five positions each and the three other recognized parties or parliamentary groups in the Senate with the greatest number of members are eligible for the allowances for four positions each;
(b) provide that the Leader of the Government in the Senate or Government Representative in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader or Facilitator of every other recognized party or parliamentary group in the Senate are to be consulted on the appointment of certain officers and agents of Parliament; and
(c) provide that the Leader of the Government in the Senate or Government Representative in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader or Facilitator of every other recognized party or parliamentary group in the Senate may change the membership of the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
Division 14 of Part 5 amends the Financial Administration Act in order to, among other things, allow the Treasury Board to provide certain services to certain entities.
Division 15 of Part 5 amends the Competition Act to enhance the Commissioner of Competition’s investigative powers, criminalize wage fixing and related agreements, increase maximum fines and administrative monetary penalties, clarify that incomplete price disclosure is a false or misleading representation, expand the definition of anti-competitive conduct, allow private access to the Competition Tribunal to remedy an abuse of dominance and improve the effectiveness of the merger notification requirements and other provisions.
Division 16 of Part 5 amends the Copyright Act to extend certain terms of copyright protection, including the general term, from 50 to 70 years after the life of the author and, in doing so, implements one of Canada’s obligations under the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement.
Division 17 of Part 5 amends the College of Patent Agents and Trademark Agents Act to, among other things,
(a) ensure that the College has sufficient independence and flexibility to exercise its corporate functions;
(b) provide statutory immunity to certain persons involved in the regulatory activities of the College; and
(c) grant powers to the Registrar and Investigations Committee that will allow for improved efficiency in the complaints and discipline process.
Division 18 of Part 5 enacts the Civil Lunar Gateway Agreement Implementation Act to implement Canada’s obligations under the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America concerning Cooperation on the Civil Lunar Gateway. It provides for powers to protect confidential information provided under the Memorandum. It also makes related amendments to the Criminal Code to extend its application to activities related to the Lunar Gateway and to the Government Employees Compensation Act to address the cross-waiver of liability set out in the Memorandum.
Division 19 of Part 5 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to restrict the use of detention in dry cells to cases where the institutional head has reasonable grounds to believe that an inmate has ingested contraband or that contraband is being carried in the inmate’s rectum.
Division 20 of Part 5 amends the Customs Act in order to authorize its administration and enforcement by electronic means and to provide that the importer of record of goods is jointly and severally, or solidarily, liable to pay duties on the goods under section 17 of that Act with the importer or person authorized to account for the goods, as the case may be, and the owner of the goods.
Division 21 of Part 5 amends the Criminal Code to create an offence of wilfully promoting antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust through statements communicated other than in private conversation.
Division 22 of Part 5 amends the Judges Act , the Federal Courts Act , the Tax Court of Canada Act and certain other acts to, among other things,
(a) implement the Government of Canada’s response to the report of the sixth Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission regarding salaries and benefits and to create the office of supernumerary prothonotary of the Federal Court;
(b) increase the number of judges for certain superior courts and include the new offices of Associate Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick and Associate Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan;
(c) create the offices of prothonotary and supernumerary prothonotary of the Tax Court of Canada; and
(d) replace the term “prothonotary” with “associate judge”.
Division 23 of Part 5 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to give instructions establishing categories of foreign nationals for the purposes of determining to whom an invitation to make an application for permanent residence is to be issued, as well as instructions setting out the economic goal that that Minister seeks to support in establishing the category;
(b) prevent an officer from issuing a visa or other document to a foreign national invited in respect of an established category if the foreign national is not in fact eligible to be a member of that category;
(c) require that the annual report to Parliament on the operation of that Act include a description of any instructions that establish a category of foreign nationals, the economic goal sought to be supported in establishing the category and the number of foreign nationals invited to make an application for permanent residence in respect of the category; and
(d) authorize that Minister to give instructions respecting the class of permanent residents in respect of which a foreign national must apply after being issued an invitation, if the foreign national is eligible to be a member of more than one class.
Division 24 of Part 5 amends the Old Age Security Act to correct a cross-reference in that Act to the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1 .
Division 25 of Part 5
(a) amends the Canada Emergency Response Benefit Act to set out the consequences that apply in respect of a worker who received, for a four-week period, an income support payment and who received, for any week during the four-week period, any benefit, allowance or money referred to in subparagraph 6(1)(b)(ii) or (iii) of that Act;
(b) amends the Canada Emergency Student Benefit Act to set out the consequences that apply in respect of a student who received, for a four-week period, a Canada emergency student benefit and who received, for any week during the four-week period, any benefit, allowance or money referred to in subparagraph 6(1)(b)(ii) or (iii) of that Act; and
(c) amends the Employment Insurance Act to set out the consequences that apply in respect of a claimant who received, for any week, an employment insurance emergency response benefit and who received, for that week, any payment or benefit referred to in paragraph 153.9(2)(c) or (d) of that Act.
Division 26 of Part 5 amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things,
(a) replace employment benefits and support measures set out in Part II of that Act with employment support measures that are intended to help insured participants and other workers — including workers in groups underrepresented in the labour market — to obtain and keep employment; and
(b) allow the Canada Employment Insurance Commission to enter into agreements to provide for the payment of contributions to organizations for the costs of measures that they implement and that are consistent with the purpose and guidelines set out in Part II of that Act.
It also makes a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act .
Division 27 of Part 5 amends the Employment Insurance Act to specify the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period to certain seasonal workers and to extend, until October 28, 2023, the increase in the maximum number of weeks for which those benefits may be paid. It also amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1 to add a transitional measure in relation to amendments to the Employment Insurance Regulations that are found in that Act.
Division 28 of Part 5 amends the Canada Pension Plan to make corrections respecting
(a) the calculation of the minimum qualifying period and the contributory period for the purposes of the post-retirement disability benefit;
(b) the determination of values for contributors who have periods excluded from their contributory periods by reason of disability; and
(c) the attribution of amounts for contributors who have periods excluded from their contributory periods because they were family allowance recipients.
Division 29 of Part 5 amends An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) shorten the period before which an employee begins to earn one day of medical leave of absence with pay per month;
(b) standardize the conditions related to the requirement to provide a medical certificate following a medical leave of absence, regardless of whether the leave is paid or unpaid;
(c) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations in certain circumstances, including to modify certain provisions respecting medical leave of absence with pay;
(d) ensure that, for the purposes of medical leave of absence, an employee who changes employers due to the lease or transfer of a work, undertaking or business or due to a contract being awarded through a retendering process is deemed to be continuously employed with one employer; and
(e) provide that the provisions relating to medical leave of absence come into force no later than December 1, 2022.
Division 30 of Part 5 amends the Canada Business Corporations Act to, among other things,
(a) require certain corporations to send to the Director appointed under that Act information on individuals with significant control on an annual basis or when a change occurs;
(b) allow that Director to provide all or part of that information to an investigative body, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada or any prescribed entity; and
(c) clarify that, for the purposes of subsection 21.1(7) of that Act, it is the securities of a corporation, not the corporation itself, that are listed and posted for trading on a designated stock exchange.
Division 31 of Part 5 amends the Special Economic Measures Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) to, among other things,
(a) create regimes allowing for the forfeiture of property that has been seized or restrained under those Acts;
(b) specify that the proceeds resulting from the disposition of those properties are to be used for certain purposes; and
(c) allow for the sharing of information between certain persons in certain circumstances.
It also makes amendments to the Seized Property Management Act in relation to those forfeiture of property regimes.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

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

There are 63 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-19.

Members will remember the Chair's ruling yesterday on the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, and more specifically on the amendment of clause 135, which was declared null and void.

Under these exceptional circumstances, Motions Nos. 4 and 5 on the Notice Paper, which concern the same Standing Order and seek to rectify the procedural issue identified by the Chair, were reviewed and the Chair is of the opinion that they respect the instructions provided in the note accompanying Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at report stage.

Accordingly, Motions Nos. 1 to 63 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 63 to the House.

Motions in amendment

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 52.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 53.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 135.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

moved:

That Bill C-19, in Clause 135, be amended by adding after line 2 on page 256 the following:

“(2.1) Despite subsection (2), the provisions of the Select Luxury Items Tax Act, as enacted by subsection (1), that set out the tax on subject aircraft come into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council, which day or days may not be fixed before September 1, 2022.”

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-19, in Clause 135, be amended by adding after line 2 on page 256 the following:

“(2.1) Despite subsection (2), the provisions of the Select Luxury Items Tax Act, as enacted by subsection (1), that set out the tax on subject aircraft come into force on a day or days, after September 1, 2022, to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 136.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 137.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 138.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 139.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 140.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 141.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 142.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 143.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 144.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 145.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 146.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 147.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 148.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 149.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 150.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 151.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 152.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 153.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 154.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 155.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 156.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 157.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 158.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 159.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 160.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 161.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 162.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 163.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 164.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 165.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 166.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 167.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 168.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 169.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 170.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 171.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 172.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 173.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 256.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 257.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 258.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 259.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 260.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 261.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 262.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 263.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 264.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 265.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 266.

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 267.

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 268.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 269.

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 270.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 271.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 272.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 273.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 274.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 275.

Madam Speaker, you made a heroic effort at going through all of those. I appreciate you putting them on the floor so we can have a good discussion about them today.

Before I get into the report stage amendments that we have proposed, and some of the experiences at the finance committee, I thought it would be important to have some high-level discussion to get into that, and then I would like to broaden the subject. I am going to be speaking quite a bit about the report stage amendments and the approach the Conservatives have, but I would also hope that hon. members will find most of the speech relevant to the issues we have.

In the movie Glengarry Glen Ross, Alec Baldwin plays a sales manager and tells his sales agents, “ABC: always be closing.” This is a classic movie for people in sales, but I can easily visualize the Prime Minister, at a very similar chalkboard with the finance minister, saying, “ABS: always be spending.” The approach of the current government has always been consistently on that side. There is nothing it cannot find money for, particularly for pet causes of the Prime Minister or his electoral coalition.

The Conservatives want to see proper spending and value for money. We know the value of every dollar the Canadian government receives. By the way, it is getting more revenue than ever. It does not have a revenue problem, as some other parties believe; it has a spending problem. Inflation has increased the revenues the government has. Obviously, we are in a commodities cycle right now where crude oil prices have gone up, so the government is collecting more money than it ever has, and it seems it cannot help itself but find more things to spend on.

Let us go to Bill C-19. I would like to discuss a little of what occurred at the finance committee and what I refer to as the good, the bad and unfortunately the ugly.

For the good, our shadow minister of national revenue put forward an amendment. While the government, through its parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, tried to rule it inadmissible, we followed through with the recommendations of JDRF and Diabetes Canada and brought an amendment that was ultimately accepted by the committee unanimously and will clarify the disability tax credit measures for life-sustaining therapy. That is so incredibly important for parents who have opened a registered disability savings plan. They need to have access to the DTC, the disability tax credit, to have that, so it is a very meaningful measure. There are Canadians right across the country who have opened up these accounts for their children so that when they retire eventually they will have that extra money, because diabetes is a serious illness that requires so much time and dedication, and of course it is very costly to pay for insulin, insulin pumps, etc., so this amendment will clarify that.

I want to thank all hon. members because it is these kinds of amendments that Canadians have sent us here to make sure people have. Diabetes is tough enough, and this makes it a bit easier.

Again, between regimes and provinces we should always be mindful that the Canadian government has to at least make sure there is some fairness, so with this we see a clarifying amendment that will help improve the lives of people with diabetes regardless of where they live in this great country.

Now it is time for the bad. The government has put forward a so-called luxury tax. I would probably call it a well-intentioned, but horribly wrong and misplaced tax. In fact, it should be called a producer tax. I can understand how some members of the NDP and Liberals, or as I call them the “speNDP-Liberals”, would say they want to make sure people are paying their fair share so they can then spend it, but we need to have a balance and the government does not get that. It does not understand, or at least it has refused to understand, that this particular tax will take the sales out of the sail of the boating industry in Canada. If I was a manufacturer of boats right now and had to go to my board of directors and ask if I should be making an investment in Canada, when I see that I am going to be hit by a $2.8-billion hole over the next five years, basically estimated by the Parliamentary Budget Officer as a drop of 15% in sales, I am not going to be making that investment. Why? It is because they are limited to their growth.

I have heard in my own riding that many of these manufacturers are receiving phone calls from the Americans to locate their facilities there. They are offering to give them land, build them buildings and give them tax incentives.

I see MP Ste-Marie here who has cited over and over the devastation this could cause. Pardon me. He is a great MP, and I will rescind that comment. The member of Parliament for Joliette has cited multiple times how important the aerospace industry is in Quebec, and this is something I have heard from my other Conservative colleagues in Quebec.

This is a bad tax, and we oppose it wholeheartedly. The government should be helping manufacturers to bring jobs and opportunity to this country, not sending it somewhere else.

The next thing I would say that is bad is the Competition Act changes. These Competition Act changes are not endorsed by any industry stakeholder. We had one witness who said we should not let perfection be the enemy of the good. Everyone, including the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and I have never seen this before, but the Canadian Chamber of Commerce came to the committee and effectively said—

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. We are all having problems online.

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

I will make sure the technical team takes a look at it. We will come back to the members in a few minutes to find out if it is resolved.

The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, simply put, regarding the Competition Act changes, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce officials could not even articulate a position because they literally said there was so much occurring in these provisions that they could not say anything other than to please stop, wait and consult so the industry could fully understand what the government was intending to do with these changes. I have never seen that before.

I am addressing the good, the bad and the ugly. The ugly part was I have never seen a finance minister present a bill to the House of Commons to have it referred to committee where it was chopped apart by committee. The HUMA committee recommended unanimously to cut the EI provisions. There was amendment after amendment. I have never seen a finance minister who has been so impacted who presented a bill and had blood on the proverbial floor from it.

I think this is indicative of the approach of the government. I think the finance minister is probably too busy with her other duties as deputy. I do not blame her for that: I blame the Prime Minister, so I would ask the Prime Minister to start considering his approach on finances and his approach to giving almost all the portfolios and almost all the responsibility to a minister who already has more than she probably can do. I would imagine other finance ministers would probably say that being given deputy and finance is too much for any one minister.

I would like to finish with a few points on finance ministers in general. The list of people, groups and organizations that have expressed serious concerns that the government has lost its way is growing by the day. We have unprecedented criticism coming from former Liberal finance minister Bill Morneau. I cannot recall a finance minister so fresh out of the job casting serious concerns over the actions of the Prime Minister and his successor.

As David Hurley commented on Twitter, it is something he has never seen before. As we know, Bill Morneau has publicly stated that the Liberal government is not focusing on economic growth, that it is letting politics get in the way of progress and that a lack of emphasis on long-term economic growth means the country will have some difficult times and face difficult choices in the year ahead.

Conservatives have been saying consistently that the government always focuses on cutting up the economic pie. It focuses more on redistribution than actually growing the pie so that more support can be given for our social safety net, for Canadians and for prosperity. However, the government is ideological, as I have said: always be spending. That is against the interests of our country.

We have many difficulties in this country from inflation. People are having difficulty putting food on the table. Groceries are at 10%. The last time we saw inflation this high was when we had another big tax-and-spend, divisive, inflationary prime minister in the 1980s. The government seems to be following the same agenda. Instead of growing the pie, as Conservatives have consistently said, let us see investment happen here. Let us see jobs and opportunity here. Let us make sure that we fund our programs and services like health care properly. Instead, the government again chooses to lard up and send the money out indiscriminately without having a value for dollar and without having a sense of putting money into the economy to make our economy grow, so that Canadians can be assured of their prosperity. They are now concerned about it.

The government has taken us back to the worst parts of the 1980s, and I fear for what comes next. Conservatives will be standing up for Canadians to help them to feed their families and to make sure programs in Ottawa are working better. I hope the government changes its tune.

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

Madam Speaker, according to the member across the way, the government is spending too much. The election was not that long ago, and we recall that the Conservative Party platform actually committed to spending more money than we committed to spend.

I am wondering this. Is that one of the reasons why the Conservatives made the decision a couple of months ago to get rid of their leader, who led the charge on spending more in Canada?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, that member is an enabler of that “always be spending” kind of philosophy. On this side of the House, we see the calls from the premiers. My premier, John Horgan, has said publicly, on behalf of the Council of the Federation and on behalf of all premiers, to not start new programs such as dental and other programs that are already being provided by the provinces. He said please give them the money to increase the health care transfer because more Canadians are convinced our system is not working. I have people calling me about doctors. They are not asking for more spending on programs that make the member and his Prime Minister feel good about themselves.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech. My question is about the part of his speech concerning the “bad”, namely the luxury tax.

My colleague was right to say that the Minister of Finance is too busy doing the Prime Minister's job, given that she is Deputy Prime Minister. We get the impression that a lot of corners were cut in Bill C-19. The proof is that dozens and dozens of pages have been cut from this poorly drafted bill.

Does my colleague think the same thing should happen with the luxury tax, even though the principle may seem fair?

This 170 pages is all about taxing producers rather than consumers. It needs to be removed and reworked.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Joliette for his contributions in the House and at the finance committee. I will 100% say that the amendments that were put forward today by Conservatives encompass his suggestion that the government and the finance minister are too occupied with other issues and that they are putting forward terrible taxes, including a tax on producers that will see hits to jobs and the economy. Therefore, we have suggested to delete, delete, delete so we can take a pause and actually consult with industry. Whether it is its changes to the Competition Act or its so-called luxury tax, the government is headed in the wrong direction. We are presenting amendments to put it right.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to see us continuing the amendment process here at report stage. We had a pretty good experience in committee and managed to bring a number of important changes to this budget bill, which looks quite different coming out of committee than it did going in. In particular, I think that one of the sets of changes that may not have been addressed in the member's speech, and I apologize if I missed it, is around the express entry program. I know the member was supportive of the amendments we brought to committee, so would he like to reflect on those changes?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, we actually put an amendment in to force the government to have the installation date of January 1 for the coming into force of the ban on foreign speculation in our residential real estate market. That member supported it, so I want to thank him for that.

When it comes to express entry, the government was trying to give the Minister of Immigration unfettered powers. Through a good process that this member and his party critic engaged with in good faith, they presented an option that improves the bill. It would make sure that the Minister of Immigration cannot pick people willy-nilly through groupings of his own decision. We should all be concerned when we delegate our authority to a minister because that minister or another minister in the future may use it in a way that is contrary to the will of Parliament.

Therefore, I appreciate the member's bringing forward clarifying amendments to make for a proper public process of consultation of what the minister has to do before he or she can identify groupings for the purposes of the express entry program. That is good for Canada.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise at report stage to discuss the changes that were made to the bill at committee and a further change that I am proposing in the House at report stage.

I think often, when we reflect on budget bills and we talk about omnibus budget bills, we think of the experiences Parliament has had under majority governments with omnibus budget bills, where we have seen quite a lot of changes to many acts rammed through without a lot of discussion or debate because the government had the majority in order to be able do that.

I think we actually saw quite a different process in this Parliament with the budget bill. This is reflected in the fact that the committee made significant changes to the disability tax credit, which would make it possible for people living with type 1 diabetes to not have to constantly reprove that they still have type 1 diabetes, that it is still expensive and that it is still time-consuming. We can take it for granted, based on what we know about the disease, that people living with type 1 diabetes are going to continue to need support, and they will continue to deserve the kind of support they get. When they are able to accomplish all of that administrative work, they should only have to do it once. The committee looked to make that the case, and I hope Parliament will soon too.

We saw the government introduce quite hastily some major changes to the employment insurance appeal board that did not reflect its commitments in 2018 and 2019 to stakeholders. After a long consultation process, the government was panned pretty widely within the stakeholder community. I think even the government was interested in pulling those provisions back. We have secured a commitment from the government to ensure it comes back in the fall with new legislation and that this is not the end of the story when it comes to the EI appeal board. It is in desperate need of appropriate reform. We were glad to see the government commit to bringing that legislation forward in the fall. We will certainly be here to remind it of that commitment and to press it to do that as promptly as possible in the fall.

We saw important reforms in the direction and control provisions for charitable organizations. These really needed to be undertaken to decolonize the charitable sector in Canada, facilitate its good work and ensure it can work with partners that may not have a charitable status but that are nevertheless doing good work. I think this shows not a blind trust but an earned trust on the part of the charitable sector in Canada for the very good work it has done, and done responsibly. I think we struck the right balance between ensuring that there is still the reasonable accountability that Canadians would expect of their charitable sector while ensuring that it has a freer hand to do work in a good way.

