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.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

First, thank you for being here and for answering all these questions.

I think part of the reason it's so important, at least for me, is, one, we have made some really amazing progress on and generational change to our competition law, and when the commissioner came, he acknowledged that. Then he also said he felt there were two really important additions we also needed to consider for C-59. My ears did perk up at that, because I think he was very happy with C-56, C-19 and, now, the changes around competition here in C-59. However, he then very deliberately said there are two things he really feels we need to have right now. I believe, if I'm correct, the amendment that's before us.... It was when he was talking about merger reviews that he said:

Merger review is our first line of defence for protecting competition. However, when we find that a merger is anti-competitive, the law does not require strong remedies.

That's this one that we're referring to.

Then he said:

The Supreme Court held that the goal of a merger remedy is simply to mitigate the harm from a merger so that it is no longer substantial, and to do so in the least intrusive way. As a result, we sometimes end up with merger remedies that take a strong competitor in a market and replace it with a weaker one.

Do you agree with his assessment on that? Do you agree with those statements?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

That's very good, thank you.

I now turn to the representatives of the Competition Bureau Canada, namely Mr. Durocher, Mr. Boswell and Ms. Pratt.

The letter that the bureau sent to the committee on March 1 states that the amendments proposed in Bill C‑59, as well as the recent reforms made in bills C‑19 and C‑56, represent a generational upgrade to Canada's competition legal framework. All three bills mentioned are budget implementation bills.

Do you believe that reform of the Competition Act, through a bill dealing solely with it, would be beneficial so that parliamentarians can weigh every effect of the act and of any amendments made to such a bill?

[Matthew Boswell]

What I can say is that the amendments we saw to Bill C-19 and Bill C-56, and the amendments that are proposed to Bill C-59, are significant changes to Canada's competition laws. They are generational, in fact. They make positive changes in multiple different ways.

With them, Canada is catching up to the rest of the world. As I've said before this committee, we have been an international outlier on many fronts in terms of how we handle competition in Canada. What we've seen are positive changes to catch us up.

I would say it's not a question of putting a banner up that says, “Mission accomplished” on a ship in New York Harbor. This is constant work that we need to do. There are other things that other countries are doing that we have not yet tackled in Canada, including really talking about how to deal with digital platforms and the serious competition issues that they can present. Other countries are taking very definitive strides in that regard.

To go back to your point about the lack of business investment in Canada, about a month ago, StatsCan put out a report that analyzed a 15-year period that demonstrated quite clearly the decline in business investment across the country. It pointed to competition as a significant factor in the lack of that investment. When you're not afraid of somebody eating your lunch—I'm sorry to use the proverbial term—there isn't that drive to invest in order to get better, produce better products, be more efficient and all of those things. It's a big issue.

The amendments are certainly significant. As you heard in my opening comments, I don't think we could go further, even in Bill C-59, to further strengthen various aspects of the Competition Act in Canada.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to say a huge thank you for the excellent presentations.

I'll start off with our competition commissioner. I have been very worried for years about a lack of business investment by our businesses in Canada. Before the pandemic, we had probably over 10 years of historic low interest rates. Typically, the theory is that if you have low interest rates, companies are going to take the cheap capital and actually reinvest in their companies. We did not see that.

I've suspected that one of the key things is around competition. Our government has done a lot of consultations around competition and how we strengthen competition law. I think we've had three bills that have attempted to strengthen our competition law and update it: Bill C-19, Bill C-56 and now Bill C-59.

Just as a general first question, would you say that collectively the changes we've made to the competition law and the act have made it overall much better and that Canada will be more competitive?

[Dr. Jennifer Quaid, Associate Professor and Vice-Dean Research, Civil Law Section, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, Deputy Chairs, members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, good morning.

For those who don't know me, I'm an associate professor and vice-dean of research at the University of Ottawa's Civil Law Section. My areas of expertise are corporate criminal law, general criminal law, business law, corporate regulation and competition law.

I am very pleased to appear before you to share my thoughts on section 6 of Bill C‑59, namely competition-related measures.

Let me add that, although I have prepared this statement primarily in English, I will, of course, be happy to answer your questions in the official language of your choice.

This is the first time that I am appearing before FINA—I'm glad to be here—but it is not the first time that I have appeared before parliamentary committees over the past couple of years, as the government has undertaken a major reform of the Competition Act, the first since 2009. As you know, the reform has been split into three parts: Bill C-19, enacted in June 2022, then Bill C-56, enacted in December 2023, and now Bill C-59 before you.

In the interests of time and given the scope of the proposed reform to the Competition Act, I will make four general points rather than going into detail about the extensive changes proposed, but I am at your disposal to answer questions on any aspects of the reform, and I may very well submit a brief if I have time.

Let me start by saying that the reform has made a lot of changes to the Competition Act, but not enough. Given the amount of political and public attention being directed at the state of competition—or the lack thereof—expectations for positive change flowing from this reform are very high, but are they warranted? To me, this is the central question that cuts across all aspects of the reform. Will we have better and more effective enforcement against anti-competitive practices and will we also at the same time promote better market and business conditions to promote a dynamic and innovative economy?

In my opinion, whether these expectations can be met depends on whether we are prepared to do what is necessary to operationalize the reform in a way that respects the spirit of what is driving the changes. It is also essential that we adopt a mindset of competition law and policy as a dynamic process that adapts to an ever-evolving economy while remaining true to the underlying values that Canadians share.

While there have been many changes to the act, fundamentally, it's still a cumbersome, overly detailed legislative text. This in the past has led to the development of complex analytical frameworks requiring specialized expert evidence. Obtaining remedies to anti-competitive behaviour is difficult, expensive and uncertain.

Many of the changes in the act right now are designed to respond to long-standing criticisms and to enforcement challenges, but I worry, to be frank, that fixing these problems is only.... We're not really addressing the underlying structural problems of how the act is designed. The fact that we've got all of these little different ways of going about characterizing conduct is actually just going to generate new problems. We haven't really done the rethink we need.

I could give one example. There's been an attempt to standardize the way we approach different reviewable practices, but in doing so, the fundamental question is, do we need to do that or could we just have one recourse for anti-competitive practices? Why, all of a sudden, are we blurring the lines between all of these different recourses? To me, that's creating a legal ambiguity that's not going to help anyone. I have other examples, but I'll talk about that in the questions, because I see my time going.

The second thing we need is a mechanism by which the act can be updated on a regular basis. Even with a perfect reform right now, we can't just stop and rest on our laurels. I think it's prudent to think about that now. We've had 15 years between the last reform and now; that's too long. What that means is that we've had to take on a huge reform and split it over three bills, but we've done it in two years. Everyone is still catching their breath, it's been so fast.

Given the pace at which technological and societal changes are occurring, I think it would make sense to plan for periodic review at maybe a three- or five-year interval. That way, we could do things in manageable chunks and not have to use this sort of wholescale giant process and then put it in a budget bill. I think we have to get into that mindset.

The third thing I'm going to raise is that for this reform to work it needs to be supported by adequate resources and expertise. Bill C-56 and Bill C-59 especially add considerable components to the bureau's mandate, and I don't see any new resources coming here. The last ones were allocated in 2021, as far as I know.

I worry for things like understanding labour impacts in mergers and trying to determine whether the bureau can issue a certificate for expertise in environmental issues. Are those things that we should just leave to the existing resources? I think we need to ask ourselves that question: Do we have the resources to make this work?

Finally, this is not the end—and I will close quickly, Mr. Chair. At the beginning of this process a couple of years ago, there was a lot of energy and enthusiasm, and it seemed like there was more audacity and willingness to think outside the box. Then we kind of got into a more technocratic mindset, and what we have before us are a lot of changes, but they are mostly technical and legal.

I think we still need to have that broader conversation about what competition law and policy in the 21st century look like, and we need to do that by consulting people and talking to Canadians about what they want and then maybe having a broader process of approaching it. There's a lot of energy. There are a lot of new voices to the conversation. There's a lot of enthusiasm. I really wish they would do that.

Thank you.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for their excellent testimony. I wish I had time for each one of you, but I do not.

I'm going to start off with you, Mr. Bester, for maybe a minute or so. I want to put onto the record that we did have our competition commissioner come before our committee on Bill C-59. He's also been before the Senate, and he was actually before the Senate when he made the following statement:

Fortunately, the changes proposed in C-59, together with the recent reforms made in Bills C-19 and C-56, represent a generational upgrade in our competition law framework. I applaud the Government, Parliamentarians and citizens from across the country for their efforts in shaping this modernization process. It is the product of years of public and expert dialogue and parliamentary debate. The changes deliver on a significant number of the Competition Bureau's recommendations, and will help bring our competition regime in line with international best practice.

I wanted to put that in.

I also want to thank you. You've made some excellent recommendations, and I really appreciated your exchange with Mr. Williams. I actually think there's a lot more we could be doing, but I think we have done a significant amount and I think it's very, very critical that we acknowledge that. I personally would love to see a review right across our whole government around what's stopping competition from happening. I think if we did a whole-of-government review, that would be another excellent step forward.

My next couple of questions are for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I'm a very big fan of the work the Canadian chamber does. You do very important work.

Mr. Detchou, you started off by saying the economic competitiveness in the last 12 quarters has significantly declined. I want to put on the record that in the last three years, from 2021 to 2023, we were coming out of a pandemic, so the whole world was dealing with the after-effects of an economic heart attack. I think, as you will see from a lot of what we've put into Bill C-59, that we are transitioning our economy from competitive, growth and productivity perspectives.

On that, I know the chamber was very supportive when we announced the investment tax credit, so thank you. There are some companies, such as Dow, that are already benefiting from the ITCs, and they are creating significant opportunities for workers. Can you maybe initially speak to how important these are in driving investment, innovation and economic competitiveness?

After that I will have a follow-up question.

Ways and Means Motion No. 19—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am now ready to provide the House with an explanatory ruling on the admissibility of Ways and Means Motion No. 19. On November 29, 2023, I ruled that the order for consideration of the motion, and the subsequent bill based thereon, be allowed to proceed further.

On November 28, 2023, the House leader of the official opposition challenged the admissibility of the motion. He pointed out that Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents), and Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services), both currently in committee, were substantially the same as provisions covered in Ways and Means Motion No. 19, tabled earlier that day.

Concurrence in a ways and means motion constitutes an order to bring in a bill based on the provisions of the motion. This is indeed what happened with the subsequent introduction of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

The House leader argued that the two private members’ bills had already been the subject of decisions of the House at second reading. The ways and means motion and Bill C-59 would violate a procedural concept, the rule of anticipation, which he described as the “same question rule”. Quoting from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 568, the member seemed to suggest that a ways and means motion could not anticipate a matter already standing on the Order Paper and which was contained in another form of proceeding. He asserted that Bill C-318 and Bill C-323 were more effective tools to accomplish the desired intent than Ways and Means Motion No. 19. As such, both these bills should have priority over the motion.

He also cited precedents in relation to bills that could or could not proceed further, based on the fundamental principle that the same question cannot be decided twice within a session.

The member further suggested that Ways and Means Motion No. 19 be put in abeyance pending the outcome of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, based on the rule of anticipation.

For his part, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader countered that further consideration of Ways and Means Motion No. 19, as well as subsequent proceedings on an associated bill, was in order. He referenced past precedents about similar bills. He made the point that the provisions in Ways and Means Motion No. 19 contained numerous elements that are not found in Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, which indicates that the principle and scope of the ways and means motion are broader than what is found in either of the bills. As such, Ways and Means Motion No. 19, and the bill based thereon, constituted different questions.

In his intervention, the House leader of the official opposition quoted from page 568 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on the rule of anticipation. The Chair would like to read, from the same page, prior to the quoted passage. It states:

The moving of a motion was formerly subject to the ancient “rule of anticipation” which is no longer strictly observed.

Further down on the same page it says, “While the rule of anticipation is part of the Standing Orders in the British House of Commons, it has never been so in the Canadian House of Commons. Furthermore, references to past attempts to apply this British rule to Canadian practice are inconclusive.”

Even though the notion of anticipation is described in our procedural authorities, and the expression is sometimes colloquially used in points of order and even some past rulings dealing with similar items, it is indeed a very difficult concept to apply in our context.

Establishing a hierarchy between bills and motions, or between categories of bills, and giving precedence to some, may prove difficult, except in very specific cases, detailed in House of Commons Procedure and Practice. Bills and motions are different by nature and achieve different ends.

What the Chair is seized with in reviewing the current matter is the rule forbidding the same question from being decided twice in the same session. It is different from the concept of anticipation and, in the view of the Chair, the one that should apply.

In his submission, the House leader of the official opposition cited various recent precedents, and the Chair thinks it pertinent to describe some of their procedural subtleties.

The first example, from the last Parliament, pertained to two bills not identical, but substantially similar: Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding sports betting, a private members' bill, and Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding single event sport betting, a government bill. Both were at second reading and both were very short bills touching the same section of the Criminal Code.

By adopting Bill C‑218 at second reading, the House had agreed to the larger principle of repealing the very portion of the Criminal Code that Bill C‑13 also sought to amend. This sequencing left the House with a situation where Bill C‑13 could not move forward as long as Bill C‑218 continued its course.

The second example, from earlier this session, described a budget implementation bill, Bill C-19, and a votable private members’ bill amending the Criminal Code regarding the promotion of anti-Semitism, Bill C-250. The latter, introduced on February 9, 2022, contained provisions that were subsequently included in Bill C-19, introduced on April 28, 2022. However, of the two bills, the government bill was the first to be adopted at second reading and referred to committee. One of the key differences was that the two bills were not substantially identical. Bill C-19 was much broader in scope than Bill C-250. By agreeing to Bill C-19, the House de facto agreed with the principles presented in C-250. No decision having yet been made on Bill C-250, the Chair ordered that it be held as pending business until such time as royal assent be granted to Bill C-19.

Finally, the member referenced rulings dealing with two votable Private Members’ Business items, Bill C-243, an act respecting the elimination of the use of forced labour and child labour in supply chains, and Bill S-211, an act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to amend the Customs Tariff. The two bills had the same objective and only one was allowed to proceed further. The Chair indicated at the time that the case involved an unusual set of circumstances, since normally one of them could have been designated as non-votable by the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business had the sequence of events been different.

The House leader's main argument hinged on the question of whether provisions contained in Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and therefore Bill C-59 are similar or identical to Bills C-318 and C-323.

Bills C‑318 and C‑323 have been both read a second time and referred to committee, while no decision has yet been made on Bill C‑59. An exhaustive review of its provisions shows that it does contain some similar provisions found in the two aforementioned private members' bills. However, Bill C‑59 cannot be described as substantially similar or identical to them.

Its scope is vastly broader, containing many more elements than what is included in Bills C-318 and C-323, including taxation legislation and provisions requiring a royal recommendation

The bills are similar in part, but are not substantially the same. The principles of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, as adopted at second reading, are indeed included in the broader Bill C-59, but the reverse is not true. Therefore, the decision the House will take on Bill C-59 will not be the same. Accordingly, there is no procedural reason to stop the bill from continuing its journey through the legislative process.

To be clear, when a government bill and a private member's bill or when two private members' bills are substantially similar, only one of them may proceed and be voted on. Once one of the two has passed second reading, a decision cannot be taken on the other within the same session. Where bills are only similar in part, the effect of adopting one might have a different impact on the other depending on their principle, scope and, of course, which bill is adopted first.

I note that the House leader of the official opposition rose earlier today on a different point of order considering the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-59. I wish to inform the member and the House that I am reviewing the matter closely and I do intend to come back with a ruling in a timely manner.

Nonetheless, for the time being, the Chair sees no reason to rule that Bill C-59 be put in abeyance. As for the two Private Members' Business items currently in committee, it seems premature for the Chair to intervene at this time.

I thank all members for their attention.

Ways and Means Motion No. 19

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

Madam Speaker, the second point of order is a little more detailed.

I rise to respond to a point of order raised on Tuesday, November 28, by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle respecting the inadmissibility of the notice of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and two items of Private Members' Business.

The crux of the argument by the member opposite is on the principle of a bill at second reading stage. This is the heart of the argument. I would humbly point to the purpose of the second reading debate and the vote at that stage, which is on the principle of the bill.

Before I get into the specific matters involved in the member's argument, I would like to remind my colleagues across the aisle of what a debate and vote on the principle of a bill entails.

Members of the House know that our Standing Orders and practices derive from those of Westminster. If a member would like to look into how debates at Westminster are handled at the second reading stage, they might be surprised. The British House of Commons has 650 members, yet the debate on any government bill at the second reading stage very rarely exceeds one sitting day.

Now I will go to the specific argument raised by my colleague across the way. The two bills in question that are subject to certain provisions containing Ways and Means Motion No. 19 are Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, and Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services).

With respect to the first item, Bill C-318 requires a royal recommendation which would govern the entire scheme of a new employment insurance benefit for adoptive parents. As a result, the bill cannot come to a vote at third reading in the absence of a royal recommendation provided by a minister of the Crown.

The bill was drafted by employees of the law clerk's office who would have notified the sponsor of this requirement. While I would not want to speculate on the intentions of the member who sponsored this bill, there is little doubt that the member knew this bill would not pass without royal recommendation.

As a result of a ministerial mandate commitment to bring forward an employment insurance benefit for adoptive parents with an accompanying royal recommendation, the government has brought forward this measure for consideration of the House in a manner that raises no procedural obstacle to providing this important benefit for Canadians. It is the sole prerogative of the executive to authorize new and distinct spending from the consolidated revenue fund, and that is what is proposed in the bill that would implement the measures contained in Ways and Means Motion No. 19.

Now I will go to the point of a similar question. The example my colleague raised with respect to the Speaker's ruling on February 18, 2021, concerns Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 respecting single sports betting. Both bills contain the same principle, that being to allow certain forms of single sports betting. The approaches contained in Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 were slightly different, but achieved the same purpose. As a result, and rightly so, the Speaker ruled that the bills were substantially similar and ruled that Bill C-13 not be proceeded with.

The situation with Bill C-13 and Bill C-218 bears no resemblance to the situation currently before the House, and the member opposite has been again helpful in making my argument. The member cites the situation with Bill C-19 and Bill C-250 concerning Holocaust denial.

The case with this situation, and the case currently before the House, is instructional for the question faced by the Speaker, which is whether the principle of the questions on the second reading of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323, and the question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19, are the same.

The answer is categorically no. The question on both Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question should Ways and Means Motion No. 19 be adopted on the implementing of a bill are vastly different. The questions at second reading on Bill C-318 and Bill C-323 are specific questions on the principle of measures contained in those private members' bills.

The question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question at second reading on the bill to implement those measures is much broader. As the member stated in his intervention yesterday, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 contains many measures announced in the 2023 budget as well as in the fall economic statement. While the measures to implement the fall economic statement are thematically linked to the issue of affordability, they contain many measures to address the affordability challenges facing Canadians. As a result, the question at second reading on implementing legislation is a very different question for the House to consider.

In conclusion, while there have been precedents respecting similar questions on similar bills which propose a scheme for a specific issue, namely Bill C-13 and Bill C-218, this and other precedents do not in any way suggest that the questions at second reading on Bill C-323 and Bill C-318 in any way resemble the question on Ways and Means Motion No. 19 and the question at second reading on the implementing bill for the measures contained in the 2023 budget and the fall economic statement.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order challenging the admissibility of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 concerning the fall economic statement implementation bill, which was tabled earlier today by the Deputy Prime Minister. It is my submission that the motion offends the rule against anticipation, sometimes also known as the “same question rule”. That rule is described on page 568 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which reads as follows:

The rule is dependent on the principle which forbids the same question from being decided twice within the same session. It does not apply, however, to similar or identical motions or bills which appear on the Notice Paper prior to debate. The rule of anticipation becomes operative only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with. For example, two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of. If a decision is taken on the first bill (for example, to defeat the bill or advance it through a stage in the legislative process), then the other may not be proceeded with...If the first bill is withdrawn (by unanimous consent, often after debate has started), then the second may be proceeded with.

The rule against anticipation has been building a significant number of precedents in the past few years in light of the NDP-Liberal government's growing pattern of stealing common-sense Conservative private members' bills to add to their own legislative agenda. While our authorities suggest that such points of order should be raised only when the second question is actually proposed from the Chair, I recognize that in light of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 being an omnibus proposal, exceeding 500 pages in length, you, Madam Speaker, might appreciate having the evening to reflect on the issues I am about to discuss before the government intends to call it for consideration tomorrow.

In the present case, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 includes provisions that the House has already adopted in principle at second reading through two private members' bills.

On September 20, the House passed second reading Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, sponsored by the Conservative hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster. The summary printed on the inside cover of the bill reads:

This enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act to introduce a new type of special benefits: an attachment benefit of 15 weeks for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. It also amends the Canada Labour Code to extend parental leave accordingly.

Last week's fall economic statement on pages 43 and 42 states that:

The 2023 Fall Economic Statement proposes to introduce a new 15-week shareable EI adoption...Surrogate parents will also be eligible for this benefit.

The 2023 Fall Economic Statement also proposes to make amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, as well as corresponding changes to the Canada Labour Code, to ensure that workers in federally regulated industries have the job protection they need while receiving the EI adoption benefit.

Those provisions appear as clauses 342 to 365 of Ways and Means Motion No. 19. While the legislative language used varies, the ultimate policy objective and therefore the principle of the matter remains the same as a close examination of the two passages I quoted reveals.

The second private member's bill stolen by the government this week is Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, mental health services, sponsored by the Conservative member for Cumberland—Colchester, which the House passed at second reading on September 27. My colleague's bill would amend sections 1 and 7 of part II of schedule V of the Excise Tax Act to exempt psychotherapy and mental health counselling from GST. Clause 137 of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 would do the exact same thing, except that the government refers to “counselling therapy” instead of Bill C-323's “mental health counselling”. That is, I would submit, a distinction without a difference.

Indeed, I would draw the Chair's attention to clause 144 of Ways and Means Motion No. 19 that makes coordinating provisions if each is enacted, which demonstrates the government also sees these as identical measures, but what is especially galling is subclause 144(5), “For greater certainty, if this Act receives royal asset then the other Act [Bill C-323] is deemed never to have produced its effects.” The government would prefer to toss my colleague's important bill down the memory hole. That is just shameful.

Your predecessor, on February 18, 2021, at page 4256 of the Debates, ruled that government Bill C-13 could not be proceeded with further following the House's adoption of Bill C-218, citing the rule against anticipation. In so ruling, the Chair said:

The House is now placed in an unusual situation where a decision was made on one of two very similar bills standing on the Order Paper.

The Chair recognizes that both bills are not identical; they are, however, substantially similar as they both amend the exact same provision of the Criminal Code for similar purposes....

Consequently, as long as Bill C-218 follows its course through the legislative process during this session, Bill C-13 may not be proceeded with.

As for the technical differences between those two bills, the Speaker offered a common-sense solution to reconcile them: “the Chair notes that other avenues would be open to the House to achieve those same ends, such as through amendments proposed to Bill C-218 during the committee's study.”

I would respectfully submit that if the government has any concerns about the drafting of Bill C-318 or Bill C-323, the solution is to bring amendments to committee, not to bigfoot them by throwing them into an omnibus budget bill, but that is exactly what happened here. It is what happened last year when Bill C-250, sponsored by the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, was scooped up by the government and placed in Bill C-19, a budget implementation bill.

In a May 11, 2022, ruling at page 5123 of the Debates, the Deputy Speaker held:

Bill C-19 was adopted at second reading and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance yesterday. The House is now placed in a situation where a decision was made on one of the two bills that contain very similar provisions....

The Chair recognizes that these bills are not identical, as Bill C-19 is much broader in scope and contains other provisions related to the implementation of the budget.

However, in adopting Bill C-19 at second reading, the House has also agreed to the principle of that bill, and consequently, has agreed, among other things, to amend section 319 of the Criminal Code dealing with hate propaganda. As I explained a few moments ago, these are provisions substantially similar to the ones contained in Bill C-250.

Therefore, the question for the Chair is, should Bill C-250 be allowed to proceed further in the legislative process at this time? In the Chair's opinion, it should not be allowed. The House should not face a situation where the same question can be cited twice within the same session, unless the House's intention is to rescind or revoke the decision.

In the case of Bill C-250, the Deputy Speaker directed that it be held as pending business until the final fate of Bill C-19 could be determined. On September 20, 2022, your predecessor ordered Bill C-250 to be discharged and dropped from the Order Paper, given that Bill C-19 had by then received royal assent. A similar pair of rulings occurred on June 6, 2022, and May 11, 2023, in respect of Bill C-243 in light of its overlap with Senate Bill S-211.

While these rulings are all quite recent, they were not novel. Speaker Michener, on March 13, 1959, at page 238 of the Journals, reached the same conclusion for managing this sort of legislative traffic jam:

Thus I have come to the conclusion that this bill must stand, as well as the other bill in the same terms, or at least in terms for exactly the same purpose, until the bill which was first moved has been disposed of either by being withdrawn, which would open the door for one of these other bills to proceed, or by way of being approved, which would automatically dispose of these bills because the House would not vote twice on the same subject matter any more than it would debate the same subject matter twice.

Standing Order 94(1) empowers and directs the Speaker to, “make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of Private Members’ Business”. That standing order, I would submit, behooves you to safeguard the process of Private Members' Business as much as possible by drawing a firm and bright line for the government to stop poaching common-sense Conservative bills and claiming them as their own.

One final consideration I want to place before the Chair is one that did not arise in the context of the pairs of bills and the precedents I have cited. We are dealing here with a ways and means motion, not a bill. Bosc and Gagnon, at page 568, explain the relevance of this distinction in the role against anticipation:

According to this rule, which applied to other proceedings as well as to motions, a motion could not anticipate a matter which was standing on the Order Paper for further discussion, whether as a bill or a motion, and which was contained in a more effective form of proceeding.

The associated footnote points readers to other authorities for a fuller explanation, such as the U.K.'s Erskine May. That book's 25th edition, at paragraph 20.13, explains:

...a matter must not be anticipated if contained in a more effective form of proceeding than the proceeding by which it was sought to be anticipated, but it might be anticipated if contained in an equally or less effective form. A bill or other order of the day is more effective than a motion....

This principle was explained matter-of-factly by Speaker Casgrain on February 24, 1936, at page 68 of the Journals: “A Bill has the right-of-way and cannot be sidetracked by a Motion.”

In the circumstances, if the precedents and procedural authorities of this House are to be applied consistently, Ways and Means Motion No. 19 must be put into abeyance pending the outcome of Bill C-318 and Bill C-323. I would urge you, Madam Speaker, to so rule.

[Mark Schaan]

We would just bring the attention of the committee to the changes that were adopted in the Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1, changes that preceded this on the beneficial ownership, where in section 21.301, there is a provision that reads:

The Director may provide all or part of the information received under section 21.‍21 to an investigative body referred to in subsection 21.‍31(2), the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada or any prescribed entity.

By our read, there is a capacity for the director to provide this information to law enforcement.

Sitting Resumed

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak this evening—although I must say the hour is late, almost 9 p.m.—to join the debate on Bill C‑47.

Before I start, I would like to take a few minutes to voice my heartfelt support for residents of the north shore and Abitibi who have been fighting severe forest fires for several days now. This is a disastrous situation.

I know that the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are on site. They are there for their constituents and represent them well. They have been visiting emergency shelters and showing their solidarity by being actively involved with their constituents and the authorities. The teamwork has been outstanding. Our hearts go out to the people of the north shore and Abitibi.

Tonight, my colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue will rise to speak during the emergency debate on forest fires. He will then travel back home to be with his constituents as well, so he can offer them his full support and be there for them in these difficult times.

Of course, I also offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of loved ones who drowned during a fishing accident in Portneuf‑sur‑Mer. This is yet another tragedy for north shore residents. My heart goes out to the family, the children's parents and those who perished.

Before talking specifically about Bill C-47, I would like to say how impressive the House's work record is. A small headline in the newspapers caught my eye last week. It said that the opposition was toxic and that nothing was getting done in the House. I found that amusing, because I was thinking that we have been working very hard and many government bills have been passed. I think it is worth listing them very quickly to demonstrate that, when it comes right down to it, if parliamentarians work together and respect all the legislative stages, they succeed in getting important bills passed.

I am only going to mention the government's bills. Since the 44th Parliament began, the two Houses have passed bills C‑2, C‑3, C‑4, C‑5, C‑6, C‑8 and C‑10, as well as Bill C‑11, the online streaming bill. My colleague from Drummond's work on this bill earned the government's praise. We worked hard to pass this bill, which is so important to Quebec and to our broadcasting artists and technicians.

We also passed bills C‑12, C‑14, C‑15, C‑16, C‑19, C‑24, C‑25, C‑28, C‑30, C‑31, C‑32, C‑36 and C‑39, which is the important act on medical assistance in dying, and bills C‑43, C‑44 and C‑46.

We are currently awaiting royal assent for Bill C‑9. Bill C‑22 will soon return to the House as well. This is an important bill on the disability benefit.

We are also examining Bill C‑13, currently in the Senate and soon expected to return to the House. Bill C‑18, on which my colleague from Drummond worked exceedingly hard, is also in the Senate. Lastly, I would mention bills C‑21, C‑29 and C‑45.

I do not know whether my colleagues agree with me, but I think that Parliament has been busy and that the government has gotten many of its bills passed by the House of Commons. Before the Liberals say that the opposition is toxic, they should remember that many of those bills were passed by the majority of members in the House.

I wanted to point that out because I was rather insulted to be told that my behaviour, as a member of the opposition, was toxic and was preventing the work of the House from moving forward. In my opinion, that is completely false. We have the government's record when it comes to getting its bills passed. The government is doing quite well in that regard.

We have now come to Bill C-47. We began this huge debate on the budget implementation bill this morning and will continue to debate it until Wednesday. It is a very large, very long bill that sets out a lot of budgetary measures that will be implemented after the bill is passed.

I have no doubt that, by the end of the sitting on June 23, the House will pass Bill C‑47 in time for the summer break.

What could this bill have included that is not in there? For three years, the Bloc Québécois and several other members in the House have been saying that there is nothing for seniors. I was saying earlier to my assistant that, in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, we speak at every meeting about the decline in seniors' purchasing power. I am constantly being approached by seniors who tell me—

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

I accept that the answer to that, properly speaking, is no, but we have on other bills established that as a precedent at this table. It seems to me that if the committee were to consent to defeating clauses on division, it's something we could do. We've done it in the past. We did it, I think, on Bill C-19. I want to say it was that one.

[Gervais Coulombe]

Thank you for that question, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

When the officials appearing as representatives were preparing to testify before the committee concerning Bill C‑47, they studied the content of the bill. The amendments that were proposed and adopted by the committee last year, in the previous budget bill, Bill C‑19, were not part of our preparation for...

Senate Amendments to Bill C-11

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order this morning respecting the government's Motion No. 2 concerning the Senate amendments to Bill C-11.

In my view, the notice of motion engages the rule of anticipation and cannot be proposed to the House later today.

Normally such a point of order should be raised when the motion is actually proposed to the House, but given that it is listed on the Projected Order of Business for consideration in an hour's time, the complexity of the issues involved and as a courtesy to you to find some time to prepare a ruling, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise as soon as the House opened this morning.