We saw the government also try to rush in some changes that had not been advertised with the express entry system. The express entry system allows for people outside of Canada to come into Canada on an expedited basis. The minister was asking for an incredible amount of discretion with a very low amount of accountability and transparency concerning how decisions would be made to classify people in the express entry system and get them into the country. Through working together with other parties at committee, we were very glad to see, and I have to give credit to the member for Vancouver East, who really did the legwork on this, a proper accountability regime that would require the government, in the legislation, to have a robust public consultation process. This is actually spelled out in the legislation and will not be left just to the government to decide what public consultation will mean. Written submissions would be required, so it would not just be the government having backroom conversations with some of its friends to decide who gets into the country, who does not and on what basis. There is going to be a proper process in place. I think that is very important.

On the theme of fiscal accountability for government, which is something I have tried to champion here in my time, there was some spending the government had proposed in Bill C-17, which was incorporated into the budget, with transit and housing money being sent to provinces. however, there was really no detail beyond that. We fought for an amendment that would require the government, after it has negotiated the terms and conditions with provinces, to make those public because we think that is appropriate. Canadians have a right to know how their public money is being spent and under what conditions it is being passed on to other governments, so that was also very important.

As the Conservative finance critic mentioned earlier, there was also an amendment he proposed to set the date for when the foreign homebuyer ban would come into effect, which was something I was glad to support, to give a little more certainty with that. We were also able to finally make a distinction in Canadian law, as a result of an amendment put forward by the Bloc finance critic, between cider and honey wine on the one hand and grape wine on the other, which is a distinction that has become that much more important in light of the recent arrangement with Australia following its challenge at the World Trade Organization.

I say all of this by way of trying to highlight the extent to which there was a good process with the bill. I think that the committee was able to have much more meaningful input than parliamentarians who had been in majority governments where we have seen similarly large budget bills and, in fact, sometimes larger budget bills that covered more subject areas. I think we were able to have quite a good process here at committee.

I will wrap up by talking about the luxury tax, which was something we did amend at committee. We have heard some very significant concerns on the structure the Liberal government has chosen for the luxury tax and the potential effects it could have, particularly on the manufacturing industry in aerospace here in Canada. These are concerns that New Democrats take very seriously, and I know that members of other parties take those concerns very seriously as well. What we proposed as a solution was to give the government more flexibility on the coming-into-force date so it could take the time it needs to talk to industry about these potential effects.

We still have a dearth of good economic information from government on what it expects the economic impact of the tax to be. It is something that a colleague of mine at the finance committee has proposed to look into more and ask for more information, and I fully support that request. I fully expect the government to be listening to that; taking that information seriously; generating that information, which is information I think it ought to have generated before designing the tax; and talking to industry. There is still time, and if we pass the amendment that I proposed here at report stage, there would be even more time, if the government needed it, to get the structure of the tax right.

There is no question from this side of the House that the wealthy in Canada have not been paying their fair share. A luxury tax is one way to ensure that people with the most resources in Canada are paying back into the programs we need in order to make sure that people have access to essential services on the basis of equity and not the ability to pay. It is important that we move ahead with the luxury tax, but we want to do that in the right way, and we want to create enough space for government to be able to do that in the right way. We beseech the government to listen, to think about the timetable and to develop a better proposal that would address some of the very legitimate concerns we have heard coming out of the industry. As I said, we are trying to pave the way to do that.

Now, there was some debate at committee about whether this or that was in order. The chair of the committee, who had ruled the particular amendment out of order, had his ruling overturned unanimously. Nobody voted to sustain the ruling of the chair. When it came to the House, I think there was a little bit of surprise that the issue resurfaced. However, I think that we have managed to change the wording of the amendment to respect the Speaker's ruling in that regard to be consistent with the ways and means motion that had been presented in advance of Bill C-19.

We now have a solve that would allow us to change those coming-into-force provisions to give the government the extra time it needs to work with industry to get the balance right on the luxury tax, which is why I am very happy to be rising today speaking to that amendment. It would have been, frankly, a travesty if a procedural hiccup, which was unforeseen and for which no warning was provided, would have such a serious consequence for an important strategic industry in Canada. I am glad that here on the floor of the House of Commons we are finding a way to avoid having our procedural eccentricities interfere with a major industry that provides a lot of good jobs for Canadians.

With that, I thank members for their attention throughout the speech, and I am happy to answer any questions they may have.

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

Madam Speaker, as members well know, a great deal of consultation takes place in the presentation of any budget and in putting together budgetary implementation legislation. It is a process that, in essence, involves many stakeholders and thousands of Canadians. I do appreciate the member raising the issue, and people who follow the budget debate will hopefully understand and appreciate the degree to which governments, particularly the ministry of finance, reach into communities.

The member talked a great deal about the luxury tax. I understand that members of the NDP, in principle, support a luxury tax, but is there something specific that they would like to see modified, other than just an implementation delay?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would encourage the member to listen to the industry, including the machinists who represent many workers in that industry. They have said the issue is not the principle of the tax, although I am sure there are some in the industry who dispute the principle, but that it is more the structure of the tax, and particularly the way it requires manufacturers to pay the amount of that tax up front That is one of the issues that we have heard them talk about—

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

Order. The hon. member for Joliette is rising on a point of order to point out a problem with interpretation.

Is interpretation working now? Yes, it is.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, on the other issue, consultation, I would say that the incredible amount of improvement that happened to the bill is also a testament to the lack of appropriate consultation that went into preparing the budget bill. I think that was not more evident than in the case of the employment insurance appeal board. In that case, I think the very people who the government sought to please with the reforms were the people who were most upset.

I think it is a testament to the fact that the government has to do a lot better job in consulting people when it is preparing the budget bill so that it does not have to be fixed in the way this particular bill needed to be fixed. I am glad that the composition of this Parliament and this committee allowed it to be fixed, instead of having a majority government ploughing ahead with some ill-conceived reforms.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I quite enjoyed the two years the member and I worked together on the operations committee. Although his replacements, the member from Hamilton Centre and then the member from Port Alberni, are doing wonderful jobs, he is welcome back at any time.

He spoke about the issue of the disability credit, the difficulties Canadians are having in applying for it and some of the silliness of the regulations. The Auditor General just released a somewhat damning report on the government about the inability and difficulty that lower-income and marginalized Canadians are having in accessing benefits, such as the GIS and other Canadian benefits.

Does the member believe that the government should get on this and perhaps present legislation to help Canadians with these issues as well as the other disability tax credit he spoke about?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, the short answer is yes.

I think the member is aware of these issues, but for those who may not be, the inadequacies of the disability tax credit structure touch on so many more things. I will give a couple of quick examples.

In the pandemic, when the NDP fought for a one-time payment for people living with disabilities, the government initially wanted to use the disability tax credit list as its go-to list for people who would get it. However, it is actually quite difficult to qualify for the DTC, the disability tax credit. It involves a lot of costs and a lot of time and a lot of administrative knowledge in order to get all of the pieces in place to get on that list. It is only worth it to someone who already makes enough money to benefit from a tax credit, so the people who need financial support the most tend not to be on the DTC roll. However, that is a gate control for the government for many programs that support people living with disabilities.

It is a major problem, not just with the DTC but within the entire disability support infrastructure. An irony of that was that when we initially presented the amendment to exempt people with type 1 diabetes from the 14-hour requirement, the ruling by the chair was that because the DTC is a gate for other disability programs, there would be more spending if it was easier to get the DTC, so parliamentarians were not going to be able to change it.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that great speech and his excellent work in committee. I do have a question about amendments to the luxury tax. He made a reference to David Chartrand, the machinists' and aerospace workers' representative who came and asked us to support the amendments I proposed. My colleague voted against those amendments. I was very surprised that my NDP colleague voted against amendments that unions asked for. I did not know what to make of that.

Did my colleague have to vote against because the NDP has an agreement to support the Liberal government?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I voted against because we did not think it was a good idea to try to rewrite complex tax code in the space of a few hours sitting around a table. We know doing it properly requires a lot more information. It also takes resources, and, given that the government has those resources, we want it to do the work to fix the tax.

That is why I voted against those amendments.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to talk about the budget of Canada. There is so much that one can talk about. How do we limit all the good news we have been able to put into the budget, not only in this budget but in previous budgets, starting in 2015 when we were first elected? There is so much substance and there are so many things we have been able to accomplish in a relatively short period of time.

Having said that, I thought I would reflect on some of the comments made by the shadow minister of finance, the new one. We can recall that the previous one was unceremoniously replaced for some odd reason, and I will let the Conservatives deal with that replacement.

The member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola said that the Liberal government has a spending problem, implying that Liberals tend to like spending money. I can honestly say that we do understand the importance of the government's role in making our communities healthier. We understand that.

However, I want to remind my Conservative friends across the way that it was not that long ago that we had a national election, and in that election campaign, there were a couple of economic matters that come to mind. One was that the Conservative Party of Canada, the same party across the way that just said we had a spending problem, committed to spend more money than the Liberal government. Conservatives are saying Liberals have a spending problem and that we are spending too much money, yet in the last federal election, they committed to spend more money. In fairness, they dumped their leader not that long ago. The leader of the Conservative Party at the time who made that commitment is no longer leader, so I have to be fair.

Then there is the debt. In that same election platform, the Conservative Party committed to a $168-billion debt. Our debt is actually less than that. Again we have what the Conservative Party said during the election campaign and what it says when it is the official opposition. Given the nature of what we are witnessing, such as the member for Carleton attacking the Bank of Canada and trying to set economic policy to the hard right, along with other individuals, I suspect there is a good chance that the Conservative Party will continue to be in opposition for many years ahead. Conservatives need to understand that spending, as the former leader of the Conservative Party said, is not all that bad.

Let me give an example. Yes, we came up with a national program that will enable Canadians to enter the workforce. It will provide all sorts of opportunities. It is our national child care program. Yes, it did cost a lot of money, but from coast to coast to coast, for the first time, we have a national child care program, a program that is supported by all of the provincial governments. Even the recently re-elected Doug Ford supported the child care program.

I suspect that if we were to canvass the House, we would find that only one political party does not recognize the value of having $10-a-day day care. We are talking about the conservative right in the Conservative Party of Canada, and there are a lot of them opposite, individuals who maybe dream of the days of the Reform Party. Who knows? Maybe we will see a resurfacing of the Reform right. It is a party that does not support the national child care program.

What does a national child care program do by making things affordable for Canadians? Not only does it help them during a difficult time, such as inflation, but it also provides them with the opportunity to do more work in our communities. If we look at what happened, we see that the province of Quebec led the country in showing that enabling the public to have better access through affordable child care would cause the workforce to grow. We only need to look at the province of Quebec to see how successful it was.

We have a national government. Much like when we had health care in one province many years ago, and then a national Liberal government made a national health care program with a Canada Health Act that followed, we now have a national child care program that comes out of the province of Quebec. That is going to allow hundreds of thousands of people the independence to get into the workforce if they choose to do so. That will generate more revenue for the government. It will provide more productivity for the nation and add to our GDP.

I would argue contrary to what the critic for finance said, or the shadow minister, as they like to be referred to. It will add value in many different ways. I would suggest that the member try to convince his caucus colleagues to get behind the child care plan that the Liberals, New Democrats, and even the Bloc and the Green Party are supporting. I suspect there are a few Conservatives who will ultimately support that plan, particularly those from the province of Quebec who might be a bit more progressive.

The NDP talked about the importance of consultation, and the finance critic made reference to the Deputy Prime Minister. I took it as a compliment when the member said that she has so many responsibilities. I agree; she is an incredible woman. She is Canada's very first female Minister of Finance and she is also the Deputy Prime Minister. She also plays a critical role in what is happening in Europe today.

She was just with me and my colleagues from Winnipeg South, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital and Winnipeg South Centre in the city of Winnipeg, welcoming over 300 displaced people from Ukraine. She is an incredible woman who has done Canada proud in terms of where she has put us in moving us forward, especially in comparison to other countries around the world, particularly the United States.

When we compare our job numbers or our inflation rates to those of the United States or many of the European Union countries, we find that Canada rises to the top. It is because we believe in supporting, in a real and tangible way, Canada's middle class, those aspiring to be a part of it and Canadians in general who need a helping hand.

We can see that in the budgets we have presented, from day one up to the most recent budget. That is why I would encourage every member of this House to get behind the budget implementation bill and support it, instead of trying to come up with ways to block it. It is because this budget implementation bill will have a positive impact on everyone in Canada from coast to coast to coast. This is a budget bill that we can all be proud of, because it is a reflection of what Canadians want based on the consultations that were done by members of this government.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, wow, there is so much to unpack there. This member has supported the government through thick and thin. We all need our loyal soldiers, but by the same token, let us just take a look at a few things.

First of all, under the current Prime Minister, there has been more debt added to our national debt than under any prime minister alive. This member continues to follow the “always be spending” ways of the Prime Minister. In fact, when he talks about child care, this member continues to mistake leadership with cutting cheques. In British Columbia, one of the first provinces to adopt this new national program of theirs, we still do not have $10-a-day day care, and the government cannot actually say when it is going to do it. It might take years. The member keeps conflating action with spending.

This is something the former finance minister said: “there’s no real sense of urgency in Ottawa, about our lack of competitiveness. It’s like we’re the proverbial frog in the pot and not realizing what’s happening to us as the heat gradually increases”.

When will the frog get out of the pot?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member needs to be a little more straightforward with what reality actually is.

The member made reference to the Prime Minister and the debt. There is a little thing called the worldwide pandemic. That event was something that cost a considerable amount of money. Many of the billions of dollars that were spent were actually supported in part by the Conservative Party. That is the reason why.

If we are going to support Canadians, if we are going to invest in and support nine million Canadians through the CERB program and keep tens of thousands of businesses from going bankrupt by supporting them through rent subsidies and wage subsidies, that costs money. We would argue that those sorts of expenditures are what has enabled Canada to continue.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned earlier how much consultation the government has done, especially on Bill C-19.

Yes, I would agree that consultation was fairly extensive. The problem, however, is that the general consensuses that came out of those consultations are not reflected in the bill, as if there had been no consultation. For instance, the section on employment insurance was removed. The same should have been done for the luxury tax and several other aspects, such as the Competition Act.

When will the government start actually paying attention to consultations and ensure that they are reflected in budget implementation bills?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, in all budget presentations and budget implementation bills, there is extensive consultation done. This particular Minister of Finance and the department have done exceptional work in terms of reaching out to Canadians and stakeholders to get their input. This is a budget that reflects the desires and the will of the Canadian people from coast to coast to coast.

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

The hon. member will have two minutes left for questions next time the bill comes forward for debate.

The House resumed from June 3 consideration of Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

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

Madam Speaker, when I think of Bill C-19, of course, the government has—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. There was an error on my part. Actually, there were two minutes of questions and comments left on the hon. member's previous speech on this particular matter.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Gatineau.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, we know that the Quebec model for child care and funding is now in place across Canada. We are pleased not just with the additional child care spaces in Quebec, but also with the expansion of this program across Canada.

I would like my colleague from Winnipeg North to explain just how his province and all of Canada will benefit from reasonably price child care centres.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the government whip raising that issue. He is quite right. The national child care benefit program that we have today is there in good part because of the Province of Quebec. The Province of Quebec has clearly demonstrated that we all have so much to learn when it comes to child care. By having this particular program, we are now enabling literally hundreds of thousands of people to be engaged in the workforce and to do many other things. We saw that when Quebec expanded its child care program.

When a province does something well, which the rest of the nation can copy and emulate, we should do that. For the first time in many years we have actually seen the establishment of a national program. Canadian families from coast to coast to coast will directly benefit under this program. Not only is it good for families, but it is also good for the economy. Clearly, it is one of the ways in which the government can spend money for the betterment of our society.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I do apologize for not getting to questions and comments right away, but I know that other members would have loved to hear the hon. parliamentary secretary speak for another 10 minutes.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have no doubt that the member for Winnipeg North could have continued speaking for some time. I will make him happy and start with his last statement, which referred to child care. We are pleased that this has now been established in the rest of the country and that Quebec has served as the model. That makes us very proud.

I would invite my colleagues in the House to remember this example when the Bloc asks for the right to opt out of the next few Canada-wide programs with full compensation. The right to opt out was a big factor in making this possible, as was recognition of the fact that Quebec already had a good system. For me, it is a mark of respect.

Not only did the federal government take our model and implement it elsewhere, it gave Quebec its share of the money it was owed without telling it what to do. The phrase “without telling it what to do” will come up a few times in my speech today when I speak about the conditions that are set to be imposed in various areas.

I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-19. I will begin by criticizing its huge omnibus format. When the government claims to properly study bills and practise true democracy and freedom of speech, how can it seriously introduce a 500-page bill that amends 37 acts?

Several provisions involving minor amendments to legislation have garnered consensus. However, the bill also proposes other extraordinarily important and complex measures.

For example, there is the employment insurance reform, which, as I have said before, deserves to be studied separately and in depth. The current system helps too few workers in Quebec and Canada, and I find that unacceptable. I do not want to get too deeply into this, but I am not sure that anyone would hire me as an insurance salesman if I tried to sell homeowner’s insurance by telling prospective customers that the company would only pay four times out of ten in the case of a loss. This is what we are telling workers with this program, so an in-depth reform is necessary.

This omnibus bill makes it seem like the Liberal government is taking advantage of its deal with the NDP and the so-called majority it gives them to have a pile of legislation passed quickly. Still, we are more or less in favour of this bill, and we will continue to improve it, as we are doing now.

I would like to talk about cider and, especially, mead. Representatives of both these industries approached us to tell us that the reintroduction of the excise tax on July 1 makes no sense. Australia’s complaint, which led to the reintroduction of the tax, concerned wine, not cider or mead. These financially sound but more marginal productions are expanding and are the pride of several regions of Quebec. They did not deserve to be taxed. Their representatives were very anxious and approached our members to speak on their behalf.

I would like to publicly congratulate my colleague from Joliette who, with his team, did extraordinary work in committee and succeeded in having cider and mead exempted from the definition. I am very proud, we are happy, and this is one of the improvements I was talking about.

We also raised a few concerns voiced by charities, which feared they would be once again subjected to a mountain of paperwork in the restrictions, although the basis of Bill S-216 was positive. We will be keeping a close watch on that. We are keeping a close watch, and we will follow up.

As for the rest of Bill C-19, there are no measures we find strongly objectionable. For that reason, we are more or less in favour of it. Among other things, there is not much about oil subsidies, which is good. There is not much about nuclear energy. We are aware that that is coming but, for now, we have no opposition on the subject.

The numerous encroachments promised in the Liberal Party's budget, including encroachments on health care with the dental insurance plan, are not yet upon us. This allows us to take a step back and look at what is constructive in the bill. For one thing, it contains urgent measures that we approve of, such as the additional five weeks of EI benefits for seasonal workers. That is a positive measure in our eyes.

The Bloc Québécois offers constructive opposition. When proposals make sense, we are happy and we say so. When they do not make sense, however, we do not say that the government is lousy and that what it is doing makes no sense. We say that we think the government should try looking at the situation from such and such an angle. Quebeckers can count on us to keep doing this.

Obviously, there are the health transfers. We hope to get our way someday, even if it is not looking that way right now. This subject will always remain a bone of contention, but we will take the $2 billion offered, since it will give us some breathing room. The same goes for the $750 million for public transit.

There are also some good intentions, but we will need to work to make sure that they are implemented properly. I am thinking, among other things, about the tax treatment of companies that adopt zero-emission manufacturing processes. We will have to watch out for hidden subsidies for fossil fuels. The Bloc believes that we must eliminate the fossil fuel subsidies and begin transitioning to alternative energy sources. With respect to the ridiculous carbon capture projects for oil wells, we have seen the results they yield in other countries and the disasters they cause when they go wrong, because they do go wrong. I do not think we have the right to go down that rabbit hole. Right now, with climate change being what it is, we need to be diligent, but above all cautious. Let us be smart about this and move in the right direction.

We like the proposed amendments to the Competition Act to prevent collusion and abuse of power. At the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, we studied the problems with competition among shipping container companies. During the pandemic, prices jumped from around $3,000 to more than $25,000 over the course of a year or a year and a half. That is outrageous. The container industry is concentrated in the hands of a few key players, so there is work to be done.

We also need to keep an eye on telecommunications companies' billing practices. I would like to see the hidden fees exposed. I think that that is also something positive.

The important thing is overall consistency. I also think it is good that pension fund managers would be forced to provide details on investments in things like fossil fuels. That is the first step in transitioning to green energy. I encourage anyone who is interested in this to take a look at the Bloc Québécois's platform or to talk to my colleague from Mirabel, who is very familiar with this issue. Our platform contains solutions, and we suggest some approaches that we would like to explore.

The luxury tax is a tricky topic, however. Everyone agrees with the principle of a luxury tax, but we need to be careful about how we proceed. The Bloc Québécois has expressed a number of concerns and reservations about this tax, mainly because we want to protect our aerospace industry. This industry should not have to wait so long for a rebate if it turns out that the tax does not apply.

We need to be smart and consistent here, to ensure that we do not hurt our businesses. I am thinking about the 35% surcharge on Russian fertilizer, for example. Everyone agrees on the principle, but I want to reiterate that when this surcharge is applied to orders placed and paid for in the fall, before the conflict started, it ends up penalizing our producers instead of the Russians. The government does not seem interested in creating an exemption.

If a government wants to impose measures, it needs to make sure they are done right.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of quick points.

I am interested in the member's thoughts with regard to the luxury tax. The principle of a luxury tax is something the Bloc supports. I would like clarity on that particular point.

The second issue that I have is with regard to the Province of Quebec. I do not know if this is still in play today, but it provided a subsidy toward the purchase of electric cars, something that we in government have also provided.

I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts on that. Again, when the provincial and federal governments work together, we can enhance programs, which is good for the consumer. It would be nice to see other provinces follow Quebec's lead on that issue.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, the federal government would do well to follow Quebec's lead in many areas, and pharmacare is one of them.

When the Liberals are ready to bring in their own pharmacare plan, I would invite them to follow the model I referred to at the beginning of my speech, namely child care, and let Quebec continue to manage its own affairs, which means giving Quebec its fair share of the funding. I am not talking about the federal government being an ATM, because it is our own money. That part is important.

My colleague mentioned the luxury tax. Perhaps I said it too quickly, but the point I wanted to make is that we obviously agree on the principle. We want to see a luxury tax. However, every precaution must be taken to ensure that it does not affect the aerospace industry, which is mainly concentrated in Montreal. It is one of our flagship industries, and any delays could pose risks.

I will conclude by saying that incentives for electric vehicles are a good idea, especially since these vehicles are currently still a lot more expensive than gas-powered vehicles. These measures must be maintained and managed in a smart way.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I personally knew one of the people who died in the storm a few weeks ago. Given the climate impacts we experienced in Quebec and also here in Ottawa, I would like to ask my colleague what positive impact this budget will have on preventive environmental measures. What is my colleague's opinion?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for her fantastic question. I proposed a few solutions earlier.

For example, we talked about green financing. It is quite a challenge to get pension fund managers to give a clear answer about where our money is invested so we can ensure that it is not going into fossil fuels. It can take a long time to find out that information. I recently asked that question, and it was not easy to get an answer. Transparency is one of the solutions.

The Bloc Québécois and Green Party members are not the only ones advocating for environmental protection. So is the general public. That proves that it is important. Instead of subsidizing fossil fuels, let us invest in the transition.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé.

He spoke about the Quebec model and pharmacare, but Quebec has a hybrid system, one that is both public and private. That means many workers pay a fortune for supplemental coverage.

Does my colleague not agree with the Union des consommateurs du Québec, the FTQ, the CSN and the CSQ that we should have a universal public pharmacare system?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé has a minute to respond.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is certainly not very much time. I thank my colleague for his question. I think he, too, would agree that Quebec is a model to follow in many areas.

I never claimed that Quebec's pharmacare system was perfect. Our day care system is not perfect either. There is a shortage of spaces and so on. However, it can serve as a base model for reference.

What sets me apart from my colleague is that I respect the jurisdictions of Quebec's national government, the National Assembly, located in Quebec City. Health falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec.

We are not against making improvements. However, let us make those improvements while respecting jurisdictions and transferring the money to those who are responsible for managing those jurisdictions.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I begin by acknowledging that I speak today virtually from the traditional territory of the WSANEC nation. I raise my hands, and in the language of the traditional peoples of this land I say Hych'ka Siem.

I am speaking today at report stage of Bill C-19. I cannot help but reflect on the debate we just had on the application of time allocation to this bill. I would like to point out to the House and put on the record that, of course, I voted no to ending debate in the fashion that has become entirely too routine under the current government and the Conservative government before it. Having been used routinely under the administration of Stephen Harper and now under the current government, it is unlikely to ever return to what it was before 2011, which is to say that the House will suffer a permanent loss of normal, democratic debate under our standing orders for bill after bill.

In this case, Bill C-19 was tabled for first reading following the April 7 budget. It was tabled for first reading April 28. That is not that long ago in the life of this Parliament. This is not like Bill C-8, the fall economic statement bill. That was tabled in December 2021 and only passed in the last few weeks in this place. Bill C-19 has been dealt with quickly and sharply. It went to committee for reports, and it is already, and this is an important point that I wish to make, in prestudy before the finance committee in the other place.

The question of delay in handling this bill and allowing for proper debate at this stage is rather wrong-footed by the fact that, even though we will finish with it very soon in any case, despite the obstructive activities by the official opposition, there was ample time to get it properly debated at report stage and third reading and sent to the other place, where prestudy has already begun. It is a significant bill. For those who may be observing our deliberations today, let me just point out that this bill is hundreds of pages. It is an omnibus bill. It is not an illegitimate omnibus bill, as it deals with all the measures that were flagged in budget 2022 on April 7. It is not one that has extraneous measures crammed into it, which would make it an illegitimate omnibus bill.

This legislation is lengthy. There are 32 separate divisions, with hundreds of pages and over 502 sections. I cannot propose for a second to think that I could comment on all of them, even those with which I agree. However, the scope is enormous. We deal with everything in this legislation from safe drinking water in first nations communities, which of course nobody would want to have anything but speed apply to, to something called the “lunar gateway” and Criminal Code offences related to an agreement we have with the United States for events that may take place on the moon, as I understand it, to changes in the Criminal Code that raise some civil liberties concerns. They are in division 21 and would extend jail time up to two years for people who are denying the Holocaust, for which there is no defence. It is appalling and will now have a criminal sanction of up to two years in jail.

I think it is worth considering the scope of this bill, because it covers so many different measures, including ones I support, like the application of Magnitsky sanctions and being able to act to further sanction Vladimir Putin's cronies in order to apply pressure so that we get to peace talks as quickly as possible in the horrific and illegal war that is now occurring in Ukraine. However, we have a lot in this bill to discuss, and I put it to the House that the application of time allocation that just occurred in this place is inappropriate.

There are things that I would like to discuss in more detail. I agree with my colleague from the Bloc who spoke ahead of me. The employment insurance regime needs a lot more review. We have some measures in this bill that are good, but we have not begun to get to the work that needs to be done to consider, in particular, people in regions of the country where it is harder to find employment and people in seasonal industries where their employer makes the decision to lay them off seasonally and bring them back. Workers in those categories need to know that they can count on their insurance employment benefits, or what we used to call “unemployment insurance”. It is past time that we do a full review to make sure that unemployment insurance—employment insurance, as it is now known—is available to Canadians who have paid into it and who need it.

I want to turn some attention, in the time I have today, to the luxury tax, and I am thankful that the Liberal Party's allocation of speeches has allowed me to speak to this bill.

I initially liked the sound of a luxury tax. It sounds like we are striking for equity and fairness against the notion that there is the 1% and then the 99%, who are, relatively speaking, less represented and do not use resources to the same extent, obviously, as the 1%. However, I have come to the conclusion, somewhat reluctantly, that the luxury tax is more about pandering in public relations than about really dealing with income inequality in this country.

This luxury tax would not deal with income inequality. What the luxury tax would do is apply a tax on any car or aircraft that costs more than $100,000 or boats that cost more than $250,000. It is an additional tax on the cost of buying the luxury items, at the point of sale.

In reflecting on this, I looked at the work the Parliamentary Budget Officer has done. When looking at the luxury tax, we find that it would bring in $170 million in 2024-25. That $170 million is a lot of money, but in the context of the federal budget, it is sort of spilled corn flakes at the morning breakfast table. It would not bring in substantial money. It would take a lot of Finance Canada's time, both in application and at the point of sale. It would also add to a lot of people's transactional costs to even establish this tax.

The PBO also found that while it would bring to the Government of Canada an additional $170 million, it would reduce the sales in those categories by $600 million. I do not think it adds up that applying this tax is worth the financial cost to the Government of Canada and the economy of Canada, given that we would lose $600 million in sales, particularly in the case of boats and airplanes, and luxury cars too if they were made in Canada. They provide Canadian jobs and a positive impact to the Canadian economy and the communities where those luxury items are made.

Far more important would be to adjust the personal income tax rate. At this point in Canada, once a person is making over $216,511, the personal income tax rate is the same. It is 33%. That is our highest tax bracket. We certainly would do more to address income inequality were we to create a higher personal income tax bracket for people making, say, over $500,000 a year. I remind colleagues in this place that when the United States experienced its highest levels of economic growth and economic activity post-war, its highest personal income tax bracket was well over 90%.

We should also be looking very immediately at excess corporate profits. A tax on excess corporate profits, as the PBO has found, could bring in $7.9 billion a year. I contrast that with this so-called luxury tax. It is $170 million going into our fiscal resources versus a tax on excess corporate profits that would bring in just under $8 billion. We should not be chasing the spilled corn flakes. We should be going after where the 1% hides their wealth and where the 1% earns so much more than the average working Canadian, who has to hold down several jobs to cover rent and food.

With those final thoughts, I close my remarks on Bill C-19.

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

Madam Speaker, I am a bit surprised that the former leader of the Green Party would not support the principles of a luxury tax, for two reasons.

Number one, there is financial inequality in the country. We know that; it is around the world. It might be somewhat small, but it is significant. The $150 million in additional revenue is a significant amount.

Second, if we follow through the logic the member is espousing, one would ultimately be able to say that we should reduce consumption taxes in order to somehow see more production and give a break on people's tax points. I tend to disagree with that logic, believing that a consumption tax is a very effective way of ensuring, especially if there are rebates, that there is a fairer sense of income equality.

I am wondering if the member might want to reflect on why she would oppose a luxury tax when I suspect the vast majority of Canadians would support that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am sure that in devising this luxury tax the current government and its political leadership were looking to something they knew most Canadians would support, which is the idea of a luxury tax. What I am saying is that the way this is constructed, it is merely pandering to the idea that the government is tackling income inequality without actually doing it.

I think it is critical, when we talk about $170 million being a lot of money, as the parliamentary secretary just did, to realize it is not a lot of money compared to the billions the government continues to insist we waste on the climate-killing Trans Mountain pipeline. There are places where we should stop spending money, and supporting fossil fuels is an urgent cancellation. We have to urgently cancel the fossil fuel subsidies, instead of pretending we are dealing with income inequality through a luxury tax.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is perhaps one of the most experienced in the entire Parliament, which is surprising given her relative youth. Given that experience, would she agree with me that often times it is in lengthy debates that legislation gets improved, that we find issues and make laws better for Canadians.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am deeply indebted to the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for suggesting I have relative youth. I turned 68 this week, and I find his comments absolutely charming.

However, I will say that he is right. The purpose of the Parliament of Canada is to study and respectfully debate in a civil and collaborative effort to improve legislation. It is the case that I sympathize with the Liberal House management that some or most legislation is being needlessly obstructed by the official opposition, but in this the member is absolutely correct that the point of debate is to improve legislation.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the things the budget does have is its EV vehicle incentive extensions of $5,000 per vehicle. My concern is that the United States is offering $7,500, so we are out of sync regarding that type of incentive. This is also at a time when the Liberals had originally left Canadian vehicles off the list. I wonder if she has any thoughts on that.

We want to see that increase so we can do what we normally do in the auto industry, which is to merge the standards and harmonization closer together, because right now Joe Biden is providing more of an incentive to buy Canadian vehicles than our own Prime Minister. What I would rather see is an opening for used vehicles for battery and a lower entry into the market so more people can access this based upon income.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Windsor West is absolutely right. We are not doing enough to promote electric vehicles. One of the things we should do is regulate to ensure that not too far in the future the purchase of internal combustion engine vehicles becomes illegal, we move sharply to electric vehicles and provide more supports to Canadians who want to buy them.

However, the biggest gap in this area in the federal budget 2022 is the absence of a national goal for a fully integrated electricity grid between Manitoba and Ontario, and between Quebec and the Maritimes. We lack the ability to move renewable energy across borders.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on a serious and sober note. I am here to ring the alarm bells. Our future prosperity is at risk. I am expressing this concern not out of some sense of blind partisanship but rather out of a sense of duty to my country, which I love, but which I also fear for.

As has been said by the Prime Minister, the finance minister, the associate finance minister, many members across the aisle and experts across our country, one of the keys to our national prosperity is economic growth.

Economic growth allows parents to pay for their children's education. It allows teenagers to get their first job and buy their first car. It allows single mothers the opportunity to not have three or four jobs but one. It allows workers the opportunity at a promotion. It allows young people to buy a house for the first time. It allows employers to create jobs. It allows hard-working families to pay off their ever-mounting credit card bills.

In short, many of the conditions for the pursuit of happiness are preceded by economic growth. Economic growth gives Canadians hope. In contrast, the economy we are currently experiencing, which may very well go to a seventies-style stagflation, is of lower wages and fewer economic opportunities for families and individuals. It creates mental health issues across our country as people struggle with the financial consequences of declining economic growth. It sows the seeds of division in our society, so instead of uniting, we are dividing, as we have seen from our Prime Minister.

For all of these and many other reasons, it is indisputable that economic growth is absolutely critical to Canada's future. However, I am ringing those proverbial alarm bells because Canada is poised for slow, if not zero, economic growth for many months or even years to come.

Sadly, the reasons are starting to become structural within our economy. One of the key drivers is a struggle to be competitive and a leader in economic productivity. Canada is falling behind the rest of the world. We are increasingly less productive than many of our peers in the G7 and the G20.

We are also struggling with innovation. Although we have brilliant people from coast to coast to coast, we are failing to bring new innovation and products to market. We are struggling as a country to be a leading innovator in the world.

The last issue I will discuss is a little more subjective. We are facing a declining morale and an increasing mental health crisis. We are not seeing a winning attitude going forward, which all starts at the top with the federal leadership of this country.

Let us explore these areas one by one. Productivity has been an issue, unfortunately, that has dogged the Canadian economy for decades. However, the problem has become particularly acute over the last few years. One of the ways economists measure the productivity of a country is in the amount of contribution per worker per hour. Canada is among the lowest in the OECD countries. We are at $50 per hour per worker. When we contrast that to those of the United States, Switzerland and Ireland, they are all considerably above that number.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, bentornato. Welcome back. It is great to have you back in the chair.

When I left off, I was talking about a challenge that faces our Canadian economy and really puts all of our prosperity at risk, and that is our failure to be a leader in productivity across the world. That noted right-wing commentator, Bill Morneau, actually commented that we are, as he correctly points out, number 25 out of 36 countries in the OECD when it comes to productivity.

That might not mean a lot to Canadians sitting at home or that Canadian who is sitting at home watching CPAC today, but productivity has a tremendous impact on our lives. When we are less productive, that means with every stroke of a pen, we get paid less. That means with every swing of the hammer, we get paid less. With every wire that we fix and with every brick that we lay, Canadians are getting paid less because we are failing on the productivity network. It means there is less opportunity for our children, that there are fewer promotions, and that there are less opportunities for our businesses and many more failures.

While Canada is less productive than many of the G7 and G20 nations, like many other countries, and, in fact, probably more so, we have well-educated and motivated citizens that are ready and willing to work and to lead the world in productivity. The one differentiating factor that Canada has that is separating us from many other G7 countries is our government. Our government has extremely high rates of taxation and regulation that are limiting our ability to be competitive. We are failing as a country to lead the world in productivity because of a self-inflicted wound of excess government, excess taxation and excess regulation.

As we switch from productivity now to innovation, this is another challenge. We are currently sixth out of the G7 in innovation. Once again, we have an amazing populace, are blessed with many natural resources and have a great education system, but we are continuing to fail when it comes to innovation. We have a growing innovation culture out there, including many incubators, such as Venture13 in my own riding, which is doing a terrific job, but we have a challenge.

Once again, it goes back to the government. Our system of legislation and taxation is antiquated, uncompetitive and fails to promote innovation. Our legislative framework fails to protect and to promote the commercialization of intellectual property. Our taxation system fails to reward those who are taking risks with regard to innovation. Other countries around the world are renewing their innovation frameworks, because they know that the first to innovate will be the first to win in the global economy of the 21st century. Unfortunately, Canada is failing to keep pace.

The next area is admittedly more subjective. The human spirit is perhaps the most indomitable force in the universe. My father used to say to me, “If you believe you can, you are right, and if you believe you can't, you are also right.” This is a country that built a railroad across mountains, over and past waterways in the 1800s, an engineering feat that would be impressive today, a feat of political will that would be impressive today, but for a new country starting out in the world, it was almost unthinkable.

We as a country need to focus again on accomplishing great things. We need to not be afraid to win but to be bold and brave and to go after that victory. We need to celebrate those who are winning, because when we undermine those achievers, we are undermining those who very much underpin our communities, our societies and our economies. We must celebrate our job creators, our successful business owners and, indeed, our innovators. As I said, when we demonize our achievers, we undermine those individuals and institutions who are the drivers of our shared prosperity.

While it is incredibly important to be equitable and to make sure there is a fair distribution of a society's wealth, we must not also lose sight of the fact that when we expand the pie, we help everyone, but when that pie shrinks, it is often the most vulnerable who suffer the most. We are a nation capable of great deeds. I believe that the 21st century can belong to Canada.

Our job as the official opposition is not just to criticize, so because time is brief, I will go through three quick proposals that could radically improve our country. First is a complete comprehensive review of the Income Tax Act. Second is a national economic development plan. Third is the construction of an energy corridor.

If we are able to harness all of the great individual wisdom and abilities in our country, there is no doubt we will have a successful next 100 years.

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

Madam Speaker, the member spent some time talking about the importance of innovation, so I would think he would be more inclined to be sympathetic to supporting the budget. We have seen record amounts of money being allocated to things such as the research councils at the many different universities, which are there to encourage innovation. We have seen huge investments. We all recognize the importance of innovation, not just with respect to the public sector. There is also joint co-operation with many of our private industry stakeholders we have to incorporate, such as post-secondary institutions, along with private sector and public sector involvement.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on those three sectors coming together to ensure Canada does not fall behind on the issue of innovation.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives. The Liberals measure success by the amount of money spent. The Conservatives measure it in results.

Clearly, we are losing when it comes to innovation and productivity. An expensive failure is still a failure.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his interesting speech. I really liked the part when he said that it is important to be ambitious. I think that is how he started his speech.

Maybe my colleague did not notice that in the recent budget, there was a line about infrastructure. For example, regarding infrastructure spending for which the money is often transferred to the provinces, they no longer have until March 31, 2025, to submit their plans. They now have until March 31, 2023. The government took away two years even though it had signed agreements with the provinces. There is Quebec's signature on one side and the federal government's signature on the other side. It is the same thing for the other provinces. Now we find out from a budget that the federal government is not going to honour those agreements.

What does that say about the government's ambition when it comes to the future of our provinces?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to say a quick word of thanks to all of the interpreters. They are doing an amazing job. I understand that CBC had a story about their contributions to the workplace, and I thank them for all that they do. They are doing great, but I did not quite catch all of that. However, I think I understood the basics of it.

We need to empower our provinces to be ambitious as the Liberal government continues to attempt to take more power and control from them. We need to empower our provinces, Quebec included, to be the best they can possibly be.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I have a question for him about productivity, since we cannot keep producing fossil fuel energy forever. An agreement was signed in Paris on protecting our planet.

Does my colleague agree with me that in order to boost innovation and productivity, the government should invest in workforce training so that people can get jobs in the energy sector of the future?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is part of what I am talking about when I say we need a national economic development plan. Part of that will be more traditionally Conservative ideas, such as reducing regulation and taxation, but part of it is also more traditionally the space of the NDP, I might say, which is funding the areas of education that are in demand. Right now we have a disconnect between the education system and what the private sector needs. We need to bring that together, so I would agree.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I served at the public accounts committee together for a while. The Auditor General concluded that the government is spending more money but getting less service for it. We saw it recently with the report tabled last week on services for veterans' disabilities.