On March 8 and March 9, the House considered a government motion concerning the Senate's amendments, a motion which is now referred to as Motion No. 1 on the Notice Paper, to which my colleague, the hon. member for Lethbridge, has moved an amendment.

Flash forward to Friday evening, when today's Notice Paper was published, we see this new motion, Motion No. 2, from the Liberal government. They are both very long motions, so I will spare the Speaker and the House from hearing them each read out loud.

Suffice it to say, I studied them very closely to see what might be different between them. Lo and behold, the English versions of the motions are absolutely identical. When one refers to the French versions, one spots the difference, which is a single instance of a “1” and a “2”, in Roman numerals, being transposed. That is it.

Let me explain for the House briefly what that means. The Liberal government made a drafting mistake; it got its motion wrong. Now it wants a do-over. If one is a golfer, one might call it a mulligan. All this is on a policy Liberals are mistakenly pursuing on a bill they keep botching and on amendments they keep flubbing, and now a motion they cannot even get right, and those people want to control the Internet.

Setting that aside, I will get back to the procedural concern. The substantive effect of these two motions is identical. Indeed, the text in one official language is identical. The words used in the other official language are all the same. It is just two numbers that are transposed.

Having established these motions are, for all intents and purposes, identical, let me refer to page 568 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which explains the rule of anticipation. It reads:

According to this rule, which applied to other proceedings as well as to motions, a motion could not anticipate a matter which was standing on the Order Paper for further discussion, whether as a bill or a motion, and which was contained in a more effective form of proceeding (for example, a bill or any other Order of the Day is more effective than a motion, which in turn has priority over an amendment, which in turn is more effective than a written or oral question). If such a motion were allowed, it could indeed forestall or block a decision from being taken on the matter already on the Order Paper.

It goes on to say:

The rule is dependent on the principle which forbids the same question from being decided twice within the same session. It does not apply, however, to similar or identical motions or bills which appear on the Notice Paper prior to debate. The rule of anticipation becomes operative only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with. For example, two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of. If the first bill is withdrawn (by unanimous consent, often after debate has started), the second may be proceeded with.... A point of order regarding anticipation may be raised when the second motion is proposed from the Chair, if the first has already been proposed to the House and has become an Order of the Day.

Though the government House leader might argue that questions about this rule do not come up often, there are a series of precedents through the years that are relevant to the issue before the Chair today.

Mr. Speaker Michener, on March 13, 1959, at page 238 of the Journals, held, in relation to the rule of anticipation concerning nearly identical pieces of legislation:

...I first considered whether the motion should be accepted to stand on the Order Paper at the same time. I am satisfied that this was quite in order, but I came to the conclusion that it would be quite improper to permit a second debate on identically the same subject matter as the subject matter of a debate which was already proceeding. In other words, the House is not going to occupy itself on two separate occasions under two separate headings with exactly the same business. That would not be reasonable, and I can find no support or authority for following such a course. Thus I have come to the conclusion that this bill must stand, as well as the other bill in the same terms, or at least in terms for exactly the same purpose, until the bill which was first moved has been disposed of either by being withdrawn, which would open the door for one of these other bills to proceed, or by way of being approved, which would automatically dispose of these bills because the House would not vote twice on the same subject matter any more than it would debate the same subject matter twice.

Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, on July 7, 1969, said, in a ruling found at page 1317 of the Journals, concerning a government motion to amend the Standing Orders, anticipating a motion to concur in a report of the former standing committee on procedure and organization:

I might say, having taken into account the arguments advanced by members of the opposition, that if the honourable Member for Grenville-Carleton had moved his [concurrence] motion I would have recognized that the rule of anticipation would have given his motion precedence...to the motion that is now before the House in the name of the President of the Privy Council. I would have so ruled...

A much more recent predecessor of yours, Mr. Speaker, considered the matter of two committee instruction motions that varied by a difference of just five words. The Chair ruled, on June 11, 2014, at page 6649 of the Debates:

Upon examination of the section of O'Brien and Bosc, upon which both House leaders have relied extensively for their arguments, it seems to the Chair that the key concept is the question of whether or not the motions are substantially the same.

Upon examination of both motions on the notice paper, it does seem that the motions are substantially the same and that the principles cited by the government House leader as to the practice of the House are persuasive to the Chair. Accordingly, we will not be proceeding with the motion at this time.

The rule of anticipation is a concept which is not unheard of in the current Parliament, or to you, Mr. Speaker, for that matter.

On May 11, 2022, the Deputy Speaker, at page 5123 of the Debates, ruled that Bill C-250, the private member's bill proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, could not be debated and would be rendered pending, following the second reading of Bill C-19, a budget implementation bill that contained clauses similar to my friend's bill, because:

The House should not face a situation where the same question can be cited twice within the same session, unless the House's intention is to rescind or revoke the decision.

After Bill C-19 had received royal assent, you made a further ruling, Mr. Speaker, on September 20, 2022, at page 7341 of the Debates, to discharge Bill C-250. In doing so, you said:

...there is a long-standing principle to keep or avoid having the same question from being decided twice within the same session

A similar case can be found in your June 6, 2021 ruling, at page 6142 of the Debates, whereby Bill C-243, sponsored by the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, could not be proceeded with following the second reading of a Senate public bill, Bill S-211. Bill C-243 has been listed on the Order Paper every sitting day since, under the heading “Pending Business”.

To recap the current case, the government's Motion No. 1 concerning the Senate amendments to Bill C-11 was moved, as I mentioned, on March 8, and then became an Order of the Day. Therefore, Motion No. 2 may only be proceeded with if Motion No.1 has been withdrawn, as the various authorities would observe. Otherwise, proceeding with Motion No. 2 would offend the rule of anticipation and cannot be proposed to the House, as forecasted, at noon today.

Mr. Speaker Casgrain's ruling on February 24, 1936, at pages 67 and 68 of the Journals, explains a possible way forward for the government concerning its Motion No. 1:

The adjournment of the debate, last Thursday on the second reading of Bill No. 2...meant that the question shall again be considered at a future sitting when the order for Public Bills will be reached. This is what is called, in parliamentary procedure, appointing a matter for consideration by the House. [Erskine] May...gives many precedents showing that the discussion of an appointed matter cannot be anticipated by a motion...There is sufficient similarity in the Bill and the Motion to confine them to one debate...The difference in details between the two propositions may be dealt with by moving amendments... but it is not sufficient to justify a duplication of the debate. It is a well known principle that the same question cannot be raised twice in the same session.

The difference between the government's Motion No.1 and Motion No. 2 could be addressed by an amendment to Motion No. 1. It is that simple, really.

All the Liberal government needs to do is allow the debate to continue on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lethbridge. Once that debate has eventually concluded and the vote taken, the government could, in the event that my colleague's thoughtful amendment is not adopted by the House, of course, once debate resumes on the main motion, move its own amendment to achieve the change Motion No. 2 contains, which would be up to the House to discuss and decide.

If you were to find my point of order to be well taken, Mr. Speaker, it would not be the first major procedural error the government has made in pursuing its flawed policy to control the Internet. On June 15, 2021, you ruled out of order many committee amendments made to Bill C-11's predecessor in the previous Parliament because the Liberals on the Canadian heritage committee had run roughshod over the rules and broke several of them in trying to rush the bill through Parliament before the opportunistic and unnecessary early election the Prime Minister called that August.

Now it seems that the Liberals are equally hasty in ramming their Internet control bill through the House once again. It is almost as if the government is in a rush to clear the decks for something to come.

I hope you will find in favour of my point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to your response.

Income Tax Act

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

Mr. Speaker, in the statements the member has made, there are some aspects I agree with, and others I disagree with. When we talk about Bill C-241 itself, there are issues with tax fairness within the legislation. There is a lack of safeguards within the legislation that the member talks about supporting. There are some technical deficiencies within the legislation.

I think that, if we take a look, if I may, at Bill C-19, which was the federal legislation that was brought forward, we would see that, in moving forward with the labour mobility tax credit, it does allow for workers in the building and construction trades to deduct up to $4,000 in eligible travel and temporary relocation expenses, giving them a tax credit of up to $600 a year.

The labour mobility tax credit goes a long way in being supportive of an industry. The member made reference to the construction industry in the province of Quebec, and the construction industry in the province of Quebec is, in fact, very important to the government. We recognize that there are many ways and many areas in which, throughout the country, we can look at how we can further enhance and support the construction industry. There is a labour shortage. The member made reference to the kind of actions, and the number of jobs the government created. I think it is worthy of note.

Do members know that over 800,000 jobs have been created if we look at the number of jobs in Canada prepandemic? We can take a look at the number from before the pandemic started, and we can add about 825,000 or 830,000 new jobs since that time. I would ultimately argue that the government has been very successful at ensuring that Canada is in a great position to come back in a better and healthier way when it comes to the whole issue of jobs.

Yes, there is a huge demand for employees in the different regions of the country. There are certain sectors, and the construction area is one of the them. That is one of the reasons why we look at other mechanisms we could put into place to support. Whether it is forgiving the interest for apprentices on federal loans, the enhancement of the labour mobility tax credit, or other initiatives, I believe that it is contributing and making a difference.

We also recognize that immigration can play a critical role in meeting our labour demands, not only for today but also into the future. Further to that, I have always argued that, if we look outside Canada to supply workers, we should also, at the same time, look at ways we can enable those workers to become landed immigrants to Canada. That is something that has been very important to the government.

We have been looking at ways in which we can add to the workforce by bringing in international students. This has had a positive impact in Canada, in many different ways, not only filling literally tens of thousands of jobs, but also adding to the social fabric in which we all live in and have grown to appreciate.

The numbers of, and I use this as an example, international students today, compared to what it was seven, eight years ago, have multiplied significantly, from the 35,000 or 40,000 to closer to 350,000. There are significant numbers of international students who are studying a wide spectrum of issues. The member spoke prior talked about construction jobs, and many of students are taking those types of construction jobs. They are getting an education at our colleges and, in some cases, universities, to work either directly or indirectly in the construction industry.

We are looking at ways to further enhance opportunities for those who want to enter the occupation. There are many examples of low-income families working in the industry. I am very pleased with the fact that we have the federal refund tax credit for the Canada workers benefit program. Tens of thousands of Canadians are directly benefiting from that credit. It is significant. An individual receives just over $1,400 and a family unit receives up to $2,400 to assist workers with a lower income.

We can look at the basic tax exemption. I talk about this because taxation policy does matter and does make a difference. The government has looked at the labour mobility tax credit within Bill C-19 and has addressed many of the shortcomings I pointed out in regard to Bill C-241. I had the opportunity to look into what Bill C-241 is proposing, and I would suggest there are too many technical deficiencies. There is an issue of taxation fairness in some of the areas. There is, in fact, a lack of safeguards, as I pointed out. The sponsor of the legislation can maybe sit down with ministers or others and expand on some of those points.

When it comes to apprenticeship programs and ways we can support labour enhancement, the government has been very progressive in trying to deal with that and enhance it. I have been with the Prime Minister in Manitoba on one or two occasions to look at how we can contribute to enhancing trade and labour in the province of Manitoba. We have wonderful organizations out there that are developing programs.

Earlier today we heard the Conservatives finally get on board with the idea of national opportunities for individuals to be recognized in health care professions and have mobility rights across Canada. They refer to it as a “blue seal”. I suspect they are taking that idea in part from the Red Seal program, which is for tradespeople. Whether it is someone international or someone who takes culinary arts to achieve the Red Seal, it has a profoundly positive impact for that individual.

When we look at the construction industry, there is potential growth in that area with regard to getting recognition from a national perspective. The government, through taxation policies, has been there and continues to be there for the construction industry in particular, but also, as I pointed out, for those who are on the low-income scale. Not all construction workers are able to collect the annual money necessary to provide for a full family or even themselves. That is why we have provided the enhancement of the Canada workers benefit program.

I believe it is important that we use our taxation policy as a mechanism to support families and individuals in different situations. One of those situations is looking at ways we can enhance our labour market and support the people who are working so hard to get ahead in life, particularly by upgrading their skills. Apprenticeship programs are an excellent example of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Welcome back, members.

This panel will be on the Select Luxury Items Tax Act and Bill C-19.

From the Department of Finance, we have Mr. Gervais Coulombe, senior director, excise taxation and legislation, sales tax division, tax policy branch; Mr. David Turner, senior adviser, sales tax division; and Mr. Darren D'Sa, tax policy officer, tax policy branch.

Welcome, and I understand the opening statement will be from Mr. Coulombe.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order. This is meeting number 77 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

At our last meeting, I was unable to be here. I want to thank MP Hallan, our vice-chair, for chairing that meeting. I know it was an in camera meeting. From what I've heard, it was very collaborative, efficient and expedient, so I want to thank all members very much for all that hard work.

It's wonderful, at the start of 2023, to have Governor Macklem and Senior Deputy Governor Rogers joining us.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on Monday, November 21, 2022, the committee is meeting, from 11:00 to 12:30, to discuss the Bank of Canada's report on monetary policy. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on Thursday, February 2, 2023, the committee is meeting with the Department of Finance, from 12:30 to 1:00, to discuss the Select Luxury Items Tax Act and Bill C-19.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. If you are participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

For interpretation, those on Zoom have the choice, at the bottom of their screen, of “floor”, “English” or “French”. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

To commence, we have with us the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem.

Welcome, Mr. Macklem.

Joining Mr. Macklem is the senior deputy governor, Carolyn Rogers.

Welcome, Ms. Rogers.

Please go ahead with your opening remarks. The members will then look forward to asking you questions.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a great honour to stand in this place to speak on behalf of the residents and constituents of Edmonton Strathcona. I am particularly delighted to stand today to speak about our sanctions regime and the work that needs to be done to strengthen it and ensure it is as adequate and as strong as it can be.

We know that sanctions are one of the tools we have to hold governments and individuals around the world to the rule of law, to human rights, to democracy and to fairness and justice for their citizens. For a very long time, many members in this place have worked very hard and well together to try to increase the effectiveness of our sanctions regime and the ability of sanctions to do what we hope they will do, which is to change the course of governments and individuals, to change their behaviour and punish them for the harms they have caused without harming and punishing innocent people and citizens.

The act we are debating today is Bill S-8. This act would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.

The proposed legislation amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or the IRPA, and it provides Canada with much-needed abilities to better link government sanctions with authorities related to immigration enforcement. I think we can all agree that this means that not only will foreign nationals sanctioned due to the invasion of Ukraine be inadmissible to Canada, but it will also stop all previously sanctioned individuals from places like Iran, Myanmar or Burma, South Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Zimbabwe among others.

I and the NDP are very supportive of the bill, but we need to consider, and most of my comments today will be on this, that this is a small piece of what needs to be done to strengthen Canada's sanctions regime.

The bill would not fix some of the things for which we have been calling for some time; for example, the absence of parliamentary oversight. We have very little parliamentary oversight of our sanctions regime, and I will speak to that a bit later.

This would also not fix the enforcement in areas that are not immigration related, for example, the seizure of assets. Again, I will speak to this in more depth later on, but I would raise again in the House that to date about $121 million has been seized from Russian oligarchs as part of our sanctions regime to force Russia to stop its illegal war in Ukraine. While that $121 million is an awful lot to me and probably an awful lot to most of us in this room and in the country, it is not an awful lot for Russian oligarchs.

The bill would also not fix the challenge that we as parliamentarians have with clarity. We still do not have a good system in this place that explains why the government chooses to add some people to the list to be sanctioned, how those decisions are made and how the timing of those decisions is determined. We know we work with our allies and other countries. That is very important for sanctions to be effective. However, as parliamentarians, we need to have more clarity on how those decisions are made.

As we go forward in looking at strengthening the sanctions regime, there are people in the House who have been doing very important work on this. I have to call out my colleague from the Conservative Party, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, for his excellent work on the Magnitsky sanctions. The Deputy Prime Minister also did great work on ensuring the Magnitsky act was put in place. Of course, as some people have mentioned before, and my colleague from the Bloc mentioned just previously, the challenge is that putting a law in place does not actually matter if we do not enforce it or if we do not ensure it is adequately applied.

A perfect example of this is that with the Magnitsky sanctions, we are supposed to do a five-year review. Five years is 2022. There is some review being done in the Senate, but we have not done any review within the foreign affairs committee or within this Parliament. For me, that is the challenge we have.

I spoke briefly about the need to strengthen our sanctions regime. For years, the NDP has been pushing for a stronger sanctions regime. We are happy to see some of the important changes that this bill would bring forward, but there are things we have been asking for for years, including in the 2017 foreign affairs committee study on Canada's sanctions regime. Many of the recommendations from that study have not been implemented. We look forward to the government moving somewhat faster than it has to date to make sure those are implemented, especially considering that right now what we are seeing in Ukraine is a vital need for sanctions to be a key piece of our response to the Ukrainian war.

Another example of why our sanctions regime has not been as effective as it could be is the waiver. We saw the government in the summer, in the middle of July, put a waiver in place that would cancel some of the important sanctions we put in place against Russia. I am not going to stand here and pretend that would not have been a very difficult decision for the government to make. Our German allies and Ukrainian allies were asking for different things, and that is a very difficult situation to be in. While I did not agree with the decision that was made by the government, I do accept it was a difficult decision to make.

That said, first of all, the pipeline the waiver was supporting was a piece of equipment returned to Germany to be returned to Russia, and Russia did not pick it up. The second thing is that the pipeline it was meant to be used on has now been blown up. There is no reason whatsoever for us to still have this waiver in place and still have this lessening of our sanctions against Russia, yet we still do.

The Government of Canada has still not cancelled the waiver, which is appalling. It is something it should be doing immediately. I know the foreign affairs committee will be recommending that, if we can get out of the filibuster that has been put in place by some of our colleagues in the Conservative Party.

The other piece of our sanctions regime that I want to know about is how we can double-check it to see that what is happening is adequate and being done properly. I have talked a bit about sanctions oversight, and we know that after Russia invaded Ukraine in February, sanctions were put in place. However, we also know that those sanctions trickled out after months and months. We learned that many oligarchs had the opportunity to move their assets from Canada so they would not have those assets seized. That is a missed opportunity since those assets were supposed to help rebuild Ukraine and help with the rebuilding initiatives.

We also know that the government has failed to provide the clarity on sanctions that we have hoped for. For example, I have asked about this multiple times in the House and through Order Paper questions to get more information and details on who is being sanctioned, what is being sanctioned, what has been seized, how it is being seized and what processes are being used. However, I have never been able to get an adequate answer from the government.

In fact, one of the Order Paper questions was returned to me with a response that said the government was not 100% sure that it would be able to give me accurate information, so it provided me with no information at all. That is an interesting tactic. I would love to see somebody try to say in a high school or university course that since they are not sure they are giving all the information, they will give none at all. That is something we have problems with. We still do not have that level of clarity.

I have another concern. When the government introduced the last budget implementation act, there was a change to the way that sanctions were dealt with. In the past, there was parliamentary oversight because the government needed to record the use of the sanctions regime or the sanctions act and needed to report it to Parliament. It needed to be tabled with Parliament.

In the Budget Implementation Act, that requirement was removed. Therefore, it is now no longer the government's obligation to tell Parliament what those sanctions are or what has been seized. We could find out if we took the government to court and used a judicial remedy, but we cannot find out just through parliamentary processes.

This is taking away the right of all parliamentarians to have that transparency and to have that understanding of how our sanctions are being chosen, how they are being enforced and if they are working. A sanction is not that useful if it is not being enforced. A sanction is not that important if countries or individuals understand that it will not be enforced in Canada.

There is an interesting thing I found out as I was doing some digging around sanctions. If we want to find out what goods are coming into Canada from Russia, we can look at Russian shipping records. We cannot find that out by looking at Canadian shipping records.

It is very interesting to me that there is transparency that can be found in the U.S., the U.K., the EU and Russia, but we cannot find it here.

That is another challenge I have with our sanction regime. As I said at the beginning, this particular bill would help with some aspects of our sanction regime. I am very happy to support this legislation. I am very happy to see that it would be fixing some of those holes around our sanction regime. However, this seems very much, to me, like tinkering around the edges.

We have heard from the Senate. One of the key quotations from the Senate hearings on Bill S-8, from Canada's foremost expert on sanctions policy, Andrea Charron, was this:

While there is nothing wrong with highlighting in the Immigration and Refugee Act that inadmissibility due to sanctions is possible, this repeats a pattern whereby Canada tinkers on the margins of legislation without addressing core policy and process issues. If we are to continue to sanction autonomously with allies, we need to fix fundamental issues of policy and [fundamental issues of] process.

I believe that we have many things we still need to do. We need to have a comprehensive review of Canada's sanction regime. The NDP has proposed a study at the foreign affairs committee on Canada's sanction regime. That study was meant to have taken place during this fall's session. We are very hopeful that it will take place very quickly once the winter session begins. I urge my colleagues in the Conservative Party to stop filibustering our committee so that we can get on with the very important work of foreign affairs.

We can ensure that our sanctions are being more effectively applied. We can bring forward legislation that would align with the recommendations in the 2017 foreign affairs committee report that called for greater transparency. It called for a review of our sanctions regime and called for a parliamentary body of all parties that would assist in identifying which names and which individuals should be on the Magnitsky list and should be sanctioned by the Government of Canada.

One of our biggest problems, and I have said this many times, is that if we cannot fix our sanction regime, our sanction regime very quickly becomes not as effective and not as useful as we need it to be.

I think that members of the House have brought up circumstances where that is the case. We know that, for example, in Ukraine, sanctions are one of the key tools we have to hold Russia to account for its illegal invasion in Ukraine. It is one of the key levers that Canada can pull to force the Russian Federation to rethink this horrific and illegal attack on civilians.

It is also one of the things that we can use when other human rights abuses are raised around the world. We are seeing horrific attacks on protesters in Iran. Just this morning, I woke up to another horrific example of a protester being executed because he was fighting for his freedom. We know that there are many Iranians who are in grave danger right now. If this sanction regime can be fixed and can help the people in Iran even a little bit, it has to be done.

I am interested in looking at sanctioning a whole range of characters around the world who we know have been responsible for atrocious human rights abuses, such as what we see in Yemen and from members of Saudi Arabia. We need to be ensuring that, as a country, we are standing up for human rights, using the tools we have at our disposal for those efforts.

I also want to point out that the sanctions regime is a tool we also have to use for our feminist international assistance policy and for the feminist foreign policy that we certainly hope the government tables in Parliament very soon. We know that a huge percentage of the people who are identified by the Magnitsky sanctions and the other SEMA sanction measures are perpetrating human rights abuses that are disproportionately impacting women and girls around the world. We know that sexual violence and gender-based violence have been used as a tool to silence journalists and human rights defenders around the world. We know that rape has been used. This violence does not align with a country like Canada, which has a feminist foreign policy and a feminist international assistance policy, and we need to be looking at our foreign responses through that lens.

I would like to end my comments with this. As I was travelling here from Edmonton yesterday, I took some time to read some of the speeches from the Nobel Peace Prize winners, and I want to read a quote to the House. It is by Oleksandra Matviichuk from the Center for Civil Liberties, the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize winner. She spoke to me about the need for sanctions and why it was so important that we work with our allies to make our sanctions regime stronger.

She stated:

Peace, progress and human rights are inextricably linked. A state that kills journalists, imprisons activists, or disperses peaceful demonstrations poses a threat not only to its citizens. Such a state poses a threat to the entire region and peace in the world as a whole. Therefore, the world must adequately respond to systemic violations. In political decision-making, human rights must be as important as economic benefits or security. This approach {must} be applied in foreign policy...

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I am sharing my time with my colleague from Jonquière.

I rise today to speak to Bill C‑32, on the 2022 fall economic statement. Unfortunately, this bill seems more impressive in form than in substance. Bill C‑32 contains maybe 25 various tax measures and a dozen or so non-tax measures. It may seem like a lot at first glance, but these are in fact two kinds of measures. Some are just minor amendments, like the ones this Parliament adopts on a regular basis, while others were already announced in the spring budget but had not been incorporated into the first budget implementation bill in June, Bill C‑19. In cooking we call that leftovers.

Simply put, like the economic statement of November 3, Bill C‑32 does not include any measures to address the new economic reality brought on by the high cost of living and a possible recession. This is a completely missed opportunity for the federal government. This bill will not exactly go down in history and its lack of vision does not deserve much praise either.

However, it does not contain anything “harmful” enough to warrant opposing it or trying to block it. The government often tends to bury harmful measures in its omnibus budget implementation bills, hoping they will go unnoticed, but that is not the case here. The bill contains no surprises, either good or bad.

As my colleagues can see, I am trying very hard to show some good faith. Bill C‑32 contains some worthwhile measures, but they were already announced in the last budget. I will go over them briefly.

An anti-flipping tax has been implemented to limit real estate speculation. That is a good thing. A multi-generational home renovation tax credit has also been created for those who are renovating their home to accommodate an aging or disabled parent. The Bloc has been calling for such a measure since 2015, as have many seniors' groups that have contacted me many times about this issue. I commend the government for introducing it.

There is also a first-time homebuyer tax credit to cover a portion of the closing costs involved in buying a home, such as notary fees and the transfer tax. It is hard to be against apple pie. There is also a temporary surtax and a permanent increase to the tax rate for banks and financial institutions, as well as the elimination of interest on student loans outside Quebec. Quebec has its own system, so it will receive an unconditional transfer equivalent to the amount Quebeckers would have received had they participated in the federal program.

In addition, a tax measure that supports oil extraction has been eliminated. It is just one drop in the bucket of subsidies, but it is a start. A tax measure is being implemented to promote mining development in the area of the critical minerals that are needed for the energy transition. In addition, assistance can be provided to a particular government. That is interesting. A total of $7 billion to $14 billion will be available for all foreign countries, when previously, it was $2.5 billion to $5 billion. While we are still far from the United Nations goal of 0.07% of gross GDP, the government is enhancing Canada's international aid, something the Bloc has been calling for for some time. As the status of women critic, I am regularly reminded that Canada can and must do more and better to safeguard the health of women and girls internationally.

Bill C‑32 sidesteps the big challenges facing our society, but there is nothing bad in it. It puts forward a few measures and does some legislative housekeeping that was necessary under the circumstances.

As such, I will reiterate, half-heartedly, what other Bloc members have said: We will vote in favour of Bill C‑32 even though the economic statement was disappointing. We take issue with an economic update that mentions the inflation problem 115 times but offers no additional support to vulnerable people and no new solutions despite the fact that a recession is expected to hit in 2023. The government seems to think everything will work out with an “abracadabra” and a wave of its magic wand.

Quebeckers concerned about the high cost of living will find little comfort in this economic update. They will have to make do with what is basically the next step in the implementation of last spring's budget, even though the Bloc Québécois did ask the government to focus on its fundamental responsibilities toward vulnerable people.

For the rest of my speech, I will therefore focus on the lack of increased health transfers, the lack of adequate support for people aged 65 and over, and the lack of much-needed genuine reform to EI, which, I should note, is the best stabilizer in times of economic difficulty. Sadly, the government dismissed our three requests, even though they made perfect sense. We can only denounce this as a missed opportunity to help Quebeckers deal with the tough times that they are already going through or may face in the months to come.

First, the Bloc Québécois asked the federal government to agree to the unanimous request of Quebec and the provinces to increase health transfers immediately, permanently and unconditionally. ER doctors are warning that our hospitals have reached breaking point, but the federal government is not acting. It clearly prefers its strategy of prolonging the health funding crisis in the hope of breaking the provinces' united front in order to convince them to water down their funding demand. It is the old tactic of divide and conquer.

I want to remind my colleagues that yesterday, at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, on which I sit, during our study on the mental health of women and girls, the ministers of Women and Gender Equality and of Mental Health acknowledged that the national action plan concept, which seeks to impose national standards, was slowing down the process. Meanwhile, the women and girls who are suffering are being held hostage. The government's feminist posturing must end.

Second, people between the ages of 65 and 74 continue to be denied the increase to old age security, which they need more than ever before. Seniors live on fixed incomes, so they cannot deal with such a sharp rise in the cost of living in real time. They are the people most likely to have to make tough choices at the grocery store or the pharmacy, yet the government continues to penalize those who are less well-off and who would like to work more without losing their benefits. Unlike the federal government, inflation does not discriminate against seniors based on their age.

Currently, Canada's income replacement rate, meaning the percentage of income that a senior retains at retirement, is one of the lowest in the OECD. We cannot say that the government is treating seniors with dignity.

There is also the increase to old age security, which should prevent demographic changes from significantly slowing economic activity. Contrary to what the government says, starving seniors aged 65 to 75 will not encourage them to remain employed. That is done by no longer penalizing them when they work.

Not a day goes by that I do not receive a message from citizens about this. This morning, I again received comments from important seniors' groups such as AQDR and FADOQ, and they can be summarized in one word: disappointment. I do not even want to talk about the brilliant decision-makers who want to delay the pension process for 10% of seniors.

Third, let us remind the government that employment insurance is an excellent economic stabilizer in the event of a recession. While more and more analysts fear the possibility of a recession in 2023, the Canadian government seems to be backtracking on the comprehensive employment insurance reform that they promised last summer.

Essentially, the system has been dismantled over the years. Currently, six of 10 workers who lose their jobs do not qualify for EI. That is significant, it is a majority, it is 60%. Seven years after the government promised reform, time is running out. We must avoid being forced to improvise a new CERB to offset the shortcomings of the system if a recession hits.

During the pandemic, we saw that improvised programs cost a lot more and are much less effective. Above all, the government's financial forecasts show that it does not anticipate many more claims. In fact, the government is forecasting a surplus of $25 billion in the employment insurance fund by 2028, money that will go to the consolidated fund rather than improve the system's coverage. As for the 26 weeks of sick leave, the measure was in Bill C‑30 to update budget 2021, passed 18 months ago, even before the last elections. All that is missing is the government decree to implement it, but those who are sick are still waiting.

One last important thing: Last weekend, I attended the Musicophonie benefit concert for a foundation in our area, the fondation Louis-Philippe Janvier, which helps young adults suffering from cancer. I was told that the organization does indeed have to make up for the government's lack of financial support. That adds to the unimaginable stress on those who are sick, who should instead be focusing on healing with dignity. Even 26 weeks is inhumane. A person cannot recover properly in that time frame.

In closing, the government is acknowledging the rising cost of living without doing anything about it. It is warning of difficult times ahead this winter without providing a way to get through them. It makes some grim economic predictions without ever considering any of the opposition's proposals as to how to prepare ourselves.

As a final point, I want to talk about supply chains. We learned how fragile they are during the pandemic. Last spring's budget document mentioned the problem 71 times. The budget update mentioned it another 45 times. Neither one includes any measures to tackle the problem, leaving business owners in limbo. The new Liberal-Conservative finance minister missed the opportunity to send a clear message of leadership and instead raised fears about potential austerity. The government is rehashing past measures, implementing what it already announced in the April budget, but there is no indication that it has a clear sense of direction, leaving the people who really need it out in the cold.

For those who lose their jobs, we need EI reform. For those who are sick, we need to increase health transfers. For our seniors, we need to give them more money so they can age with dignity.