I would like him to comment, from his time at public accounts, about the frustrations. It is one thing to spend money; it is another thing to manage it properly, which the government is not doing.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed serving with the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

I agree with what the Auditor General said. In my year and a half at the public accounts committee, I became increasingly frustrated that government departments, and indeed the Liberal government, were measuring success not on the results they achieved but on the money they spent. To repeat, an expensive failure is still a failure.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a privilege to rise in the House on behalf of my constituents in Vaudreuil—Soulanges to speak to Bill C‑19 concerning the 2022-23 federal budget tabled by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

This budget reflects the difficult times in which Canadians find themselves. It is a prudent, responsible and considered budget. We must invest in the future of this incredible country that we are fortunate to call home and in the well-being of the citizens and workers, and their families waiting at home. We must invest in the green transition and in the cleaner and more prosperous economy of the future.

This budget comes after two years of great upheaval and uncertainty both here in Canada and abroad. Since March 2020, we have worked relentlessly to help families, small businesses and seniors get by and get better and move forward together as a country despite the unprecedented challenges of this pandemic.

For the members of my community of Vaudreuil—Soulanges and for individuals and families across Canada, this budget is the next step towards a better future in which more Canadians can realize their dream of owning a home, finding a job and living in an environment with better protection that will be enjoyed by future generations.

I would like to thank all those who made budget 2022 possible, especially the constituents I represent in my community of Vaudreuil—Soulanges. Hundreds of them contributed to this budget by sharing their priorities with me by telephone, email or during meetings with my team and me. This budget is their budget, because it is based on the comments I have received to date, and these people see their contributions reflected in this document.

As the hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance noted in her speech, “the strength of a country comes from the strength of its people”. Over the past two years, Canadians have proven that they are resilient.

Everyone deserves the security of a roof over their head, and since 2015, we have worked diligently and consistently to ensure that more Canadians have access to a safe and affordable place to call home. Through record investments in the national housing strategy, we are on track to deliver more than $72 billion in financial support by 2027-28.

The magnitude of the challenges faced in the housing sector necessitate the record investments we are making, and I see and understand the importance of them in my community. In 2021, the median price of a single-family home in Vaudreuil—Soulanges was $520,000, an increase of 25% within the span of a single year. Similar numbers reflect the challenges faced by those in my community who are in the rental market. This is why we have made housing a priority in this budget. In fact, it is the very first chapter of the budget.

In addition to the record investments in the national housing strategy, we are tackling this challenge on multiple fronts.

First, we are looking to double housing construction over the next decade through federal investments. Budget 2022 will provide $1.5 billion over two years, starting in 2022-23, to extend the rapid housing initiative, representing thousands of new affordable housing units, of which at least 25% will focus on women's housing projects.

To ensure an efficient and rapid construction of more housing supply, we also need to address the systems that are preventing more homes from being built. Budget 2022 seeks $4 billion to launch a new housing accelerator fund. With its flexible structure, it will be able to provide cities and communities with annual per-door incentives or upfront funding for municipal housing plans and delivery processes that fit their unique needs.

Another exciting initiative is the introduction of the multi-generational home renovation tax credit. This will provide up to $7,500 in support for constructing a secondary suite for a senior or an adult with a disability, starting in 2023, making it easier for members of my community, who wish to do so, to conduct the necessary work to welcome their aging parent or parents into their home.

The second pillar of our housing strategy focuses on savings. We know that for far too many Canadians, especially young Canadians, owning a home has become seemingly out of reach. To facilitate their entry into the market, we are introducing a tax-free first home savings account that will allow first-time home buyers to save up to $40,000. Contributions would be tax-deductible and withdrawals to purchase a first home would be non-taxable.

On top of this, we are seeking to double the first-time homebuyers’ tax credit amount to $10,000. This would provide up to $1,500 more in direct support to homebuyers, applying to homes purchased on or after January 21, 2022.

Finally, we are ensuring Canadians are front and centre in their own market. This means implementing fair and full tax measures on the profits gathered from flipping properties and banning foreign investments for a predetermined period of time.

In my community, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, we are big supporters of both a healthy economy and a prosperous environment. I am extremely proud of the work we have done to enhance environmental protection measures and of the way our government continues to fight climate change.

Budget 2022 follows up on the promise we made to Canadians to build a greener Canada. We have made great strides, in particular in the transportation sector, which accounts for just under 25% of our greenhouse gas emissions. Bold measures include sales obligations to ensure that at least 20% of new vehicles sold will be zero-emission vehicles by 2026, at least 60% by 2030 and 100% by 2035.

Planning for this transition is important, but it is even more important for us to ensure that it happens by investing in the zero-emission vehicle industry to make vehicles more affordable and accessible. To do so, we allocated an additional $1.7 billion in budget 2022 to extend the incentives for zero-emission vehicles program until March 2025 and to help build the plants and infrastructure these vehicles will require.

Canadians want to continue being at the centre of the fight against climate change. Our government is doing just that by providing more funding for programs like the federal incentives for zero-emission vehicles program. We are helping Canadians reach our net-zero target by 2050.

Finally, and I am quite encouraged by this, we are taking even more actions to eliminate plastic waste. I had the honour of working alongside the former minister of environment, the member of Parliament for North Vancouver, as his parliamentary secretary to put forward a ban on certain harmful single-use plastics in 2021. Budget 2022 continues on this legacy by investing $183.1 million over five years to continue to reduce plastic waste and increase plastic circularity.

Our actions, past, present and future, will dictate the outcome of our planet and the countless millions of species all around the world we share this beautiful planet's ecosystem with. This is not the time to be idle or complacent. It is a time to be purposeful, and the circumstances demand nothing less.

Finally, I want to speak briefly to budget 2022's commitment to Canadian families. My community of Vaudreuil—Soulanges is one of the fastest-growing in the country, and most of that growth is being fuelled by young families.

That is why I am extremely proud of budget 2022's ongoing commitment to them in two key areas.

First, as all members of the House will recall, our Liberal government made a historic, transformative $30-billion investment over five years for affordable child care. This additional support will help create thousands of new affordable child care spaces, and the qualified early childhood educators we so desperately need will be hired.

Access to high-quality care is wonderful for our children, and making it affordable gives moms and dads equal access to the job market if they want it.

For those reasons and so many more, including the incredible initiative we have put forward to provide all Canadians with dental care within the next several years, on behalf of my community of Vaudreuil—Soulanges, I wholeheartedly support the adoption of Bill C-19, and I encourage all fellow members of the House to support it alongside me.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, my colleague from Vaudreuil—Soulanges talked about electric vehicles and targets.

The problem at this point is that automakers are exerting a lot of pressure by saying they cannot hit those targets. That is funny because, in places like Europe, the United States, Quebec and British Columbia, which have zero-emission laws, automakers have no choice but to build them. They seem capable of making them wherever there are zero-emission laws.

Does my colleague agree with me on that? This is something that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development studied last year, a federal zero-emission law that forces automakers to manufacture electric cars.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who has been working very closely with me and several other MPs on this file.

I agree with her. We must always do more. We have to invest in charging stations. We have to subsidize electric vehicles. We have to create the infrastructure to support the transition to electric vehicles. We also have to pass a bill that forces electric vehicle makers to produce guaranteed minimums every year.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the big issues we talk about in the budget, as I am hearing, is gas prices. The member's riding is just on the other side of the provincial border, across from mine in eastern Ontario, and I know that commuters are having a very difficult time with rising gas prices.

Can the member confirm that the budget reaffirms the commitment to a carbon tax that adds to the cost of fuel every single year for the foreseeable future? Would he not agree with me that perhaps a gas tax relief holiday on the GST and the carbon tax would keep more money in people's pockets? As the cost of living, groceries and everything goes up, would that not be the better way to help the constituents in his riding?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, the first thing I would say, from living in Quebec, is that we have had a price on carbon pollution for over a decade. It has existed for a very long time and has helped Quebeckers like me make the transition to electric vehicles. I now own one.

With regard to the affordability of life, I am very proud of the initiatives we put forward to help families get by. The Canada child benefit has been a game-changer. Hundreds of thousands of children have been lifted out of poverty, making life more affordable. It is indexed to inflation so that as the cost of goods goes up, these families will receive more. We cut taxes for middle-class families too, which was the very first thing we did when we came into power, putting hundreds of dollars more into the pockets of families, while increasing taxes on the richest 1%, those who do not need help.

We are continually looking for ways to make life more affordable for families and we are going to deliver on that.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, we were talking about sustainable transportation, and I heard the member's remarks about zero-emission vehicles. One thing that the Liberals promised during the election was to create incentives for the purchase of second-hand zero-emission vehicles so that the benefits, such as the operating cost savings, can be experienced by lower-income folks who might struggle with the upfront cost of purchasing the vehicles. However, we do not see anything in the budget to that effect and have not seen any action on the creation of those specific incentives.

Could the member perhaps tell the House when we can expect to see incentives for second-hand zero-emission vehicles?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would very much like to see that in a future budget. I just sold one of my electric vehicles and would have probably benefited from such an initiative.

However, I will say that I have the utmost confidence in the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Environment to come together and work out the priorities. We have invested tens of billions of dollars in green public transportation. We have invested billions of dollars in transitioning our buses to electric. I believe the Speaker's riding has benefited from this and I am hopeful that mine will as well. We have also invested hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies for electric vehicles and have invested billions of dollars in a national infrastructure program to provide more charging stations.

Those are the priorities that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Environment have put forward now, and I am hopeful that I will see in a future budget the rebates and incentives for the sale of second-hand electric vehicles.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to be here in the House of Commons. It is also nice to hear about all of these electric vehicles.

The funny thing is that in my constituency, I think we have two places to plug in, maybe three, and my constituency is the size of Prince Edward Island times four. Another interesting fact about electric cars is that, for anybody who is ordering one, it takes about 20 months to get it, and then there is no place to plug it in, so it is a really great option if one lives in rural Canada.

I rise today to speak to the difficult times Canadians are having, which includes the constituents in my home electoral district of Miramichi—Grand Lake. Food, fuel and every aspect of their daily lives are becoming unaffordable, yet the government puts out a budget that would only exacerbate an already bad situation.

I recall that back in September of last year, the government was blaming inflation predominantly on the global pandemic. Sometimes inflation would be blamed on other global phenomena. Recently, the blame seems more pointed towards the war in Ukraine. There is lots of blame to go around, although the war has been with us only for a short time compared to the pandemic itself. Nobody is looking in the mirror. No members on the government side of the floor are willing to look at themselves to see how they could have been adding to this inflation. The pandemic was primarily blamed for supply chain issues, shortages and inflation, and now the war is blamed for those. All the while, economists' warnings fell on deaf ears with the government opposite in the House.

Now, with the most recent budget, the government is yet again asleep at the wheel, with a pile of new spending and no revenue to compensate for that. The ill-conceived attempts at revenue generation, like the luxury tax and the excise tax, only serve to devastate the very industries and the very sectors being targeted, causing reduced economic development and job losses.

Claiming that inflation is a global phenomenon is truly a cop-out, because we had high inflation long before the war in Ukraine, and it is not all just supply-side issues or caused by the pandemic. The cause of high inflation is monetary, and we know that the current government does not have a monetary policy. It does not even plan for it. Liberals do not agree with it, do not support it, and rarely speak of it, but the cause of high inflation, as we know, continues to be monetary, plain and simple. The government is printing more and more money, driving up the cost of everything. If we couple that with large fiscal deficits, which again get monetized by the central bank, the cash gets shoved out into the system, and what do we have? We have more inflation, more Liberal-induced inflation.

To most Canadians, it seems like there is a level of complacency in the government with respect to inflation. The government seems oblivious to the struggles of average Canadians, yet continuously regurgitates all that it is doing to make Canadians' lives more affordable. All the while, it is Canadian citizens making the hard choices between nutritious food in the fridge and gas in their cars to get to work with.

Where I live, there are not a lot of electric cars, and the folks who want them, God love them, are waiting a long period of time to get the cars. Then, when they get them, there is no place to plug them in. It is a great idea maybe, and I can imagine that a couple of decades down the road we will all be driving electric cars, but we are nowhere near that level in this country, so it borders on outright hypocrisy that, every day, we have to learn about this agenda, which is not working for my riding. It is not because I am a Conservative member of the House. It is because I live in an area that does not support this concept. It will take many years to have the infrastructure to support such a concept.

The government's failed economic policy further drives the divide between the rural and the urban. I witness this in Miramichi—Grand Lake, which, as I said, is very rural. I think my riding is a couple of times the size of P.E.I. It could be three or four times the size, but I usually say it is four, because it is quite a lengthy area to drive around on the weekend. Most people travel a long distance to their jobs, which takes costly fuel, and that fuel is hurting their pocketbooks badly now. It is so bad that they are making choices about whether they can keep their children in sports, which creates a healthy lifestyle, or whether they can take a family vacation, or worse yet, whether the family can eat healthy food or not.

These are not the choices that any government should want Canadian citizens to make, but a Liberal member opposite said the high gas prices are positive as more people will buy an electric car or ride a bicycle. Wow. That has to be the statement of the century. Maybe that member should come to Miramichi—Grand Lake and bike some of the distances that people must drive to work. Maybe that member could take a bike from Escuminac to McGivney or from Minto over to Sunny Corner or from Neguac up to Boiestown, and enjoy that ride. It is definitely going to take the member a little while to get there. Trust me when I say that the member had better be in good shape, because I doubt he will make the distance needed, especially on a bicycle.

To the member's point on electric cars, as I said earlier, we have very few options for plugging in electric cars. There is one in Doaktown at Tim Hortons. There is one at the McDonald's parking lot in Douglastown. I believe there is one more, although the location is eluding me. I doubt we would have half a dozen options within a driving radius of five or six hours, maybe more. I am trying to picture it. There are three in my head. Could we have a few more outside of that? It is possible. However, charging locations for the public are not great options where I live, or trying to afford an electric car. In my riding, in Northumberland County, for the most part the median income is $34,500 per year. With the cost of electric vehicles, even with subsidies, they remain out of reach for most people.

Inflation is one thing. If we add it to the carbon tax, we have the perfect storm to punish Canadians for just trying to live, work and look after their family. The families that I know really cannot make ends meet. Families on fixed incomes or low incomes simply cannot pay their rent or buy food, so we are actually in a real crisis in this country. Even as an opposition member, I am still surprised and very much disappointed that the government does not seem to be more concerned about this and does not immediately move to suspend the carbon tax to give Canadians relief at the pumps. Suspending the carbon tax would give relief across the board and reduce fuel prices for everyone, including transportation costs. We would see the reduction in the costs of goods and services and the reduction in the cost of food.

I feel the government is doubling down on the tax right now. Considering that the Liberals have not met any climate change emission targets, doing so shows not only that they are out of touch with their own project, but that they are out of touch with Canadians. Hitting an emission target is something they should have achieved if the country is going to pay this much for it when nobody can afford it.

I wanted to be a member Parliament to help the people in Miramichi—Grand Lake. It is my belief that each member in this House is here to do the same. Therefore, I call on all members, including those in the sitting government, to remember why they are here and put partisanship and ideologies aside. There are big differences between rural and urban in this country. We have to recognize those differences, regardless of who is in power, and fight to make the changes urgently needed to help Canadians today. The future of the country depends on it.

I will not be supporting the budget.

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member spent a great deal of his time talking about inflation, but there is something he does not tell people who might be following the debate. Yes, we do have inflation, and no one is denying that, but what the Conservatives fail to say is that we need to compare Canada's inflation to what is happening around the world. The pandemic and the war that is taking place in Europe are very real. Inflation is not affecting only Canada; it is affecting the world. In fact, if we compare Canada's inflation rate to that of other countries, whether the United States or the average of the European Union, Canada is doing reasonably well. Ours is actually lower than theirs.

Yes, we need to look at policies, including for our seniors. That is one of the reasons why there is a 10% increase for OAS for people over the age of 75. Government is taking action. The child care program is reducing costs, which enables more people to get engaged. I wonder if the member can provide his thoughts as to why the Conservatives put a spin that tries to—

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

We have to give the hon. member for Miramichi—Grand Lake the opportunity to answer.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Madam Speaker, what the member opposite fails to realize is that when the government stalls an offshore oil project in Newfoundland, the third-largest oil reserve in the country, it is actually trying to stifle the very energy sector that fuels the entirety of the country.

The problem here is that the Liberals are so out of touch with the rest of Canada. They drank so much Kool-Aid that they believe their own bullet points now. That is part of the problem. We have inflation in this country because they printed too much money and spent too much money. They did not develop energy at the rate they should have. They left immigrants trying to get in here for months on end.

They have literally ruined this country. Everybody in rural Canada knows it, everybody on this side of the floor knows is, and even their constituents know it.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, since my colleague spoke about electric cars, I will jump in on the topic as well.

When he says that there is a lack of vehicles, he is right. There are none in Canada. Strangely enough, inventory exists everywhere else. I was in Sweden last week, and 50% of the new vehicles sold there are electric. Sweden has vehicles, yet they are not available here. Fortunately, we heard earlier that the federal government is going to pass a federal law to pressure manufacturers. That is good news.

He says there are no charging stations, which brings us to the question of the chicken or the egg. We need charging stations to use electric cars, but to buy electric cars, we need to have charging stations. Interestingly enough, in Quebec, it is now possible to drive around the province, from the Gaspé to the north shore, in a fully electric car, with no concerns.

He thinks they are too expensive. However, the top sellers right now are Ford F-150s and Dodge RAMs, in the compact, light-duty truck category, which cost about $40,000. That is about the same price as an electric car. These vehicles, however, use gasoline, which, by the way, is very expensive these days.

I would like to ask my colleague what he would do to start. Nothing? What would he have put in the budget? Would he have included something for electric cars?

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Madam Speaker, as I said, I am pretty certain that driving an electric car will be a good idea in the future, deep into the future. I heard, not too long ago, that a Tesla car probably takes more fossil fuels to build than the Hyundai I drive in my riding.

Of course, we have to protect the environment, but we still have to develop our industries. If we are incentivizing Canadians to buy vehicles that they have no capability to receive or to plug in, then what is the point of it? What about all the rural areas that do not have that capability? What is the government saying to the people in my riding? What are they supposed to do? We have rural, rugged terrain and rural people travelling long distances on bad roads with no places to plug in. There is no way to sell that product.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member talked a lot about the idea of revenue versus spending. We have seen the Conservative Party vote against all of the common-sense tax reform efforts that we have brought forward. We have seen them vote for 2% spending for defence spending, for NATO.

I would love to hear just one idea from the member on a revenue stream that the Conservatives are supportive of, that they would be looking at to deal with the revenue side of our equation.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am really thankful that it was an NDP member who asked this great question. The NDP members were busy selling their soul to join the Liberal Party of Canada. Here are some examples: offshore oil in Newfoundland, build pipelines, develop gas, develop oil, sell gas to the west, and cut Putin off from selling his energy over to the western countries. Canada would make more money and eventually the price of gas would go down—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Whitby.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to today's debate on Bill C-19, the budget implementation act, and to highlight some of the measures in budget 2022 that contribute to a healthy environment.

We know that to protect our planet and to build a stronger economy, we must do even more on climate action. Canada can be in the vanguard and on the leading edge, or we can be left behind. That is, of course, no choice at all, which is why our government is investing urgently in this transition.

Achieving net zero is not going to be easy. That is for sure. It will require all of us, at every level and across every industry. Families and members of the general public are going to have to shift our lifestyles, and that is going to be painful at times.

Our plan is driven by our national price on pollution, which is the smartest and most effective incentive for climate action. In budget 2022, we also have the Canada growth fund, which I am very excited about because it will attract billions of dollars in private capital. We need to transform our economy at speed and at the scale we truly need to meet the magnitude of the challenge of climate change.

For our children, this will mean cleaner air and cleaner water for tomorrow, and it will mean good jobs for Canadians today and into the future.

We know pollution has a cost and that the dangers of climate change are real. Despite what the Conservatives may tell us, climate change is real. Putting a price on carbon pollution is the most effective and efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with climate change. We have seen examples of it in other countries around the world, such as Sweden, the U.K., Denmark, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Portugal, Slovenia, France, Japan, Chile and more.

That is why the government introduced a price on carbon pollution in 2019: to protect Canadians from the dangers and costs presented by climate change, to ensure that Canada continues to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and to put us on a path to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

Under the federal carbon pollution pricing system, the government applies a price on pollution in jurisdictions that request the federal system and in jurisdictions that do not have a system of their own that meets the federal standard, those being Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. All carbon pollution pricing proceeds—and I do mean all—are returned to the jurisdictions of origin.

In the provinces where the federal fuel charge applies, the federal government returns approximately 90% of the direct proceeds from the federal fuel charge to residents of those provinces through the climate action incentive payments and the other 10% goes to projects to reduce GHG emissions, so despite what the Conservatives keep telling the House, which is that the government is somehow profiteering off the carbon price, in fact it is not true, since 90% goes back to families and households and the other 10% is invested into projects.

Today's legislation, the budget implementation act, proposes to change the delivery of the CAI payments, the climate action incentive payments, from a refundable credit claimed annually on personal income tax returns to quarterly payments made through the benefits system. I supported this change wholeheartedly and I was very glad to see it in the budget implementation act.

For Canadians, this would mean cheques would be delivered more frequently. Payments would start in July 2022—around July 15, in fact—with a double-up payment. This payment would return proceeds from the first two quarters of the 2022-23 fuel charge year and then follow on a quarterly basis after that. Going forward, payments would be received before families had to pay for the fuel charge.

I also want to mention the rate reduction for zero-emission technology manufacturers.

Technology, globalization and a historic effort to fight climate change are also creating new industries and new jobs. It is quite obvious to see how the global economy is changing. We can be leaders in the economy of today and tomorrow, and Canadians can benefit from the good jobs and economic growth that will come with it, but to be leaders in tomorrow's economy, we need to make smart decisions today. We need to attract more investment in the industries that are creating good middle-class jobs for Canadians. We need to make our economy more innovative and more productive, and we need to make it easier for businesses, big and small, to invest, grow and create jobs in Canada, while also reducing their emissions.

Canada is already home to some of the fastest-growing markets for high-tech jobs in North America. Toronto, not Silicon Valley, led high-tech job growth from 2019 into 2020, and Vancouver outpaced New York City.

To maintain that growth and make Canada a more attractive destination for business investment in the clean technology sector, Bill C-19 proposes to reduce by 50% the general corporate and small business income tax rates for businesses that manufacture zero-emission technologies. That is significant.

Specifically, taxpayers would be able to apply reduced tax rates on income from specified zero-emission technology manufacturing or processing activities. It would be 7.5% where that income would otherwise be taxed at the 15% general corporate tax rate and 4.5% where that income would otherwise be taxed at the 9% small business tax rate.

For example, eligible zero-emission technology manufacturing would include manufacturing of wind turbines, solar panels, equipment used in hydroelectric facilities, geothermal energy systems, zero-emission vehicles, electric vehicle charging systems and energy storage equipment.

It would also include the production of biofuels from waste and the production of hydrogen by electrolysis of water. The reduced tax rates would apply to taxation years that begin after 2021 and would be gradually phased out, starting in taxation years that begin in 2029 and being fully phased out for taxation years that begin after 2031.

This proposed rate reduction should encourage businesses to make short- and medium-term investments in the manufacturing of zero-emission technologies and help Canada reach net zero by 2050.

Building on investments to encourage businesses to create clean technology, Bill C-19 would also make it easier and more affordable for Canadians and Canadian businesses to adopt clean technologies.

Canada's capital cost allowance, the CCA system, determines the deductions that a business may claim each year for income tax purposes in respect of the capital cost of its depreciable property. With some exceptions, depreciable property is divided into CCA classes, and a CCA rate for each class of property is prescribed in Schedule II to the Income Tax Regulations. Accelerated CCA rates of 30% and 50% are available for investments in specified clean energy generation and energy conservation equipment. Further, such investments are currently eligible for immediate expensing.

Today's legislation expands the list of eligible equipment to include equipment used in pumped hydroelectric energy storage, renewable fuel production, hydrogen production by electrolysis of water and hydrogen refuelling. The measure would apply to equipment that was acquired and became available for use on or after April 19, 2021.

Expanding the CCA will encourage investment in a wider array of clean technologies that can reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and support reaching Canada's 2030 target and net-zero emissions by 2050.

In addition to this, Canada's budget 2022 makes many other suggestions and proposes to make strategic investments to help Canadians switch to zero-emission vehicles by making them more affordable. First, there is a new purchase incentive that proposes $1.7 billion over five years to extend the incentives for zero-emission vehicles program until March 2025. It will ensure the eligibility would be broadened to support the purchase of more vehicles, including vans, trucks and SUVs.

We have also allocated $500 million to charging infrastructure through the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and $400 million over five years through Natural Resources Canada for charging infrastructure in suburban and remote communities as well.

We have also made strategic investments that are left over from budget 2021 that are still rolling out to help transform and decarbonize our industries. Many of those investments have helped with the manufacturing of electric vehicles here in Canada.

I would note one in Oshawa, just next door to my riding. GM Canada has announced a massive transformation that will use $259 million from the federal government to create a $2-billion transformation to help produce electric vehicles here in Canada. That will increase supply. I have heard other members talk about how they have been waiting a while for their electric vehicle.

These many investments are helping us fight climate change while building a stronger economy, which is 100% the way forward, and I am sure that they will also help to alleviate the pressures on Canadians today with the cost of living increases that we have seen.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member seems like quite a decent fellow, but I will just say that his comments and the Liberals are just out of touch.

His comment was that we would have to shift our lifestyle and that it is going to be painful. Right now in the Vancouver area, gas is $2.35 a litre. It is 40% to 50% higher than it is right across the line in the United States. People are struggling. They are struggling with making ends meet. They are struggling at the pump.

Is the hon. member quite fine with the pain that Canadians are feeling at the grocery stores and at the gas pump from the Liberals' initiatives, including the carbon tax?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite both for acknowledging that I am a decent person and also for his good question. I do appreciate it.

I would say that the pains that we are experiencing today are the direct result of about 30 years or more of inaction when it came to climate change. We have known that this was coming. It has gotten so bad that it is reaching our doorsteps today, and our government has a comprehensive plan for tackling climate change while building a stronger economy and making life more affordable for Canadians. There will be short-term pains, but there will be long-term gains, and that is what we are working toward: a long-term vision that sees a cleaner future for our children and grandchildren.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

I want to pick up on something he said. To admit that we have seen 30 years of climate inaction is to admit that this government is responsible for a large part of that. I have a question that I think deserves very clear answers.

We have heard a lot about investing in the transition, but the latest report from the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development was quite critical of the transition. The commissioner said that “the federal government was not prepared to support a just transition to a low-carbon economy”. He also said that the government was not up to the task of ensuring a fair transition for workers, citing the coal industry in particular.

If they close one door, they have to open another, unless of course, they do not really plan on closing the first door. That is my question.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the work that the hon. member and I had the opportunity to do together in the last Parliament when we were on the same committee for a period of time.

I think that a just transition and having equitable opportunities for workers who are transitioning from one part of the economy to another and supporting their re-skilling and transition to the new clean technology industries is vital.

We are leveraging private capital. We put a price on pollution. We are cutting taxes on clean tech. We have helped businesses switch to zero-emission vehicles. We have changed the capital cost allowance to increase investment. We are making it easier to drive a zero-emission vehicle. We are supporting sustainable agriculture. We are investing in nature-based solutions. We are greening procurement and we are building a cleaner electricity grid. I do not know how many more fronts we could fight climate change on.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member spoke about how well his government is doing fighting the climate emergency. However, this view certainly has not been shared by environmental groups, which have called the Liberal climate plan magical thinking. For example, Keith Brooks indicated that our pledge in terms of Canada “is weaker than most major European pledges, and weaker than that of the U.S.”.

This is from Keith Brooks, who is responsible for Environmental Defence programs. He went on to say that “Canada’s Emissions Reduction Plan is the most detailed climate plan this country has ever had, and yet it indulges in magical thinking in proposing that oil production can increase”—

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

I have to interrupt the hon. member to give the member for Whitby an opportunity to answer.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member opposite always asks good questions. I also appreciate the work of Environmental Defence, which is an organization that I had the opportunity to work with many years ago. It does incredible work and is constantly providing a critical edge to the work of our government.

No doubt, we can constantly increase our ambition, but I believe that we have the most comprehensive climate action plan that Canada has ever seen. I am happy that we are moving forward aggressively on many different fronts to fight climate change and build a stronger economy. That is what we need to do. It is the task ahead of us, and we are making those—

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

Order.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Brantford—Brant, Public Safety; and the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock, Foreign Affairs.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this afternoon's debate on Bill C‑19, which affects public finances, of course. I will have the opportunity to come back to that in a few seconds.

Today being June 6, I would like to begin by honouring the memory of those who made the ultimate sacrifice on the beaches of Normandy on June 6, 1944, to liberate all of humanity from the Nazi menace. We owe them our eternal gratitude.

Let us turn to the topic that has been affecting all Canadians for far too long now: inflation. Unfortunately, this problem will not go away overnight. Inflation is affecting everyone to varying degrees, from humble workers to retirees, students and business people. Unfortunately, as economic studies from top universities have found, it is having more of an impact on the least fortunate citizens.

Inflation is currently hovering around 8% in Canada. We would have to go back 30 years to find such a high inflation rate. As I was saying earlier, it is the least fortunate citizens who are the primary victims. No one will accuse members of the House of being the least fortunate, to say the least, considering how much we earn a year. If anyone has a problem with that, they should know that there will be 338 positions available in three years. We have to keep the least fortunate citizens in mind, and the government has a duty and a responsibility to do something to soften the blow for many Canadians and Canadian families.

The member for Mégantic—L'Érable, the deputy leader of the official opposition, kicked off today's question period brilliantly with the sad fact that according to media reports, 20% of families have chosen to eat less in order to save money because of inflation. This is a G7 country with an abundance of natural resources ready to be developed wisely. We also have an active, intelligent, articulate and healthy population that should be able to curb this inflation. Unfortunately, we are living in the shadow of this government, which is slow to act and curb inflation.

Let us not forget that this government got elected in 2015 by saying it would run three small deficits and achieve a zero deficit by 2019. However, during its first mandate, each deficit was more staggering than the last. Then the pandemic started, and it was party time. The chequebook was wide open, and no one was paying attention to how much was being spent.

Why am I bringing this up? It is because, in times of economic prosperity like we experienced in 2015, when the budget is balanced, it is the perfect time to set aside any surplus. Canada was in an enviable position. We recovered from the global crisis of 2008, which was the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, better and faster than any other G7 country. Our country had the best debt-to-GDP ratio because our economy was strong.

The Liberals were elected because they promised to run small deficits, but their deficits were massive. Now we are paying the price. When the government spends freely and operates at a deficit, sooner or later, the piper must be paid. The government injected too much money into the economy, and that sowed the seeds of inflation.

When the pandemic struck, we all understood that extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. It was a crisis, and we agreed with providing immediate help, lots of help, just like every other country. Nevertheless, we were aware that, when a government prints a lot of money, that money has to be paid back eventually.

That is why we constantly reminded the government that what it needed to do was help business owners, businesses and especially families and workers, but that it also had to control spending. That is not even close to what happened. Two years ago, during the first summer of the pandemic, we sounded the alarm about the fact that too much money was being given to people who could have worked. People got $2,000 a month to stay home and do nothing rather than work.

During the summer, hardly a day went by when I was not hassled, and rightly so, by entrepreneurs, restaurant owners and people who needed workers, but who were told by young people in their twenties that they had enjoyed working from home the previous summer and did not see why they should go back to work this time when they could get $2,000 and still stay at home.

When a government spends too much money, sooner or later it is sowing the seeds of inflation. Now we are paying the price. When the first seeds began to grow in this inflationary soil, we were the first to sound the alarm a year ago. However, the government did not listen to us, and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance took far too soft a tone, saying that it was temporary and everything would be okay. Even U.S. President Joe Biden has admitted that he was not quick enough to curb inflation when the first signs appeared. Now Canada is paying the price.

Was anyone surprised when, in the midst of the fourth wave of the pandemic, in the middle of an election that Prime Minister had said he would not call, he announced that he did not think about monetary policy?

I understand that each of us has our own area of expertise. Even though a prime minister may not necessarily be an expert in every field, he should at least be interested in everything. We cannot help but notice that the Prime Minister's interest was not where we needed it to be today.

One of the factors contributing to the brutal rise in inflation is the price of gas. It affects everyone. We need to stop thinking of gas purely as something we put in cars. It is much more than that. Every time we need food, which is an essential good if ever there was one, it does not fall from the sky. Someone grew the plant or fed the animal that ends up on our plate. Genies do not exist. We cannot simply blink our eyes and fold our arms and have food appear. Someone, somewhere had to transport it, probably in a gas-powered vehicle. That is today's reality when it comes to the price of gas.

I know that some people are very keen environmentalists, and I commend them for it and have no problem with that. However, not everyone can get around by only using public transit. As my colleague said so well earlier, there are regions where there is no public transit. If people want to get from point A to point B, they have to go by car, which might very well consume gas. This has consequences for everyone.

A week ago, this government's former finance minister, the Hon. Bill Morneau, took an indirect shot at his former colleagues when he stated that he was worried about the economy. He believes that the future of the economy is worse now than it was in 2015. This is fitting, because we thought the same thing when he was the finance minister.

He believes that the current government has no long-term vision for Canada's economy and is more interested in sharing wealth than acquiring it. Everyone agrees with sharing wealth, provided there is some. The more we have, the better, because we will be able to distribute more.

It was fitting that the former Liberal finance minister said that, because that is essentially what we were saying when he was minister. I had the great privilege of being his counterpart as my party's shadow minister for finance under our former leader, the Hon. Rona Ambrose. I touched on how a Bay Street fat cat came to invest in the House of Commons, which I would consider a positive for Canada as a whole, had he proposed the kinds of measures that made him successful on Bay Street, but he did not. To make matters even worse, Mr. Morneau said that Canada's lack of competitiveness was setting us up for difficult decisions in the future.

Before I take questions from my colleagues, I want to officially say that Canada's number one priority right now is inflation. The best way that the government can deal with inflation is to limit spending. It must also reduce taxes, not increase them.

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

Madam Speaker, the former minister of finance also said that it was not very advisable for the member for Carleton, the wannabe leader of the Conservative Party, to be critical of the Bank of Canada and the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Even some of his caucus colleagues said this, even though one of them received a demotion for speaking out against the member for Carleton's policies on the Bank of Canada.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on that. I realize he could be putting his political future in jeopardy if he says the wrong thing, but does he not agree with the member for Abbotsford that maybe the Conservatives should be a bit more considerate in their criticisms of the Bank of Canada and the bank's governor?

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

I would like to remind the hon. members that partisan politics are not the business of the House.

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, with respect, my future is not in the hands of my colleague from Winnipeg North, nor in those of any member of the House or the former premier of Quebec. My future is in the hands of the people of Louis-Saint-Laurent, and I want them to decide what they want. I am pleased to serve them if they want me to, but this is not my choice; it is their choice.

Speaking of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, I am quite sure that the hon. member will remember well that his former leader, the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, was very severe and very tough on the governor at the time.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. Earlier, he heard me put a question to one of his colleagues about what I think is a very important topic, a major detail, in the budget implementation bill.

The Government of Quebec was allocated $7 billion fund for infrastructure, and it had three years to submit projects. Now it has less than a year left, just 10 months, and $4 billion of the $7 billion could be in jeopardy because of this recent decision.

I have not heard the Conservatives talk about this, which is unfortunate. I do not think that the federal government is a reliable partner to Quebec if it is going to unilaterally break bilateral agreements. I would like to hear what my colleague, the ultra-federalist, thinks about that.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague need not be so effusive in his praise. I do not have all those qualities, as he so aptly put it earlier when he used the word “ultra”. The point being raised by the hon. member, whom I imagine is an ultra-sovereignist, is interesting.

This government was elected in 2015 and promised to create wealth by making significant investments in infrastructure, which took years. Now that it is happening, the government is not living up to its agreements. It is a sensitive topic.

From a political perspective, I would remind the House and my hon. colleague that in 1983 a provincial government that committed to giving certain amounts of money to its public servants unfortunately reneged on its promise and paid a high price.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the constituents of Louis-Saint‑Laurent for their choice of MP. He is brilliant.

We heard from the Standing Committee on Finance that the government was going to make major changes to the Competition Act. Can the member explain the perspective of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology? This is important to many Canadian businesses.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from British Columbia on his appointment as our finance critic.

I also want to commend him on the quality of his French. I am sure that all his friends in Quebec are thrilled to see that when someone puts in the necessary effort, they can speak more than respectable French. I would like to thank him and congratulate him from the bottom of my heart.

It is clear to us Conservatives that industry is the backbone of wealth creation in Canada, and everything must be done to encourage it.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to the debate on Bill C-19, the budget implementation bill, and to highlight some of the measures in budget 2022 that would build on the workforce that Canada needs.

The past two years have created an enormous stress on our economy, but workers in Canada have shown remarkable resilience. We have seen Canadians pivot to working from home while juggling child care. We have seen them restructure entire businesses to manufacture personal protective equipment, and we have witnessed the strength of Canadians who headed to their frontline jobs in the middle of a lockdown.

The determination and ingenuity of Canada’s workforce has kept our economy moving during an unprecedented and challenging time. Since the start of the pandemic, the federal government has introduced significant economic supports to help them through. Those investments worked. Canada’s economy has recovered 115% of the jobs lost at the outset of the pandemic.

Job creation is remarkably strong, and even our hardest-hit sectors are starting to get back up and running. However, this strong recovery is posing its own challenges, as some businesses are struggling to find workers. At the same time, we know that a strong and prosperous economy requires a diverse, talented and consistently growing workforce. However, too many Canadians are facing barriers to finding meaningful and well-paid work. This includes women with young children, new graduates, newcomers, Black and racialized Canadians, indigenous peoples, and persons with disabilities.

With budget 2022, our government is proposing important measures that will help address those issues and meet the needs of our workers, businesses and the Canadian economy so we can keep growing stronger for years to come.

Structural shifts in the global economy will require some workers in some sectors across Canada to develop new skills and adjust the way they work. The transition to a new career can be a difficult and stressful time. As our economy changes, Canada’s jobs and skills plan must be tailored to the needs of those workers to help them to meet the needs of growing businesses and different sectors.

In recent years, the federal government has made significant investments to give Canadians the skills they need to succeed in an evolving economy and connect workers to jobs. The measures in Bill C-19, the budget implementation bill, would build on these past investments. These measures include working with provincial and territorial partners on improving how skills training could be provided.

Canada is growing, and that means that more homes, roads and important infrastructure projects will need to be built. Skilled trades workers are essential to Canada’s success, and we need them to be able to get to the job site, no matter where it is.

Our government is aware that workers in the construction trades often travel to take on temporary jobs, frequently in rural and remote communities, but their associated expenses do not always qualify for existing tax relief. We are looking to bridge this gap. Improving labour mobility for workers in the construction trades can help to address labour shortages and ensure that important projects, such as housing, can be completed across the country.

That is why Bill C-19, the budget implementation bill is proposing to introduce a labour mobility deduction. This measure would provide tax recognition of up to $4,000 per year in eligible travel and temporary relocation expenses to eligible tradespeople and apprentices. This measure would apply to the 2022 and subsequent taxation years. We believe that this action, in addition to several other measures proposed in budget 2022, would help address barriers to mobility for tradespeople so they can take on additional important projects and complete them.

We also know that immigration is vital to meeting our labour market needs and supporting our economy, our communities and our national identity. Canada has long been a country that is diverse and welcoming to everyone. Throughout the pandemic, many newcomers have been on the front lines working in key sectors such as health care, transportation, the service sector and manufacturing. Without them, Canada's economy would not have overcome the challenges of the last two years.

In the decades to come, our economy will continue to rely on the talents of people from all over the world, just as we have in the past decade. Our future economic growth will be bolstered by immigration, and Canada will remain a leader in welcoming newcomers fleeing violence and persecution. Therefore, in budget 2022, we are proposing investments to enhance our capacity to meet immigration demands for our growing economy to create opportunities for all newcomers and to maintain Canada's world-class immigration system.