[Lindsay Gwyer]

I'll start with the point on double deductions. Both deductions would, as I mentioned earlier, apply in very similar circumstances. There are restrictions on both with respect to what can be deducted and with respect to what has been deducted under other provisions of the Income Tax Act, so the same expense would not be able to be deducted under both of the deductions.

In terms of being able to go and travel abroad, as I mentioned there's no restriction in Bill C-241 as to where the workplace needs to be located. Bill C-19, the existing law, does require that the work location be in Canada. That's there to address the issue of someone going to work in another country and claiming the deduction.

Then on the last point, the existing law sets out specifically what travel expenses would be acceptable: the travel expenses relating to one round trip, so costs of a flight or of gas or of whatever means by which the commuting is done; the cost of meals incurred on that round trip; and then, potentially, temporary lodging if the person maintains their existing lodging in their ordinary place of residence.

Those are the ways those concerns are addressed through the deduction that was passed in Bill C-19.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will begin by reiterating my full confidence in the way you are managing this committee.

In the first hour of debate, our esteemed colleague Sophie Chatel raised a number of concerns about this bill. As I said earlier, our goal here, all of us together, is to improve the bill and to make sure that it fulfils its objectives. I wanted to check with you to see if you had any comments on that.

Among the points raised, our colleague said that if Bill C‑241 were to be passed, there would be a double deduction, given that Bill C‑19 has already been passed. We know this and we need to find a solution to this problem.

She also said that a worker could claim expenses for travel to the United States if they go there to work. I would like to hear your comments on this. If we wanted to limit this type of expense in the event that a person went to work abroad, how could we proceed? Again, if you don't have an answer immediately, you can provide one in writing to the committee.

Also, the Income Tax Act states that if a supervisor gives an allowance for a worker's travel, they cannot claim those travel expenses. However, what if it is not an allowance, but some other form of expense payment? Do you think this could open the door to some abuse? If so, how could the bill be improved to avoid such abuses?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you.

As policy-makers we try to have every safeguard possible for the individuals we're talking about, and those are the construction workers. At the end of the day, we talk about our labour market, and we even talked a little bit about education, the lack thereof in K to 12 and the trades' being incorporated into the education system. Your answer obviously puts a flag up to ask how we can eliminate those possibilities, and there are many other cases with this bill. I think it's great that we brought this forth and we're moving in this direction, but no cap on the amount of expenses is a very interesting thing. If you travel on Prince Edward Island, the 120 kilometres pretty nearly takes you from one end of the island to the other.

Are there any additional safeguards with Bill C-19's labour mobility deduction that aren't included in Bill C-241, and could you elaborate on those? Could you give us a list of those items that you're aware of that could present challenges?

[Mark Maxson]

Maybe I can take this question.

As my colleague was indicating, there is a general rule in the tax system in Canada that limits deductions for employees to a greater extent than for self-employed workers. Part of the rationale behind that is that there is an expectation that employers are generally going to provide employees the tools necessary to do their jobs and are going to take on some of those costs on behalf of their employees in many cases. Certainly in this context, we've understood from stakeholders that these are often workers who are not employed by a specific employer, but who are rather perhaps moving from a region where they normally work with one or more employers and then taking on a job with a new employer in a different region. In that circumstance, that new employer may not necessarily be providing reimbursements of travel expenses. They may or may not, depending on what they feel they need to do in order to attract the workforce necessary.

The bill doesn't specifically place any constraints on whether employers do or do not provide that assistance, but both Bill C-241 and the deductions that are currently in law do prevent someone from receiving an allowance for travel and also claiming the deduction. The existing deduction passed through Bill C-19 also includes a restriction that there can't be any reimbursement that is, in law, different from an allowance. Bill C-241 doesn't include that language, but it would be a question of interpretation for Canada Revenue Agency to work through what would happen in that type of situation.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

This is a very interesting discussion and an interesting bill to hear about. Coming from a small island, I know that travel for work is really important. I think it's important for all parties, as it was put in the BIA, which is extremely important. I was very glad to see that.

I want to continue on somewhat with what Mr. Lawrence said with regard to the larger corporations or the employers. Maybe I'll go to Mr. Leblanc.

In your opening remarks, you spoke about the differences between Bill C-241 and the existing labour mobility deduction that was implemented through Bill C-19. One area that I'm particularly concerned about is the lack of protections that would prevent possible double-dipping by those corporations, by receiving compensation through an employer and via the tax credit. I guess my concern—in line with Mr. Lawrence's on the opposite side—in particular is that employers may choose to cut back on their compensation pre-emptively on the assumption that workers will access this benefit as well.

Am I understanding the legislation correctly? If so, could you elaborate?

[Lindsay Gwyer]

The tax system is set up in such a way that people are limited in what deductions they can make with respect to employment income in general. Most expenses related to employment income are not deductible unless they're specifically enumerated exceptions in the Income Tax Act, whereas business is more of a bigger picture of what expenses are relevant to computing the profit of a business, and that builds off accounting principles. It's really a difference in the way the system is set up. Deductions like this one, the deduction that was in Bill C-19, are really exceptions to the general rule that employees are not able to claim deductions against their employment income.

[Mark Maxson, Director, Employment and Education, Personal Income Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance]

Thank you for the question.

Certainly there is not a substantive difference between the $4,000 and the next dollar. It is common in tax law for different provisions to contain maximum amounts. It's a typical practice when it comes to tax measures. It's not universal. As Pierre mentioned, this particular amount is something that was deemed reasonable not just by Parliament, I guess, in passing Bill C-19, but it was the amount that was put forward by the CBTU in terms of their financial projections as a typical amount. We think it's a reasonable amount to cover most circumstances.

[Lindsay Gwyer, Director General, Legislation, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance]

Both the existing labour mobility deduction that was implemented through the Budget Implementation Act and this deduction in Bill C-241 are deductions, so they're both amounts that an employee deducts from income and not tax credits.

[Pierre Leblanc]

—what was legislated in Bill C-19 is a credit.

On your question, let me turn to one of my colleagues.

[Pierre Leblanc]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all members of the committee for inviting us to be with you today on this very important topic.

It was really interesting to hear the debate and the discussion over the last hour. I think it underscores the importance of this policy issue, certainly, in the current labour market context and the value of the member's contribution in bringing this bill forward.

Maybe I can just start by reiterating what the current law of the land is. The current tax system has a labour mobility deduction for tradespeople.

In Budget 2022, the government proposed a labour mobility deduction for tradespeople, similar in form and intent to the measure that Bill C‑241 seeks to introduce.

On June 23, 2022, Parliament passed Bill C‑19, which included amendments to the Income Tax Act to create tradespeople's mobility deductions, as proposed in Budget 2022.

Again, it's part of the current tax system. In fact, the Canada Revenue Agency is currently finalizing forms and administrative procedures, including guidance, to allow taxpayers to claim the labour mobility deduction for the 2022 tax year this coming spring. This is the time of year when the CRA is getting everything together so we can be ready for filing season.

Compared with the deduction that would be enacted by the bill you are considering today, Bill C-241, the labour mobility deduction that is already in law provides greater clarity on the definitions of some concepts and includes safeguards that contain its scope and cost. For example, Bill C-241 doesn't define travelling expenses or construction activity and uses the term “tax credit”, which is not a defined term in law. The bill also requires no minimum period of relocation, places no limit on the number of trips or the amount of expenses that could be deducted in the year and makes no allowance for trips that might span multiple tax years.

If Bill C‑241 were enacted, taxpayers would be using two substantially similar deductions that serve the same purpose. This would likely cause administrative difficulties for the Canada Revenue Agency and create confusion for tax filers, especially since the 2022 tax filing season will soon begin.

Once again, thank you. We will be happy to answer any questions that members may have on this or other elements of Bill C‑241.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Lewis, for being here today and for taking on this work that has been advocated for by others. I'm going to give a shout-out to my former colleague Scott Duvall, who presented a similar bill a couple of Parliaments before this one, and of course to my colleague Matthew Green from the NDP, who also presented a very similar bill. I will note my own work around this table when Bill C-19 was here in order to ensure there was fair tax treatment, as Mr. Chambers was saying, equal to or certainly like the kind of treatment that businesses get for writing down certain kinds of expenses. There is a long track record of supporting this kind of work, and I thank you for your contribution to it.

On the question we've been discussing when it comes to collective bargaining rights, I do think it is disgraceful to see the notwithstanding clause abused in this way. I share Monsieur Ste-Marie's incredulity at seeing Liberals and Conservatives argue over this point, because I've watched Liberals legislate people back to work.

I think the use of the notwithstanding clause is a relevant federal issue, because this is a precedent. The notwithstanding clause can be used by the federal government as much as it can by provincial governments. If we care about workers' rights to bargain collectively in Canada, it matters when a provincial government does this. It sets a precedent that can be used by other provinces and by the federal government.

This is something a province is doing that will have consequences in not only its own jurisdiction. This is something that a province is doing that will have repercussions for workers across the country if either another provincial government or the federal government decides to pull this kind of stunt one day. Therefore, I do think we should be properly concerned with this issue around this table. I don't think we can just write it off as a provincial issue. The notwithstanding clause is not simply a provincial issue. It's an issue of our constitution, which applies right across the country and to all levels of government.

Now you know what I think about that.

As an IBEW member and construction electrician in Manitoba, I just want to circle back to Manitoba, which you mentioned in your opening remarks. I recall that before 2016 we had a lot of local employment. In fact, our hall was trying to get more and more people to travel to Manitoba because we had a provincial government that was investing in infrastructure. That meant not only that people were getting paid to be on publicly funded infrastructure projects in Manitoba but also that we had very high private sector confidence and very high levels of private sector investment.

The government changed in 2016. We saw the public financing of infrastructure projects go away. Then we started seeing a lot less private sector investment in places like downtown Winnipeg. Then we saw high levels of local unemployment, persistent unemployment, even as the government was quite happy to invite non-union contractors from outside the province to come do work in Manitoba.

We also have to think about the role governments play in funding good public works with good requirements around good pay and good benefits when we talk about whether people are going to have to travel for work and whether they have good work available to them.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry I ran out of time, and we don't have time for a response.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Lewis, for being here with us and for bringing this bill forward.

Speaking for me, and I think for the government, frankly, I think we've demonstrated that we're very supportive of tax deductions for workers. I say that not just in conceptual terms but in tangible terms, through Bill C-19, which was passed by the House and which offers tax deductions for travel, relocation expenses and the like. I think that gives you a sense of where I'm at and where a lot of the members on this side are at in terms of making sure we're supporting workers through tax deductions.

Something like a labour mobility deduction is so supported by members on different sides of the aisle because we understand there's a need to train and retain skilled tradespeople. You spoke to that a little bit in your responses to Mr. Morantz. The deduction that you're proposing in this bill or the deduction that's in Bill C-19, the Budget Implementation Act, helps to incentivize people to get into and stay in the field.

Another important part of these jobs and the attractiveness of them is the fact that they offer good wages and real protections. A big part of that is workers' rights, which are protected in our Charter of Rights. If there weren't those protections in the Charter of Rights, it's hard for me to imagine that many of the workers we're talking about here today—whom Bill C-19 helps and whom your bill seeks to help—would have the wages and the protections they have today.

You've spoken here in the committee about how you want to encourage people to join the trades and how that's part of the intent of the bill. On that point, I want to ask this: Don't you think there's a chilling effect on Canadians who might think about getting into the trades when they see the provincial government, in this case the Premier of Ontario, using the notwithstanding clause to pre-emptively suspend workers' fundamental rights, which are so essential to achieving the wages and protections that we all believe in?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I want to say a huge thanks to MP Chris Lewis for bringing this private member's bill before us. It is with great happiness that I hear opposition members talk about standing up for workers. This is the party that previously brought in Bill C‑377 and Bill C‑525, which we had to repeal and which were definitely anti-labour legislation. I would also hope there will maybe be some influence from our federal colleagues on their provincial Ontario colleagues in terms of standing up for education workers whose rights are now being taken away pre-emptively using the notwithstanding clause.

In any case, I'm going to focus on this piece of legislation before us.

Mr. Lewis, I've had the true pleasure of being on this committee for a few years, and we've had a number of trades workers come before us and say that it is super important for them to be able to have a certain amount of money to cover their costs in terms of going through the different jurisdictions. They've asked for this for a number of years.

Just over the last year, in our Budget Implementation Act, we implemented the labour mobility deduction, which provides $4,000 per year in tax recognition for eligible tax and temporary relocation expenses, because that has been requested by tradespeople. I'll tell you, we had Sean Strickland from Canada's Building Trades Unions. He applauds the Government of Canada for its support of skilled trades workers in budget 2022, which implemented this labour mobility deduction. He said the labour mobility tax deduction for tradespeople is something for which we have advocated for over two decades, and it will support working Canadians and families to travel to where the work is, helping to address labour availability across the country.

We also heard from the president of the Canada Labour Congress, Bea Bruske, who stated that Bill C‑19's labour mobility deduction was a welcomed step that would benefit workers.

You mentioned in your opening remarks that there is a labour shortage, which all of us are painfully aware of. I want to ask you a specific question and I want to give you a little bit of a scenario, because right now the way the bill is written, as you've proposed, it doesn't require those claiming it to be working in Canada.

For example, even with a 120-kilometre distance requirement, you could have an individual who lives in Oakville take up daily work across the border in Buffalo. In your very own riding of Essex, a skilled tradesperson living in Kingsville could travel to a work site in the west end of Ann Arbor, Michigan, and the Canadian taxpayer would be footing the bill if your legislation passed. Under your bill, it would be a better deal for someone to work in Ann Arbor or Flint, Michigan, than in Windsor.

I'm concerned, and I know many others are concerned that this may further incentivize workers living close to the border to take work in the U.S. at a time when we're facing serious labour shortages here in Canada. Can you maybe address this? I know that you've also talked about a worker deficit in the House. Have you received any assurance that this won't further exacerbate the issue by incentivizing those skilled workers who live close to the border to work outside the country?

Statement Concerning the Similarities Between Bill C-250 and Bill C-19—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I would like to provide a short update regarding a statement I made on May 11, 2022, concerning similarities between two bills that were before the House at that time. They were Bill C-250, an act to amend the Criminal Code (prohibition—promotion of antisemitism), standing in the name of the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, and Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, and other measures.

As members will recall, clause 332 of Bill C-19 contained near identical text to Bill C-250. To be more specific, the two bills sought to amend section 319 of the Criminal Code pertaining to hate propaganda, for similar purposes. Both made it an offence to wilfully promote antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust through statements communicated other than in private conversation. There was only a minor difference in the wording of one of the acceptable defences.

As indicated in my earlier statement on this matter, there is a long-standing principle to keep or avoid having the same question from being decided twice within the same session. On May 11, 2022, the Chair had therefore ordered that, pending the fate of Bill C-19, Bill C-250 may not be called for its second hour of debate at second reading.

Bill C-19 received royal assent on June 23, 2022. Accordingly, I am ordering that the order for the second reading of Bill C-250 be discharged and that the bill be dropped from the Order Paper.

I thank all the members for their attention.

Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, beginning on Friday, June 24, 2022, and ending on Friday, June 23, 2023:

(a) members may participate in proceedings of the House either in person or by videoconference, provided that members participating remotely be in Canada;

(b) members who participate remotely in a sitting of the House be counted for the purpose of quorum;

(c) provisions in the Standing Orders to the need for members to rise or to be in their place, as well as any reference to the chair, the table or the chamber shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the virtual and hybrid nature of the proceedings;

(d) the application of Standing Order 17 shall be suspended;

(e) in Standing Orders 26(2), 53(4), 56.1(3), and 56.2(2), the reference to the number of members required to rise be replaced with the word “five”;

(f) the application of Standing Order 62 shall be suspended for any member participating remotely;

(g) documents may be laid before the House or presented to the House electronically, provided that:

(i) documents deposited pursuant to Standing Order 32(1) shall be deposited with the Clerk of the House electronically,

(ii) documents shall be transmitted to the clerk by members prior to their intervention,

(iii) any petition presented pursuant to Standing Order 36(5) may be filed with the clerk electronically,

(iv) responses to questions on the Order Paper deposited pursuant to Standing Order 39 may be tabled electronically;

(h) should the House resolve itself in a committee of the whole, the Chair may preside from the Speaker’s chair;

(i) when a question that could lead to a recorded division is put to the House, in lieu of calling for the yeas and nays, one representative of a recognized party can rise to request a recorded vote or to indicate that the motion is adopted on division, provided that a request for a recorded division has precedence;

(j) when a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion, or a motion to concur in a bill at report stage on a Friday, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 78, but excluding any division in relation to the budget debate, pursuant to Standing Order 84, or the business of supply occurring on the last supply day of a period, other than as provided in Standing Orders 81(17) and 81(18)(b), or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57,

(i) before 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at that day’s sitting, or

(ii) after 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday,

provided that any extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) shall not exceed 90 minutes;

(k) if a motion for the previous question under Standing Order 61 is adopted without a recorded division, the vote on the main question may be deferred under the provisions of paragraph (j), however if a recorded division is requested on the previous question, and such division is deferred and the previous question subsequently adopted, the vote on the original question shall not be deferred;

(l) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this order, is requested, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday, provided that such recorded divisions be taken after the other recorded divisions deferred at that time;

(m) for greater certainty, this order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(n) when a recorded division is to be held, the bells to call in the members shall be sounded for not more than 30 minutes, except recorded divisions deferred to the conclusion of Oral Questions, when the bells shall be sounded for not more than 15 minutes;

(o) recorded divisions shall take place in the usual way for members participating in person or by electronic means through the House of Commons electronic voting application for all other members, provided that:

(i) electronic votes shall be cast from within Canada using the member’s House-managed mobile device and the member’s personal House of Commons account, and that each vote require visual identity validation,

(ii) the period allowed for voting electronically on a motion shall be 10 minutes, to begin after the Chair has read the motion to the House, and members voting electronically may change their vote until the electronic voting period has closed,

(iii) in the event a member casts their vote both in person and electronically, a vote cast in person take precedence,

(iv) any member unable to vote via the electronic voting system during the 10-minute period due to technical issues may connect to the virtual sitting to indicate to the Chair their voting intention by the House videoconferencing system,

(v) following any concern, identified by the electronic voting system, which is raised by a House officer of a recognized party regarding the visual identity of a member using the electronic voting system, the member in question shall respond immediately to confirm their vote, either in person or by the House videoconferencing system, failing which the vote shall not be recorded,

(vi) the whip of each recognized party have access to a tool to confirm the visual identity of each member voting by electronic means, and that the votes of members voting by electronic means be made available to the public during the period allowed for the vote,

(vii) the process for votes in committees of the whole take place in a manner similar to the process for votes during sittings of the House with the exception of the requirement to call in the members,

(viii) any question to be resolved by secret ballot be excluded from this order,

(ix) during the taking of a recorded division on a private members’ business, when the sponsor of the item is the first to vote and present at the beginning of the vote, the member be called first, whether participating in person or remotely;

(p) during meetings of standing, standing joint, special, special joint, except the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, and legislative committees and the Liaison Committee, as well as their subcommittees, where applicable, members may participate either in person or by videoconference, and provided that priority use of House resources for meetings shall be established by an agreement of the whips and, for virtual or hybrid meetings, the following provisions shall apply:

(i) members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum,

(ii) except for those decided unanimously or on division, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote,

(iii) when more than one motion is proposed for the election of a chair or a vice-chair of a committee, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted,

(iv) public proceedings shall be made available to the public via the House of Commons website,

(v) in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants,

(vi) notices of membership substitutions pursuant to Standing Order 114(2) and requests pursuant to Standing Order 106(4) may be filed with the clerk of each committee by email; and

(q) notwithstanding the order adopted on Wednesday, March 2, 2022, regarding the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, until the committee ceases to exist and where applicable,

(i) the committee shall hold meetings in person only should this be necessary to consider any matter referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act,

(ii) members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum,

(iii) except for those decided unanimously or on division, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote,

(iv) in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants,

(v) when more than one motion is proposed for the election of the House vice-chairs, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted;

that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House has passed this order; and

that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to undertake a study on hybrid proceedings and the aforementioned changes to the Standing Orders and the usual practice of the House.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on this motion and talk about the extension of hybrid provisions for one year and the opportunity for the procedure and House affairs committee members to study the issue of either the use or the non-use of those provisions as they deem through their process and their recommendations thereafter.

I will take us back for a moment to March 2020. As the whole business of the pandemic was unfolding, it was about a week before this House shut down when I had a conversation with the House administration at that time asking what the pandemic plan was and what we had on the books. Of course, those who wrote it had put something together, but it became apparent very quickly upon looking at it that the intersection of what was planned with what happened in real life meant that the plan, frankly, was not of much use.

We then began a process, and I want to thank members from all parties, reflecting back on those early days in March 2020, as we attempted to find a way for Canada's Parliament to continue to do its business and to make sure that, notwithstanding the fact that we had this incredible public health emergency that sent people to their homes, Canadians knew that the seat of their democracy continued to function, continued to get bills passed and continued to put supports out there for them.

Before I talk about some of those supports, I want to take a moment to thank the House administration and officials who worked with us to create these tools and innovations to allow our democracy to continue to function. In an incredibly short period of time, an ability was developed to participate and vote virtually. This eventually led to a voting app and other refinements that have enabled members, whether or not they are sick, whether or not they are unable to be at the House for medical or other reasons, to continue to participate in the proceedings of the House and to make sure they are not disenfranchised and their constituents continue to be represented.

Members would remember that Canadians and businesses were reeling in those early days of COVID, and some three million jobs were lost. There was a real state of folks not knowing where things were going to go. Small businesses were left unable to serve their customers and wondering what their future would be. It was specifically because of the provisions we put in place, which all parties worked on with the House administration, that we were able to still get those supports adopted and make historic support available to make sure that businesses and individuals did not fall through the cracks.

Now we see the economy roaring back, and 115% of jobs lost during the pandemic have come back, compared to below 100% for the United States. We see us being a world leader in economic growth, number two in the G7 and trending towards being number one next year. It is absolutely evident that the supports that were put in place to make sure that Canadians did not fall through the cracks were what got us there.

When we think of the bravery of people opening a small business, taking a chance and putting themselves out in the world, putting their shingle out and hoping to survive, there are a lot of things they have to prepare for, such as the possibility that their product may not be as popular as they had hoped, or the long hours that they, and the people they employ, will have to put in to try to make the business successful. Of course, it is not reasonable for folks to expect that a global pandemic will be the thing that shuts them down. It was, in fact, those hybrid provisions that enabled people to get that work done.

The pandemic continues, but before I talk about the continuing pandemic, I will take a moment to talk about all the things that we got done, and not just those historic supports.

As the pandemic came and went, as we thought it was over last November and we thought that things might be returning to a sense of normalcy but we got hit by omicron, the flexibility of Parliament meant that we were able to continue to get the job of the nation done. We can take a look at how much Parliament was able to accomplish from January to June: 14 bills, not including supply, were presented, and we introduced seven bills in the Senate on a range of important issues. Many of the bills that we are passing now or that have just passed through the House are going to the Senate, and it is our hope and expectation, particularly with the great work that was just done on Bill C-28, that the Senate will be able to get that done as well before it rises for the summer. This was all done using the hybrid provisions.

Let us take a look at some of those bills.

Bill C-19 is critical to grow our economy, foster clean technology, strengthen our health care system and make life more affordable for Canadians in areas such as housing and child care.

Bill C-18 would make sure that media and journalists in Canadian digital news receive fair compensation for their work in an incredibly challenged digital environment.

Bill C-11 would require online streaming services to contribute to the creation and availability of Canadian stories and music to better support Canadian artists.

Bill C-21 would protect Canadians from the dangers of firearms in our communities, making sure that we freeze the market on handguns, attack smuggling at the border and implement red flag provisions to address domestic violence.

Bill C-22 was brought forward to reduce poverty among persons with disabilities in Canada and is part of a broader strategy that has seen more than one million Canadians lifted out of poverty. That is particularly remarkable when we think that it was this government that set the first targets ever for poverty reduction. After we set those goals, we have been exceeding them every step of the way, and Bill C-22 is a big part of that strategy.

Bill C-28, which I talked about a minute ago, deals with the extreme intoxication defence. It is a great example of Parliament in a hybrid environment being able to work collaboratively to ensure that we close an important loophole to make sure that the extreme intoxication defence is not used when murder has been committed.

These are just some of the bills that we have been able to put forward, and we have been able to do so in a way that empowered all members of Parliament to be able to participate, whether they had COVID or not.

To give members a sense of the challenges, not only was all of this done using the hybrid system and during the middle of a pandemic, but it was done while dealing with obstruction. We saw all the times the Conservatives obstructed government legislation. In fact, 17 times over the past 14 weeks, the Conservatives used obstruction tactics, using concurrence motions and other tactics to block and obstruct, in many cases, legislation that was supported by three out of the four official parties here. They took the opportunity to obstruct, yet despite that, we have been able to make great progress.

The Conservatives support Bill C-14, yet we ended up spending a night because they were moving motions to hear their own speakers. At the MAID committee looking at medical assistance in dying, where there was incredibly sensitive testimony, witnesses were not able to testify because of the tactics and games that were happening here in this place. However, despite all that, in a hybrid environment we have been able to move forward.

Let us look at last week. Last week there were five members of the Liberal caucus who had COVID, and one of these people was the Prime Minister. I do not know how many members there were in other caucuses, but all were still able to participate in these proceedings. Every day, unfortunately, thousands of Canadians across the country continue to get COVID. Sadly, many of them are in hospitals and, even more tragically, many of them are dying. This pandemic is still very much a reality.

What we have seen over the last two years is that every time we try to start a parliamentary session, we spend weeks debating whether we should or should not continue using the hybrid system. Parliament deserves stability. People are still getting COVID. They have the right to be able to participate in this place, and as has been demonstrated by the incredible amount of work we have been able to get done during the pandemic, from historic supports in the deepest, darkest time of the pandemic to the more recent times dealing with a whole range of legislation that is absolutely critical to Canadians, these provisions allow us to continue to do the work of this nation in extraordinary times.

I do not think we should be in a position such that every time we start Parliament, we continue to have this debate. Canadians need predictability, as we do not know where this pandemic or public health circumstances are going. Canadians need predictability until the House of Commons, through a committee process, can evaluate the utility and usefulness of the provisions outside of a pandemic reality to see if they should be extended or used. We need to have a proper, thorough debate in that venue, hearing from witnesses, hearing from parliamentarians, taking a look at what was accomplished and at what could be done better or differently.

We are already seeing big improvements in everything, from the services that are being delivered to interpretation. I look forward to PROC's work to see whether or not these provisions have utility, but until then, this measure would give us the stability for PROC to do its report and for Parliament to continue to function in incredibly challenging times.

That is why I think it is only prudent to pass this measure now. It is so that Parliament will have the stability to do its work, so Canadians will know this work will not be interrupted, and so we can focus instead on the business of the nation.

[Anthony Durocher]

From our perspective, we're undergoing a very important review of the Competition Act at this time. The amendments being proposed in the budget implementation act represent a very important start, from our perspective.

However, this phase two, this further review to have a robust discussion and to hear from all quarters of the economy—because competition impacts everyone—and to make sure we have effective competition legislation, is certainly critical from our perspective to protect consumers, SMEs and the economy.

[Anthony Durocher, Deputy Commissioner, Competition Promotion Branch, Competition Bureau]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.

My name is Anthony Durocher and I am Deputy Commissioner of the Competition Promotion Branch at the Competition Bureau. I am joined by my colleague Krista McWhinnie, Deputy Commissioner of the Monopolistic Practices Directorate.

We are here today to support your study on small and medium-sized enterprises, or SMEs. The Bureau's long-held position is that SMEs are the bedrock of a dynamic and resilient economy. While many SMEs were hit hard by the pandemic, they remain an important engine of inclusive economic growth. They challenge established incumbents, and disrupt entire industries.

The Competition Bureau enforces the Competition Act, which recognizes the vital role of SMEs at the outset in its purpose clause. It states that “maintaining and encouraging competition” is central to ensuring that “small and medium-sized enterprises have an equitable opportunity to participate in the Canadian economy.”

We work hard to support SMEs. For example, we stop any anti-competitive business practices that seek to limit SMEs from challenging bigger players. We require businesses to tell the truth about their products and services, so that consumers aren't misled away from using the products and services of SMEs. We prevent any competitive mergers and punish price-fixing and other forms of collusion to ensure that SMEs can access inputs at competitive prices. We advocate for government rules that ensure a level playing field for SMEs.

To achieve these goals, we need the right tools to address competition issues in a timely and effective manner. The Competition Act amendments set out in the budget implementation act are an important step, but those changes are just the beginning. We are very pleased that the government has committed to consult broadly on the role and functioning of the Competition Act and its enforcement regime. In February of this year, we made a public submission to Senator Wetston's consultation on modernizing the Competition Act. The ideas put forward are based on our experience in administering and enforcing the law across all sectors of the economy.

The bureau remains focused and motivated in its role as Canada's competition authority and looks forward to an ongoing, vigorous and inclusive debate on how best to achieve these goals.

We look forward to your questions.

Government Policies

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, airports are in chaos. The passport office is snowed under. Inflation is out of control. Ministers are misleading Parliament. The government's current priorities are an incoherent mess.

Bill C-5 would drop sentencing requirements on violent offenders and drug traffickers and open the door for sex offenders to serve community sentences near their victims. Bill C-21 pretends to address gun violence, but literally only affects people who obey Canada's existing strict firearms laws. Bill C-19 would remove any pretense of fiscal control from the undisciplined and unserious government. Bill C-11 is a bill that would give the CRTC the power to control what Canadians find and post on the Internet. None of these bills would do anything to fix any of Canada's serious problems.

If these are the government's priorities for the next two weeks, I suggest it quit now and spend the summer coming up with a real agenda to help Canadians.

[Christiane Fox]

Mr. Chair, I don't have the bill number, but it's part of the budget implementation act.

[Sara Anghel, President, National Marine Manufacturers Association Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee and ladies and gentlemen.

My name is Sara Anghel. I'm the president of the National Marine Manufacturers Association of Canada. I'm appearing today to speak against the luxury tax on boats included in Bill C-19. I realize the bill received third reading yesterday, but I think it's very important the committee hear our concerns.

Our industry is made up of mostly small businesses and, in many cases, family-run businesses. These include recreational marine manufacturers, dealers, marinas and service providers. The industry has a GDP impact of $5.6 billion, $10 billion in revenue, and employs 75,000 people across Canada.

Our industry has faced many headwinds since the start of the pandemic. Supply chain disruptions, production delays and inflation have affected our members. Tourism and recreational businesses were closed for months due to pandemic restrictions and border closures. On top of that, we are now facing an impending luxury tax on boats.

Our industry understands the government's need to raise revenue in the wake of the pandemic, but the luxury tax is not the way to achieve this. The history of luxury taxes shows that consumers will simply choose to take their discretionary spending elsewhere. That is what dealers and manufacturers are hearing from customers. The result will inevitably be a dip in revenue and hundreds or even thousands of job losses across the country.