Canada welcomed more than 405,000 new permanent residents in 2021, and that is more than any other year in Canadian history. To meet the demands of our growing economy, the federal government's 2022-24 immigration levels plan, tabled in February 2022, sets an even higher target of 451,000 permanent residents by 2024, the majority of whom will be skilled workers who will help address the persistent labour shortages. This higher target, along with the government's 2021 economic and fiscal update investments to resolve backlogs in processing, and the new investments proposed in this budget, will help make our immigration system more responsive to Canada's economic needs and humanitarian commitments.

The immigration levels plan helps reunite families with their loved ones and allows us to continue to benefit from the talents of those already in Canada by granting permanent status to temporary residents, including essential workers and international students. As announced in budget 2021, our government also intends to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to improve Canada's ability to select applicants who match its changing and diverse economic and labour force needs. These people will be from among a growing pool of candidates seeking to become permanent residents through the express entry system, and we will make sure that we help them choose Canada, to get here and to contribute to our economy and our society.

By taking action to improve labour and mobility, and to attract the best and the brightest from around the world to meet Canada's labour needs, Bill C-19 will be a key part of implementing these measures in budget 2022. I encourage my fellow parliamentarians to support this bill.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

You mentioned the workforce, and you mentioned immigration, which I think is—

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

I did not mention anything. The hon. member has to speak through the Speaker to address the hon. member.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I apologize. I would like to know about the comments the member made about immigration and housing.

We do need a workforce and we do need immigration, but we have a lack of housing and a lack of affordability. How will the member's government ensure that we have enough housing supply and affordability to accommodate the immigration that will be coming to our country to help our workforce?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to say that I am part of the HUMA committee, and part of our investigations, discussions and recommendations to the government for the housing accelerator program addresses exactly the point that the member opposite is raising.

We understand how urgent, important and critical appropriate housing is. With a wide variety of mixed housing and a wide variety of support for housing, I am confident, as we go through the recommendations of the committee and the government's deliberation, that the $4-billion housing accelerator program will be a big part of our solution.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Newmarket—Aurora talked a lot about labour shortages from various perspectives. I would like to ask him about a proposal made by the Bloc Québécois to offer a tax credit to early retired or retired workers aged 65 and over after a certain number of hours or years of work. This could help keep a skilled, efficient and reliable workforce active in our businesses. I hear about this all the time from many SMEs, and I look forward to seeing such a measure brought in.

While we are on the topic of seniors, I would also like to ask him about seniors' pensions. Is my colleague prepared to lobby from within to increase seniors' pension cheques?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, in terms of engaging, if many people in the workforce decide to and are willing and able to continue to work after retirement, that is a good suggestion. In fact, I have retired twice now, and I am still part of the workforce.

With respect to tax incentives, I am sure that they would be given due consideration as the recommendations come forward.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about immigration and the needs of our workforce. A lot of our communities and, indeed, our country rely heavily on the temporary foreign worker program. We know that these temporary foreign workers are not given the same protections as other workers in our economy. They are vulnerable to exploitation. We have evidence from the Auditor General that federal inspections of temporary foreign worker programs are showing that problems are getting worse, not better, despite the government's promise back in 2020 to address this.

Does the member not agree that it is time to look at replacing the temporary foreign worker program with a permanent residency program so every worker in our country would be able to negotiate livable wages and good working conditions throughout our economy and across all employers?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that temporary foreign workers are a critical component of the success of many of our businesses. I also agree that the Canadian standards and values of being fair to workers is an important value that we need to continue and support. Programs that take us in that direction, in my mind, would certainly be welcome, and I appreciate the benefit of his perspective.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate Bill C‑19. Members probably heard me at the start of the day speaking against closure on this bill because, it must be said, Bill C‑19 is very long and contains many clauses to be studied. We are talking about 432 pages full of amendments to existing bills and little time to learn more about the implications of their application.

That takes hard work, and I sincerely want to pay tribute to our finance critic, the member for Joliette, who spent many hours, together with his assistant Guillaume, listening to witnesses and determining what is in the best interests of Quebec, Quebec businesses and Quebeckers in Bill C-19, to point out what he believes to be flawed or incomplete and requiring improvement. That is what people need to know: When the opposition analyzes a bill, the goal is to improve it. Ultimately, it is about addressing the flaws. There were some in Bill C-19. I would like to bring to the attention of the House certain elements, especially the amendment that would exempt meaderies and apple cideries from paying the excise tax on alcohol.

The Bloc Québécois presented this amendment and invited witnesses to testify before the Standing Committee on Finance about a small clause in a big bill because Bloc Québécois members listen to their constituents, to producers and artisans, and they want to improve bills to ensure they are successful.

In this case, it was a win for the Bloc Québécois but, more importantly, a win for all apple cider and honey mead producers in Quebec and Canada. There are 50 meaderies in Canada, half of which are in Quebec.

There is one in my riding, called Miel Nature, led by Ali Agougou, a Quebecker—

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

Can we ask the people outside the chamber to keep quiet? It is very disruptive.

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker. You interrupted my flow.

I was thanking Ali Agougou and encouraging him to keep up the demanding, top-quality work. He is the vice-president of an association representing Quebec honey wine producers. He called my office to tell us that it makes no sense, that these producers are small local operations that do not make enough to export and should therefore not be taxed. Since they should continue to be exempt, he asked us whether the Bloc Québécois could do something.

I immediately contacted our agriculture critic, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, who is Quebec's farming sector's staunchest defender. I also contacted the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who is an international trade expert. I contacted other MPs, including our finance critic, to hear what they had to say. We realized that this was very serious for producers. If Bill C‑19 was not amended, it would have a major economic impact on their sector.

We worked hard, and the producers shared their experience. After that, the committee looked at it. The finance critic really convinced the committee members that this was a good thing, not just for Quebec producers, but for Canadian producers as well. Apple cider and honey wine were exempted from the excise tax through an amendment to Bill C‑19.

When I rise in the House, I say that I speak for the people who elected me. I do this work for Cidrerie du Minot, Frier Orchards, Capsule Temporelle, Cidrerie Hinchinbrooke, Ferme Black Creek—which I see every Wednesday at the farmer's market in Huntingdon— Cidrerie Entre Terre & Pierre, Domaine des Salamandres and Verger Hemmingford.

I am so pleased that I was able to help draw attention to their problem and that, in the end, we are working together to unanimously change Bill C‑19 to their benefit and ours. I am sure that we all like apple cider and honey wine from Quebec. Everyone loves that. That is what people say, and the member for Jonquière agrees with me too, which means I am right.

A member of our caucus discovered other things in this bill, including a change to a provision governing the Social Security Tribunal of Canada. The member could not understand how this change ended up in this omnibus bill since the provision had nothing to do with the budget. In fact, it responded more to a long-standing request from some unions.

Our critic, the member for Thérèse-De Blainville pushed the minister for a timeline for the comprehensive employment insurance reform, which this change was supposed to be part of. We know that the minister has been putting off this reform almost indefinitely, but our member did not give up. She fought and argued at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to convince her colleagues that this change was inappropriate, that we should leave it out of the bill and instead take the time to study the matter.

I was once a minister's chief of staff. When drafting a bill, it is important to go out and consult your base to confirm whether what you are presenting makes sense. In this case, it was so absurd that all the unions opposed what was written in the bill. I saw our critic, the member for Thérèse-De Blainville, in committee. She was passionate and thorough. She used to be the president of a major union in Quebec, and she vigorously defended the importance of removing this from the bill, so that all parliamentarians would have time to properly study and improve the EI reform, for the benefit of workers and unions, but also the government.

These contributions and gains are based on rigour, and the members of the Bloc Québécois are certainly rigorous. I heard false accusations this morning about how our party is blocking and obstructing work. That is totally false, as anyone will tell you. Anyone who works directly or indirectly with members of the Bloc Québécois knows that we work to achieve gains, make compromises and get positive results for the well-being of the people we represent in Quebec.

I would like to commend the member for Thérèse-De Blainville for her perseverance and determination. She managed to convince the government, even before the motion was adopted in committee, to remove this from Bill C-19.

I have two minutes left to explain to the House that there is a small amendment that we would have liked to discuss. It has to do with the luxury tax. It must be said that the Bloc Québécois truly agrees with the principle of a luxury tax. However, when we began talking to witnesses and to people in Quebec, we realized that, because of the way it was worded, this clause was going to have major repercussions for the aerospace industry and was expected to cause major problems.

We asked that the luxury tax clause be changed and rewritten. Since we did not want to delay the passage of Bill C‑19, we suggested that the clause be removed rather than kept so that we could take the time to carefully listen to the pros and cons of the luxury tax. Unfortunately, that was not possible. The NDP and the Liberals adopted the clause as written anyway, even though it will really penalize part of Quebec's aerospace industry, which is mainly concentrated in Montreal.

In summary, Bill C‑19 is a big bill. The Bloc Québécois worked very hard and achieved gains for Quebec and Quebeckers. We are very pleased about that. We will soon hear from my colleague, the member for Jonquière, who will tell us more about that. The Bloc Québécois is a political party that is hard-working, thorough, persistent and determined, and we want people to understand that we are here, in the House, to make advances for Quebec and Quebec businesses.

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

Madam Speaker, earlier I posed the question of whether the Bloc members support the principles of a luxury tax, and the response was that yes, they support the principle of having a luxury tax. My understanding is that this would include the impact it would have on the aerospace industry, but there are some timing concerns they have in regard to the possible credits or issues of this nature.

Could the member provide clarification? Does the Bloc support the principle of a luxury tax as stipulated in the bill itself?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who always asks such pertinent questions.

Yes, we support the principle of a luxury tax. However, we are calling on the government to rework this tax and amend it. If the government wanted to be thorough, it would have removed this clause from Bill C‑19, much like how clause 32 was removed, so that it could be studied more closely. It is still possible to do so. The government can amend the bill to bring it in line with what the aerospace industry is calling for.

The government can count on us to help find wording that will address the problems we have with the existing clause.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc and I are actually neighbours. Our ridings are side-by-side on either side of the provincial lines.

I would like her to comment on the rising gas prices, which is something I know is impacting both Ontario and Quebec residents. We both have a lot of commuters who rely on driving to go to work, to access general services, to see their families and for their basic day-to-day needs. They do not have the option in any part of our ridings of a subway or LRT.

The Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Liberals all support a carbon tax and the escalation of it year-by-year. In contrast, we are proposing a gas tax break. Would she not agree with me that it would help our constituents keep money in their pockets, as the cost of living is skyrocketing in this country?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my neighbour. I call him that because his riding neighbours mine, on the Ontario side.

I would say that we in the Bloc Québécois are concerned with the profit margins of our refineries. I think there is a way to address this issue. We must ask ourselves who is benefiting from the rising cost of gasoline right now. The oil companies are making a lot of money while retailers, on the other hand, are getting very little.

There is a problem in this profit chain, and I think the government could work to reduce the profit margins of the refineries. Let us be honest: None of today's oil companies are on the verge of bankruptcy.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, the intervention by my colleague from the Bloc was very interesting. I always want to stand up when a member of the Bloc speaks to let the Bloc know there are Albertans in this place who are deeply worried about the climate emergency.

She talked about where the support goes, how it will go to making sure that workers are protected and that the transition is where investment is needed. We did not see near enough investment in this particular budget implementation bill in Alberta workers to help them transition from the fossil fuel sector to greener technologies.

I wonder if she could comment on how she would have liked to see the government invest more in workers and less in big business in this budget implementation bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's question.

We have repeatedly heard the leader of the Bloc Québécois say loud and clear that we are in favour of providing financial support for the energy transition for workers in Alberta and western Canada, so that they can diversify, so that the economy can diversify and become greener. We were hoping to see concrete measures in the budget to support these workers.

If this were ever to appear in a document or a proposal of any type, the Bloc Québécois would certainly support it.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Northern Affairs]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-19 today and to talk about how the policies, procedures and investments that we are making are affecting so many people across Canada. Most importantly, I want to talk about how it is having an impact on the people I represent in the House of Commons, the people from Newfoundland and Labrador, and from Labrador in Canada's north.

Over the last number of weeks, we have talked not only about Bill C-19, but also about the budget itself and what the impact is on Canadians. The one thing I always find in the House of Commons is that we hear members say that we have to be more conservative in our spending, but in the very next sentence there is an ask for more money and more allocation in a different area. It is funny how that happens. I am sure it happened when we were in opposition just like it is happening with the members who are in opposition today.

What is important to note is that we put in place investments that will really help address the issues that Canadians are facing on a day-to-day basis and in the times they are facing them. Being able to do that and still continue to grow the economy and keep it stronger for many years to come is not an easy task no matter who is in the government.

I want to talk about some of the highlights in the budget and in Bill C-19 and where our government is creating new opportunity and new direction for people in the country.

First of all, I have a remote riding in Labrador. It is large and vast in geography. It is small in population. It has very distinct cultures. It is isolated on many fronts. Therefore, the challenges are very unique. They are not more unique than any other region of northern Canada, but they are certainly very unique when we compare them to those in urban centres and larger cities across the country. The infrastructure is different. The needs are different.

Like everyone else in the country, we hear a lot about affordability. Today, I think affordability is on the minds of all Canadians, simply because of the time and place we are in. We are coming out of COVID-19. We have seen many businesses shut down for months. We have seen workers out of a job, some of them for 18 months, before being able to go back to their regular jobs with regular salaries. This has had a huge impact. We add to that the Russian invasion of Ukraine and how that has affected the flow of goods around the world, the supply chain that we all depend upon and also how it impacts major commodities worldwide. It is not just Canada that is feeling the brunt of affordability today. It is being felt all throughout North America and right across the world.

Is there a reason for us to be concerned? There is always a reason, absolutely. Our concern is with the people of Canada. Our concern is with families today who are waking up and understanding how the invasion of Ukraine has affected their lives at home. They are waking up to understand how the outcome of COVID-19 is having an impact on them and their children and their everyday lives. They are looking for solutions. I think we are all looking for how we can do more to help them.

Our government has been very creative in rising to the affordability demands of Canadians. First of all, we can look at the fact that we are focused on connecting more and more Canadians through high-speed Internet, no matter where they live. Some may say that is an old story, that they do not have a problem with Internet. They should try living in rural Canada or try living in northern Canada, where one is feeling not only the pressure of affordability but being cut off from the rest of the world.

When we see investments in that kind of infrastructure, it does make a difference. It does help with issues around affordability.

Let us look at child care. Building on the child care agreements is something our government has focused on with every province and territory in Canada, with its $625-million fund for early learning and child care infrastructure. These additional child care investments, including the building of new facilities, are making affordability closer to becoming a reality for a lot of families.

Regardless of where Canadians live, it is a process. Negotiating child care at $10 a day is a process. Getting there is a process. The fact is that we are stepping up to make those investments so that families can work and can put their children in child care facilities and programs where they are safe. Being able to afford to do so would be huge for many families.

Does it mean that we have to grow the spaces? Absolutely, that is what it means. It means that we will have to grow the workforce around early childhood education. We will have to ensure there are appropriate salaries attached to the jobs. We will have to ensure there are spaces available and that new facilities are a part of that.

We are getting there on early learning and child care reform. It is a huge part of affordability for many families.

The Liberal government has done things around labour mobility that have helped with affordability.

One of the things that I like more than anything around Bill C-19 and our budget is the investments in health care. I live in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and represent the riding of Labrador. Health care is always a priority. It is never easily accessed, and it is never affordable to access. People have identified huge concerns around health care in my riding. They have talked about it very openly. They need to be able to access doctors, specialists and more health care professionals. They need the ability to get services that they have not had access to in the past.

This is what I like about what we are doing on health care. The government is investing over $45 billion in support to provinces and territories through the Canada health transfer, which is an increase of almost 5% over the 2021-22 baseline budget. That money is there to help provinces, like Newfoundland and Labrador, deliver better services to residents, like those I represent.

We have also increased the Canada health transfer by $2 billion to help with the backlogs of surgeries and procedures. We are seeing this right across Canada, including here in Ontario, across the border in Quebec, and at home in Newfoundland and Labrador. People are going on wait-lists. There are backlogs for surgeries and procedures. As a government, we are stepping up to help our provinces and territories deal with this problem, because Canadians need to have those procedures and surgeries in order to maintain good health. We know how important that is.

There are also the investments the government is making in dental care. For so long we have seen so many people go without appropriate dental care because they could not afford to see a dentist. This is a program that would allow seniors to get the dental health care they need, and to be able to afford that dental health care. It would allow families with incomes of less than $90,000 a year to access dental health care. These are good investments that would make life affordable for people across the country and would help in areas, like the one I represent in Labrador, with health care needs.

We are investing to recruit more doctors and nurses for rural and northern regions. This would allow us to have better services at our hospitals in places like Labrador City and Wabush, like Happy Valley-Goose Bay, like remote clinics in Labrador and across northern communities. This investment is allocated for the recruitment of doctors and nurses, but it is allocated to improve the health care and access to health care for so many Canadians who need it.

I am definitely supporting this bill, simply because this bill would allow people to access good child care for their kids, and be able to afford to live a better life in Canada.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, my question is on the point the member was just speaking about, the issue of dental care. People pay taxes to the government and then the government decides how to fund dental care. Presumably that is the policy objective of the government.

Why does the government not simply cut taxes or provide additional financing directly to low-income individuals who are identified as vulnerable and let them choose how to spend their own money as they wish, whether it is on dental care or other things that are priorities for them? Why not give people more control over their own lives and their own money by targeting support to the most vulnerable?

Why is it necessary for the government to create a new program to control how it would spend those resources for people?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, we already have a basic tax exemption in the country. That is standard and it applies across the board to all people.

What I have experienced is that too many people in this country are suffering through ill health because they are unable to deal with their dental health. A lady told me she thought she was to have back surgery because she had so many back problems. When they narrowed it down to a final diagnosis, it was all related to her dental health. In fixing her dental care and providing her access to dental care, it provided her a better, healthy outcome overall.

There are particular people in our country who cannot afford the services that are critical to them. I support making sure they have access to them.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that it is getting hard for people, but their government seems to be more interested in padding the pockets of their corporate friends, including big oil.

For example, Suncor made a net profit of $4.1 billion and paid out $3.9 billion to its shareholders: $1.6 billion in dividends and $2.3 billion in share buy-backs. The government still provided $2.9 billion for fossil fuel subsidies, yet it provided no increase for health care transfers, something my colleague spoke of as being important, nothing for long-term care, nothing for mental health, and no new funding on a just transition for workers.

Would my hon. colleague agree that what is needed are investments in people rather than in big, wealthy corporations?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, the member knows we have increased the health transfers to provinces and territories in this budget by nearly 5%. We have added more money under the health care transfer fund to be able to do more recruitment around doctors and nurses. We have reduced the backlog of surgeries. We have signed agreements to bring the cost of child care down for every family in Canada that needs that service. We have invested heavily in housing programs for both indigenous and non-indigenous regions. We have established the first housing strategy ever in Canada. When it comes to labour mobility and the transition of labour, we are at the table with every union and every group in Canada that will be affected. They are leading the way on energy transition and they are leading the way for new jobs, high-paying jobs and jobs that will be sustainable for the future.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member can go ahead and insist that they increased health transfers, but the truth is that the provinces and Quebec unanimously called on the federal government to increase health transfers to 35% of health spending. Her government ignored them and refused to do it.

Here is my question. Will she commit to working on the inside to enable the government that has jurisdiction and knows how the system works to provide more health transfers? By that, I mean the government of Quebec.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, there are no deaf ears when the Government of Canada increases its health transfer by almost 5%, when it puts more money out there for provinces and territories to deal with the backlog of surgeries, or when it puts more money into recruiting more doctors and nurses. We were prepared to step up and pay for dental care for those Canadians who cannot afford it.

That is not a deaf ear. That is responding to the health care demands that Canadians have.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place to speak to the issues that impact Canadians. Today, that issue is Bill C-19, the budget implementation act. To reference the speech by my colleague across the way and the comment she made, and with no disrespect to people having health issues, my back is sore from carrying my share of the national debt that the Liberal government has accumulated over the last seven years.

The budget implementation act, in short, is the way the Minister of Finance plans to carry out the promises made in her budget. However, maybe we should start with a brief examination of what the budget really is.

I think when the minister first decided to draft the budget, she got a couple of definitions confused. Investopedia has a pretty layman's-terms approach to what a budget is. It says:

To manage your...expenses, prepare for life's unpredictable events, and be able to afford big-ticket items without going into debt, budgeting is important. Keeping track of how much you earn and spend doesn't have to be drudgery, doesn't require you to be good at math—

Clearly, we know that.