According to an economic impact study by economist Dr. Jack Mintz, the proposed tax will result in a minimum $90-million decrease in revenues for boat dealers, and potential job losses of at least 900 full-time equivalent employees. In short, the tax will hurt the very middle-class families that the government is trying to help.

The problem with this kind of tax is that it can easily be avoided by consumers by either buying goods or purchasing and keeping their boats abroad, for example, in Florida or Seattle. The expected drop in sales will significantly impact the bottom line of manufacturers and dealers, who will then be forced to scale back their operations and staffing levels.

While we saw a boom in boat sales during the pandemic, the supply chain disruption has been very difficult for our industry and, in fact, dealers are expecting a significant drop in sales due to material shortages. An Ontario-based dealer, Crate's Lake Country Boats, in Orillia, expects a drop of 70% in sales by the end of 2022, and that doesn't account for what will happen once the tax is in place.

We can also expect a ripple effect on job losses at marinas and service shops. Fewer new boats sold means less work for the marine service industry, much of which is concentrated in rural and coastal communities.

In the early 1990s, the U.S. introduced a similar luxury tax on boats, which devastated the industry and was eventually repealed following the loss of thousands of jobs and a net revenue loss for the government. New Zealand, Italy, Norway, Turkey and Spain have all previously introduced luxury taxes on boats. In each one of these cases, the tax was ultimately repealed due to the net negative economic effects. There is no reason to think the same will not happen here.

We're also troubled by the singling out of recreational boats and not other recreational products. Boating is a cherished pastime for millions of middle-class Canadian families, and in this unaffordable recreational property market, many families choose to purchase a boat as their cottage. At a time when governments are trying to attract investment and rebuild our economy, a tax that guts homegrown manufacturing and retail businesses makes no sense. Instead of supporting our industry as a vital part of Canada's recovery, this tax is picking winners and losers in outdoor recreation.

The luxury tax also has the potential to damage Canada's trade relations. Concerns have been raised by the boating industry in the United States that this tax directly attacks our Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement. Similarly, our trading partners in the U.K. and European Union could be hurt by what many see as an indirect tariff on boats.

In conclusion, I want to draw attention to the latest report released by the PBO, stating that there will be 2.9 billion dollars' worth of lost sales from boats, aircraft and cars. However, $2.1 billion of that, which is 75% of the loss, is expected to come from boats. This is a complete assault on the boating industry.

I saw that there was an amendment passed removing the September 1, 2022, implementation date for the aerospace industry. If 75% of the loss is expected to come from the boating industry, it would be only logical to have a similar amendment for boats, to save jobs and not decimate the industry in Canada.

Thank you for the time.

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:10 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn to the amendment of the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola to the motion at third reading of Bill C‑19.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from June 8, 2022, consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pride to rise in the House of Commons to talk about the budget and how it would strengthen communities like mine in Windsor—Tecumseh.

Budget 2022 is first and foremost a jobs budget and a workers budget, and it is a budget that would make life more affordable for millions of Canadians.

This spring, I was proud to stand on stage with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Innovation to announce two once-in-a-generation investments in my community. The first was a $5-billion investment by Stellantis and LG to create a battery plant that would create 3,200 good-paying auto jobs. The second announcement was a $3.7-billion investment at the Windsor assembly plant that would bring back the third shift and create another 2,000-plus auto jobs.

Taken together, this almost $9-billion investment represents the largest auto investment in the history of Canada, and it represents the largest-ever investment in the history of Windsor—Tecumseh. Those two investments would create over 5,500 jobs in my community, cement Windsor-Essex as the automobile capital of Canada, and secure the prosperity of Windsor-Essex for generations. That was made possible, first and foremost, because we have the best and most skilled workforce that builds things better than anyone else in the world, and second, because our federal government has made historic investments in fighting climate change, well over $100 billion, and that includes investments in the transition to a zero-emission future.

This budget continues those historic investments, which are transforming Windsor—Tecumseh into a leader in the green transition. That includes a $15-billion Canada growth fund to leverage private sector investment in the clean-tech sector. We could ask our friends at WEtech Alliance and Invest WindsorEssex how important capital is to growing and attracting good, clean-tech jobs and businesses. It also includes $1.7 billion in incentives for the zero-emission vehicles program, because we want to encourage Canadians to buy electric vehicles built by Canadians in communities like mine.

More than just electric vehicles, our community has an opportunity to be a leader in the protection of Canada's lakes, rivers and oceans, including the Great Lakes. There is an awesome opportunity for Windsor—Tecumseh in Canada's blue economy. The Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research at the University of Windsor is Canada's leader in Great Lakes and clean water research. It will have a key role to play in the newly established Canada water agency, which would be up and running in 2022, thanks to this budget. The potential to build a modern research and innovation hub for clean water technology in Windsor—Tecumseh is enormous. This budget opens that door through the clean water agency and the creation of a Canadian innovation and investment agency.

Speaking of water, I had the opportunity recently to tour the docking, fuelling and warehousing facilities of companies operating along the Detroit River at the port of Windsor, companies like Morterm and Sterling Fuels. Through this budget, and the last, we are investing $2.4 billion in the national trade corridors fund that has the potential to supercharge ports like Port Windsor into a true multimodal transportation hub in the North American supply chain. That means more jobs and more investments back home.

As we create thousands of jobs locally and generate billions of dollars of investment across Windsor-Essex, we will have to turn our attention to two growing challenges. The first is affordable housing. Like many communities across Canada, Windsor—Tecumseh has a housing crisis. One important piece of the puzzle is to build and renovate more affordable housing. In just the last two years, I was proud to announce over $200 million for affordable housing in Windsor-Essex. That is a record for affordable housing in Windsor-Essex. We know that more needs to be done, and more needs to be done faster. This budget launches a new $4-billion housing accelerator fund to help municipalities like ours build more homes faster. To help more people purchase their first home, we introduced the tax-free first-home savings account and a homebuyers' bill of rights.

The second challenge we will face, especially as our local economy ramps up, is the need for skilled workers. We are seeing labour shortages across Canada. We will need more apprentices and more skilled workers to construct homes and build electric vehicles, batteries, charging stations and other infrastructure. I was proud last week when our government announced the $247-million investment to establish a new apprenticeship service that would create over 20,000 new apprenticeships by providing small and medium-sized businesses with up to $10,000 to hire a new apprentice. At the same time, in this budget, we are doubling the union training and innovation fund, because we know that unions like the IBEW, LiUNA, UNIFOR, and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners know how to train skilled workers for today and tomorrow.

Since my election, I have been pushing hard to put more money into the pockets of skilled workers, including those who have to travel out of town to a job site. I am pleased to see a labour mobility deduction in this year's budget that will allow skilled workers and apprentices to deduct $4,000 of travel and temporary relocation expenses.

Of course, what is going to make life more affordable for so many families and allow so many moms and dads to go to work or go back to school to gain the skills they need is our federal government's historic $10-a-day child care plan.

Communities like mine in Windsor—Tecumseh are entering a golden age of prosperity. No doubt there are many challenges ahead, but we are a community that pulls together, neighbour looking after neighbour. With historic investments and leadership by this federal government, we are ready to meet those challenges and take full advantage of the opportunities. That is why I suggest we support Bill C-19.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to share my thoughts on Bill C-19. Like many members in the House, we have carefully examined the many clauses included in this piece of legislation, which implements many of the changes announced by the government in its budget.

The devil is in the details, and I would like to thank my Bloc Québécois colleagues for their vigilance, because the amendments were important, and the organizations that contacted us wanted to be heard loud and clear. I particularly want to congratulate my colleague from Joliette and my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville.

There are times when our actions really matter. Small industries, especially our SMEs, often bear the brunt of measures that are not adapted to their reality, and we must be vigilant. I can assure the House that we have put a great deal of effort and resources into reviewing the proposed changes and doing the necessary checks. The Bloc Québécois believes that it is possible to be prudent, rigorous and innovative at the same time. While our goal is to get everything for Quebec when the current crises are over, the Bloc Québécois is determined to secure as much as possible for Quebeckers.

The Bloc Québécois carefully went through every clause of the bill, as it always does. It voted in favour of the parts that are good for Quebec and voted against the parts that are not good for Quebec, and it tried to improve the parts that could become good for Quebec, in particular for charities.

Last week I spoke about some of the challenges that charities told us about during recent consultations. I am very happy that we were able to build on a solid foundation to make it easier for charities to sign co-operation agreements with organizations not recognized as charities. This will ensure that charities are not needlessly overburdened and can concentrate on their missions.

With Bill C‑19, the version amended by the Bloc Québécois, we join other countries that have taken similar measures to support charities better. The original version of Bill C‑19 introduced by the Liberal government did not adequately respond to what charities had asked for.

I now want to talk about mead and cider. I want to acknowledge David Ouellet, from Miellerie de la Grande Ourse in Saint‑Marc‑de‑Figuery, and the folks at Verger des Tourterelles in Duhamel‑Ouest.

I would like to clearly explain the importance of the amendments made by the Bloc Québécois to Bill C‑19, especially in response to the request by mead and cider producers to exempt these products from the excise tax. Many members here in the House urged the government to help the restaurant and tourism industries, as well as our honey producers, maple syrup producers, berry farmers and many other sectors of our economy.

This is a fine example of a Bloc Québécois amendment that provided desperately needed breathing room. I am certain that we managed to stave off the closure of many businesses across Quebec. Peripheral sectors and businesses such as apple farmers, bee farms, the tourism industry and the restaurant sector will be the better for it.

I have a word of caution for fly-in, fly-out workers. One of the measures I am worried about is the labour mobility deduction for tradespeople who temporarily relocate to a job site. This measure would let people who temporarily work away from their home deduct a portion of their travel and accommodation expenses. It will reduce the pressure that the labour shortage is putting on several sectors in Abitibi-Témiscamingue in the mining industry and construction.

What we do not want, however, is for our region to become a fly-in, fly-out destination. We need to ensure that people settle in our area, that they live there and become proud and strong Témiscamingue people. The wages paid must be spent in local businesses. That is how we develop our territory, how we live in it and how we help small and medium-sized businesses become large corporations.

I already explained all the effects of this kind of measure when we studied another member's bill in the House. I would remind everyone that there is a serious housing shortage in Quebec and that these kinds of measures can put additional pressure on the rental market.

If we make it easier for these temporary workers to come to our regions, they will surely want to stay after getting a taste of what we have to offer. I can assure the House that that is definitely the case in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, where people want to stay and build their dreams with their feet on the ground. There they can live it up in Sainte-Germaine-Boulé, attend a secret show in an alley in Rouyn-Noranda at the Festival de musique émergente, enjoy the view of the majestic Lac Témiscamingue in Ville-Marie or taste the incredible quality of the agri-food products of the Amos region.

Another thing I would like to talk about is division 15 of Bill C‑19, which is about the Competition Act. On May 20, after I moved a motion in this regard, the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology studied this section and heard from numerous witnesses. I think reluctance on the part of those who just spoke has to do with the fact that there were no real public discussions about the measures the government is imposing in this budget bill. As a matter of fact, all the witnesses were surprised to see this section in a budget bill instead of in a bill of its own.

As for the public debate, some people simply want to maintain the status quo in terms of competition. Others say that it is high time changes were made. I think my colleagues know where the Bloc stands. The message needs to be tailored and crystal clear. There must be strict rules that allow for real competition. We are in favour of meaningful reform of the Competition Act as long as it is a comprehensive, transparent process.

Where are things going in the realm of competition? Here are some thought from the Commissioner of the Competition Bureau:

An important conversation is taking shape about the role of competition in the Canadian economy. It's occurring against a backdrop of increasing concerns about the rise of corporate titans and the changing nature of our digital marketplace. New thinkers have engaged in the debate.

As MPs who are members of this committee, we noted the deep concern of some people who testified. We did not change the coming into force date of this section of the bill, in order to give the Competition Bureau the opportunity to include all the elements required to implement these changes. Everyone expects a firm commitment and swift action from Commissioner Boswell, and everyone agrees that it is urgent that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry introduce a new bill on competition.

Significant amendments were proposed as a first step. They would enhance the Competition Bureau's investigative powers, criminalize wage-fixing and no-poach agreements, and increase maximum fines and administrative monetary penalties. They would clarify that incomplete price disclosure is a false or misleading representation. The amendments also would 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.

In conclusion, it is getting late, so I would like to sum up my thoughts on this bill. I wish I could say that all these measures will achieve the results that our constituents are hoping for. With the time I was given, I discussed only a few of the measures set out in the 400 pages of this bill. In this case, we tried to improve it as much as possible in the limited time we had, due to closure. We will have to be twice as vigilant and listen even more to the people in our communities.

Fortunately for the people in my riding, the Bloc Québécois is able to promote its recommendations. Again, the government was caught off guard. It tried to bury measures in a 400‑page tome. I can guarantee that, especially under the watchful eye of my colleague from Joliette, anything we missed this time will get picked up during the next round of legislative amendments.

I want to mention that introducing elements in a massive bill instead of having substantive, transparent debates in parliamentary groups always has dangerous consequences. Many people came to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology to tell us that.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

We are heading into the final hour of Wednesday, June 8. I am pleased to be spending the final moments of this day with my colleagues. I want to thank them in advance for their rapt attention.

We are here tonight to discuss Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures. I would like to review the timeline. This bill has come back from committee. First, there was the budget. There were many things about it that bothered us, so many, in fact, that we could not support it. Voting against it was our only option. The bill contained a significant amount of intrusion, interference, and federalism pervaded. That rampant federalism would have steamrolled our jurisdictions and dictated the terms. There would have been interference here, there and everywhere.

There were also some things that were frustrating because they were not in the budget, such as health. I am not big on whataboutism. People cannot just say there is this thing but not that thing. They cannot just say that there is no actual debate on health. They cannot say that we have not moved forward, that we have not pressed the issue, that we have not been talking about it for quite some time. When I say “we”, I am not just talking about the Bloc Québécois. I am talking about all the provinces, which are united. It is Quebec too. The National Assembly has passed so many unanimous motions on this. They cannot say the government might be surprised when we raise this issue. They cannot say we are coming out of left field. No, we have been talking about this for a long time. It is a problem.

We are at the tail end of a public health crisis—or let us hope so, anyway—that did not create the situation. No doubt it exacerbated it, but we have long been aware of skyrocketing health care costs. We have known for some time that it is up to the provinces to hire doctors, nurses and PSWs and that the money is tied up in Ottawa.

As we know, funding has been cut for quite some time. In the 1990s, Ottawa made its surpluses on the backs of the provinces. Since then, the provinces have had to fight like hell to be able to fund their health care services and social services in general.

There was nothing for seniors, either. As everyone knows, there was the infamous last-minute pre-election cheque last summer, but only for those aged 75 and over. Because of inflation, the cost of living is going up, so pensions also need to increase permanently. By the way, one is a senior as of age 65. A permanent increase in the pension is needed, but there is nothing about that in this legislation.

One could argue that some funding has been allocated to housing, but we are a long way from sustainable, significant and really strong investments that would actually compensate for the current crisis.

The Bloc Québécois advocated for an annual reinvestment of up to 1% of public funds. I do not think that is unreasonable. Money also needs to be diverted so that it does not always go just to private developers, but also to groups that are familiar with the real needs on the ground, such as not-for-profits, housing co‑operatives, and community organizations. The whole financial structure needs an overhaul. There was nothing on any of that. We were unable to support the budget because of what was in it and what was not in it.

Then came the budget implementation bill. We supported it, but with reservations, saying that we would see what came out of it. We would study it, look at it, analyze it. There are committees for that, such as the Standing Committee on Finance. I commend my colleague from Joliette, who is our finance critic and did this work patiently and conscientiously. He did some extremely serious work on this issue.

Several irritants were removed from this implementation bill, which contains some things that we want to improve and that make it possible for us to continue supporting it.

Let us talk about the excise tax. I am the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade, and the excise tax is a subject that I am very familiar with.

As a result of a complaint filed by Australia, the excise tax will once again be charged on all Canadian wines, effective July 2022, after having been exempt since 2006. This tax does not distinguish between grapes, apples and honey, but why should it apply to all wines, including mead and cider, when these last two products were not the target of Australia's complaint?

Mead production is small. The association of cider producers was established in 1992 and has 81 voluntary members. It testified before the Standing Committee on Finance.

Cider production rose from 3.2 million litres in 2016 to 5.1 million litres in 2021, an increase of 60% in five years. The market for cider is booming. This is a nod to the past, because, I remind members, cider was popular in New France. People started drinking beer after the conquest. The beer was not always good, but we have made up for that with microbreweries, which make very good beers.

Cider and mead, or honey wine, will suffer because of the excise tax. I do not understand how the government was unable to make a distinction between honey made by bees in their hives, apples and grapes. It makes no sense to me, especially because, in a similar legal battle with Australia, the Government of Quebec was able to exclude different products that were not standard wine varieties.

Clearly, each country is going to want to promote and protect its own producers and wines. However, Canada should not be penalizing an entire industry because of the government's incompetence and inability to differentiate. We would usually talk about not comparing apples to oranges, but in this case, it is a question of not comparing apples to grapes. What a ridiculous farce.

In the little bit of time I have left, I would like to talk about an unresolved issue, the infamous luxury tax. We support the principle of the luxury tax, taxing the ultrarich, banks, oil companies and their profits as inflation rises. As I said yesterday, our inflation is their loot. The issue we have is that the tax is flawed and very poorly designed, as it will penalize SMEs and the aerospace industry, which is flourishing in Quebec.

I started hearing from the industry about this a year ago. I realized at the time that there was a problem with the wording of the tax. Since then, stakeholders have asked the government to do an impact study, but it has refused. Now, the government can no longer justify pursuing this fallacious, erroneous, catastrophic plan that will penalize an industry that is just as important to Quebec as the auto industry is to Ontario.

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

Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague and thank him for his speech, especially for his extraordinary use of French. I also salute Yukon's francophone community.

In Bill C‑19, there is a part about the luxury tax that targets boats and aircraft, including planes, small planes and helicopters.

I would like to know whether my colleague has been contacted by any of his constituents about this and whether he is concerned that this may have a negative impact on the economic activity in some parts of his territory.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place today to debate Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of budget 2022.

I will say from the outset that I will be voting against this high-spending federal budget, which proposes to dig Canada deeper into debt and drive our deficits ever higher. It simply hurts and squeezes middle-class Canadians even more through the Liberals' inflationary policies, which have created a cost-of-living crisis for Canadians in this country and a competitiveness crisis for Canadian businesses.

The Liberals and NDP often rise in this chamber to claim that they have the backs of Canadians, but their actions, as demonstrated by this reckless budget, prove otherwise. They will argue that it helps Canadians, when in fact it does the exact opposite.

If people were hoping for a return to some form of fiscal responsibility in this most recent federal budget, I am sure they were as disappointed as I was when the Liberal government revealed its $452-billion spending plan on April 7. If there was any cut in this budget, it was in the size of the document itself, which went from 725 pages in last year's budget to 304 pages in budget 2022. Perhaps that is progress, but only for a Liberal, I would presume.

Let us think about this for a moment. Federal government spending is now 25% higher than it was prepandemic. According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, each Canadian’s share of the national debt is now $31,700, and it is growing quickly.

It is clear throughout budget 2022 that the Prime Minister, his Minister of Finance and his NDP friends have failed to deliver on a plan that is fiscally responsible. Instead, they have added another $50 billion in uncontrolled borrowed spending. This will only fuel inflation and result in higher taxes, because one day these costs will have to be paid.

Despite all this new spending, there was very little support announced for our hardest-hit tourism sector. There is no mention of repayment extensions for CEBA or RRRF, and there was no extension to the tourism and hospitality recovery program, which ended already last month. These were key requests made to the government by the tourism industry to assist in its recovery, yet they were all rebuffed by a government committed to the talking point that it invested $1 billion in tourism. They fail to mention that this was in last year's budget, and it was still grossly insufficient given the economic toll the pandemic raged against this industry.

At a time when tourism recovery is still very much an aspiration for many and not yet a reality or certainty, the Liberal-NDP government, through this budget, has pulled the rug from under the feet of the tourism sector by not listening to its concerns and input on these important federal business support programs.

My riding of Niagara Falls, which includes the beautiful towns of Fort Erie and Niagara-on-the-Lake, is Canada's top leisure tourism destination. Before the pandemic, Canada’s national tourism industry generated $105 billion, which is 2% of our country’s GDP, and it employed one in 10 Canadians. Meanwhile, Niagara Falls alone contributed $2.4 billion in tourism receipts, and it employs nearly 40,000 workers in Niagara in our local tourism sector.

For tourism businesses in Niagara, the 2022 summer tourism season is its first real chance at recovery in two years. The sector, which will generate 75% of its income in the next four months, will be challenged to achieve recovery in 2022, specifically as a result of the government’s policies. By not listening to the concerns of the tourism sector, the government has essentially tied one hand behind the sector’s back by ending important relief programs, all while continuing to have in place restrictive travel mandates, which serve to depress visitors from travelling to Canada for business, to visit family or for vacation.

Instead of allowing tourism to do what it does best, which is to welcome visitors from throughout the world, the Liberal-NDP government has decided to double down on its efforts to hurt the Canadian tourism and travel sector. In fact, through budget 2022, the government is allocating an additional $25 million to support the disastrous ArriveCAN app at our international border crossings and ports of entry for travellers coming into Canada.

From a tourism perspective, which is so important to Niagara, it makes no sense that this is a funding priority of the government in this budget. Instead, the Conservatives are calling on the government to scrap this app. We did not need this app to travel or welcome tourists before the pandemic. Surely, we will not need it to travel or welcome tourists after the pandemic. As the world reopens from COVID, these questions and criticisms of ArriveCAN are important and necessary to highlight and press the government about.

It was astonishing to hear the recent testimony of the Parliamentary Budget Officer in the Senate yesterday. When asked if the finance minister's long-term deficit reduction plan was believable, he said it was not. To quote media reports from the Senate hearing, the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated, “I personally don’t believe it’s credible that there will be that level of spending restraint in the period from 2024 to 2027, given all the expenditures that remain to be implemented by the government over that period of time.” Well, I have a suggestion for the government. Perhaps it can save the $25 million it has allocated to the ArriveCAN app in this year’s budget, which will do nothing to help our tourism sector recover.

Another issue that is hampering the recovery of the Canadian tourism and travel sector is the massive backlogs at our local passport offices. Simply put, constituents of mine are experiencing nightmare conditions of service that are completely unacceptable. Obtaining a passport and renewing a passport are basic services that Canadians can rightly expect from their federal government as citizens and taxpayers, but the incompetence of the Liberal-NDP government has been laid bare by this example of mismanagement. This strong demand for Canadian passports and passport renewals as this pandemic ends was completely predictable, yet the government is clearly unprepared to deal with it, which again proves it does not have a plan to actually help Canadians or our travel and tourism sector, which my riding depends on.

Budget 2022 also raises far more questions than it provides answers for regarding businesses and workers in Canada’s wine industry, which is so important to Niagara and Niagara-on-the-Lake in my riding. First, this budget provides zero details about what the important trade legal excise exemption replacement program will look like. The expensive new excise tax will be hitting Canadian wineries on July 1, which is about three weeks away, just 22 days from now. Wineries across the country badly need to learn these program details so they can prepare and brace against the impact of this new tax.

Interestingly, while no program details have yet been revealed, the federal government does show it expects a revenue windfall, forecasted at $390 million over the next five years, after the excise exemption is repealed. How they arrived at this forecast is unexplained, and it does not indicate whether they expect the industry to grow, remain stable or contract as a result of this new expensive excise tax.

Then there is the question of the $34-million difference between the $101 million of federal support over two years promised in budget 2021 and the $135 million of departmental revenue forecasted for the first two years after the excise exemption is repealed. We know that the wine industry said the $101-million commitment in budget 2021 fell way short of what was needed to offset the costs of repealing the excise exemption in order to keep the industry whole as it is.

Will the federal government commit to returning to the wine industry the $34 million that it expects to generate in tax from the wine industry? Again, we do not know. The expensive new excise tax and all these unanswered questions risk future prosperity in Canada’s wine sector, which is so important to Niagara’s identity and economy.

Budget 2022 fails Canadians and fails Niagara. It proposes to grow the federal government even bigger, when the most basic of federal services, such as passport offices, are already failing and dysfunctional. More importantly, it fails to support our important tourism and wine sectors. For all these reasons and more, I will be opposing budget 2022.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Niagara Falls. Niagara is a beautiful spot in Canada, but not as beautiful as Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

I am very pleased to rise in the House this evening to share my thoughts on Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

The first thing that came to mind when I read the budget was the phrase “out of touch”, because I was really upset to see how out of touch the government and the Prime Minister were with the reality of Canadians and their daily concerns.

Inflation is at its highest in 30 years. Absolutely everything costs more. The price of gas has skyrocketed. In my riding, the price per litre of regular gas is around $2.03 right now. The price of food has climbed by 9.8% since last year, and house prices have doubled since the Prime Minister came to power.

All these increases have a direct impact on ordinary Canadians, but the government is doing absolutely nothing to help. We pored over the budget, but we did not find anything that would help families cope with these three key issues.

The government is just as out of touch with two important sectors of our economy that are especially important to me and that are being hit hard right now: the agri-food chain, which is severely affected by inflation, and the tourism industry, which suffered tremendously during the pandemic. The budget offers only a few crumbs for these two sectors.

Madam Speaker, there is so much noise I cannot hear myself speak.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a simple answer. I do support Bill C-19.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague from Nepean's speech in hopes of finding some connection with Bill C‑19.

Beyond that, I also picked up on some criticism, constructive criticism, about his government's proposals relating to things that had kind of been forgotten. That is why I want to ask him if he plans to support Bill C‑19.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague, and everything I talked about is part of Bill C-19.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the House that we are talking about Bill C‑19, the budget implementation bill, not the budget itself. Not everything in that speech is in Bill C‑19. My colleague may take offence, but that speech had no connection to Bill C‑19.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, which did not have the slightest connection to Bill C-19.

I know that when a point of order is raised to have the Chair ask members of the House to ensure their speeches are on topic, it is always interpreted very broadly. In this case, however, my colleague's speech had absolutely nothing to do with Bill C‑19.

First the government introduces a special motion forcing us to sit until midnight every night, at its whim, under time allocation. The normal process of debate in the House is not being followed. Now the government is sending in Liberal members who, as interesting as their speeches are, are more or less filibustering on Bill C‑19.

My question for him is—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, today we debating Bill C-19, the budget implementation act, and I will be coming at this debate from the perspective of somebody who is a member of a young family, a father of a young child and an Albertan.

For the past seven budgets, we have seen a Liberal government that has always blown through its self-imposed fiscal guardrails. It has always spent far more than what its members originally told Canadians they were going to spend. I remember the Prime Minister's 2015 election talk about small $10-billion deficits, but we all know where that ended up. This government has racked up more debt than all the prime ministers in our country's history combined.

One would think that as we are getting out of the pandemic, the government would be wanting to look for ways to pull the throttle back on its stimulus spending. Some of the stimulus spending was definitely necessary during the pandemic, but as we are seeing high inflation, it is quite clear that there is not a need for further stimulus in our economy and that this government should be looking for ways to pare back some of the spending. As a father, I do not want to see my children and my grandchildren burdened with the debts of today in future generations. This would hinder their ability to chart their own futures.

I am not against government spending, but I always ask if we are getting a high return on investment for Canadians. That is why I have been really watching this Liberal government's much-flaunted, by themselves, early learning child care plan with a great deal of interest. The minister never fails to take an opportunity in the House to tell us about how successful this new program is, but the facts that we are beginning to see on the ground are telling a very different story.

I have reports from numerous day care centres across this country, not just from one province, that are saying that they cannot apply for this one-size-fits-all government program and that the amount of red tape is insurmountable. I have seen statements from day care operators that they will be required to submit expenses for food and craft supplies to a government agent for approval. Some are even being told that they need to cut their expenditures on nutritious food and educational programming in order to meet the government's stringent funding requirements.

Another huge issue is that this government's day care scheme seems to ignore the fundamental basics of economics: supply and demand. We know that when there is an increased demand, which the government is creating by promising affordable $10-a-day child care, there will be an increase in the cost of supply, and those supplies can take the form of, most significantly, the wages of child care workers, the cost to build new facilities and to rent out new facilities, and the cost to provide the programming. We know that as the demand increases, the cost of these supplies is going to increase.

I had a child care centre say to me that the government's proposed program will only subsidize the wages of child care workers up to $18 an hour. The average child care worker in this country is paid over $23 an hour, and in this tight labour economy, people are lucky to even get a child care worker at $23 an hour.

Also, the government is not being flexible with child care centres. It is saying that if they apply for the subsidy, they need to achieve $10-a-day child care on its timeline. If they cannot find a way to cut their spending in other areas, whether it is the cost of the building or the cost of the labour, then they will not be able to get the subsidy for this program. As a result, we are seeing that a lot of day cares are just throwing up their hands and are really sad to tell the families that as much as they would like to apply for the subsidy, the government is simply making it too difficult for them to do it. That is fundamentally because the government is ignoring the laws of supply and demand.

This is going to result in is a two-tiered day care system in this country. We will have a few $10-a-day day care spaces, and if a family is lucky enough to get on a list and get their child in there, it will be wonderful for them. However, many other families are going to be paying upwards of $1,600 to $2,000 a month for child care, and that is not fair. It is not right.

In fact, a Globe and Mail story on December 27 of last year said that a minority of parents are going to reap the benefits from this Liberal child care plan. It said that currently over seven in 10 children under the age of six do not have access to licensed child care and that in the best-case scenario, in five years from now, the government is anticipating that only six in 10 children will have access to care. We are seeing in this country that in the best-case scenario, 40% of children will not be able to access the government's program.

This is not a universal system. This is a two-tiered system.

Conservatives, I believe, had a far better plan. We had a universal plan, because we wanted a refundable tax credit, meaning that regardless of whether someone had taxable income, that person would receive a direct financial benefit for their child care expenses.

I also believe that as Conservatives we should add onto that, because I have talked to a lot of day care operators who want to operate in rural areas, and it is very difficult to find appropriate spaces. We have seen, at the provincial level in some provinces, that funding to help day care entrepreneurs find appropriate child care centres—for example, in an empty classroom in a school—can be very valuable, because we know that we need to create spaces in rural areas, where often people do not have access to child care. The fact is that the government is really missing the mark.

The other aspect is that we hear the government saying that the Conservatives used to send child care cheques to millionaires under the universal child care program. The fact is that under this so-called $10-a-day child care program, it does not matter what someone's income level is. If a millionaire parent can get their child on the list for a $10-a-day day care spot, the government is essentially subsidizing the children of millionaires by thousands of dollars. Meanwhile, a shift worker working for minimum wage, a single parent who cannot get access to this $10-a-day day care because of a huge waiting list, could be stuck paying $1,500 a month for child care. That is a two-tiered child care system that does not reflect the needs of Canadian families.

I also want to talk as an Albertan in moving on to another aspect, which is what is not in the budget implementation act.

In the budget, the government had a much-vaunted carbon capture tax credit. I have been a proponent of a carbon capture tax credit for a long time, because my riding is a critical area for carbon capture. We have the Northwest Redwater Sturgeon Refinery, which sequesters 1.2 megatonnes, 1.2 million tonnes, of carbon dioxide every year. There is a fertilizer plant next door that also contributes to the pipeline. This carbon is taken through a pipeline and is put into the ground for enhanced oil recovery.

There are numerous other enhanced oil recovery projects in Canada, but unfortunately the Liberal government was so blinded by its ideology that it chose to exclude enhanced oil recovery projects from its carbon capture tax credit.

I will say that a carbon capture project that purely captures carbon and puts it into the ground and does not have any enhanced oil recovery should get a better tax credit, because they are not making money by getting oil out of the ground, while a project should not get as good a tax credit if it is making money through enhanced oil recovery.

The government keeps talking about the climate emergency, saying that we need to take action now, and I agree; I love the environment. We need to get carbon out of the atmosphere as quickly as possible, and one of the ways that the government could have done that is that is by removing its ideological aversion to working with our energy industry, which is primarily located in the western provinces, and working with them to develop a carbon capture tax credit that would support enhanced oil recovery. I think companies would be spending billions of dollars today if they knew they could access this program. We would be sequestering many more megatonnes of CO2 today and we would be getting much further toward our carbon capture and our Paris climate change accord goals.

Finally, I want to talk about the first home savings account. It sounded like a great idea during an election when we are trying to buy votes from Canadians, but we know that working families cannot afford to put $40,000 in a savings account, so which families are going to benefit from this? It is going to be the families of the wealthiest 1% in the country. The parents are going to give their children the $40,000, which taxpayers will then subsidize, because when one puts the $40,000 in, one gets a break on taxes. This government policy is going to disproportionately benefit the wealthy and is not going to help young families get affordable housing.

With that, I cannot support Bill C-19.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me say up front that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Sturgeon River—Parkland.

It is always an honour to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the people of Flamborough—Glanbrook, and today it is to speak on the ways the 2022 federal budget is failing Canadian, as we consider Bill C-19, the budget implementation act.

The number one issue facing Canadians is the cost of living. We have heard that time and time again. As summer approaches, perhaps the first summer without some sort of the COVID restrictions that we have seen the past couple of years, Canadians are looking forward to enjoying the aspects of life that are so great about Canadian summers, whether they are the warm weather; the longer days; our beautiful parks, beaches and trails; bike rides with the family; or the Blue Jays playing at the Rogers Centre.

Instead, Canadians are stressing out about paying their bills. They are worried that they really cannot afford that summer road trip with gas prices over two dollars per litre across the country, and for that picnic in the park, the groceries are going to be at least 9.7% more and probably higher. The price of food, the price of gas, the price of home heating and the cost of life are what I hear about every single day from constituents in Flamborough—Glanbrook.

This is especially true for people in rural parts of my riding. They need to drive to get to work and school, to engage in social activities and to get to medical appointments, and the price at the pumps is leaving them feeling that they are going in reverse, which is why a budget with no plan to address the cost of living is really no plan at all.

The federal government took in $39 billion more in additional revenue because inflation swelled its coffers, but it did not return any of that to Canadians struggling to get by. Instead, it piled on an additional $50 billion in inflationary spending. What is worse is that the NDP-Liberal coalition has rejected any reasonable common sense suggestions we made to bring relief to Canadians.

In March, the government rejected our motion to pause the GST at the pumps on the eve of a carbon tax increase and the excise tax increases that were going to take effect on April 1, which were certainly going to do harm to seniors, families, small businesses and everyone. Just yesterday, our motion to provide relief to Canadians in several practical ways was also rejected by the Liberals and the NDP.

We proposed two things that would have brought immediate relief at the pumps: a temporary suspension of the GST on gas and diesel, and a suspension of the carbon tax. These would be things that would actually be tangible in combatting high gas prices, which is what Canadians want and what people in Flamborough—Glanbrook are asking me about every day.

They cannot make ends meet, and that is not surprising when the price of gas is, as we said, over two dollars a litre and the price of food is up 10% or more. It is the highest rate of food inflation we have seen since 1981, so obviously making ends meet is getting harder and harder.

I want to share a few stories of conversations I have had with constituents in the past couple of months because I think these are the very real and concerning cost-of-living issues Canadians are facing. Sal is a constituent in the Stoney Creek Mountain community in my riding, and he tells me his single-income family is having a lot of trouble. In his words, they are having “serious financial struggles as the cost of living is exceedingly high”.

Heinz is a senior living on a fixed income in West Flamborough. He shares with me his home heating bill every single month. He is always shocked and dismayed, and he questions the amount of tax, including carbon tax, on that bill. As a senior on a fixed income, he finds it to be a monthly challenge to his budget.

There is also Gerrit, who lives in Mount Hope in my riding. He commutes to work, and he could not believe the increase in the carbon tax on April 1 at a time when gas prices were already going up. He notes that this cost of fuel is really a challenge for him and his household as they commute to work every day.

These are just a few examples of the very real concerns from the lives of ordinary Canadians. That is why it is puzzling to me that the Liberals did not use the windfall in revenue the government received from rising inflation to address the cost-of-living crisis Canadians are facing. Maybe they could use some of the pragmatic suggestions we have proposed.

Instead, the 2022 federal budget includes another $50 billion, as I have said, in uncontrolled spending. If we add that up, that can only be paid by higher taxes in future years.

The size of the federal government, we know, has grown 25% since before the pandemic, yet one cannot get a passport in a timely fashion. As the member for Calgary Forest Lawn articulated earlier this evening, one cannot get other government services or IRCC either, so that really begs the question.

The government’s lack of concern about the cost of living contrasts with our neighbours to the south where U.S. President Biden and treasury secretary Yellen have acknowledged that inflation is a real problem and they are acting. Here we have no plan.

I also want to talk about another issue I am hearing about from my constituents in Flamborough-Glanbrook. I have had a number of conversations about the the tariffs on fertilizer. It is a frustration for farmers in my riding who have done all the right things. They ordered their fertilizer over the fall or winter. They work hard as stewards of the land, yet they were slapped with a punitive tariff on fertilizer just at the time when they are looking to plant their crops for this year's season.

In fact, I met with family farmers who run a grain operation in Glanbrook a month ago. They took time from their very busy planting season to discuss this issue. They had pencilled it all out. On handwritten pages, they showed me their calculations, and I was astonished. Their fertilizer costs grew from $900 per tonne in 2018 to over $2,300 this year. On top of that, they showed me their gas prices, their diesel prices and their propane costs. They are all up, so the economics of their operation are increasingly out of whack.

These are the people who produce our food. They assure the food security of our nation, as well as our world. Yes, I understand and support the need to combat Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We are doing that in many ways, but we cannot do that on the backs of our farmers.

Canada is the only G7 country to apply a tariff directly on imported fertilizer from Russia, and it is a large one at that, at 35%. Conservatives have called on the government to exempt farmer and suppliers who ordered fertilizer before or on March 2. However, the minister of agriculture told the agriculture committee that the government would neither exempt these orders nor offer compensation to farmers to offset the costs of these tariffs. Yesterday, the Liberals and NDP voted down our motion on affordability, which included a provision to eliminate the fertilizer tariffs.

I know my time in winding down, so I want to conclude with a conversation I had a few Fridays ago with Darlene. Darlene is a senior living in the Upper Stoney Creek community in my riding. She was incredibly frustrated and concerned because she could no long make ends meet on her fixed income with the cost of groceries. In fact, other costs that were unforeseen included some medications that she needed to take that were certainly exacerbating the problem, as well as just running her household. She unfortunately had to make the decision to sell her house and move in with her daughter. How sad is it that a senior who worked all her life and contributed to this country, while living in a modest home in a modest neighbourhood, could not make ends meet? She questioned what the government is doing to help her and all Canadians dealing with this affordability crisis.

This is the question that Darlene has for the government: Does it understand? Does it know that cost of living is the number one issue facing Canadians? If so, why is fixing it not the number one priority in the budget and for the government?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I am pleased to be speaking to Bill C-19, which seeks to implement certain provisions of the budget.

Today I want to talk not so much about the measures that have been set out in this bill, but rather about those that have been left out. Believe it or not, despite the size of this bill, there is still a lot missing. Trying to understand this omnibus bill is quite the undertaking. Bill C-19 is 466 pages long and it has 32 divisions and 502 sections.

At the very least, we would have liked to see the government devote a substantial part of this massive piece of legislation to employment insurance reform. Here is a spoiler alert for those who have not had the time to read these 466 pages of pure joy: This bill contains virtually nothing about EI reform, and what little there is does not live up to expectations.

I want to share my disappointment and concerns. However, before I begin, I would like to say that I have tremendous respect for the Standing Committee on Finance, which had the monumental task of studying this bill. I want to mention that and commend the members of the committee. They were sent on an expedition, a journey, an adventure that they had to complete in record time. I do not know how many witnesses they heard or how many briefs they received, but I want to acknowledge my colleague from Joliette for his work on the Standing Committee on Finance, as well as his fellow committee members.

I am not in a position to lecture anyone about procedure. I am not an expert on House procedure. However, when I look at this bill that we have to debate in a hurry under closure, and I realize that we are going to be here until midnight talking about what is good about it, what we wish were in it, and our expectations, I just end up wondering what the point of this is. In these circumstances, would it not be better to give parliamentary committees time to study the issues thoroughly and come up with a bill that would do a much better job of meeting expectations? It is a suggestion.

I will now talk about workers. I want to talk about gaps in the bill and the lack of EI reform. It is not because I am a former union leader and still a union supporter. With all due respect and in all honesty, it is mostly because out of all the people who have called my office, not one has asked for a universal dental care program. I doubt I am the only MP in that position. No one has called me about that. Now, I am not saying it is not important.

My office has received calls about the labour shortage, the temporary foreign worker program, wait times for our businesses, immigration and payroll services. We are getting calls from our federal public servants, who are exhausted after two years of the pandemic. They are in negotiations and worried about what lies ahead for them. They have done their part, and continue to do so, but they are a little worried. All this to say that the federal government has a major issue to address: the employment insurance system.

That system is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. It has not been updated in 15 years; rather, it has been the subject of counter-reforms. Workers and employers alike have been demanding for years that this system be updated to ensure that it meets the needs of those who pay into it.

Nevertheless, successive Liberal governments have spent the last seven years promising to reform the system, but there is no sign of any intention to keep that promise in this budget. This is actually more like a step back for workers.

Let us review those broken promises. In 2015, the mandate letter for the minister at the time gave instructions to undertake “a broad review of the EI system with the goal of modernizing our system of income support for unemployed workers that leaves too many workers with no unemployment insurance safety net”. The fact that the system does not work properly is not news. That was from 2015, but the review never happened.

In 2019, the current minister was tasked with strengthening employment insurance through measures such as new special benefits models. That included improving the current pilot project for seasonal workers, which was supposed to become a permanent program that provided consistent and reliable benefits. She was even tasked with creating a new EI disaster assistance benefit. Well, that disaster happened. The COVID‑19 pandemic stressed the system like never before. There is a reason why the government had to make up benefits from scratch.

There are some serious flaws in the system. We have known that for many years. In 2020, the President of the Treasury Board told Le Soleil the following, and I quote: “We knew that the EI safety net had a few too many holes in it and did not provide sufficient coverage, but we did not move forward quickly enough with our reform.” I could not have said it better myself. It is really too bad that the government waited until it was backed into a corner before taking action. However, as the saying goes, it is never too late.

The reason I am so disappointed today is that, once again, the government has been making all sorts of other nice promises since the beginning of the pandemic. The minister's 2021 mandate letter states that it is up to the minister to, “by Summer 2022, bring forward and begin implementing a plan to modernize the EI system for the 21st century, building a stronger and more inclusive system that covers all workers, including workers in seasonal employment and persons employed by digital platforms, ensuring the system is simpler and more responsive for workers”. However, summer 2022 is in 13 days.

On January 1, the day of new year's resolutions, the minister stated in the Canadian Press that she was confident she would meet the timelines set out by the Prime Minister. She also indicated that in addition to instituting new rules and new benefits, the government was going to have to update its technology because the system is still running on code from the 1960s. In that regard, some Service Canada officials told us that they are still working with DOS. That is from another era, the era of the dinosaur.

If the minister was confident that she could meet the summer 2022 deadline, we can say without hesitation that she has failed. Where is the minister's plan? It is not in Bill C‑19 or in the budget. I am very disappointed to see that nothing is being presented before we adjourn for the summer.

I am also concerned. As the minister knows full well, at this time certain requirements have been temporarily relaxed. These adjustments are not perfect, but they have made it possible for several thousands of workers to access their benefits. Many have seen these flexibilities as a potential basis for reform. However, they will come to an end on September 25.

What will happen then? There is no plan. The most important thing is to avoid losing ground, because the status quo is not an option.

When we say that reform is needed now, that is not just some political slogan. As I said earlier, the pandemic has exposed the failings of the system and has demonstrated how urgently reform is needed for workers. There are many failings, but I will just talk about a few.

First, EI coverage must be expanded to as many workers as possible. It is a matter of fairness. As members know, just 40% of workers who contribute to EI qualify for benefits. Non-standard and part-time workers, the majority of whom are women and young people, are not eligible for the program even though they contribute.

Another problem is how EI fails sick workers. Organizations that specialize in this area are calling for a significant increase in the number of weeks of sickness benefits. A worker who has cancer, for example, needs at least 40 weeks of benefits to receive proper care and recover in dignity. This is what all studies have shown. These workers should be able to focus all their energy on healing, not on trying to make ends meet.

The government plans to extend the benefit period to 26 weeks. That was supposed to happen in July, but because of the computer system, it may only happen in the fall. Now we can say it is too little, too late. It is not enough. What sick workers need is 50 weeks. After 10 years of fighting and seven bills, this still has not happened yet.

When I was a union official, I defined my unionism in two ways: It was proposal-based and action-based. The Bloc Québécois continues to make proposals. We are asking the government to act, because the government is showing a real lack of ambition and keeps bringing in half-measures.

The Social Security Tribunal recently ruled that the current system consistently discriminates against women on maternity leave. A woman who loses her job during or after her maternity leave is no longer entitled to regular EI benefits. Once again, one would expect this self-professed feminist government to rectify the situation, but instead it has decided to appeal the ruling. That is outrageous.

The employment insurance spring gap is another major concern. We like to eat crab and lobster in eastern Quebec and in the Maritimes, but the plant workers in those regions are seasonal. It is not okay that in 2022, when the season is over, they end up without a job or enough income until the next season. We have to do something about that. We have to end the spring gap. We are talking about the vitality of our regions and seasonal industries such as tourism, forestry, the fishery and others. We cannot abandon these people.

The government has been regularly questioned on this issue over the past few years. However, all it did was simply renew the pilot project that provides for a maximum of five weeks of benefits, which is not enough. It is shameful to not go further than that. Honestly, this lack of political courage is disappointing.

Madam Speaker, I could keep listing the flaws in the system for the rest of the sitting until you stopped me. The thing to keep in mind is that these are major flaws that have direct consequences for the thousands of workers who contribute to employment insurance and are entitled to it. These workers are calling for an immediate reform of employment insurance.

I have been touring all the regions of Quebec for three months now. I have not visited them all yet, but I will. What I am hearing from people on the ground speaks for itself.

I have met with municipal officials, advocacy groups representing unemployed workers, local unions, national unions, consumer rights groups, women's rights groups, regional development corporations, youth employment centres, government officials, seasonal workers, and more. I have attended some incredibly enlightening meetings. I have seen the various regional and local realities. All the people I spoke to agreed that the EI program needs to be overhauled immediately.

They urged reforms that would strengthen the rights of workers, but I also heard countless stories about wait times. We have all heard such horror stories in our constituency offices. Workers who have paid into the program and are entitled to EI have been waiting months for their benefits because they are victims of fraud. They cannot pay rent or child support, and they still do not have their EI cheque.

At the last meeting we had with the ministerto discuss this at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, she said yet again that Service Canada answers calls. It seems to me that Service Canada should be answering calls more and that the minister should stop going on about how the department is meeting service standards. Workers waiting for their EI cheques could not care less about service standards. They want their rights to be recognized, and they want to collect all the benefits they are entitled to.

The last thing I want to touch on is division 32 of Bill C‑19. Actually, I would like to thank all members of the committee who accepted the Standing Committee on Finance's invitation to dig into the four or five clauses covering EI in Bill C‑19. Division 32, which is about the Social Security Tribunal, was the main issue that was discussed. There was nothing in the budget about reforming this significant aspect of the program, so news of this government legislative measure came as quite a surprise.

In a mammoth bill of over 400 pages, there is a section that deals with the board of appeal, which is tripartite in name only. It does not in any way meet the objectives and commitments the government announced in 2019. Both the finance committee and the human resources committee heard from representatives of the major unions and representatives of unemployed workers' groups.

I would like to quote a representative of the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi, or MASSE:

Let's first point out that MASSE is disappointed that the government chose to reveal its intentions regarding the new board of appeal for the first time when it introduced Bill C-19, that is, nearly three years after it announced reforms. By breaking its silence in this way after so many years, not only is the government now presenting stakeholders with a fait accompli, but it's also admitting that it deprived itself of a wealth of expertise, and this will undoubtedly influence the people's confidence in the quality of administrative justice.

Union representatives, so labour, and employer representatives were unanimous in telling us that we needed to get rid of this division of the bill. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and the Standing Committee on Finance were unanimous in their recommendation: We must remove division 32 from the bill. We worked hard, we listened to people, we listened to employers, we listened to workers and we succeeded, because the minister announced that she would withdraw division 32 from Bill C‑19 and make it a separate bill.

I hope that the new bill that will be introduced will respond to the consultation that was unanimous three years ago and to the needs expressed by the community. This does not bode well for the comprehensive employment insurance reform if the intention is to introduce it in the same way—

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the Conservative Party is once again proposing another subamendment. I understand the Bloc is supporting Bill C-19 and the New Democrats are supporting Bill C-19. However, the Conservatives, in their internal wisdom, have made the decision to try to prevent good legislation from passing.

Given we have so many progressive measures that are going to help Canadians coast to coast to coast, why does the Conservative Party feel so compelled to move a subamendment when it has moved amendments, subamendments and all sorts of other stuff on the main budget?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, I really want to thank my colleague from Bay of Quinte for such a great speech.

I am honoured to speak to Bill C-19, and I want to take this opportunity to speak to concerns about Canada becoming a country that is known for backlogs.

Immigration, passports, seniors supports, Veterans Affairs, Service Canada and so many basic services the government provides are in a tailspin of growing backlogs. We see that very clearly in the Canadian immigration system. The Liberal-made backlog at IRCC has now reached 2.1 million applications.

What does the minister and department think about that? The minister told the immigration committee, “I hesitate to describe [it] as a backlog, because it's normal to have an inventory of cases.” If that is normal, I would be very concerned to see what they consider abnormal. This is the biggest backlog we have ever seen in Canada’s history in immigration.

These are not just numbers. That is the key here. These are family members who cannot be reunited with each other. There are parents who are missing their kids’ first birthdays, their first steps and their first words.

There is also mental anxiety and many mental health issues. We hear about people being divorced. The suicide rates are going up because of this backlog. Employers cannot find labour fast enough. They are suffering, which means, ultimately, that our economy suffers. This is something we wish the government would take seriously, but we do not see much inside the budget that would help address the issue.

The government is now okay with stranding 2.1 million people and their families in bureaucratic limbo because it thinks this is normal. When did it become okay to normalize poor performance? Canada is welcoming record numbers of immigrants, all the while not dealing with labour shortages and the refugee crisis.

We also have a very concerning report that came out about racism at IRCC. There is nothing, whether in the budget or practically, being done by the government to address that racism. The most concerning thing is that, of the managers and employees who displayed racism, not a single one was reprimanded or fired. Rather, they were given bonuses. That is super shameful. It really is bad for our country to be known as a country that has an issue with racism within IRCC. This is on top of the backlog, and it is partly contributing to that backlog as well.

When the minister appeared at the immigration committee in February, he committed to returning processing times to the 12-month service standard and investing $85 million to fix the immigration backlog. However, after four months, the backlog grew from 1.8 million in February to over 2.1 million, and processing times are two to three times longer than what the service standards say. I would bet that every single MP in the House agrees with me that their offices are burdened because of the immigration backlog that was created by the government after it refused to address the core issues that are plaguing our IRCC department.

IRCC has even indicated that there was no plan to use backlog funding for the existing backlog, which is more proof that there is a lot of talk of throwing money at the problem, but there is no actual plan to do anything with that money. Backlogs are not just about paperwork and frustration. Despite IRCC treating everyone as a file number to be processed, real people are affected by the Liberals’ mismanagement of the immigration system.

I hear this from constituents all the time. Our office receives correspondence and phone calls from people ready to give up. We fear that people are contemplating suicide because after months of being separated from their loved ones, newcomers lose hope. They lose faith that they will ever be able to see their loved ones again.

Too many immigrants and too many newcomers waiting for their cases to be processed end up unable to see their children’s first steps, as I said. They miss funerals; they miss weddings. According to IRCC’s posted processing times, family sponsorship applications alone take 23 months for spousal sponsorship and 34 months for parents and grandparents, instead of the promised 12 months

We saw throughout this pandemic that getting help from family members was needed in certain instances. One mother was at home with a child who had severe disabilities and she needed either her spouse here or a caregiver. However, because of the backlog, that mother, who was in my riding, suffered. She cried many nights, wrote many emails and was on the verge of just giving up. There were many times when she would email my office and say, “This is it for me. I cannot handle this anymore.” It is sad to see that the caregiver program is so badly neglected that all caregivers now see no hope they will ever get here.

We wish the government would take these things seriously. Again, I know I am not alone in this chamber in talking about the problems in our immigration system. We have other Liberal MPs on record who are also tired of the backlog. One of them said in an article that this is messed up, and it is. It truly is. Lives are being ruined because of this backlog.

When we look at budget 2022, I do not see much in there that is going to address the issues, address the mental health problems that come with the issues being created or tackle in any way this backlog, which has burdened our businesses, Canadians and newcomers alike.

How do we fix a system that is so severely mismanaged? One suggestion, obviously, is to elect a Conservative government. Let us get things back on track. In the meantime, let us start with some common-sense reforms. For example, let us create a framework for better foreign credential recognition. It is an essential thing we could do today. There are many people in this country, and we all know some of them, who are either doctors or engineers back home. However, when they come here, because of credential recognition, they waste their talent. They are underemployed.

Why can we not work together? Why can the government not work with our provincial partners to do a better job in making sure we are recognizing credentials? That way we can fill the labour gaps. Our rural areas, especially in Quebec, are suffering the most. There are people who are retiring in our rural areas and it is so hard to find doctors. This is one way we could help address some of the labour shortages. There are many very talented electricians, plumbers and all sorts of tradespeople in this country who have so much to contribute.

Newcomers come to this country with a Canadian dream, much like me and my family did. This country gave us an amazing opportunity to become successful. I am the son of a taxi driver and of a mom who worked multiple jobs. This country gave us everything. I am so proud to represent a riding that has other such hard-working people.

I grew up in the riding I get to represent today. I stood in line to get low-income bus passes in my riding. We lived through that poverty. However, this country, through the grace of God, gave us everything to become successful. I am the son of a taxi driver who gets to stand here today and represent my constituents and be their voice in the house of common people.

Would it not be great if we could let everyone, newcomers and Canadians alike, feel free when they come here? That is what I want to speak to. I wish the budget would attempt to address more of that. How can we help unleash people's talents? How can we get government out of the way, get these backlogs out of the way and get the red tape and bureaucracy out of the way? How can we work together in this Parliament to address some of these issues? That is what I wish we could all work together on.

When we come to this chamber, there is a lot of partisanship, but there are practical, common-sense solutions being put forward on the table. I have only listed one. We could once again make Canada the great destination that it was known for. Canada was once known to be at the top of the list. When anyone wanted to immigrate, Canada was a beacon of hope. It was a beacon of freedom at one point. Today, people are skipping over Canada and it is really sad to see. I hope that, whether it is through this legislation or through this budget, the government uses the money to make this country a beacon of hope once again.

In closing, I move, seconded by the member for Bay of Quinte:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following:

and that the committee report back no later than June 20, 2022

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise again on Bill C-19, the budget implementation act, this time at third reading. I would like to start with what I appreciate, specifically about the work that was done at committee. If Canadians and neighbours in my community watch only question period, they might wonder whether anyone here gets anything done at all. The fact is that there are plenty of opportunities at committee for parliamentarians from all sides to come together to improve legislation. That is really important to highlight.

First, I want to point out one really critical amendment that was unanimously passed, which would ensure that all Canadians living with type 1 diabetes, of whom there are over 300,000 across the country, will now be able to access the disability tax credit. This is going to help ease the financial burden caused by unavoidable and necessary life-saving expenses.

The original bill had the foreign homebuyers ban, but there was no date set for when it would come into force. It was left up to the governing party's discretion. Through committee, there is now a hard date set. It is longer out than I would prefer, all the way out to January 1, 2023, but it is an improvement at least to have a date within the legislation. As I have said before, in my community, the extent to which all levels of government work to address the skyrocketing cost of housing will define us over the coming years.

I wish there was more in the budget implementation act, and certainly we need more. Investments like those in co-op housing in the budget, for deeply affordable and dignified housing, are a step in the right direction. Having a date in place for when this foreign homebuyers ban will come into force is an improvement.

That being said, these tweaks are insufficient, given the moment we are in. I would like to take this opportunity to share five significant and urgent priorities of my neighbours that are still missed by Bill C-19 and are the reasons why I cannot support it.

First, when it comes to the climate crisis, no doubt this is our last chance at a livable planet. The most recent report from the IPCC defines it as “an atlas of human suffering”. We know that if we want even a 50% chance of staying below a 1.5°C increase in global average temperatures, which, as scientists from the IPCC tell us, is required if we want to hold on to the possibility of a livable future for our kids and grandkids, and if we are to do our fair share, that means 86% of Canada's proven fossil fuel reserves need to remain unextracted. The UN Secretary-General went on to say that “the truly dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing the production of fossil fuels. Investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness.”

Of course, I was disappointed that in Bill C-19 and in the budget there is nothing for a prosperous transition for workers, which we so desperately need when it comes to retraining and career support, when it comes to pension bridging, and when it comes to compensation. In the budget, instead, what we saw was $7.1 billion between now and 2030 for a new subsidy in the form of a tax credit for carbon capture and storage. A recent study of this technology from the Netherlands found that in 32 out of 40 projects they looked at worldwide that implemented carbon capture and storage, emissions actually went up. It is one of the reasons why 400 academics penned a letter to our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance saying this is a false climate solution.

Unfortunately, the only time climate is even mentioned in Bill C-19 is when it speaks about the fact that an annual climate incentive is now going to be received by Canadians once a quarter, certainly not the kind of change that reflects the moment we are in, that reflects the crisis we are in, and that reflects the urgency of action required to meet this moment.

The second priority that continues to be missed is with respect to addressing the disproportionate number of Canadians with disabilities who are living in poverty across the country. We know that back in 2020, the governing party first promised the Canada disability benefit, a guaranteed livable income for every Canadian with a disability across the country, which would lift up, or it could if done well, 1.5 million Canadians with disabilities across the country.

We already know that 89% of Canadians support the Canada disability benefit. They are way ahead of parliamentarians here. However, we also need to recognize that emergency funds are required to address the very real, direct and urgent needs of Canadians with disabilities who are living in poverty across the country. Both in the budget and in this budget implementation act, there is no mention of emergency funds. There is no mention of the Canada disability benefit. It was, instead, introduced as Bill C-22. The same as last year, though, all of the major decisions on eligibility and the amounts are left to regulation.

It is going to be really critical for all of us to continue to put the prioritization, the urgency and the advocacy behind ensuring that we get support to Canadians with disabilities across the country, the Canadians who need it the most. We already know that it has support. In fact, 103 parliamentarians from all parties have now asked not only to bring it forward in the legislation that has now been done through Bill C-22, which I am glad to see, but to fast-track it and ensure that the experiences of Canadians with disabilities are heard every step of the way.

The third priority I want to mention tonight is with respect to mental health. In the budget, the only real mention was with respect to a wellness portal. So many parliamentarians in this place recognize, as is so important to do, that mental health is health. If that is the case, we need to be looking at organizations like the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health and their calls for legislation that would put in place a framework for the Canadian federal government to collaborate with and support provinces and territories and bring about parity in mental health support and funding. That is not in Bill C-19. As I mentioned, it was only tangentially mentioned in the budget. I will continue to advocate and encourage the governing party to meet the moment when it comes to addressing mental health.

Just last week, I spoke about the need to honour promises made when it comes to long-term care. This is because so many neighbours of mine have shared their stories, whether they are caregivers who are not in a position to deliver the care that is necessary or those who have a parent waiting in a hospital bed for months on end, hoping that their parent might one day have a spot in long-term care. We have to recognize the wait-lists. The research I saw last summer said that there were 52,000 people on a wait-list. We still have not seen this promised safe long-term care act. It was mentioned in the confidence and supply agreement between the NDP and the Liberal Party, and I continue to encourage the urgency to be placed on that legislation being moving forward, given that it is not in Bill C-19. In fact, long-term care is mentioned in the budget only once, as it relates to funding that was promised back in 2021.

In closing, the last critical priority that is urgent and needs sufficient prioritization in this place relates to addressing indigenous reconciliation, specifically following through on the 94 calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. According to the Yellowhead Institute's most recent report on the calls to action, only 11 of 94 have been completed to date. In my view, that is another significant gap. If we are not doing enough to move sufficiently quickly to follow through on all of the promises made, to follow through on all 94 calls to action, this is another critical moment to do so.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, on the situation with housing affordability in Canada, we need more housing supply. The plan we have put forward is a holistic plan. It is a plan that will need collaboration with provinces municipalities and regions to increase housing supply. It is a plan that targets the froth in the housing market with banning foreign purchases, the anti-flipping measures that we have put in place, and the $4-billion home accelerator fund. We have put in place a lot of measures in the BIA, including the measure the member talked about, to allow first-time homebuyers to actually save.

If someone is a young, downtown professional and they need to save for a first home, this is going to be a great measure and great vehicle for them to do that. This is much like the tax-free savings accounts, which millions of people have used year after year. This is going to be another measure for Canadians to utilize and leverage, and I am so happy to see it in Bill C-19.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here with you and all of my colleagues this evening to debate Bill C-19.

I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Kitchener Centre this evening.

It is a pleasure to be here this evening to reflect and offer a few thoughts on a piece of legislation that is important not only for those in the chamber but also for all Canadians, coast to coast to coast. It is important in the fact that I, like many of my colleagues here, have children at home, or grandchildren for that matter, and everything we do, as legislators and as members of Parliament, should be through the lens of ensuring that we leave a strong economy and a clean and healthy environment for our children and grandchildren.

I do have some thoughts on where we are in Canada and in the world, and where we are with the economy today. Bill C-19 would continue to put us on a path for strong economic growth, good jobs and employment prospects for Canadians. We would also ensure we are leaving behind a very healthy and clean environment, including reaching our net-zero goals by 2050 and the interim targets which were defined and which we became accountable for through Bill C-12.