—and doesn't mean you can't buy the things you want. It just means that you'll know where your money goes, you'll have greater control over your finances.

It mentions preparing for unexpected events, affording big-ticket items and knowing where our money goes. Wow. None of that sounds anything like the Liberal budget, does it? The Conservatives and Canadians have not forgotten that this very Liberal minister has yet to account for $600 billion in public spending from the 2020-21 fiscal year.

The definition of “rhetoric”, on the other hand, is “the art of persuasion, of using language—both written and oral—to convince others of one's point of view.” However, many perceive such convincing as dangerous, especially in democracies, where individual voices actually matter. The line between persuasion and manipulation is not always clear, and the effects of crossing it can be incredibly corrosive. That sounds like the document the finance minister presented to the House.

The finance minister, in her budget implementation act speech, took special note to discuss the existential threat of climate change. She went on to say that it is why she was focusing on growing the economy and making life more affordable for Canadians. That is laughable. May 3 must have been backwards day, because the finance minister's unveiled attack on the Canadian economy and on affordability for Canadians was directly her doing. The budget did nothing to deal with the skyrocketing cost of living or the inflation crisis, which, by the way, is now at the highest rate in 30 years with no signs of slowing down at all. I would argue that this is the single largest existential threat to Canada and Canadian families.

The Minister of Finance was unwavering against the pleas of Canadians and the Conservatives to stop the carbon tax escalator, even now as the price of gasoline and diesel are well over two dollars a litre. Workers and commuters have to pay that new higher price just to get to work. Farmers have to pay more to put their crops in, take them out and get those goods to market, and the price of groceries, dining and household necessities are all driven up exponentially as a result. She calls climate change an existential threat, but for Canadians, the finance minister, her policies and her government's poor financial management are the real existential threat that most Canadians face.

When I talk to constituents about what they wanted from this budget, not one of them said they wanted more rhetoric about how the government was helping them. In reality, the government continues to be the single largest problem in Canadians' day-to-day lives.

The government acts like it is fighting for the little guy while it taxes the rich. The finance minister made a big to-do about taxing the sale of new luxury cars and aircraft with a retail price of over $100,000. This tax would also apply to the sale of boats that cost more than $250,000. Canadians see through that. This is not a tax revenue generator, nor a deterrent to those who would buy a car worth over $100,000, much like the silver Mercedes 300 SL the Prime Minister has. This would also not have an impact on those who would buy a private plane to be whisked away for a day or weekend in the sun at a vacation island. The Prime Minister knows this because he has been there.

This tax is nothing more than an attempt to persuade voters, while the Liberals are trying to do something with rhetoric to address an issue. It really just muddies the water with additional rhetoric aimed toward Canadians, who now find themselves having to work longer shifts to afford the new inflated price of everything from gasoline to groceries. This affects families. They can no longer afford to sign up their children for recreational or educational activities because thanks to the inflationary actions of the government, they now have no money left for such activities. However, Canadians can be comforted to know that the Prime Minister and his friends, with their private aircraft and $100,000 vehicles, will have to pay a couple cents more on the dollar in taxes.

The government is so disconnected from reality that it is unbelievable. The reality is that for more and more Canadians, the government's incompetent policies have driven up inflation to the point that it now consumes their entire paycheques. There is little to no money left at the end of each month. There always seems to be more month left at the end of the money. For many, paycheques are purely going to subsistence living and in many cases do not even cover that.

With that reality, it becomes even more laughable that the government praises itself for subsidizing the price of zero-emission vehicles. It is like the finance minister and the Liberal cabinet have only ever met urban downtown Toronto socialites. She thinks that new cars are in the budgets of average working Canadians. Even if those same Canadians scrimped and saved to remotely afford such a vehicle, they would be plagued with backlogs, delays and chip shortages.

Maybe in the finance minister's world of social elites, the government decided to just scrap their barely used cars and buy new ones. However, the majority of Canadians, like the hard-working constituents of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, work hard, budget carefully, buy quality vehicles and maintain them because they rely on them to last. They simply do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. To put it in the language of the Liberal cabinet for it to better understand, they do not throw out the champagne with the cork. Speaking of champagne, the Liberals have a tax on that too, with an automatic escalator annually. They want to ensure that no matter what Canadians do and how they live their lives, there will always be a tax creating price inflation.

The budget has missed the mark and the budget implementation act has therefore also missed the mark. This is not good for Canadian families. It is simply the Liberal elites' manifesto of what they think the world should look like: more debt, more spending and higher costs for everything. The supports the government brags about, such as reducing the cost of new zero-emission cars, only benefit the rich and those who can afford them. This is not the implementation of a budget; it is “the art of persuasion, of using language—both written and oral—to convince others of one's point of view.” Simply put, it is just rhetoric that, in reality, will continue to destroy the economic and social stability of this country.

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member makes reference to oil. It was not that many years ago that the Conservatives were criticizing the government because the price was too low. When it was selling at 88¢ a litre, we were being accused of crashing the Alberta economy, according to many of the Conservatives. Now they are saying that the price of oil is too high.

The Government of Canada carries some influence; there is no doubt about that, but the member needs recognize that there is a world economy and that the world sets the price of oil. Does he really believe that the Government of Canada can dictate to the world what the price of oil should be?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to answer my colleague's question. In every speech he always asks one.

I never mentioned oil in my intervention; I mentioned the price of gasoline. I think it would be very naive of the member to suggest that the price of gasoline has not been impacted by the taxes put on it by the government, such as the carbon tax and excise tax. The fact is that we still continue to import millions of barrels of oil. This is shameful given we have the third-largest resource in our backyard. In fact, the government pushes an agenda, an ideology, that we need oil but do not have to buy Canadian oil.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to tell my colleagues that repeating a falsehood does not make it true.

One reason the price of gas is skyrocketing today is refining margins. Big oil producers have boosted their refining margins significantly. Suggesting that the government should cut taxes to give big oil more room to manoeuvre when these greedy corporations are siphoning off what little money the Canadian middle class has is a little rich, in my opinion.

I do not know if my colleague is aware of what refining margins are for oil companies.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do know that repeating a lie does not make it true. Unfortunately, this is something that maybe the Liberal government should implement for themselves, rather than the rhetoric they want to flog on Canadians.

Do I know that oil companies are making money? Yes, I do. Do I know the extent of the margins they have? I have not looked at them recently, but I do know the extent that we are taxed on our oil and gas. The fact is that we do not develop our own oil and gas, and the government has put a moratorium on that and wants to kill the industry. If we think the price of fuel is expensive now, wait until the government, if it stays in power for another term, has its way with Canada's oil and gas sector. We are doomed.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, oil companies are making record profits on the backs of motorists, and banks are making record profits on the backs of consumers.

What does my colleague think of the idea of imposing a special tax on them, and using that money to increase the goods and services tax credit, which would help the poor and the middle class directly?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, let us look at the Canadian tax scheme. We always hear from the NDP-Liberal coalition that those corporations do not pay their fair share of taxes, but people should look at what they actually pay to the government in taxes. I hope we would want to do everything we can to eliminate the excess taxes the government charges on oil and gas, on fuel, and support the industry we have in this country to ensure that we have a viable and sustainable future in the oil and gas industry.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand as the representative for Edmonton Strathcona today to speak about the budget implementation act, Bill C-19.

I thought I would start today with some of the parts of the budget implementation act that I like and am very supportive of. I know many people think politicians only oppose, but I have to say there are things in this budget implementation act that I really like, and that I am really proud of. I thought that was where I would start, and then I am going to dig down to a few of the things in this budget implementation act that cause me a lot of concern and a lot of problems.

However, the first thing I want to say is that I am absolutely delighted to see the first step taken to recognize the desperate need for dental care for children in this country, and I am so proud to be part of the New Democratic Party that made that happen in this budget implementation act.

The previous member for St. John's East was just here today. I just had an opportunity to speak to him earlier today, and I can say his name now. Last year, in the previous Parliament, Mr. Jack Harris brought forward the exact bill to make sure dental care was available for children, and the Conservatives and the Liberals voted against it.

That is how we know that what we are seeing in this budget implementation act is clearly the work of the New Democratic Party. This is something we have been able to provide for Canadians, and as somebody who is part of that caucus, I am so proud. The biggest change and increase in health care for Canadians in decades is happening with this government and this budget implementation act.

I wanted to start with dental care. The single biggest reason children end up in the emergency room is that they do not have access to dental care. I have told the House before that I have two children, and I am very lucky I have a dental plan that comes with my employment, so when both my children required braces, we were able to do that. However, for so many children in this country, that is not possible, so I am very excited about that change.

I am very excited about some of the investments in housing. The joke we always hear in here is that the NDP's response will always be, “It is not enough.” I am going to say that many times today, but I am happy there have been investments in housing and that there is an additional investment of $1.5 billion to build new affordable homes and make changes so Canadians can save hundreds of dollars a month in rent.

I am happy to see there is a ban on foreign homebuyers for the next two years. I am happy to see an additional investment of $4.3 billion in indigenous housing. Everybody in this place should know that this is insufficient for the need, and it is insufficient for the demand, but I am happy to see it in the budget implementation act.

I am happy to see some of the actions taken on tax fairness. I have stood up in the House time and time again and demanded we do more to ensure our tax system is equitable and fair. Canadians are paying more and more for groceries, for rent, for gas and for all of the things they need, but their salaries have not gone up. If things are costing more, and the people who are making money are not making any more money, I wonder where all of those dollars are going. I have to say, they are going to the ultrawealthy.

We do need to do more to make taxes fairer, so while I am excited to see there is a tax on financial institutions, it is not what was promised, and while I am excited to see a luxury tax, it is not enough. We did not see the excess profit tax we wanted to see, so we will keep pushing for some of those things.

There are a few things I certainly could go into more detail with, and I am aware I am going to run out of time, so I want to talk a bit about some of the things I have concerns about. One is a very small thing, and I know I may be one of the only people in this place who is deeply concerned about this. However, in this budget implementation act, it would become illegal for Canadians to break Canadian laws in space. It would become illegal for Canadian companies to break Canadian laws on the moon.

Members may wonder why this matters to the member of Parliament for Edmonton Strathcona, and I am going to tell them why. I have spent 20 years pushing for Canada to do more to ensure that we have corporate responsibility for our corporations when they work abroad. Right now, this budget implementation act says that people cannot break the law if they are on the moon, but the way the government works right now is that if someone is in Guatemala raping and murdering indigenous people, it is no problem. If someone is in Papua New Guinea causing environmental destruction that will never be recovered, it is no problem, or in Zambia, Namibia, Nicaragua or Ecuador.

Last week, two indigenous leaders from the Amazon pointed out to us that the lungs of our planet are being attacked by Canadian mining companies and we are not holding them to account. We are not doing what we need to do to protect them. It is too bad those Canadian mining companies are not working on the moon, because that is when the government cares. It does not give us a core ombudsperson who can do the job, but it is happy to make sure that the moon is safe. That is where we are at the moment.

The other thing I will talk about, which members have heard me say many times, is that there is not nearly enough in this budget implementation act to deal with the scale and scope of a just transition for workers in Alberta. It is workers across the country, of course, but we know the impacts will be felt in Alberta more than they will be felt anywhere else in this country. Our economy has more invested in the oil and gas sector, and as the economy shifts, we will need more and more investment in the transition.

We should be investing in post-secondary education, making sure it is more accessible, more affordable and easier to access so that people can retrain for different jobs. We should be thinking of massive projects we can do that will employ workers, unionized workers, to build electrical grids and other infrastructure projects that we are going to need as we go forward into the new economy, and we are not seeing that investment here.

One day a few weeks ago, I asked a member of the government what they were planning to do for Alberta, and basically I was told that they are really excited to invest in the auto sector in Ontario. That is great and I am happy to see that, as it is important, but how exactly is that helping with the just transition for Alberta? We need to see a clean jobs training centre. We need to see just transition legislation. My colleague, Linda Duncan, who represented my riding before me, worked so hard on that. She worked on it for 11 years. We still do not have those supports for Alberta workers.

Another thing I want to talk a bit about is the direction and control aspect of this. I have worked very closely with some of my colleagues. The member for Northumberland—Peterborough South and I have worked very closely to move forward the work on a just transition. I was really happy to see that the member for Elmwood—Transcona was able to get some modifications to what was in the BIA on direction and control. This is something that protects charities. My goodness, of all the things we should be working toward, it is making sure that the charitable sector is able to do its job effectively and well.

I realize that I am running out of time. I could talk about a whole bunch of other aspects of the BIA, but I will say that I am disappointed that there is not nearly enough on just transition. I am disappointed that we have no actual increase in health transfers, despite what we hear from the government. I am disappointed that there is nothing for long-term care in this budget implementation act and, of course, I am disappointed there is nothing for mental health. Finally, we really wanted and expected to see something on the disability benefit, and we have not seen that yet. That is a shame, because this is something that has been promised to some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, so it is disappointing that it is not in the budget.

I am proud of the victories we have been able to win with this budget implementation act. I am proud of what we see in it, but this is not a budget that a New Democrat would have brought forward. We will continue to fight. We will continue to push, and we will continue to get wins for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, there are a number of things the member said that are just not true. She says there are no investments in long-term care or mental health, when we have invested record amounts of money designated for those categories. She tries to give the impression that there are no increases in health transfers, when that is just not the case. She tries to give the impression that the Government of Canada has not been there in a very real and tangible way for the province of Alberta in a just transition. She should talk to some of the ministers and she will get a list of things that we have done. We have spent record amounts of dollars on infrastructure in the province of Alberta. We had worked with the former NDP premier and now the current Conservative premier to ensure that the federal government is there in a real and tangible way for Alberta.

How does she reconcile the reality versus what she just finished saying about Alberta?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the hon. member that he is not to say indirectly what he cannot say directly, so I would hope that he would retract that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would retract the “reality” comment.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful that the member did retract that statement, because that was inappropriate and unparliamentary language for this place.

First of all, many of the things that I mentioned I can reiterate, but I will just point to one thing. If the member were to come to Alberta and talk to workers in Alberta, which I do an awful lot, he would understand that there is zero faith that the current government and, sharing the blame equally, the previous government have done anything to support workers in transitioning.

We have written to the current government time and again and said to tie strings to the dollars that are going to the private sector and tie strings to the dollars that are going to these big projects so that the money goes to workers. It has never happened.

The well cleanup was the perfect example. Nothing got cleaned up. Workers did not get jobs and big business got tons of money. It is a typical Liberal story.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have to question the member for Edmonton Strathcona. She was speaking about many of the things promised in this budget and the items that she wants to see followed through on. We have seen how the current Liberal government continually makes promises and then does not deliver. Since 1997, the Liberals have promised pharmacare. That is 25 years ago.

It is very hypocritical of this member to state that she is concerned about the government following through and to give the impression that the New Democrats will hold the government accountable, when they have signed a backroom deal. How can this member say that she will hold the government accountable when we know very well that the New Democrats have made an agreement that they will not call a confidence vote on the current government?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, first of all I would say that if the member listened to my speech, he would know I said that one of the things we got was dental care. This budget was not what we wanted to see, but we were able to get some things.

The member also talked about the fact that we cannot hold the government to account. In fact, we have a very transparent, clear agreement, and if the government does not fulfill its side of the equation, then we do not support it. It is very simple.

Maybe the opposition members are very upset because they have not been able to show that they have gotten a single thing for Canadians during this Parliament.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to ask members who have questions to please wait until I call for questions and comments. Otherwise, they should not be speaking out.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with much of what we heard from the member for Edmonton Strathcona, in particular coming from Alberta and talking about the need to invest in a prosperous transition for workers and the concerns with not seeing any emergency funds for Canadians with disabilities.

In particular, though, the member brings a lot of experience and expertise to this place with respect to corporate accountability abroad, and in fact she has a private member's bill on this topic. I wonder if the member would share more with this House in terms of what she is proposing with that bill.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's interventions in this House are always very helpful, and I love the opportunity to speak about my bill, Bill C-263.

Basically, it is to do what the government had promised to do initially, which is to give us a CORE ombudsperson who has the ability to compel testimony and compel documents. It is basically to give the CORE ombudsperson the teeth necessary to do the job that was promised in the first place.

Right now, we have an ombudsperson who was put in place in 2018 and has investigated an entire zero cases of misbehaviour by Canadian companies, despite over 40 complaints by people around the world.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-19, especially since it might give me a chance to reconcile with the member for Winnipeg North. We had a bit of a discussion about Quebec's political weight this week. I am soft at heart and did not want to offend him, so I thought to myself, why not try to be optimistic for 10 minutes?

I will start by saying that there is a pretty big rumour going around, fuelled by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, that the Bloc Québécois is looking for a fight. First of all, the very definition of politics involves parties with opposing views that challenge one another, which inevitably leads to some fighting. However, that is not all. The Bloc Québécois is a party of proposals, and we demonstrated this in the context of programs related to COVID-19. Consider, for example, commercial rents. The Bloc Québécois has proven that it is ready to work to improve government bills.

For example, there is my colleague from Joliette, also known as “handsome Gaby”, and what he has done for the meaderies. In my riding, there is the Walkyrie meadery in the small municipality of Lamarche. The owner, Pierrot Lessard, came to meet with me with one of my former students. That struck me, because shifting from political science to making mead is quite something, even though politics leads to all things. They told me that if an excise tax were ever imposed, they would no longer be competitive and could not sell their bottles of mead. They were truly distraught. We managed to talk about it with my colleague from international trade and the member for Joliette, and I think it was a good collaboration. This may be what brings us closer together, the member for Winnipeg North and me.

I simply and quickly want to say that lifting the excise tax in the context of the agreement with Australia is a big deal for Quebec. Microbreweries are developing and expanding. We are seeing that quite a bit in Quebec, but we are also seeing that with the meaderies and the cider mills. The volume of cider production has gone from 3.2 million litres in 2005 to 5.1 million litres in 2021. That is not nothing. That is 60% growth in five years. The sector is clearly booming. An estimated 11% of all apples grown in Quebec are turned into cider, a volume that is trending upward. I can imagine what the imposition of the excise tax might have meant; it would have disrupted not only the development of the cideries sector, but also that of the apple growers. We know that the excise tax would have considerably reduced the farmers' net margin. Lifting the tax is a good thing. This collaboration is something the member for Winnipeg North could keep in mind when we talk about this again later.

The other fairly interesting aspect of Bill C‑19 is the work of my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville, whose nickname is “sweet Loulou”. The Bloc Québécois demonstrated that Bill C‑19 contained a significant flaw concerning the social security tribunals. I remember them because I had some dealings with groups of unemployed workers when the Harper government decided to carry out its unfortunate reform of EI in 2013. I am not going to make my Conservative colleagues' ears burn, but the government replaced the administrative tribunals with a single-window decision body. Many unemployed workers ended up being very poorly served. My colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville, who is a former trade unionist, which shows that no one is perfect, raised this with the support of former colleagues, and the government reconsidered its position. This change had been proposed by KPMG. My colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville argued this point very capably, with the result that we were able to move Bill C‑19 in a direction that may serve the interests of unemployed workers better. I want to thank her for that.

I said that I wanted to be optimistic, but bad habits are hard to shake.

There are some aspects of Bill C‑19 that are not quite as good. My colleagues know that I am a fan of the Minister of Finance. I have been in Parliament since 2019, and I have found the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to be amenable and open to discussion. I will always remember how much she helped by getting aluminum recognized in CUSMA. Through our discussions with her, we were able to come to an acceptable compromise.

I do get the impression that she has been weighed down a bit because of the conflict in Ukraine, which must be taking up a lot of her time. I want to be charitable because that is not her fault. However, there is something that the government did not manage to address in Bill C‑19, and that is the harmful effects of the luxury tax on the aerospace industry. This issue could have been addressed relatively easily, since we are in favour of the luxury tax in principle. The only problem we have is that this tax also applies to exports.

My colleagues know that the aerospace industry is located primarily in Quebec. This tax weakens that industry. In simple terms, Bombardier estimates that this tax could impact its cash flow by as much as $50 million to $150 million per quarter. There should have been an opportunity to work on this as a team, which would have been very welcome.