As we look at the Canadian economy, with an unemployment rate of 5.2%, we, as a country, through the hard work of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, have recovered 116% of the jobs to where to were pre-COVID. We are on the right path. Our AAA, the big A's and the small a's, for our credit ratings have both been affirmed by all three major agencies: DBRS Morningstar, S&P and Moody's. Our fiscal framework and the finances of this country are strong and continue to be guided by the Minister of Finance, who is doing an incredible job.

We know that in the world today, Canadian families are facing an affordability issue. We have inflation, and we know what has caused the inflation. We do know that COVID-19 has disrupted and continues to disrupt supply chains. Some of them have been fixed, and some of them will take longer. We know the barbaric, unprovoked invasion by the Russian Federation and President Putin into Ukraine has disrupted commodity markets, food markets and, obviously, energy security and affordability. We acknowledge that.

I see it when I go to the grocery store. My wife sees it when she goes to the grocery store to shop for our three children. It is a conversation at home. We all know it. We must be steadfast and resolute as a government to maintain the backs of Canadians as we move forward through this environment, and as we move forward ensuring that Canadians have the resources they need for them and their families.

We can look at our measures for affordability over the years. We have Bill C-19 and the BIA, as well as bills on past budget measures that we have implemented. We can think about the Canada child benefit being indexed, which benefits more than 9 out of 10 Canadian families. It is literally thousands of dollars, tax free, arriving monthly to Canadian families. We can think about the Canada workers benefit, something I have championed day after day, literally helping millions of Canadians and lower-income workers. We can think about early learning and child care plan we have put in place with all provinces and territories. It is something we said we would do. It is a promise made and a promise kept.

My family is going to be putting our almost eight-month-old daughter into day care in the fall. It is something we will see a benefit from. I know that in the province of Ontario, by the end of this year,December 31, we will see a 50% reduction in child care fees. For the area I represent, the York region, just on top of Toronto, this would represent a 50% reduction in child care fees. It would represent literally thousands of after-tax dollars to families in York region and in the city of Vaughan. That is something I applaud.

I am proud to be part of a government that signed on and collaborated with provinces and governments of all political stripes in the provinces. Unlike the Conservative Party of Canada, which wishes to tear up the early learning and child care agreements, we will maintain those agreements. We will continue to work with those provinces and territories across Canada to maintain these agreements because it is the right thing to do. We will not buy into the gimmicks offered by the Conservative Party of Canada when it comes to affordability.

Our seniors will receive a 10% increase in their old age security in July. That is roughly $800 a year, which will continue to be indexed, for roughly 3.5 million seniors. Again, that is a promise made and a promise kept by this government. I look forward to seeing our senior groups over the summer at the bocce courts, picnics and gatherings.

In the city of Vaughan, we have such a vibrant senior population. I love my seniors. They built this country, and they built the community. Many of them immigrated here with very little education and very little money. They came through Pier 21. They never complained. They worked hard. They saved, and they created a better future for themselves and their families. I just love and applaud them. They have my utmost respect as an individual and as a parliamentarian.

We have committed to dental care, and that is something that I have a very granular story on. A senior came into my office and said she needed help with her dental care. She had an infection. We sent her to York Region where there is a program to assist low-income seniors. Something like that for a senior who is on a very minimal income can really bankrupt them. It could really set a person back.

We cannot have that in our country. We cannot have that in modern-day Canada. That is why we have committed to ensuring that Canadians from coast to coast to coast, such as young children, seniors and all Canadians, will have some sort of coverage or insurance through a $5.3-billion dental care plan that will ensure vulnerable Canadians do not have an issue with getting dental care. The BIA and Bill C-19 really invest in growth, in people and in the green transition.

Of course, I would be remiss if I did not talk about the tradespeople who build this country from coast to coast to coast. My father was a tradesman. He was a carpenter, a labourer, a sheet-metal worker and a roofer. I remember working on weekends with him, when we would do odd jobs for our neighbours and friends, and that was something that taught me the values of hard work, sacrifice and putting aside that dollar, and I see that in our budget.

We came through on a promise made and kept on a labour and mobility tax deduction for tradespeople. Obviously, they have to fit the criteria. This would be $4,000, and it would be a deduction and not a credit. A deduction is very powerful. It would allow tradespeople to move from one jurisdiction to another jurisdiction and cover those expenses, which is something I know the Canadian Building Trades Union, LiUNA and the carpenters have advocated for.

I mention those two organizations because both of their training facilities are located in the city of Vaughan in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. I meet with those members, and those are the folks who every day, rain, shine or sleet, warm or cold, get up to build our communities and build our critical infrastructure. They are great people.

We need more of those apprenticeships, and when we talk about apprenticeships, our government rolled out a program called the UTIP, the union training and innovation program.

We have committed another $80 million, which is within Bill C-19, to ensure we train literally thousands and thousands more apprentices. I went on a visit to a carpenters union, and I was looking at CCAT. They had their apprentices there, and they were high school students. They were being funded through this UTIP program. It was so great to see these young folks so excited about their futures and so excited about what they are going to do in this country, building the homes and the infrastructure for tomorrow.

The same thing takes place, whether it is at the LiUNA 506 training facility in York Region or LiUNA 183's training facility, with the operating engineers, the painters, and the HVAC and the electrical workers. The same thing takes place, and we are partnering with all of these organizations.

Members will remember that the Conservative Party from prior years attacked private sector unions with Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. The first thing we did in 2015 and 2016 was repeal those bills. We will always stand beside working Canadians, and we will always stand beside those tradespeople who go to work every day to maintain and build and repair our critical infrastructure.

When it comes to homes, I have spoken before about them in the House. I am blessed to live in a very entrepreneurial area. I have to hand it to the entrepreneurs in my area. The Mayor of Vaughan, the hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua, was a member of Parliament for many years. He committed to raising $250 million for our hospital, so this city of 330,000 people has the spirit of generosity.

We, the city of Vaughan and the entrepreneurs, hit the target of $250 million last week. I applaud them. They are entrepreneurs who have taken risks, invested, made money and contributed to their hospital. With that—

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

Madam Speaker, there are a number of good measures in Bill C-19, and this tax credit is certainly one of them. It is important, and that is why we will be supporting Bill C‑19.

However, I would ask the government to implement this tax credit more quickly than the one they gave to teachers in last fall's budget. It is still not in effect because Bill C-8 is still before the Senate. Normally, when a bill is winding its way through Parliament, tax credits can be put in place more quickly. It appears that because the opposition parties are against Bill C‑8, they are being blamed for not granting this tax credit, which several teachers have asked me about.

I would therefore ask that the tax credit to help seniors stay in their homes be implemented more quickly than the tax credit for teachers.

I do not know if I have enough time to respond, but I would add that the situation in the long-term care facilities was carnage, a real disaster. The long-term care facilities are the poor cousin of Quebec's health care system, which brings to mind the chronic underfunding of the health care system. Obviously this goes back to the years of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin who, in order to balance Ottawa's budget, massively cut transfers to Quebec and the provinces. The situation has never been rectified since, and we expect Ottawa to send massive transfers to the provinces to respect each one's ability to pay.

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

Madam Speaker, we are now at third reading of this omnibus bill.

In fact, there are all kinds of statutes stuffed into Bill C-19, with topics ranging from strip searches to justice in space. That might be helpful for addressing all the mischief Brad Spitfire could get up to, but it does not belong in a budget implementation bill. This is a half-baked omnibus bill. It is no wonder it is full of problems.

To start, the paper copy we were given was missing more than 20 pages. We were working with the wrong version for far too long. That is unacceptable, and it seriously undermines the government's credibility and our trust in it.

A lot of changes were made to this bill at the Standing Committee on Finance, and I applaud the work we did. However, it is so big that there was no way the committee could do an in-depth study of the entire bill.

I will have to criticize the government's approach once again. The government promised that it would not introduce any more omnibus bills, but only the willfully naive are buying Liberal promises these days.

Regarding our study, I am sincerely grateful for the help we got from the other House of Commons standing committees: Justice and Human Rights, Citizenship and Immigration, International Trade, and Industry and Technology. Let me add an honourable mention for the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and our superhero there, the member for Thérèse‑De Blainville.

Bill C‑19 put forward a lot of changes to the employment insurance system, including the EI board of appeal. The government did not do its job properly. It did not consider the consultations and the needs expressed by stakeholders, such as unions. It is rare for the employer and the union to agree that something like this was poorly done. The member for Thérèse‑De Blainville was very efficient at bringing all those people together with the finance committee and the human resources committee so parliamentarians could hear from them. Their message was clear. Better to strike the issue from the bill altogether rather than pass flawed measures.

We in the Bloc Québécois prepared for both eventualities. We introduced several amendments and asked that the section be deleted. In committee, I pressed the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to lobby his government to have it removed.

I tabled a motion to that effect. My colleague from Thérèse‑De Blainville got the human resources committee to adopt a unanimous motion to delete it. The Conservative and NDP members also requested the same thing. The government listened to reason. It backed down and committed to tabling something a little better in the fall.

This is what we MPs are here for. It is what the House and the parliamentary committees are here for as well. We study government bills. We review them with the people they would affect. If the bill is good, we support it. If it is bad, we reject it. We work tirelessly to improve the bills.

We know the government is tired and worn out. The pandemic took its toll on us all. The Prime Minister gave an election a shot in the fall. That tired out his government, which is still a minority. We had the blockades in the winter, followed by the war in Ukraine, which has been going on for over 100 days. That has kept everyone busy.

The Prime Minister is overwhelmed and exhausted. The Minister of Finance is playing the roles of both prime minister and minister of foreign affairs, especially with respect to the war. All the work she is doing is very honourable. The problem is that she is caught up in all these fast-moving issues, so she no longer has enough time to do her job properly as finance minister.

We saw that with her budget. We saw that with the crisis facing specialized businesses that convert trucks into ambulances, armoured vans and other specialty trucks. They are affected by the semiconductor shortage, which has shut down truck manufacturers in the United States. This input shortage is hitting our businesses hard. We cannot afford to lose these good niche jobs.

In December, the finance minister promised that the shortage was over. We supported Bill C‑8 based on her assurances. She had agreed to provide us with the statistics showing that things were getting better. We believed the Liberals' promises, but we never got the statistics, and the situation of these businesses is getting worse and worse as the weeks go by. We have been pressing the minister on this issue since January, but we have still heard nothing.

The only response we received came in her fall economic update, when she committed to subsidizing semiconductor manufacturers. However, this is a far more complex market, and she has completely missed the mark. We were unable to secure a meeting with her to discuss this subject. We were also unable to get her to come to committee to talk about inflation, even though we officially invited her in January to come testify sometime before May 31. It is now June 8, and we have still heard nothing.

We know that the Minister of Finance is very busy with the war and all of the other files she manages for the Prime Minister. The only problem is that that does not leave her any time to take care of finance. The associate ministers and parliamentary secretaries have not been delegated to follow up on this or other files. It is a serious problem that will have harmful consequences for our economy.

I have another example. In Bill C‑19, the budget implementation bill, the government presents the details of its luxury tax. It is 170 pages long. We agree in principle that people who buy luxury cars, planes or boats should pay a luxury tax. That is one way to redistribute wealth. However, the tax needs to be well constructed and the situation properly assessed.

For example, this tax will have serious repercussions on the entire economy and on jobs related to the use of personal boats. When I asked the Department of Finance to show us its impact studies for this new tax, the departmental officials told me that they had not done any studies. There is nothing. This has a real boys‑in‑short‑pants feel about it. Santa Banana could have done a better job of this.

What we have here is an ideological tax. It is all about the principle, and no one cares about how it will be implemented. In any case, the minister does not have time to waste on that.

This tax will be disastrous for the aerospace industry, which has been in a complete panic for almost a year now, not because the wealthy will no longer be able to afford to buy private jets, but because the tax will apply to companies and exports, even though it is not supposed to.

This whole thing is a big mess. The government gave the Department of Finance carte blanche, and it did not do its job properly. It did not feel like doing it, so it did a poor job. Because the Minister of Finance is busy dealing with the situation in Ukraine, the government is letting this slide. That is unacceptable. This measure is so poorly thought out that unions and employers, along with some members of the House, have banded together to warn us about how serious this situation is.

Canada is already the only country that has an aerospace industry but no industry strategy, not even for government procurement. Now the government is imposing poorly designed taxes that are harmful to the industry without even doing an impact study. That undermines Canada's credibility with the industry.

I would remind members that greater Montreal is the third-largest aerospace hub on the planet. Such a high value-added sector helps drive our economy. Anyone in the world would be very careful to preserve such a cluster—anyone, that is, but Ottawa. Is this all because the industry is in Quebec? That is unacceptable, and it reminds us of the repercussions of being under our neighbour's thumb.

Working with the unions and employers, we submitted several amendments to correct the poorly drafted tax measure. For instance, one amendment stated that the tax must not apply to exported aircraft. Another would have excluded businesses from the tax, which is how it is supposed to work. The Liberals and NDP voted against all those amendments. Yes, the NDP voted against what the unions were calling for. Why? It is because of their deal with the Liberals and their promise of unwavering support, to the point of compromising their principles.

The Conservatives voted with the unions on the luxury tax in Bill C-19, and the NDP and the Liberals voted against the unions. They were so quick to compromise their principles for a promise that benefits only the party that wanted it in the first place.

All of this will undermine our important aerospace industry and its unionized, well-paying jobs. This is all because the tax is ill-conceived and fails to meet its objective of taxing people who purchase luxury vehicles. Instead, the bill will tax airplane and helicopter manufacturers on aircraft that they export, over 90% of their output, or sell to businesses. This comes at a time when the industry is barely recovering from being hard hit by the pandemic. This is all because we have a finance minister who is no longer doing her job, since she is doing the Prime Minister's job and nothing is delegated. This is all because the government is not putting more effort into supporting and developing our economy.

In a normal democracy, a government like that would be overturned and replaced, but not in Canada. This government is supported by a party that is afraid of losing seats and is facing an opposition that is torn apart by extreme and polarizing ideologies. This is the price of following our neighbour's lead. It has little concern for our economic issues and has its own fish to fry.

With respect to the problems that the ill-conceived luxury tax will cause for the aerospace industry, I spoke numerous times with the finance minister, members of her team, her parliamentary secretary, her department and several other government members. That accomplished next to nothing. All we were able to get passed was an amendment that allows the government to delay implementation until after September at its discretion.

In addition, we had to wait until the report stage. My colleague from Saint-Jean and I introduced the amendment, as did the member for Elmwood—Transcona. This is the last glimmer of hope. If the government can take its head out of the sand and does its homework, we are offering it the opportunity to not implement the tax and to come back with a better bill in the fall. I urge the government to take us up on our offer.

The government is proposing a vast array of legislative changes in this mammoth bill. It has cut corners and done a poor job. The government is patting itself on the back for holding lots of consultations on everything. The only problem is that it is not taking the feedback into account. The Liberals' idea of democracy is letting everyone talk without listening to a word they say.

Luckily, we got the government to backtrack on its ill-conceived employment insurance amendment. We told it to go back and do its homework and listen to stakeholders. Unfortunately, we did not get the government to backtrack on its new tax that is 170 pages of poorly written text, but we did get one amendment passed that will create a window for changes in the fall. That will depend on whether the government sees fit though. I am very worried, as are the industry and union members. The government has not seen fit for quite some time now.

We managed to fix another of the government's egregious errors on another subject entirely in Bill C‑19. Australia took its dispute with Canada over an excise tax on wine to the World Trade Organization. Obviously, it was about wine made from grapes. However, because wine is not just grape wine to Ottawa, the tax applies to many other products too. In committee, we heard from cider and mead producers. The tax would have really hurt them and undermined a rapidly growing sector. We worked with them to propose an amendment that would exempt them from the tax. I think we made some important progress that will enable these passionate people to keep improving their quality products so that we can enjoy the fruits of their labour. I think we deserve congratulations.

More generally, let me say that I am very proud of every member of the Standing Committee on Finance. We spent many hours working constructively and collaboratively. From my perspective, we engaged in successful dialogue and made progress. I am sincerely grateful to every member of the committee, including its chair and the parliamentary secretary. I believe we made substantial improvements to Bill C‑19, and that is down to how well we worked together.

I also want to commend the work done by the other committees that studied parts of Bill C-19. I thank them for their insights. Lastly, I want to once again commend the hard work of my esteemed colleague and friend from Thérèse-De Blainville, who helped force the government to commit to redoing its homework on EI. I salute her for that.

Despite all my criticisms, Bill C-19 does include many good measures. Even though the government introduced a mammoth bill, even though it cut corners, even though we were not able to improve the bill as much as we would have liked, the fact remains that, when we weigh it all out, there are more pluses than minuses for the Quebec economy. That is why we decided to support the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for Elmwood—Transcona for a thoughtful discussion of what minority parliaments can do together.

I also lament the failure to provide the disability tax benefit, as does my colleague, the member for Kitchener Centre. We expected it. It should have been in the budget and it should have been in Bill C-19. I appreciate that we have made some progress for people with type 1 diabetes, but it is not nearly enough, nor is it fast enough.

The member will not be surprised that I will ask him to expand on his points about proportional representation. It is certainly timely, given the results from Ontario, where the election had the lowest voter turnout, as I understand it, in the history of that province. Barely 43% voted, which means that nearly 60% of Ontario voters did not vote.

I was taken with a column in Rabble newspaper by Karl Nerenberg on all the fetishizing and coverage by the media in just looking at the polling and kind of announcing that Doug Ford was going to win before the campaign started. Does the member feel that this played a role in reducing voter turnout?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to commend and congratulate my colleague on another very interesting speech. He always has something constructive to say, both here in the House and in committee.

I am concerned about the length of the budget implementation bill currently before us. Bill C-19 is a mammoth bill that amends numerous laws and deals with many issues that have nothing to do with the budget, including, for example, enforcing the justice system in space and conducting strip searches in prisons.

What does my colleague think of the fact that the government regularly resorts to such mammoth bills that lump together so many issues? Can committees and parliamentarians study all this thoroughly?

On top of that, the paper version of the bill that was given to the opposition was some 420 pages long, while the official PDF version that was posted online was over 440 pages long. Could my colleague comment on that?

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak during third reading of Bill C-19, which of course is the budget implementation act. I thought I might treat it as a bit of a case study, because in the debate about our electoral system we often hear that Canada needs strong majority governments in order to have decisive decision-making and action and to not end up with a hung Parliament. This is one of the main motivations for some to oppose electoral reform, and particularly forms of proportional representation, which tend to lead to more instances of minority Parliaments and minority governments.

My view is that the process around this budget bill, without being a perfect process and without the bill being a perfect bill, was actually a decent process, so I want to talk a bit about some of the improvements that were made to the bill during the course of it and some of the ways that it suggests we can make progress on other issues in this Parliament through members of various parties working together, and not only members of the same party working together. I think this process, in fact, showed that members can be nimble in terms of whom they are working with on particular issues and still get outcomes that make sense for Canadians and that benefit a lot of Canadians. We do not need one party having 100% of the power here in Parliament in order to make substantial progress for Canadians.

The first example I would point to is related to changes to the disability tax credit. We heard a fair bit of testimony at committee on this point. A Conservative colleague of mine on the committee brought forward an amendment, and the way this happens, as I am sure members will know but folks listening at home may not, is that parties will typically submit their amendments independently. Sometimes there are pleasant surprises when we receive the package. In this case, it was an identical amendment.

I was happy to work with Conservative colleagues and my Bloc colleague on the committee to pass an amendment that would change the disability tax credit requirements. A person has to show that they spend 14 hours a week tending to their condition, as somebody with type 1 diabetes does, whether that is injecting themselves with insulin, going to the pharmacy to get insulin, monitoring their blood sugar or doing other things that folks living with type 1 diabetes have to do. Then they often have to prove this every year, despite the fact that type 1 diabetes is not a condition that simply goes away and despite the fact that the requirements of the condition do not simply go away. Nevertheless, people have had to constantly show they have it, again and again.

This is reminiscent of some of the stories we have heard over the years out of Veterans Affairs Canada about veteran amputees who have to demonstrate every so often that, in fact, their leg is still missing and they are still an amputee and continue to require the same help. Folks with type 1 diabetes were having to continually show this.

We were able to bring forward an amendment, pass it at committee and even overcome some procedural wrangling, after the amendment was initially ruled out of order. We were happy to overrule the chair at committee on that point and very pleased that the Speaker saw fit to uphold the will of the committee in respect of that amendment when it came back to the House.

What that means concretely for people who are living with type 1 diabetes is that they will no longer have to do all of the paperwork, with the bother and expense that comes with it, in order to qualify for the disability tax credit. Once they have qualified as having type 1 diabetes, that will be sufficient to qualify them in the future.

I think that was a really hopeful exercise, and not just hopeful for Parliament in general, but also hopeful because we know that when it comes to Canadians living with disabilities, there has not been enough meaningful action on the part of the current government to serve that community. We saw that last June, when the government presented a bill for a Canada disability benefit that had absolutely no details about what the benefit would be, how much it would be, what the eligibility criteria would be and how it might impact other benefits that people living with a disability already receive. There was a lot more work to do, and since the new Parliament was elected in the fall, an ongoing priority of the NDP has been to call on the government to present new legislation and better legislation that would actually tell Canadians living with disabilities what the government has in mind and would provide far better ongoing income support for people living with disabilities.

Why is that important? It is because under the current federal programs and under provincial programs across the country, people living with disabilities have been consistently legislated into poverty to the extent that someone with a disability has to rely on existing disability pensions of various kinds across the country, none of which provide an income that brings them to the poverty line. This means that as soon as they have to rely on those things, people know they are going to be living a life of poverty with all of the challenges that come with that. Those are challenges of poverty over and above the challenges people living with disabilities already face.

With the great work from my colleague, the NDP disability critic in this Parliament, to press the government to bring legislation forward, we finally got wind on the Notice Paper that legislation was coming. It was an exciting moment. We had hoped to get more detail, just as we had hoped that certain changes to the disability tax credit in this legislation might have meant that finally the government would act on the long-standing call by people living with type 1 diabetes to make their lives easier and make their access to the disability tax credit available.

That was a disappointment, initially. However, by working together across party lines, we were able to remedy that, similar to the tabling of the Canada disability legislation. I almost said the “new” legislation, but I think I would have misspoken because it is pretty much the same legislation and has the same problems, therefore. It does not spell out what the program is supposed to look like. It does not let Canadians living with disabilities know what kind of financial help there is and the extent of financial support they could hope to receive from the federal government.

I would go further and say that part of the problem with legislation like this, and there are a couple, is it essentially just empowers cabinet to design a program and fund that program by statute, without having to return to Parliament. There is a procedural question, which I think may be less interesting to a lot of Canadians, but that procedural question is important to the extent that Parliament is a place that is meant to provide oversight on government spending. This bill would empower the government to create a program without having any idea what the price tag is, when it should be quite clear with Parliament on how the program is going to be designed. Parliamentarians should be able to authorize a new program like that knowing those things. That is a problem.

The other problem with setting up that program in legislation without actually legislating it is that a future government and a future cabinet that does not agree with the program or that wants to change it would not have to come back to this place. There would be no legislative process. This would also mean that the time it normally takes for a bill to go through the House of Commons and through the Senate would not be there. That is the time civil society often uses to mobilize in order to influence the content of legislation and government policy. It is an opportunity lost. It would make it very easy for a future government to undo whatever the current government does. If it finally gets around to creating a program for the Canada disability benefit, it would be far too easy for it to be undone.

Our experience at committee with the initial disappointment around the disability tax credit shows that a minority Parliament can come together and can have a positive influence on government policy and legislation. It can get things done for people that a majority government clearly would not have done because it was not in the Liberals' proposal.

I would also point to the example of employment insurance reform, something the government promised in its election campaign in 2015. We have had two elections since. The government has been in power now for coming on seven years, yet we have not seen any meaningful EI reform. We have to bracket a lot of what happened in the pandemic, because there were substantial changes to the EI program during the pandemic, but the speed with which those reforms occurred shows that it is possible to make meaningful reform quickly. Also, the nature of many of those reforms shows that what workers have been asking for in their EI program is in fact possible. This is not pie-in-the-sky stuff. Most of what they have been asking for are things the government did through the EI program during the pandemic.

As the pandemic recedes somewhat, at least for the moment, certainly the Liberals are of that view when they are talking about their financial support programs, less so when they are talking about public health restrictions. As the pandemic recedes somewhat, the government is going back to its regular inaction on the employment insurance file.

The Liberals finally did try to do something important but relatively minor in the grand scheme of systemic employment insurance reform: They presented a proposal to change the EI appeal board and undo some of the damage that was done by the Harper government to the EI appeal board. They fell flat on their face. It was not well received, even by the very people the Liberals sought to please with those reforms. They were lambasted for it, and they themselves sought to remove that part of the budget bill.

New Democrats were pleased to support that removal, for two reasons. One was that we agreed that those reforms were misguided and did not represent what I would dare to call a consensus among EI stakeholders about how the system, and particularly the appeal board, has to change. However, we were glad to support the reforms on a condition, which was satisfied, which was that the minister declare publicly that they would bring legislation back in the fall in order to make better changes to the EI appeal board system that people would actually welcome. Having secured that commitment, we were happy to support the removal of those appeal board changes that were quite ill-conceived.

However, it does raise a question of trust in the government. After being in government for well over six and a half years and having not really made any major reforms to EI except those that were forced by pandemic circumstances, when they finally came out of the gate to do something, how could they get it so terribly wrong? I take some solace in the fact that we have a minority Parliament, that Canadians did not entrust the Liberals with a majority of seats here in the House of Commons, that they do not have 100% of the power in this place and that negotiation is possible, because I think it is leading to better outcomes.

There is another example that is a little outside the scope of this bill, but it is an important one when we are talking about the pandemic. Early on in this Parliament, one of the first things that the finance committee did was to deal with Bill C-2, which established the new pandemic benefit regime that has now expired. It was instituted in December and was effectively the pandemic support regime that saw us through the omicron wave, with some notable changes by order in council right after the legislation passed, because as New Democrats said at the time, the reason we voted against that legislation was that we thought it would be inadequate to the task. I want to zero in on an important change that was made to those programs, particularly the wage subsidy program that was conceived in that bill.

Working with members of the Bloc and the Conservative Party, we were able to pass an amendment that said that companies that were receiving wage subsidy money under the authority of Bill C-2 would not be allowed to pay dividends to shareholders while accepting money from the government that presumably they needed because they did not have enough revenue to stay afloat. Clearly, if they were making big dividend payments to their shareholders, they did have the money, so that was an appropriate reform. It was the kind of thing that New Democrats had called for at the inception of the wage subsidy program that the government would not agree to initially, but we finally found a way, again working across party lines. That is not always an easy thing to do, but it is always a worthwhile thing to try to do. This was again an example of Parliament being able to correct course for a government that had got off on the wrong foot.

It really matters and it serves Canadians well that we are in a Parliament that does not have a majority government. I do hope that is something Canadians will consider in the next election. I also hope that they will consider electoral reform when organizations like Fair Vote approach them to talk about it. I will remind some of my Conservative colleagues—and we have gone into it a little over the budget debate—that reform is the want of folks around here, and it is not a bad thing. Conservatives will know that they had more share of the popular vote than the Liberals, who are in power, but they got far fewer seats.

We just saw, in the Ontario election, the New Democrats get about 30 seats to the Liberals' eight, approximately, despite having roughly an equal share of the popular vote. We saw the Ford government form a majority with a very small amount of support when we consider how low turnout was and how the way we vote under the first-past-the-post system can generate very distorted electoral outcomes.

I raise all these things to contribute to the debate on this bill, but I also hope to contribute to a larger debate about how we elect Parliaments that select governments here in Canada and show that we have been doing good work in this Parliament. We have been correcting course for the government when it got it wrong on the first go, and that has been made possible by virtue of having a minority Parliament. It is exactly because we do not have a majority government that these corrections and some of the good things that came out of the committee process have been possible.

One of the things I hope we may yet make progress on, which I will be looking to colleagues in other parties for support on, is the call for a low-income CERB repayment amnesty. This is something that has come up at the finance committee. It heard compelling testimony, and there is an important moral dimension to this issue. We are talking about people whose incomes are already below the poverty line. CTV did a piece on this last week, but it is not new. It has been a running story and has had various permutations through the pandemic, with the CRA sending letters to Canadians already in very difficult financial straits even before the current round of inflation hit us. It is all the more so now that people are struggling with the cost of groceries. The cost of housing has been an issue—let us not kid ourselves—for a long time. The rate of acceleration of the problem got worse during the pandemic, but the problem was getting worse even before the pandemic.

People who applied in good faith for help and were told to apply, in some cases, by their very own Liberal MP are now getting letters saying that they have to pay the money back, that they did not qualify and were not eligible. In some cases, they are people who applied for employment insurance and would have preferred just to get EI, but were told no, they could only get CERB. Then they got the CERB cheque and figured that was what they were entitled to. They applied for EI, were told no, and got the CERB. CERB sent them the cheque; they did not ask for it, so they thought it must be okay. They spent the money because they had lost their jobs and were trying to get through a global pandemic, which I think we can all agree was not an easy thing to do no matter what people's incomes were, let alone if they had just lost their jobs, and now the government is asking them for that money back. They do not have the money, and the efforts to collect that money, particularly from people who are already below the poverty line, are not going to bear fruit.

There is the moral dimension in terms of the anxiety and the financial harm that it is causing, but there is also a very real financial dimension. We heard a bit about that at committee. The government is planning to spend around $260 million chasing after a CERB debt that is a function of how it publicized its own program and encouraged people, and in some cases forced people, into the CERB system as opposed to the employment insurance system. For the $260 million that the government is going to spend over the next three or four years chasing that debt, how much is it actually going to get back? I think it is unlikely that it is going to get back $260 million.

I would love to know. I would love to have the government tell us how much it thinks it is actually going to get back. I have asked the question. I asked it at committee and I asked in a number of different fora and I cannot get an answer. It is shocking to me that the government would decide to invest $260 million to collect a debt that it does not know the value of, let alone the likelihood of succeeding. When we talk about investing over a quarter of a billion dollars in collecting a debt, we would want to be darn sure we are actually going to get that money back. Even if it makes its money back and calls it a wash—spend $260 million and get $260 million, which I think is very unlikely—it would not be worth it. It would not be worth it because the time and expense that it is spending chasing after low-income Canadians who are already in dire straits, particularly in this context of inflation, is time and expense that it could spend chasing tax evaders who are hiding their money out of the country and using other means to not pay their fair share. It would get a better return.

There is a good financial argument for a low-income CERB repayment amnesty, and I hope that in the context of this Parliament that I have been talking about, we will find support among enough other parties to convince the government to do the right thing, which is to not chase that debt and try to wring it out of low-income Canadians but instead divert the CRA's resources to chasing the people who are really getting away with something, people who are not paying their fair share and who have the resources to pay it back.

(The House resumed at 6:30 p.m.)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in this place on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

Today, I am going to be speaking to Bill C-19, but I will also be speaking to some of the points that I am sure the Liberal government may not want to hear. Part of democracy means everyone having a say before a decision is made. As the previous speaker said, there are a number of things where the Liberals accuse us of having blind spots. I would simply say that the same goes for the Liberals. That is why it is important for debates to happen, for those ideas, and for the people at home to be able to make up their own minds. That is something I hope to do today.

One of the biggest challenges I believe Canada has right now is not debates over spending too much or not spending enough; it is credibility. There used to be a time when both Liberal and Conservative finance ministers spent considerable time and effort to come to this chamber and say that they had a path to balance. In our history, we have gone through world wars and pandemics. We have had cases where we have even survived Liberal government “spendathons” backed by the NDP, which put Canadian taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars of debt that took decades to be straightened out, and a lot of pain.

When a finance minister comes to this place and says that the government has a path to balance or a balanced budget, that means a couple of things. Number one, it means that people know that the government has credibility when it lets out a bond and takes money from domestic lenders or from outside of Canada. It also says that the power of the government is in a very strong state, so if it decides to go with an infrastructure spending program or if it feels there is a hole in the safety net, depending on the needs of the day, there would be money for that, and taxpayers, both today and tomorrow, are going to be respected in those transactions.

When I go door knocking and speak to seniors or middle-aged people in my riding of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, one thing I hear a lot is that they are very concerned that their children and grandchildren do not have the same opportunities they did at that period in their lives, and that in order to get a good job they need more and more education, which comes at great cost. Even if they get that great education, it is not always easy to find the work they need in their area of specialty. Now, there is a lot of work, and I appreciate meeting people who are doing whatever they can to get the skills they need so they can raise a family. However, people are feeling hurt. In all age categories, there is the cost-of-living crisis we are in right now. We have not seen groceries jump 10% since we had another divisive, big tax-and-spend Liberal prime minister in office. It almost plays to a T that we are somewhat repeating history. We have a big-spending government that makes bad choices and hits a debt crisis or oil shocks, and suddenly interest rates go up, inflation starts soaring and everyone is in a load of pain.

The pain people are feeling right now, where they cannot fill up their gas tanks or purchase the same amount of groceries they could just a few months ago, is pain enough, but young people are also feeling that the system does not work for them anymore because they cannot buy a home. They have given up on that. They are just trying to scrape by and do what little they can. Instead of putting their money into something that brings them equity, they are seeing their credit card bills go up to pay for those groceries and to have those little luxuries because they do not have a home. That is a real shame, and I think all of us here recognize that. This is not a partisan issue, when we recognize that a whole generation feels like it is not part of the economy. That is on all of us, and we have to work together to try to find ways to deal with that.

We will have debates in this place. I do not want to say that I have all the answers, but I will say that part of it comes with credibility. People need to know that their government is working for them, that it is not thinking for them but thinking of them. In question period, when I ask questions of the Minister of Finance, I do not get the sense that she is thinking of Canadians; I think she is thinking for them. She may be well intentioned, but I would also say, and I have been very open with this criticism, that it is a bad decision by the Prime Minister to give so much responsibility to a single individual: to be Deputy Prime Minister, which is an honour, I am sure, and to also be finance minister.

Being a finance minister is a full-time job. I remember seeing Minister Flaherty and how hard he would work. It was good and meaningful work. However, to add to that, by a Prime Minister who seems to be more about the jet-set life and seems to be more about playing a Prime Minister on TV than being a Prime Minister in this place, putting so much responsibility onto one individual, that is not fair to her and it is not fair to this place.

In my experience on the finance committee, we saw large sections of the budget bill just cut. The EI component, which is an incredibly important part, was cut. Why? Everyone agreed the government had botched it. There is so much in this budget bill. There are other things the Liberals have botched, but unfortunately the government members just nod and say they lost something and just keep going on like nothing has happened. That is the problem. The finance minister is too busy, the Prime Minister is too busy doing his own thing, and there is not a focused government in place.

Credibility is so important that when the finance minister says something, it can move markets. Having credibility is so important in a Minister of Finance and in a Prime Minister. Yesterday, Yves Giroux, the Parliamentary Budget Officer who works for all of us in this place, was at a Senate committee, the national finance committee. In response to being asked about whether the government's fiscal position and its numbers were credible, this is what he had to say: “I personally don't believe it is credible that there will be that level of spending restraint in the period 2024 to 2027, given all the expenditures that remain to be implemented by the government over that period of time.” When asked if these planned savings in that time frame were still feasible, he said, “If we were to believe the government's numbers, that would mean that in 2024 to 2027, operating and capital spending would grow by 0.3% per year, which is a level of growth that we have not seen in a long, long time.”

What did I say about moving markets? Actually, the Royal Bank of Canada just put out its macroeconomic outlook, and it said that the bank expects GDP to go down to 1.9% in 2023, which is a marked drop. What we have is very optimistic numbers that are not meeting the test of time. We have inflation shooting up. We have growth dropping down. People are tightening up their wallets so they can pay for filling up their tank, let alone anything else. This is not a good situation. For our Parliamentary Budget Officer to be saying that he cannot trust the numbers and that those numbers seem overly optimistic, that is a big alarm bell.

The Liberals are not credible on their budget implementation act. The minister is too busy. There is so much happening, and the Liberal government tries to portray a rosy outlook, that everything is good.

Even today, when the finance minister rose in this chamber, she did not want to talk about inflation, but she said to look over there, that employment is at an all-time high and unemployment is at an all-time low. The Liberals were trying to take credit for baby boomers, who, as we have known for well over a decade, eventually would retire, starting in 2016, and leave en masse. The Liberals are trying to take credit for something the baby boomers are doing themselves, something we all know as the demographics are changing.

This is where the Liberals are at. They are again trying to point away, telling us to look at a number because they do not want us looking at these other numbers. RBC is questioning the economy, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer is questioning the assumptions in the budget. It is up to parliamentarians to ask if what the Liberals are saying is credible. Are they treating government as a serious responsibility or are they going by the seat of their pants? It is sad for me to say that, because I would want any government in power to be credible, especially at times when there is crisis or tumult or trouble.

What else does “credible” mean? It means being credible on the small things and not just on the big macroeconomic level. Never have I seen, and many of my constituents have told me they have not, so much spent by any government in the history of Canada, or at least in their lifetime, with so little to show for it.

Economist Tyler Cowen has been speaking about this a lot in the United States, and it is a great concept for us to look at. It is called “state capacity”. In my mind, state capacity is having a military that can blow things up, having hospitals that can handle a pandemic, and having the ability to do everything in between. It is having a Service Canada office that can get us passports in a timely manner. It is having a military that can replace a 50-year-old Browning pistol without having to go through multiple procurements. This is something the Minister of National Defence is going to have to wrestle with.

I know the Liberals do not want to talk about health care transfers. They talk about how they are doing all these other things. However, premiers unanimously say that the one thing they ask for from the federal government is to supply them with more health care transfers. Given what we have seen in our health care system, we can see why they are asking for that. I personally believe that our health care system needs to change. A lot of those arguments need to happen at the provincial level, because a one-size-fits-all, Ottawa-knows-best policy is not good for this country. There is a reason provinces have the responsibility for health care.

If the Liberals do not want to give health care transfers, then maybe they could stick to their promises from 2019, and again in 2021, when they said they would hire and bring in all these doctors and nurses. In British Columbia, it is critical. There are places like Merritt and northern parts of the province that need to shut down the only emergency clinics they have because they do not have health care professionals.

If there is one thing the government can do, it is to just own up to its own commitment. It made the commitment, and if it cannot keep it, it should stand in this chamber and tell us that it cannot do that, and why. Was it a bad idea to begin with, or was it just being used as a way to get votes?

Yesterday I was on a show, and an esteemed Liberal colleague was also on it. He accused Conservatives of using a gimmick. He said that our motion to take the GST off home heating, electricity, gasoline and diesel was just a gimmick. For so long, groceries have been exempt from the GST, because they are life-sustaining. I do not think any political party disagrees that we should not be applying GST to foodstuff, which allows families to feed themselves. I think that is a consensus and I do not see anyone ever changing that.

We are telling the government, during this period of time, to just stop. It is getting windfall monies from oil and other commodities going up and it is getting all sorts of money coming in from inflation. In 2017, the government made all user fees by the Government of Canada go along with inflation, with the CPI, and what happened? That is inflationary policy. The government has never had so much money.

A little bit of work on the health care front would be helpful. A little bit of help by supporting common-sense, pragmatic suggestions, like suspending the GST, would go so far, yet the NDP-Liberals voted against that. Those members will say that we have all of these programs, like CPP and the Canada child benefit, which are all indexed to inflation. That means it is going to come down the road, and it is not here now at the time of the emergency.

The government has the money to do this, but the Liberals just do not want to use a Conservative suggestion, and that is wrong. It should not be based on who proposes an idea to decide whether or not it has merit. It should be whether the idea itself has merit. That is a problem in this chamber. I would hope that members in caucus would speak to it when they hear a good idea, and whether it comes from the NDP, the Bloc, the Liberals, the Conservatives or the independents, that they would take it to their caucus and try to work with it.

I will continue to go through a couple of things quickly. Let us take capacity. In the port of Vancouver, we know we that we have supply chain issues from the COVID pandemic. We can look at what happened in Shanghai. All those ports were shut down, with thousands of boats waiting to take products to other countries.

The port of Vancouver was rated recently by the World Bank in a survey as being one of the worst in the developed world. The Minister of Transport needs to get out to Vancouver and start looking at how to fix this. He cannot just say that it is someone else's responsibility. Yes, there is an independent authority, and I am sure it is trying its best, but at some point the government has to be accountable. If we want to deal with inflation, we should expect that our ports are able to run. Again, the survey did not call out many of the other ports in the United States. We should at least be at the same level as those other ones.

Look at the shemozzle at Pearson airport. It is terrible what people are having to go through. Blacklock's Reporter did a story on this today. The government decided it did not want to hire people back as aggressively and now we are at this particular stage. Yes, the mask mandates, and as I like to say “my way or the highway” mandate for travel are causing all sorts of issues. However, the Liberals are not showing up when it counts. They are not putting their hands on the wheel like we would expect a minister of the Crown to do.

I want to talk about productivity. Recently there were some comments from Bill Morneau, the former minister of finance. I am going to read what he said:

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," Morneau said in prepared remarks.

That says what this government has done on productivity. In its own budget, the government is saying that in Canada, it expects investment levels to remain low because people do not see us as a credible place to invest. The NDP wants to add all sorts of new taxes, and this government actually put a retroactive tax last year on the banks. We can have arguments about that, but when the government does those kinds of things, it sends out a chill on investment.

To conclude, this government needs to get serious, and this government needs to focus. It has not done that, but I hope it does.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, and other measures, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Finance for the purpose of reconsidering the clauses in Division 15 of Part 5, amending the Competition Act, with the view to incorporate the consultation measures industry has been asking for.

I would appreciate hearing what members have to say and answering a few questions.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague from Winnipeg North always gives lengthy responses, and I like that. I like his passion, and of course it is always a pleasure to ask him questions in the House.

My colleague talked about what is in Bill C‑19. I am going to ask him about what is not in it.

What is not in Bill C‑19 are the health transfers to the provinces and Quebec. These transfers have been requested by all provincial premiers and the Premier of Quebec, all the opposition parties in the House of Commons and all the parties in the Quebec National Assembly. The only ones saying no to health transfers are the Liberals.

My question is very simple. If someone is alone in thinking they are right, could it be because they are wrong?

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

[Pascale St-Onge, Liberal, Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

moved that Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Justice

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite is having a difficult time following the logic here, I would suggest that she leave the chamber or not listen, as opposed to interrupting.

This is in fact very relevant. We have the opposition focusing their attention on an issue, but the government of the day is focused on the issues that are facing Canadians. Whether it is today or during the budget debate or debate on Bill C-19, we are have been consistent on these types of issues. It is the official opposition that has not been consistent. The opposition has not been focused on these important budgetary measures because it has been focused on other issues to try to stir the pot.

I am using the issue of the mandates as a tangible example. The wannabe leader of the Conservative Party was out saying, “Let us end the mandates”, and the minions within the chamber who are supporting that leader are espousing the same policy. To say that this issue is not relevant is ridiculous, because those are the types of issues they were talking about during the budget debate. Even when the Province of Quebec still had a curfew in place, the Conservatives were focused on ending mandates.

The member for Carleton made reference to the Bank of Canada and its governor. It was very discouraging. When we talk about issues of inflation and what is happening in our economy today and the person who is likely the new leader of the Conservative Party is going around diminishing the value and the importance of the Bank of Canada and its governor, we should all be concerned. That person has not won yet, and maybe he will not win, but he is definitely supported by a majority of the members opposite in the Conservative Party, and these are important budgetary-type issues, because the Bank of Canada does play an important role. It is supposed to be arm's length.

The Conservatives are more interested in playing political games than in dealing with the issues. We have indicated very clearly that we are going to deal with the real issues that Canadians are facing day in and day out. When Conservatives talk about inflation, they try to give the impression that the sky is falling and that Canada is going straight downhill. They put their collective heads in the sand, not recognizing what is happening in the world.

Conservatives talk about inflation. The Prime Minister and every member of the Liberal caucus are all concerned about inflation, and we all understand the reality of what is happening in our environment that goes beyond our borders. It is affecting our inflation rate. If we could stop the war in Europe, we would do that. We do not have that kind of influence. We do have a great deal of influence in working with our allied countries. However, to deny the impact of what is taking place in Europe in the illegal Russian war that is happening to Ukraine is highly irresponsible. That war is having an impact on inflation.

To try to click our heels and think that mandates and the coronavirus would be gone and we would have nothing more to worry about would again be irresponsible. We just have to take a look at what is happening internationally.

Even today some members will say that someone can be on a boat for 24 hours but that cannot be done on a plane. Have members ever been a boat, compared to a plane? There is a big difference between being in a fuselage, where there are 220 people or whatever number of people, and being on a ferry between, let us say, Vancouver Island and the city of Vancouver.

We within the government benches continue to review and look at the situation, listen to what science is telling us and work with health experts. That is what is dictating our policies. Remember, the Conservatives have been saying to end mandates for months now.

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

[The Speaker, Liberal, 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 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.

Opposition Motion—Measures for Immediate Financial Relief

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I have a great deal of respect for him.

I am disappointed because today the Conservative Party has an omnibus motion for us after they slammed Bill C‑19 for being an appalling mammoth of a bill, and that was echoed by the Bloc Québécois. Now they present us with this motion in a sort of giant lump. There is so much in there that I am surprised it does not say “build more pipelines” somewhere. It is mind-boggling.

There are a bunch of issues we agree on, such as fertilizer and the real estate market. It really upsets me that we cannot vote on those issues because they are all lumped together with many other things, such as scrapping the carbon tax, for example.

Here is my question for the member: Does he really expect to get support for this motion, or is this just a ploy to make all the other parties look like the bad guys?

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

[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, 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—

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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—

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Henry Chi-Hung Liu, Executive Director, Economic Division, Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Canada]

Honourable Chair and distinguished members of the committee, good afternoon.

My name is Henry Liu, and I am the executive director of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Canada, based in Ottawa. We welcome this timely study, which will contribute to enhancing Canada's ties with the Indo-Pacific regions, including Taiwan.

The bilateral economic relation between Taiwan and Canada is growing strongly. According to Statistics Canada, our two-way trade surpassed $10 billion Canadian in 2021, growing by 39% compared with 2020. This ranks Taiwan as Canada's fifth-largest trading partner in Asia. Taiwan is also Canada's 16th-largest export market globally.

The Indo-Pacific region will be the engine of global economic growth. Thus, a commitment to closer engagement with Indo-Pacific partners is more relevant than ever. Canada has initiated an Indo-Pacific strategy, while Taiwan has launched its new southbound policy to boost its ties with the countries of South and Southeast Asia. These two policies are quite complementary and will open new avenues of co-operation.

Taiwan's long-standing partnership with Canada is critical to our mutual objectives and shared interests, including our efforts to work with like-minded partners to safeguard freedom, democracy and human rights, as well as to stimulate inclusive prosperity through economic co-operation and trade in the Indo-Pacific region.

We can strengthen this synergy by providing our economic operators a set of more transparent, predictable and facilitating trade and investment rules. On January 10, 2022, our trade ministers agreed to begin exploratory discussions as a first step toward potential negotiations for a bilateral investment agreement, known here as FIPA. We hope that Taiwan and Canada can fully launch negotiations on a FIPA soon.

Taiwan is the world's 18th-largest importing country, with 23 million consumers of high purchasing power. Canada can benefit a lot from more favourable market access into the Taiwanese market. Taiwan officially submitted its accession application to the CPTPP last September. Taiwan is committed to upholding the high standards of the CPTPP. We respectfully request Canada's support for Taiwan's accession application.

Taiwan's CPTPP membership and FIPA with Canada will help increase regional economic momentum and bring Taiwan-Canada trade relations to the next level. In this era of geopolitical uncertainty and supply chain realignments, Canada and Taiwan can work together to increase their supply chain resilience.

Canada has long been a reliable and secure source of quality agricultural products for Taiwan, bringing our consumers more diverse choices and enhancing our food security. In addition, Canada's budget 2022 proposed up to $3.8 billion in support over eight years to implement Canada's first critical mineral strategy. Already, Taiwan's increasing demand of critical minerals has attracted more imports from reliable sources, including Canada.

Canadian exports of cobalt to Taiwan grew 186% in 2021, compared to the year before. The Canadian cobalt market share in Taiwan increased from 3% in 2012 to 25% in 2021. Taiwan wishes to expand its relationship with Canada as a close friend, democratic partner and trusted ally. We look forward to continued engagement with our Canadian partners to sustain and strengthen our bilateral relations.

Thank you very much for inviting me today. I will be happy to answer your questions.

Bill C-19. Report stage

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.

Report Stage

[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.

[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 position 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, when I think of Bill C-19, of course, the government has—

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.

Bill C-19—Time Allocation Motion

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the work and the time in this chamber are precious. If the Conservatives decide to waste it and slow down the work on behalf of Canadians, Canadians will decide their fate in a future election. They can hold us to account for the work we are doing for them. That is why Bill C-19, the budget implementation act, is so important. Affordability, growing the economy, making sure that Canadians can make ends meet and making sure we are at the top of the G7 are what the BIA is all about.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, these are the greatest hits from the Conservative choir: obstructing us at Bill C-8 and trying to delay the work on behalf of Canadians, while we are making sure that we get the work done on behalf of the people of Canada. Once again, the Conservatives proposed an amendment at second reading that would even prevent scrutiny of the bill, so I do not know which the member wants: scrutiny or no scrutiny. His own people said not to look at the bill.

We need Bill C-19 passed. That is why we are here today. We will get the work done on behalf of Canadians.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, making sure that my hon. colleague and his constituents and the whole ecosystem for Pacific salmon are addressed is a critical component of this budget implementation act.

I think the Conservatives might be taking inspiration from colleagues to the south of the border, where gridlock seems to be the flavour of the day. In this place, Canadians sent us here to work together. I heard it very clearly, right in Edmonton, where the hon. member for Edmonton West was also elected from. They said, “We will vote for you now, but we do not want to see you back here in two years, so make sure you make that place work.” That is exactly what we are doing.

There is $4 billion on the table for a housing accelerator fund, as well as a tax-free first home savings account, a home builders' bill of rights and banning foreign buyers from owning property. The list goes on, including labour mobility and a deduction for tradespeople to grow our cities and towns. That is what we are doing. We need to get Bill C-19 passed.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, once we are able to get through this motion today and move on with the business of the people through Bill C-19, we can make sure that the supports that are in the BIA get to the people. It is thanks to the obstructionist techniques and tactics of the Conservatives that we are where we are today.

Again, let me go through what is at risk here: $2 billion for provinces and territories to reduce backlogs in surgeries and procedures; a labour mobility deduction for tradespeople, which is critically needed at this time; a doubling of the maximum amount of the home accessibility tax credit; a reduction, by half, for the corporate small business tax rates for businesses that manufacture zero-emission technologies; and more measures that matter to our residents from coast to coast to coast.

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

Madam Speaker, under the Standing Orders, the government can use time allocation, but there is a difference between using it and abusing it.

Bill C-19 is not a small inconsequential bill. It is over 430 pages long and makes a lot of changes to existing legislation. We need some time to study it.

We know that the Standing Committee on Finance was rushed. We had time to present amendments, which were debated. They were good amendments. Were it not for the work of the committee, the bill could have been passed without any improvements, when that is the whole point of committee work. The Standing Committee on Finance worked extremely hard.

I challenge any party in the House to say that the Bloc Québécois is filibustering. We have not filibustered in committee or in the House. On the contrary, we worked hard to improve Bill C-19, which is a massive bill that amends a number of important laws. I think it should be known that we did not have time to review it properly, even if there were 80 speeches on the subject.

My question is quite simple. Does the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance not agree that we should have had more time to further improve this bill so that it would better respond to the needs of Canadians and businesses?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will talk about the state of the Canadian economy all day long, and we will continue to do so once we get Bill C-19 passed.

Our economy grew at a rate of 3.1% annualized in quarter one of this year. The IMF has predicted that Canada will have the highest growth rate in the G7 this year and next year. Canada posted the fastest growth among G7 economies in Q1. Building upon our results in the last quarter, our AAA credit rating is intact, and 115% of the three million jobs lost during the pandemic have been recovered, faster than in the U.S. economy. Our unemployment rate is 5.2%, the lowest it has been since I was six years old in 1976. Our balance of international trade is a $5-billion trade surplus. Bankruptcies are lower than before the pandemic.

The Conservatives are doom and gloom. They want to obstruct Bill C-19, but we know the facts, and so do Canadians. The economy is doing well, and Bill C-19 will help make life more affordable.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for responding to the needs of his constituents, as we are doing for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Making life more affordable is a central focus of our government and is one of the pillars of budget 2022. We have a short-term inflationary cycle. We know that it is pinching Canadians and hurting Canadians at the grocery store. The illegal war in Ukraine is contributing to it, and the China zero-COVID policy is also gumming up supply chains.

In the BIA and in budget 2022, what we are doing is making sure that we make life more affordable. The sooner we can get this legislation passed, the sooner we can respond to the concerns of the constituents of my hon. colleague. The budget includes $5.3 billion over five years for dental care for families making less than $90,000, doubling the support of the first-time homebuyer's tax credit, a multi-generational home renovation tax credit and $475 million to give Canadians $500 if they are having housing pressures.

These are real measures and real affordability. We need to get Bill C-19 passed.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have had robust debate in this chamber. We have had robust debate at committee. There have been many amendments and subamendments, and the voting process has taken place.

What I can say, just for the record, is that the Conservatives proposed an amendment at second reading that would not have allowed the BIA even to be scrutinized, which is an integral role of the parliamentary process. They used motions of concurrence in two committee reports to delay and obstruct debate in this House at second reading. They have done this again now at report stage. They attempted to use multiple unanimous consent motions to delay debate, but the Speaker ruled that they had not appropriately consulted parties, and now we are seeing them move 62 amendments at report stage.

Bill C-19 is about making life more affordable for Canadians. It is a prudent fiscal plan to get the economy to continue to grow and it is the right thing to do. We have had lots of time to debate this motion and it is time to move on for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I have to say to the hon. minister that I am very disappointed that we are once again seeing time allocation in this place. In the days of the previous Parliament from 2011 to 2015, when the Conservatives had a majority, we began to see time allocation used in a routine fashion and we knew at that time, as did the Liberals, who were then in opposition, and I, as the Green Party leader in opposition, that the constant use of time allocation for limiting debate was wrong, wrong in principle and wrong for parliamentary democracy. I do not doubt for one second the frustration, and legitimate frustration, on the government side at delays in legislation, but this place, Parlement, c'est pour parler, to be able to debate. This is an enormous bill. Now we are at report stage and we should have time to debate and discuss it.

I ask the hon. parliamentary secretary and minister to please consider that there are other ways to make sure that bills are dealt with expeditiously in this place without constantly using this bâillon, this guillotine, on debate. I urge the government party to rethink this.

I will definitely be voting against time allocation on Bill C-19.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the answer to my colleague's question is that the Conservatives are hard-wired to oppose, and they cannot stand that we are actually making life more affordable for Canadians.

I will build on what my hon. colleague had to say. Our budget, and by extension, the BIA, includes $4 billion to accelerate work in closing gaps in indigenous housing. It also has the dental program, which is extremely important for lower-income Canadians, and a one-time $500 payment to those facing housing affordability challenges.

Let us put on the record exactly what the “block everything” party done has done. There were 80 speakers at second reading, and that was not enough. There were 42 hours of debate, yet that was not enough. Parliamentarians have done meticulous work at committee. What was the response of the Conservative Party? It was to throw all of that away and move 62 motions to obstruct.

That is not what Canadians have asked us to do in the House. We will do what Canadians expect of us and get the work done. We will pass Bill C-19.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sure to address my comments through you in this august chamber.

Facts really matter in this debate. We heard from 80 people at second reading of Bill C-19, budget implementation act, 2022, No. 1, for a total of 42 hours of debate, including 15 hours at second reading and 27 hours in committee.

Despite all this meticulous work by parliamentarians, the Conservatives' response was to throw it all away by presenting 62 amendments with the sole aim of blocking the process. As for our Bloc colleagues, they also had the right to present amendments in committee, which were debated for hours and voted down by a majority. That is the normal process.

Today, we want to move this bill forward.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, budget 2022 does three main things. It invests in economic growth and innovation. It invests in people, and it invests in the green economy. All three of these things are about creating jobs and building the economy, but they will also help make life more affordable.

Bill C-19 is so critical to making sure the government is able to implement our budget. Some of the things in the budget implementation act include a two-year ban on foreign investments in Canadian housing; $2 billion for provinces to boost their health care investments for Canadians to get rid of the backlog in surgeries and procedures; a labour mobility deduction for tradespeople, which is something people in my own riding of Edmonton Centre asked for; a luxury tax on new luxury cars, planes and boats; and a reduction by half to the corporate and small business tax rates for businesses to manufacture zero-emission vehicles.

The Conservatives proposed an amendment at second reading that would not even allow the BIA to be scrutinized. They are playing games; we are moving forward.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, well, it is no surprise, commensurate to what is a decline in democracy in this country, we are actually seeing in lockstep a decline in the amount of time that debate happens in this place, despite the fact millions of people voted for an opposition party to hold the government to account and make it transparent and accountable with pieces of legislation.

It is not surprising we are moving to time allocation. In this Parliament alone, more time allocation has been called than in the previous Parliament. We are just eight months into this one, and we were a year and a half into the previous Parliament. Of course, we would be hard pressed to find any opposition party that would have supported time allocation in the manner it has been proposed by the government more so than the coalition partners of the NDP, who used to rail against time allocation as being anti-democratic and anti-institution, but here we are. No doubt NDP members will be rising to support the government.

Bill C-19, through committee stage, went through significant motions. It went through significant amendments. There are perhaps, as it comes back to report stage, more amendments in the debate that could happen here, but we have had one hour of debate on this important piece of legislation.

I am wondering how the minister can justify to Canadians this further decline in democracy we are witnessing. The public faith in our institutions is in decline as well.

Bill C-19—Notice of Time Allocation

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the respective stages of the said bill.

Taxation

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

Madam Speaker, the luxury tax in Bill C-19 misses the mark. Rather than targeting wealthy people who are buying private jets, it taxes Quebec's aerospace industry. My Liberal colleague knows this. Two weeks ago she promised “to ensure that this does not hurt our manufacturers”, but since then, her government has voted against all of our amendments that would fix the problem.

Taxing the rich is fine, but taxing the flagship of the Quebec economy instead is out of the question.

When will the Liberal members from Quebec get to work and protect our aerospace sector?

Motions in amendment

[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?

[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.

[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]

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—

Speaker's Ruling

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

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.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me join my colleague opposite in welcoming you in your return to the role of Speaker. It is wonderful to see you there. I almost cannot see you because of the monument. I guess it is an homage to Fenway Park. It is our own green monster that has been constructed in this chamber. I can kind of see your head over it. It is wonderful to see you back in this place and in such fine form and good health. Welcome back.

Tomorrow morning, we will begin debate on Bill C-19, the budget legislation, which was reported back to the House from the finance committee yesterday. I want to take the opportunity to thank all members for their hard work on getting it back so quickly. Tomorrow afternoon, we will commence second reading debate of Bill C-21, the firearms legislation. Our priorities for next week will be report stage and third reading of the budget bill, and Bill C-5 regarding mandatory minimum sentences. Finally, I would like to inform the House that Tuesday, June 7 shall be an allotted day.

Certain Amendments Made to Bill C-19

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Following the presentation yesterday of the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, the Chair wishes to draw the attention of members to a procedural issue related to two amendments adopted by the committee during clause-by-clause study of the bill.

As the House knows, the Speaker does not normally intervene in committee matters. However, in cases where a committee has exceeded its authority, particularly in relation to bills, the Speaker has a responsibility to ensure that certain fundamental rules and practices are properly observed. As Speaker Fraser explained on April 28, 1992, at page 9801 of the Debates:

When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, ... no matter how tempting that may be.

The first questionable amendment modified clause 6 of the bill in order to amend the Income Tax Act and allow individuals with type 1 diabetes to automatically qualify for a tax credit. Some uncertainty was raised about whether this amendment required a royal recommendation, and the chair of the committee ruled it inadmissible. This decision was challenged and subsequently overturned. The committee then debated and adopted this amendment.

The second amendment seeks to amend clause 135 of Bill C-19 to modify the select luxury items tax act. With respect to subject aircraft, the coming into force is changed from September 1, 2022, to a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council. Here again, the chair of the committee ruled the amendment inadmissible because it lacked a needed ways and means motion. This decision was also challenged and overturned, and again the committee then debated the amendment and adopted it.

Both amendments bring up different, but equally important, questions about the admissibility of amendments and their compliance with certain financial procedures. Page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, reminds us that:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation. An amendment is also inadmissible if it exceeds the scope of the ways and means motion on which a bill is based, or if it imposes a new charge on the people that is not preceded by the adoption of a ways and means motion or not covered by the terms of a ways and means motion already adopted.

Given the potential consequences rising from these amendments and the way they were considered in committee, the Chair felt it necessary to review the relevant evidence together with the rules relating to financial procedure.

With respect to the first amendment related to clause 6, the Chair is unclear as to how it constitutes a new and distinct charge on the public treasury. In fact, based on the information the Chair has before it, it appears that this amendment allows a tax credit that in its application is non-refundable. Accordingly, while the chair of the committee determined that the amendment required a royal recommendation, I am of the view that it does not need one.

With regard to the amendment to clause 135, the Chair agrees with the committee chair that this amendment, by changing the date of the coming into force of the clause, could oblige certain entities to bear an additional charge. Consequently, given this possibility, this amendment needs to be preceded by a ways and means motion.

While the Chair appreciates the difficulties that can arise when examining a bill in committee, it is important to remember that a committee must carry out its mandate without exceeding its powers. In the Chair’s view, by adopting an amendment that infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown, a committee ventures beyond its powers.

Consequently, the Chair must order that the amendment to clause 135, adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance, be declared null and void, and that the amendment no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House.

I want to thank all members for their attention.