I do see a way out. As we emerge from the crisis, the public treasury will have to get back on its feet. Our country's fat cats must be asked to contribute in order to have worthwhile public services. Why not go after the greediest ones? On this point, I agree with my NDP colleagues. Right now, the fattest cats are the oil and gas sectors, which are reaping profits the likes of which have not been seen in 30 years. It is completely outrageous that every big oil and gas company is pocketing middle-class wealth while ordinary people are forced to continue buying gas while waiting for transportation electrification. That said, I do see a solution, namely, slightly more aggressive taxation and an end to the generous subsidies that the oil and gas sectors receive.

We as a society will pay for these much-vaunted carbon capture and sequestration strategies. The budget earmarks $2.6 billion to support greedy oil companies, which I find kind of hard to swallow given that I am still waiting for the federal government to support the aerospace industry, a pretty crucial sector for Quebec's future.

I am a good sport, and I hope to connect with Ms. Freeland after the battle. Maybe we will manage to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I would remind the hon. member not to use ministers' first or last names. I encourage him to be more careful. He has one and a half minutes left.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, my most sincere apologies. How rude of me. I got carried away, and I apologize.

I cannot finish without speaking about what is missing from Bill C‑19. This bill provides $2 billion for health, but this is a one-time, non-recurring payment. Has a nurse ever been hired on a non-recurring basis? We cannot say that we need a nurse or medical specialist for the year 2022-23 but will no longer need them in 2024.

The major missing piece in Bill C‑19 is funding for health care. All of the provinces are asking for $28 billion to increase the federal share of funding from 22% to 35% of the total cost of health care. Everyone knows that, year after year, Quebec allocates between 46% and 48% of its total budget to health care.

How much is left for primary, secondary and post-secondary education? How much is left for all the other government responsibilities? Not much. This is work we could do together with the government. A sustainable health care system requires transfers. I am certain that we will manage to discuss this issue with our Liberal colleagues.

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

Madam Speaker, there were wonderful references and the attempt in the speech. What the member does demonstrate is that, in the last federal election, there was a very clear indication that Canadians in all regions of our country want a higher sense of co-operation, and we can provide that.

I am going to pick up on the member's last comments on the importance of health care transfers. We all recognize how important that issue is, and I have always thought maybe it is something we should have some ongoing debates on, whether it would be with an opposition motion or in a standing committee. It would be very interesting to get a better sense of exactly where we are and what the future might hold in terms of long-term investments into health care. In order to appreciate that, we also have to appreciate the history of health care transfers. Could I get the members thoughts on that aspect?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to correct my colleague.

It is true that there was an indication from Canadians during the election campaign. That does not stop at the end of the campaign, however. The government needs to listen to what civil society is saying now.

Not too long ago, we showed up with representatives from all health care sector unions. All of these big unions called for health transfers to be increased to 35%. All provincial premiers and the Council of the Federation have said the same thing.

Collaboration requires that the government listen to civil society, but I do not think that is happening. Sometimes, the government appears to be using its new alliance with the NDP as an excuse not to listen. This is not a judgment, but something I have observed.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague noted the tax on luxury goods, which is included in Bill C-19. While this is something we certainly support the direction of, I cannot help but note the theme where the government makes symbolic but largely insignificant moves on things like wealth inequality or housing affordability, yet it refuses to pull the larger levers that would make an actual difference on these important issues.

Does my colleague agree this is a troubling theme we see from the government?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, absolutely.

However, my main concern is that all this public money is going to the oil and gas sector, which is making money hand over fist. I cannot understand why any public decision-maker would decide to financially support an industry that is currently reaping eye-watering profits, an industry that also contributes to putting us all at risk, since it is the industry that produces the most greenhouse gases.

When people look back and analyze this situation in 20 or 30 years' time, I can guarantee that no one will believe the kind of rationale the government is using to try to justify supporting the oil and gas industry.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Jonquière for his speech.

To be clear, the budget proposes to invest a total of $7.1 billion, until 2030, in a new subsidy for the oil and gas sector in the form of a carbon capture and storage tax credit, which academics across the country have called a false climate solution.

I know my colleague shares my disappointment in that regard. Can he elaborate on how that money could be provided to workers to support a successful transition?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague, especially given that the Minister of Environment told us that he was going to end the fossil fuel subsidies since they are inefficient. I now have the impression that all this talk of inefficient subsidies is nothing but rhetoric.

What the government is trying to say today is that the oil and gas sector is synonymous with green development, which is a complete contradiction. Far more things, constructive things, could be done by investing in clean energy sectors. However, that is not happening.

I will close by saying that it is a 1:14 ratio. The government is investing $1 billion in clean energy while investing $14 billion in the oil and gas sector.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak this afternoon to the budget implementation bill at report stage. The bill seeks to implement certain measures found in budget 2022.

It was encouraging to see the opposition parties work together to improve this bill at committee. However, I believe that more amendments are needed.

I also want to recognize the hard work of my colleague, the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, in his role as the shadow minister of finance.

Through these deliberations, parliamentarians will decide the direction of our country for the next year and beyond. These decisions will have long-lasting effects. That is why it is very important for all members in this place to have the opportunity to speak to this legislation. Regrettably, the government, with the support of the NDP, has once again stifled debate on legislation by imposing time allocation.

An issue that remains top of mind for millions of Canadians, and many in my riding, is health care. If the pandemic highlighted anything, it is the importance of having a strong health care system in place, one that can respond effectively and efficiently in a crisis. While health care falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces, I had hoped that, given our system was nearly driven to the breaking point, the government would have supported them in addressing their respective needs.

The first ministers were clear. They asked for an increase to health transfer payments to deal with the remaining effects of the pandemic. However, once again, the Liberals, supported by the NDP, decided to disregard the requests of the provinces and not provide any additional support to them.

With respect to the cost of living, the pattern set by the government over the years is a complete disregard for the needs of Canadians and an inability to properly manage Canada’s finances. In 2015, the government inherited a balanced budget, which was made possible by the careful management of Canada’s finances through the 2010 financial crisis and the years that followed. While the Liberals continue to claim that the pandemic caused inflation, we know that high deficits pre-2020 were already setting the stage for inflation. The reckless spending in the five years that preceded the pandemic put Canada in a more precarious position than we needed to be. This is having dire consequences on the ability of Canadians to manage their finances.

Record government spending has caused the cost of living to rise dramatically, with inflation at a 31-year high, reflected in rising food and gas prices and astronomically high home prices. This has been devastating to many Canadians across the country. While the NDP-Liberal government brags about the amount of money it has spent, it fails to recognize that its programs inevitably end up costing more with little to no results. Now, with this budget, it is doubling down on many of the same failed policies.

Over the past seven years, the Liberal government has hampered Saskatchewan’s growth by implementing job-killing policies, increasing regulations, increasing taxes and scaring away investment.

Having said that, in budget 2022, the government is finally following the leadership of my home province of Saskatchewan with respect to the development of small modular reactors. In March of this year, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario and New Brunswick came to an agreement for the construction of these reactors. This was great news for the respective provincial economies, as well as the environment.

Conservatives have long been proponents of nuclear energy and have pointed out numerous times that the development of nuclear energy would greatly improve our domestic energy sector, as well as assist in the reduction of emissions. Rather than attacking our oil and gas sector, which is among the safest and cleanest in the world, the federal government could have been more proactive in promoting nuclear energy as a way for Canada to reduce carbon emissions.

I am sure the agreement between the provinces went a long way in convincing the federal government to jump on board with the good work being done by the provinces.

Staying on the topic of energy and failed Liberal-NDP policies, the climate action incentive payment resulting from the skyrocketing costs of the carbon tax is desperately hurting my constituents. The PBO has reported that households in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario will face carbon taxes which exceed the climate action incentive payments.

In a rural riding such as mine, the carbon tax is particularly hard-hitting. During the long, cold winters on the prairies, heating bills increase significantly, which is only further exasperated by the carbon tax. Add to this the large geographic regions and the lack of public transportation in many rural areas, which mean people must drive everywhere they need to go. The rising carbon tax is doing nothing but putting more pressure on my constituents.

That same failed approach is true for the agricultural industry, which is also very important across Saskatchewan and indeed to the whole country. Here was an opportunity for this NDP-Liberal government to demonstrate that it understands and values this industry. However, it let the opportunity slip through its fingers.

With the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, world food security has become a major area of concern, and our ability to feed the world is now more critical than ever. It would have been prudent for the government to focus on supporting our agriculture sector and the complimentary infrastructure farmers need to get their products to market.

Listening to our producers, who are being hit hard by the carbon tax, inflation and higher input costs would have been a welcome change of pace for the government. Instead of listening to the pleas of our farmers, ranchers and other workers in the agricultural sector, and getting behind the Conservative initiative to exempt farmers from the carbon tax, the government hiked it once again.

Budget 2022 also includes an increase in defence spending for which there is broad support. Increased NORAD funding is a good start to improve our ability to protect the integrity of our national borders.

With the complete disregard Russia has shown for international law through its invasion of Ukraine, the need to ensure the integrity of our land in the Arctic has been intensified by the territorial claims put forward by it, which encroach on our northern borders. The promise of an additional $8 billion of funding over the next five years looks good on its face, however, the funding plan that has been put forward has been woefully underwhelming.

A PBO report shows that from the 2017-18 fiscal year to the 2020-21 fiscal year, there was $10 billion in lapsed funding. Setting aside the lapsed funding, the additional funding amounts to little more than a top up.

Due to the inflation crisis, which the government has treated with callousness, the impact of increased defence spending will be significantly lessened. Further, the NDP voted against a Conservative motion to increase defence spending to meet our NATO obligations. How can we trust the government to take the funding of our armed forces seriously when it has allied itself with a party that has made clear its lack of support for military spending? Perhaps this is the reason that the announced funding does not bring us up to the requirements of our NATO obligations.

In closing, Saskatchewanians and all Canadians needed a budget that would address the issues facing our energy and agriculture sectors, the cost of living, and our failing health care system. Instead, the Prime Minister chose to buy the NDP’s support so that he can continue to govern rather than earn back the trust of Canadians. This budget is symbolic of broken promises and the Liberal track record of leaving Canadians behind.

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

Madam Speaker, I was going to bring up the Minister of Agriculture coming to Manitoba to meet with cattle producers and talk about providing direct drought relief, which was exceptionally well received in the Prairies, as just one of many examples, and/or the huge increases we have seen in the Department of Agriculture, but my question is in regard to the member's statement on the NATO commitment of 2%.

Does the member not realize that during Stephen Harper's era, it just got to the 1% mark? We have seen dramatic increases under this administration in support of our allied countries. Could the member provide her thoughts on whether she has any regrets that Stephen Harper did not have that same sort of commitment that she seems to have today in terms of supporting NATO?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, what I will say is that the budget makes it very clear that the NDP-Liberal government has no plan to increase defence spending to reach the target of 2% of GDP, which Canada committed to as a NATO member. Despite promising to invest $6 billion in the Canadian Armed Forces, there is no plan to ensure that the NDP-Liberal government will follow through on any of its commitments.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, but I do need to share some concerns. I might encourage her to dial back some of the things she said.

She said western oil is among the cleanest in the world, but we need to acknowledge that, empirically, tar sands oil is extremely polluting. I would like her to clarify what she meant and tell us what oil she was talking about. Given this problem, does she not think it is about time the west undertook an economic and environmental transition?

The Bloc Québécois has said time and time again that it is prepared to commit whatever money is being spent on fossil fuel every year to supporting the region's energy transition, which would be a huge help to my colleague's constituents.

I would like her to comment on that.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, the simple answer is no, I do not agree with that member. I believe that we should be developing our resources here in Canada to meet the needs of not only our country but the world, when it comes to ethically produced and developed oil.

From the beginning, the Liberal government has been anti-energy. Its policies have been destructive to the energy sector in my home province of Saskatchewan and the west.

I would urge this colleague to reconsider his stance on the ethically produced oil within our own country.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, just weeks ago, the Conservatives were in the House arguing on an opposition day that we need to increase the defence budget in a way that, according to the PBO, would cost more than $30 billion, but then they oppose dental care and they oppose investments in child care.

If the hon. member had a choice, which programs would the Conservatives cut first? They are certainly not standing up for people. Would they cut dental care, child care or the $8-billion increase to military spending?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, one of the important things to note in this debate is that after two years, the Liberal government has still not demonstrated any national leadership. This has caused provincial governments to have to spend more on health care. I truly do believe that, with the dental care program that the Liberals negotiated with their NDP counterparts to put into the budget, they are attempting to infringe on provincial jurisdiction. Provinces have been bearing the brunt of dealing with COVID and now the government is repaying them by trying to infringe on their jurisdiction.

I would encourage that member to continue to hold those members to account for the decisions they are making.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to talk about budget 2022, or what the Liberals are calling “A Plan to Grow Our Economy and Make Life More Affordable”. I thought I would put that audacious claim to the test against reality on the ground.

Inflation is at a generational high. House prices are out of reach for most first-time buyers. The price of gas is soaring, at $2.36 a litre in my home in the Lower Mainland. Now interest rates are creeping up, with the promise of more to come as the Bank of Canada seeks to fight inflation. This is hardly a formula for making life more affordable.

We are going to hear in a minute about what the current Minister of Finance says, but I want to draw attention to what the former minister of finance has said now that he is no longer tethered to the talking points of the Liberal Party. This is what he said about the government of which he used to be a part: “So much time and energy was spent on finding ways to redistribute Canada's wealth that there was little attention given to the importance of increasing our collective prosperity—let alone developing a disciplined way of thinking and acting on the problem.”

There we go. This is what Bill Morneau said recently to the C.D. Howe Institute. The emphasis is on wealth distribution, not on wealth creation. When we talk about dividing the pie, we are not talking about growing the pie. That thinking has led to reduced economic productivity numbers.

Let us compare ourselves with our biggest trading partner, the United States. There, the average worker earns $67,000 a year. In Canada it is only $50,000, a 25% lower productivity number. The average American worker pumps $66 per hour worked into the national GDP. In Canada, it is only $50, so again, there is a 20% reduction. This lag in productivity is Canada's Achilles heel, and I am so happy that the current Minister of Finance has acknowledged that in her budget report.

I will get to that in a minute, but first I want to talk about housing. We are all happy to hear that the government has finally acknowledged that economic fundamentals are at play, that the free market can help us find solutions and that the federal government can help by leveraging monetary policy in a way that helps private enterprise find solutions. Here is a quote from page vi of the budget report:

Over the next ten years, we will double the number of new homes we build. This must become a great national effort, and it will demand a new spirit of collaboration—provinces and territories; cities and towns; the private sector and non-profits all working together with us to build the homes that Canadians need.

This sounds very optimistic, but again I want to test this against reality on the ground.

My riding of Langley—Aldergrove has been ground zero for Canada's housing affordability crisis, but there is also a housing construction boom going on thanks to the many hard-working men and women in the housing industry who are answering the call to meet the demand for new housing. I want to highlight the work of one company and one man in particular, Mr. Shawn Bouchard, who heads Quadra Homes, one of the bigger builders in the Lower Mainland. He and his business partners stepped up to the Prime Minister's challenge for private enterprise to come up with big ideas to solve the housing affordability crisis.

This is what he and his partners have done. They have taken one of their upcoming for-profit market condo projects and want to convert it into an affordable rental housing project. They put in an application with the Township of Langley and the township agreed with them. It has contributed $27 million to the project in the form of forgone fees and charges. Now Mr. Bouchard and his partners are looking to the federal government to come to the table too, in the spirit of collaboration that the Minister of Finance likes to talk about. All they are looking for is a guaranteed long-term, low-interest mortgage commitment from CMHC through the rental construction financing initiative. However, they put in a presentation to the Minister of Housing and are being ignored.

I advocated for it. I contacted the minister's office and we are being ignored. I met with Mr. Bouchard on the weekend, and he and his partners have had to make a final investment decision. They are going back to a market condo project. So much for creative thinking; so much for collaboration. Once again, the government gets an A for announcements and an F on delivery.

I want to talk about what the minister has been saying about investing in the green transition. She said that climate change is “an existential challenge. That means it is also an economic [reality].” Well, being from the Fraser Valley, I probably know that better than any member of Parliament, with all the flooding that we had recently.

I, together with some of my colleagues, all Conservative MPs from the area, met with Mayor Braun six or eight weeks before the flooding happened. He pointed out that what was required to beef up the dike systems protecting his area would be about $1 billion. It sounds like a lot of money, but now that the flooding has happened, and nobody knew it was going to happen or how bad it would be, it is now $5 billion just to do the repairs. That is what is in the budget, but if the Minister of Emergency Preparedness had been paying attention, he would have known that for $1 billion, the problem could have been solved. Now we are just going to repair the damage that has been done, but the dikes still need to be seismically upgraded. Again, it is an A for announcement and an F on delivery. That seems to be the practice of this government.

With the couple of minutes I have left, I want to talk about what the Minister of Finance calls Canada's Achilles heel, which is our lagging productivity numbers. Now, we have heard from witnesses in committee that Canada indeed does have a highly educated workforce. We have the best research universities in the country. We have lots of potential to compete with Silicon Valley. However, here is the problem: While we are very good at technology start-up, we are not very good at technology ramping up and scaling up into productive corporations. Investment dollars follow great ideas, and great ideas follow investment dollars. That, unfortunately, is happening in the United States, in the European Union and, sadly, also in China. In an exchange I had with one of the witnesses at committee, I said, “Are you saying that a company like Huawei gives research grants to universities and then walks out the back door with the intellectual property assets?” He said, “Well, there is just one small correction: It walks out the front door with them.”

I am very encouraged that the Minister of Finance is now recognizing this as a problem. She said, “This is a well-known Canadian problem—and an insidious one. It is time for Canada to tackle it.... We will encourage small Canadian companies to get bigger. We will help Canadians and Canadian companies to develop new IP—and to turn their new ideas into new businesses and new jobs.” Notably, she does not say “in Canada for Canadians”. I am assuming that was just an oversight, but perhaps not.

I want to end on a positive note, because I am a positive kind of person. I am hopeful that, with the Minister of Finance now putting in writing her acknowledgement that Canada has a productivity problem, the government is now going to get serious about solving the problem. Then again, given the well-known emphasis on dividing the pie rather than growing it, I am not holding my breath.

I am sorry, but that is as positive as I can be about this budget.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about housing prices and get the member's reflections on this. The free market has allowed people to use homes as investments. Like his riding, my riding has seen a huge boom in construction. However, the people who need housing are not the ones buying it; it is the people who are sinking money into it to make money back.

Would the member and the Conservative Party think about restricting the amount of property that investors can actually own and speculate on?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, we also need rental properties. A lot of these investors are renting properties out, which is satisfying a market demand, so I am not that worried about it, to be honest.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It being 6:45 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 2.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 2.

The next question is on Motion No. 3. A vote on this motion applies to Motions Nos. 6 to 43. A negative vote on Motion No. 3 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 4.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 6 to 43.

The next question is on Motion No. 44. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 45 to 63.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 45 to 63.

At this time the House should proceed to the taking of the deferred division at the report stage of the bill. However, pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, June 7, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it seven o'clock, so we could adjourn and go into Adjournment Proceedings.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from June 6 consideration of Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:20 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Thursday, November 25, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division at the report stage of Bill C-19.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 2.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #122

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.

The hon. member for Perth—Wellington is rising on a point of order.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Please be considerate to each other.

The question is on Motion No. 3. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 6 to 43.

A negative vote on Motion No. 3 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 4.

The hon. government whip is rising.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting no.

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

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply and will be voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour of the motion.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agree to apply and will be voting no.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Greens agree to apply and will be voting no.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, voting against.

(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #123

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare Motion No. 3 defeated, and I therefore declare Motions Nos. 6 to 43 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 4. A negative vote on Motion No. 4 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 5.

The hon. government whip.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour of the motion.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agree to apply and will be voting in favour.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Greens agree to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the results of the previous vote, voting in favour.

(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #124

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare Motion No. 4 carried.

The question is on Motion No. 44. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 45 to 63.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe that you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting yes.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I meant to say that the Liberals will be voting against.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I think we can record that as a “no”.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives will agree to apply and will be voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agree to apply and will be voting no.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Greens agree to apply and will be voting no.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the results of the previous vote, voting against.

(The House divided on Motion No. 44, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #125

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare Motion No. 44 defeated.

I declare Motions Nos. 45 to 63 defeated.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a recorded vote.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #126

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

When shall the bill be read a third time?

At the next sitting of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.