Finance

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank our legislative clerks Jacques Maziade and Émilie Thivierge, finance committee clerk Alexandre Roger, and all our committee staff, interpreters, services, members of the committee, witnesses and department officials for their hard work in getting this report completed.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

While I am on my feet, I move:

That the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

While I have to concur with regard to all the public officials as well as all the people who have worked hard around this table on Bill C-19 to make sure it receives proper scrutiny, I think we need to take a step back and take a look at many of the changes that have happened here.

We have changes to the DTC, the disability tax credit, when it comes to life-sustaining therapy. We have changes to direction and control elements of the bill. Couple that with the Excise Act changes as well as the foreign buyers changes. We've hit the express entry changes, and now we've hit EI.

This used to be a government that prided itself on consultation, yet we have had witness after witness come and say that the government didn't do its work. We have also heard commitment after commitment from the government to modernize the EI system. What do we see? We see, in this case, that they obviously didn't do their homework.

While I certainly can appreciate that PS Beech will be joining in taking away from the bill this section, the HUMA committee and this committee have found the government's work on this particular element of the file to be atrociously lacking in both depth and consultation. I certainly have never seen a budget implementation act.... This is a very large one, coming from a government that originally said it would not do omnibus bills. They've certainly thrown in many measures that I believe don't belong in a budget implementation act. For the government to try to proceed so haphazardly, without having the support of a program that so many Canadians depend on, really shows how much of a tin ear this government now has.

Again, this is from a government that said it would consult and be open and transparent. Now they are suddenly having to vote out large segments of their own budget implementation act. I really hope the Minister of Finance does a good debrief post-mortem, because Bill C-19 is no longer the bill it once was.

Again, I would simply point out that the finance minister, while she does have...and I do appreciate her ongoing service and commitment to Canada. I would say that the Prime Minister, by giving her two main focuses of being both Deputy Prime Minister and finance minister.... I would say that it shows there's just too much on her plate. She's not focused well enough that they can write EI legislation and at least be able to get it through their committees.

Mr. Chair, I really do hope the government takes the summer to reconsider this and spend the time necessary to actually find a path forward on these EI changes. It is an important program. Canadians put in a lot of money and a lot of time, and they have a lot of faith that, when they need that program, it will be there for them. So far the modernization efforts of this government are all political rhetoric and not enough action.

I think members get the flavour that Conservatives will be voting against.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I fully agree with Mr. Blaikie's proposal to reject all the clauses in division 32.

I gave a notice of motion to committee members. This notice was an echo of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which studied division 32. This committee was unanimous in saying that what is in division 32 is not satisfactory and must be thoroughly amended.

My amendments to division 32 were an effort to improve the bill. That being said, if the government would agree to withdraw division 32 from Bill C‑19 and introduce a bill that better meets the needs of the community, that would be ideal. It would also be consistent with the unanimous will of the human resources committee and the testimony we heard.

I would like to point out that experts from the Employment Insurance Appeal Board appeared before the committee. They told us that they were not at all satisfied with division 32 as worded.

I asked Terry Beech whether the government would agree to withdraw this division from the bill. If he agrees with Mr. Blaikie's proposal, that means that the government will have agreed. The unions also told us that this does not work, and the experts on the Employment Insurance Appeal Board, both those representing workers and those representing employees, told us that they were not satisfied with the Employment Insurance Appeal Board proposed in division 32.

I think the right thing to do would be to put all of this together and vote against it, so that this division would be removed from Bill C‑19. Later this fall, the minister will be able to introduce a bill that will better reflect the needs, requests and consultations, as well as the needs of the Employment Insurance Appeal Board.

I would like to acknowledge the exceptional work of my colleague Louise Chabot, the Bloc Québécois member who sits on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. As soon as she became aware of Bill C‑19, she warned us that it was not working. She was able to call on all the stakeholders in the Employment Insurance Appeal Board so that they could see that it was not working.

With her proposal, she managed to generate a consensus within the human resources committee that this did not make sense and should be withdrawn. She did the same thing here in the Standing Committee on Finance; she suggested certain witnesses, and she came to ask certain questions. She has done an exceptional job, and I tip my hat to her.

I would like to thank Mr. Blaikie for his suggestion. I also want to thank Mr. Beech. In fact, I asked him about this division in front of witnesses. If he agreed with what is being proposed, it would show that he managed to get his government to act and that it decided to wait a little while.

Ultimately, I'm sure that we would have a better bill, a bill that would better serve the needs of the community.

I'm in favour of unanimous consent for Mr. Blaikie's request.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd certainly like to thank MP Blaikie for the explanation. Just for future reference, if he had just said, “Flip the page over, Dan”, I probably would have been able to read that, but I certainly appreciate his reading it out, because the people who are watching us.... Believe me, Mr. Chair, there are people who watch us, so hello to people who are watching us. I appreciate that you take an interest in Bill C-19.

I am going to just again thank MP Blaikie. I am more satisfied now that this is more of a public process because it has been defined, and I extend thanks to the member.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 54 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the order of reference of May 10, 2022, the committee is meeting on Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. Per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask except for members who are at their place during proceedings.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Pursuant to the motion adopted in committee on Monday, May 9, the committee will continue today with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-19. We have witnesses from various departments here with us who will be able to answer questions as we move through the clauses of the bill.

Members, just before we go to clause-by-clause on Bill C-19, the clerk distributed two budgets for our pre-budget consultation travel. Last evening you should have received them around 6:31 p.m. We are looking for approval of those, as the clerk has to bring them to the Liaison Committee.

I am looking for approval.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with the suggestions of both Mr. Blaikie and Mr. Beech.

Also, I want to mention that I intend to withdraw BQ‑14 and BQ‑15, which would amend clause 377 of Bill C‑19.

I was in a rush to take the recommendations set out in the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration's report and turn them into amendments. However, since they don't concern Quebec, I will instead support NDP‑5 when the time comes. It relates to the same issue.

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

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to move this motion. Both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party.... I will just note that technically we put our platform out first in the last election, so it was our idea first to ban foreign buyers from the residential real estate market in Canada. Then the Liberals soon after decided they would follow suit.

Now the challenge in this, Mr. Chair, is that there are so many loopholes in this so-called foreign buyers ban. At committee, I asked simple questions, and at the technical briefing I asked simple questions that seemed to enunciate that a foreign national could still purchase a home in Canada. If a family gets separated because a spouse leaves, they can purchase another home, and their children, when they turn 18, can purchase another home, so there are so many different loopholes in this that I don't think it is really a forceful mechanism, and I think it was designed like that.

Second to note is that I still don't understand how the mechanism is to work in terms of how we will know who is purchasing properties. As you know, Mr. Chair, most of these assets are recorded provincially, so whether or not the authorities would have information available federally is still in question.

Setting those aside, the purpose of this amendment, Mr. Chair, is that despite those differences, we believe that the biggest loophole has been reserved for the government itself. In fact, if you look at the enabling legislation here in Bill C-19, it actually gives the Governor in Council, in this case the cabinet, the right to decide when it comes into force. While members of the NDP and the Liberals can go home to their constituencies and say, “Look, I voted in favour of a ban against foreign buyers in the residential market,” essentially cabinet has a law whereby it could say it's never going to have it come into force.

Mr. Chair, we believe that the Liberals made the commitment that they would ban foreign buyers. I don't necessarily think it captures what the government says it intended to in that original commitment, but we think there should at least be some certainty for the market. I've seen on Twitter—and, of course, we should always bear in mind that when we see something on Twitter, we shouldn't always take it as real—that some realtors actually say that the federal government has banned foreign buyers, when it has only introduced legislation in this bill do to so.

In order for there to be certainty in the industry so that realtors are made aware of that and can inform their clients that they may inadvertently be misaligned with the law, we just think it's easier to set an enforcement date, so everyone knows it. Then the government would, I think, at least keep its word to the Canadian people in a sensible and straightforward way. That is why we are suggesting that clause 235 should come into force on January 1, 2023. We think that between the passage of this bill and over the summer and into the winter months, the industry stakeholders could be consulted. They would know that that was the date on which it would come into force, and they would become better acquainted with the rules, rather than having the status quo that's in this bill, whereby you have a ban that really isn't a ban and a law that may never actually become law.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay. Thank you.

Members, I'm going to give my ruling.

Bill C-19 enacts the select luxury items tax act. Amendment NDP-3.1 aims to modify the date of coming into force on subject aircraft by changing it from September 1, 2022 to “a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council”.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:

An amendment is...inadmissible if it exceeds the scope of the ways and means motion on which a bill is based, or if it imposes a new charge on the people that is not preceded by the adoption of a ways and means motion....

In the opinion of the chair, changing the date of the coming into force could oblige certain entities to bear an additional charge. Therefore, I declare this amendment inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

The ruling from the chair is that Bill C-19 enacts the select luxury items tax act. Amendment BQ-8 seeks to modify the price threshold of $100,000 in the case of a subject aircraft, so that it would be set by regulation. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772 that “An amendment is also inadmissible if it exceeds the scope of the ways and means motion on which a bill is based, or if it imposes a new charge on the people that is not preceded by the adoption of a ways and means motion....”

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment could oblige certain entities to bear an additional charge; therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to start by thanking my fellow members for making their positions clear on the suite of amendments to this clause.

This is obviously the most problematic clause in Bill C-19. We are talking about a new tax, 170 pages' worth. My party and I support the principle of taxing luxury items. It allows for a better balance of wealth, whereby everyone contributes to public services on the basis of what they can afford. We support that principle.

What industry manufacturers and unions told us, however, is that this tax was poorly thought-out. Since it will probably be adopted, it will have significant consequences. If the amendments are defeated, I sincerely hope that, come the fall, the government will fix the situation and we'll end up with a tax that does not hurt the industries in question or jobs. Obviously, we'll believe it when we see it, as Quebec comedian Yvon Deschamps used to say.

In the case of this tax, it's easier for the government, the state, to tax the manufacturer, when the consumer should be paying the tax. There is a lot of bias in the 170 pages that deal with this tax.

For example, most aircraft subject to the tax are exported, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 90% or 95%. My sense is that laziness is to blame for the way the bill is drafted, in other words, taxing every aircraft that is manufactured and providing for the possibility of a refund afterwards. Department officials told us that this was done on a quarterly basis, but manufacturers told us that aircraft often had to undergo numerous modifications and that it could take six, nine or 12 months before the refund is issued.

Manufacturers are being saddled with an administrative burden. They need cash, but they have to fork out hundreds of millions of dollars upfront, all because the tax is poorly designed. BQ‑6 would make clear that aircraft intended for export are excluded from the tax.

These amendments are meant to make the tax better and fix the problems with it. What members need to understand is that those problems will not be fixed. Industry stakeholders told us about instances where a company purchases an aircraft for business use and entrusts another company with managing the aircraft. That company can, in turn, rent out the aircraft when it's not in use. At the time of sale, the manufacturer must ensure that the aircraft purchased by the company and managed by an air charter company will not be rented out for personal use more than 10% of the time. All of that places a disproportionate burden on manufacturers' shoulders. It's virtually impossible to impose such a thing from the outset.

The amendments would help solve those problems. Lowering the proportion of business use from 90% to 75% would give manufacturers some breathing room and ensure that the tax does indeed target luxury items, instead of crippling the aerospace sector. Essentially, the idea behind the amendments was to make the tax less punitive for the oh-so-important aerospace sector and the other affected sectors.

The intent was not to have wealthy people who buy luxury goods pay less. It was to make the tax work better so that it doesn't unduly hurt manufacturers. At the end of the day, in its current form, the tax hurts manufacturers because it applies to activities that the spirit of the act does not cover. The administrative burden created by this measure is terribly onerous.

I want to stress to committee members that our aerospace sector faces fierce competition from players elsewhere in the world, in particular, Seattle, in the United States, and Toulouse, in France. Every other country has policies to support its aerospace economy. The aerospace sector adds tremendous value to our economy.

Canada is the only country with an aerospace sector of this size not to have a policy that supports the industry, such as through government procurement. On top of that, the government is bringing in a new tax. Industry representatives told us this measure would hurt the sector's reputation. The International Air Transport Association said that it might move. That shows that this is damaging the industry's reputation.

Even if all the problems were fixed in the fall—again, we'll have to see it to believe it, to quote Yvon Deschamps—it would still mean months of uncertainty. Meanwhile, the industry will realize that, if it wants to grow, it should go somewhere other than Canada. After all, the government is sending the message that it does not plan to help the industry. Canada would be the only country in the world not to support its own industry. It's beyond me. All of this is mind-boggling.

I thank my fellow members for expressing themselves so clearly, but if all the amendments being proposed are defeated, the economy and good jobs are going to take a major hit. The message being sent would fuel uncertainty and hurt Canada's credibility when it comes to building and strengthening the domestic aerospace cluster and supporting those jobs.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

My sincere thanks to my fellow committee members for being open-minded and working so co-operatively. I am truly grateful. You are all to be commended.

Yesterday, the committee voted in favour of the modified version of BQ‑4, which dealt with clause 131 and sought to exclude cider and mead from the excise tax. For the sake of consistency and alignment, I would like to move a similar amendment to clause 132, because the same amendment cannot apply to more than one clause. Here's the amendment.

I move that Bill C-19, in clause 132, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 106 with the following:

placed by the following: (a) produced in Canada from honey or apples and composed wholly of agricultural or plant product grown in Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Okay. Mr. Chair, I would like to put forward again our CPC amendment. This was recently sent out by the clerk, I believe. I hope all committee members have had a chance to take a look at it. It just changes the language to say that this would have referred to clause 131.

This amendment to the amendment would simply defer, until January 1, 2023, the application of excise when it comes to beer, wine and spirits—particularly, in this case, wine. I gave much of my rationale yesterday. The rationale still stands. Many of our wineries have had such a hard and difficult time since COVID. The impact to their bottom line has been tremendous. Because of supply chain issues, many are unable to secure the bottles they need in order to bottle by July 1, when the new excise provisions that are contemplated in Bill C-19 would take effect under the current reading. This would essentially give them that extra time.

I also want to be mindful that, for many wineries, especially the small and medium-sized family wineries, many have never paid excise, because they use 100% Canadian-grown content. I'm not going to rehash old debates today about the Australian wine WTO challenge and where it led us to, other than to say that these wineries need our help. The Australians stood up for their wine industry because of what they felt was unfair treatment towards domestic product versus their product due to the escalator only applying to foreign product or product made with less than 100% Canadian content.

Mr. Chair, what I'm asking for here is a deferment. This would give them the time to bottle. I also believe it would dovetail with the government's strategy, because it has not fully unveiled what its replacement program would be. There have been discussions with the industry and commitments made by the government in this budget. Some of the numbers are still under question, but the actual formation of that program—who receives it, and at what amounts—has not been made public to the industry. This would give the industry that extra time. It would also give the government extra time to make sure that everyone knows their obligations under the law. I would just ask for all honourable members to support this important bill.

Again, I recognize that the Canadian government, before COVID, made commitments. The Australian government stood up for its producers. All I'm asking for is a deferment. I don't think the Australians, considering there's a new government there, would look at it as out of hand to say that we are implementing this to keep as many small and medium-sized wineries open so that they can begin to understand their obligations under this new law.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Yes, I have written a letter to the clerk based on the clarifications that one of the members was looking for. As of yet, we have not received any response. I will work with Madam Clerk to see when we can get the response from the law clerk. Once we have that, we can look into scheduling something accordingly.

One more thing, before we go further, is with regard to budget approvals I need. I would like to request budget approval for three studies. The first is on the subject matter of part 5, division 23 of Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, for an amount of $850.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call the meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 53 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the order of reference of May 10, 2022, the committee is meeting on Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

As per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy of March 10, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members who are at their place during proceedings.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French audio. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function.

The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as well as we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Pursuant to the motion adopted in committee on Monday, May 9, the committee will continue today with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-19. We have witnesses from various departments here with us, who will be able to answer questions as we move through the clauses of the bill.

Members, I see a couple of hands up. I see Mr. Albas and then Mr. Ste-Marie.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I mentioned at the top of the meeting when I was speaking to my point of order, instead of moving BQ‑4 as originally written, I will be proposing a modified version. The new amendment was sent out earlier today.

I will take a few moments to read it, and then, I will say a few words about both the form and the substance of the amendment.

I move that Bill C‑19, in clause 131, be amended by replacing lines 15 to 19 on page 106 with the following:

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to wine (a) that is produced by an individual for their personal use and that is consumed in the course of that use; or (b) that is produced from honey, apples or any other prescribed agricultural or plant product. (2) Subsection (1) applies after June 29, 2022.

Clearly, this provision could change given the amendments that may follow.

Australia took legal action against Canada regarding the excise tax on wine, wine made from grapes, to be precise. The dispute did not relate to mead or cider.

The committee heard from industry representatives about their high production costs. They said that the excise tax could limit the growth and development of their fledgling industry in the country.

The least we can do is adopt this amendment, which is in line with the settlement regarding the dispute between Canadian and Australian wine producers. It only makes sense.

As for whether the amendment is admissible, I would say that this does not create a new tax. This does not broaden the legislation's reach. It simply amends an existing measure, so I am asking the committee members to support this amendment.

Mead producers and cider makers explained to the committee the impact this legislation could have on their industry.

The problem lies in the fact that the federal government is conflating wine, cider and mead, and this amendment would fix that. As I see it, the amendment is entirely admissible.

Once again, I urge my fellow members to vote in favour of this amendment to support our cider and mead producers.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think one of the big challenges we have here is that, again, the government has moved first with its own bill without properly consulting on and trying to really capture the spirit of the senator's bill. That's the challenge here.

The government is again trying to look like it is doing something in alignment with a very popular initiative, and the reason why it's popular is that charities want to do good work. They want to be able to deliver services in a more efficient and accountable manner, but the problem is that, if you're spending all your time dealing with red tape and doing it in a prescriptive approach, you aren't able to help people who are in need, when they need it.

I would encourage all members to support this particular change. MP Lawrence, to his credit, has met with the charitable sector multiple times outside of the committee and did an admirable job of raising some of the concerns of the charitable sector in regard to the original drafting of Bill C-19. It did not capture the spirit of the senator's bill.

I'd suggest that rather than playing catch-up, we instead just deliver exactly what the charitable sector is wanting, which is the senator's bill in this BIA.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My point of order is twofold.

First, you all received notice of the motion I wanted to propose at the start of today's meeting. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities unanimously supported the recommendation to examine division 32 of part 5 of Bill C‑19 separately.

After speaking with Mr. Beech, I want to let everyone know that I will be proposing that motion at a later meeting, not today's.

Second, you also received an amendment that would replace Bloc Québécois amendment 4, BQ‑4. When we get to the amendment, which deals with clause 131, I will propose the new BQ‑4, which you all received.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

I see Monsieur Ste-Marie's hand up.

Monsieur Ste-Marie, I will recognize you after my opening remarks.

Welcome to meeting number 52 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the order of reference of May 10, 2022, the committee is meeting on Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. Per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask except for members who are in their place during proceedings.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. Interpretation for those on Zoom is available for this meeting. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of the floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Pursuant to the motion adopted in committee on Monday, May 9, the committee will proceed today with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-19. We have witnesses from various departments here with us who will be able to answer questions as we move through the clauses of the bill.

I'm recognizing Monsieur Ste-Marie, who has his hand up.

[Yves Giroux]

Thank you very much for having asked these two questions.

With respect to your first question, it's true that the tax on luxury goods will increase federal revenue, but unfortunately decrease provincial revenue, at least for provinces that have a sales tax on goods of this kind.

Your second question was about warnings. We haven't studied the parts or divisions that did not include financial provisions or that did not generate considerable expenditures.

However, we did note that division 6 of Part 5 is identical to what is in Bill C‑17. I'm talking here of the transfer of $2 billion to the provinces to reduce health care wait times. These two provisions have exactly the same goal; at least that's how I understand it. I believe that it is included because the government expects to have Bill C‑19 adopted before Bill C‑17. We believe that this deserves the attention of parliamentarians, to avoid duplication in the objectives and expenditures. We are, after all, talking about $2 billion.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I have only two and a half minutes left, I'll ask my questions in succession.

My first question is about the new tax on certain luxury goods.

This tax will increase the federal government's revenue, but it will decrease provincial revenue because the number of sales will drop and the provincial sales tax on such goods will apply to a smaller tax base. I'd like confirmation that I've understood this properly.

My second question is about Bill C‑19. I'm afraid that the committee will not be able to fully study this mammoth bill of over 400 pages in length, and which includes many parts and divisions.

Do you and your team have any warnings for us, or anything they would like to point out to us, in connection with Bill C‑19? I don't know whether you've had enough time to examine the entire bill, and Part 5 in particular.

I'm thinking, for example, of division 9, which concerns the Special Import Measures Act and other areas. Do you think there are any dangers here?

Is division 15, which is about the Competition Act, put together coherently?

And what of division 16, in connection with the Copyright Act, and division 17, with respect to patents?

I'm also surprised to see, in a budget implementation bill, that there should be a mention of the Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act. That's in division 18.

And division 19 addresses prison strip searches.

Suggested amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Employment Insurance Act are also found in this bill.

Are you looking at all of that, because it's a budget implementation bill, or are you somewhat overwhelmed, as we are, by the scope of this bill?

Do you have any warnings for us?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Certainly I do support the removal of 32, but I want to be clear, because if we say we want to split it, normally what that means is that the Speaker of the House will split the bill and you will vote Bill C-19 separately from division 32. I don't know if that is exactly the intent of Ms. Chabot. I think she agrees that this needs further consultation, which is what we heard from the witnesses, and there's a full review of the EI process that's going to go on. If that's the case, perhaps the word “remove” would more accurately reflect the intention that she expressed.

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

Mr. Chair, it is important to understand the meaning of the word “scinder”. In fact, I believe the meaning is the same in English.

The word “scinder” means that this part of Bill C‑19 is going to be treated separately. We want this part to be split so that it is dealt with separately, by another committee, and there is discussion. That's what I got from the consensus and the comments from the workers' representative, the Employment Insurance Commission representative. This is no small thing.

The Employment Insurance Commission, which has a worker representative and an employer representative, sent a joint and unanimous letter to the ministers concerned. It asked that the debate be held in a different framework than that of Bill C‑19.

In Bill C‑19, the translation does not match that used in the unanimous committee report. The word “scinder” means “to treat separately”.

Recommending to the Standing Committee on Finance that this part be split up means that we are recommending that this part be treated separately, in the way the government would like us to treat it. It is essential that it be treated separately. That is what the word “scinder” means.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank Madame Chabot for the motion. I do believe that there's consensus among the witnesses that this needs to be removed.

I wanted to get some clarity on what the word “split” would mean in regard to the removal of this portion of the budget implementation act or how “split” would be interpreted by the government.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to thank all the members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for allowing this study on important sections of the employment insurance system. This is within our area of expertise and jurisdiction. I look forward to dealing with the much needed comprehensive reform. At the moment, we have heard witnesses primarily on division 32.

I want to inform you that we have tabled a notice of motion. It is in proper form and we have forwarded it to the clerk in both official languages. My point is this. In light of the testimony heard on division 32 of part 5 of Bill C‑19, the best recommendation we can make to the Standing Committee on Finance is to withdraw division 32 of part 5 of omnibus Bill C‑19 for separate study.

If I were to summarize the comments of all the witnesses we heard from on Tuesday and Wednesday, including Mr. Bolduc of the FTQ, they believe that division 32 of part 5 of Bill C‑19 should be part of a separate bill and therefore removed from this omnibus bill so that the reform can be the subject of thorough review and deliberation. The same is true for the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi, MASSE. This morning, the three witnesses were unanimously of the same opinion.

There is a consensus among employers and workers. They say that they were consulted and that a report was arrived at, but that what was put in Bill C‑19 does not correspond to the consensus established after many consultations. The government, in an August 15, 2019, Employment and Social Development Canada news release, for which Minister Duclos was responsible at the time, made the following commitment:

The Canada Employment Insurance Commission will become responsible for first-level EI appeals through the creation of a new tripartite decision-making tribunal called the Employment Insurance Boards of Appeal.

This is a cry from the heart that it is extremely important that this be done. Moreover, we do not understand why the government included this in Bill C‑19. One witness told us that it could not have done a better job of clouding the issue. Even I, as employment critic, was surprised to see this section in Bill C‑19. There was no mention in the budget of any intention to extend pilot projects for workers in the seasonal industry. At least it looks good, because it has a cost impact. If we had done nothing, it would have meant abandoning a measure that provides interim support until comprehensive EI reform.

In short, the wisest proposal we can make to the Standing Committee on Finance is to withdraw division 32 of part 5 of Bill C‑19.

I will read the motion:

Based on the evidence received and heard in committee, in considering divisions 26, 27, 29 and 32 of Bill C‑19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, and other measures, the committee recommends to the Standing Committee on Finance that division 32 of Bill C‑19 be split.

[Yves Giroux, Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer]

Good afternoon Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.

We are pleased to be here to discuss the analysis of your study of Bill C‑19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

With me today are Xiaoyi Yan, Director, Budgetary Analysis.

In compliance with the mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, which consists of providing independent and non-partisan analyses to Parliament, we published our analysis of the 2022 budget on April 22. In the report, we identified several key issues to assist parliamentarians in their budgetary deliberations, and also presented updated fiscal and economic projections.

I will now continue my remarks in English.

In terms of transparency, budget 2022 includes long-term economic and fiscal projections, which improve fiscal transparency and contribute to sustainability analysis. However, the analysis provided in the budget would be further enhanced by the inclusion of additional details, such as long-term projections of old age security, employment insurance and children's benefits.

It's also worth noting that while the budget includes some of the measures from the Liberal Party's 2021 election platform, the implementation of any remaining platform measures and additional commitments not accounted for in the budget, such as pharmacare, will impact the budgetary balance going forward.

Our report also notes the continued misalignment of financial reporting, as budget 2022 was tabled a month after the government's main estimates. Parliamentarians could be well served by adopting a new legislative or administrative framework to enforce better alignment among the government's various financial reports.

Following this assessment, on May 17 we published a stochastic debt sustainability analysis of the medium-term outlook presented in budget 2022. The report provides a stress test of the government's financial position. Based on past experience, our results suggest that the government could maintain debt sustainability over the medium term. However, our results also suggest that on balance, there is upside risk to the budget 2022 projection of gross debt as a share of GDP.

In addition to our reports, my office has also released independent cost estimates of selected measures contained in budget 2022, including the mobility tax deduction for tradespersons and indentured apprentices and the luxury goods sales tax.

We would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have regarding our analysis of budget 2022 or other PBO work.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

What I find interesting about this discussion is that we are talking about employment insurance, and the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is the place to do it. If we are dealing with issues that affect something other than the divisions before us, it is because they are part of the long-awaited comprehensive reform of employment insurance. This is actually part of the mandate of the Minister of Employment, who was to present us with a framework for employment insurance reform before June 2022.

There is hope, at least I hope so, because there is a lot of discussion, and it concerns the main stakeholders, those who pay into EI: workers and employers. So I thank you for your testimony. It will enrich our future discussions. At least, we hope so.

What worries me is that we go to the trouble of consulting with employers and workers on what a reform of the appeals process should be, we turn off the lights for two years and nine months, perhaps for good reason, and then all of a sudden we think of a reform and put it in a budget implementation bill. It leaves an odd impression about the government's intentions.

If I understand correctly, it is imperative that we recommend to the Standing Committee on Finance that Bill C‑19 be split to allow for a real discussion on reforming the appeals process based on the recommendations that you worked on and were consulted on at the time, before 2019. You can simply answer yes or no.

[Luc Beauregard]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Why consider clause 32 of Bill C‑19 separately? It has been said, the bill is huge. It covers a lot of ground. We believe this section, which deals with employment insurance, should be dealt with on its own because of its importance to Canadians.

We saw quick action being taken during the pandemic. As a result, Canada was able to move forward and continue to operate despite the pandemic, which affected other countries' economies and workforces much more severely.

In our view, there are significant aspects of Bill C‑19 that do not reflect the interests of workers.

We're referring to a tripartite approach, that is a departure from what existed before.

You shouldn't make the 2012 mistake of not holding consultations again. We need to get back on track, and the EI file needs to be worked on separately.

[Luc Vachon]

Good morning, Ms. Chabot. Thank you.

We had initially asked for clause 32 to be considered separately so that the issues it covers could be examined in greater depth. Frankly, since its reform, the Social Security Tribunal has done major damage for several years. It has neither been efficient nor cost‑effective.

You’d want to avoid making the same mistakes again when overhauling the tribunal and the way it operates. We’d like for things to be set straight, as they should’ve been from the start. There seems to be consensus on a tripartite model, which is excellent news. There were consultations, but will the outcomes of those consultations be taken into consideration?

We had asked for consultations because Bill C‑19 is colossal, just huge. Our concern and the reason why we wanted to have clause 32 considered separately is that potential corrections have been discussed for years. Opportunities like these don’t arise very often, so it’s important not to fumble. Any misstep could be felt for years.

We called for a separate review of clause 32 out of a desire to achieve the best possible outcome. We would be concerned if that did not happen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for joining us.

I will make a short introduction by saying how relevant I think it is for the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to have taken the time to hear from witnesses and for them to have accepted our invitation to testify on important provisions concerning employment insurance. Those provisions don't affect the budget so much, which is the purpose of Bill C‑19. They are at the heart of an employment insurance reform, which concerns things like training and seasonal industry issues.

We are still waiting for the comprehensive modernization of the employment insurance act. Those key issues are now included in the budget—in other words, in Bill C‑19, which is an omnibus bill that must be passed as quickly as possible. Those don't seem like winning conditions to me.

Concerning division 32, the witnesses the committee heard from—Mr. Vachon, Mr. Beauregard and Ms. Nord—and the witnesses we heard from on Tuesday, are unanimous on the reform of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada. While consultations have been held, recommendations have been made and foundations have been built, everyone is wondering why we are unexpectedly finding this today in Bill C‑19.

Why is it important to remove this division from Bill C‑19? Why will that be important moving forward in the reform?

Let's go in order. Ms. Nord, Mr. Vachon and Mr. Beauregard, you can take turns answering.

[Leah Nord]

That's correct. It was in the fall of 2018; I believe it was October 2018. There was a framework developed to modernize the SST process. It did look very much like the previous one, to be honest. A lot of the ways did lead to that previous structure. Again, in 2019, through announcements, we were led to believe that framework was going ahead, and this is not what we're seeing in its entirety within division 32 of Bill C-19.

Thank you.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Ms. Nord, what I'm hearing you say is that you thought adequate consultation and proper consultation was done in the 2019 process, and you feel that consultation process was not done for Bill C-19 for division 32.

[Leah Nord]

Yes, that is our recommendation, one of those coming out of our response to Bill C-19 that I reiterated today for reasons that I can repeat. The changes that are proposed in division 32, part 5, of Bill C-19 are not what we expected. There is reference to the KPMG evaluation. There was also a 2018 codevelopment process that was truly tripartite.

On a personal note, I had the opportunity to participate in that process, and I laud it as an example of a tripartite discussion. There were two or three days where it was government, business and labour sitting together. We had principles, we went through a process, and we developed a framework.

You also heard reference to the 2019 announcement where all of us thought that those changes were reflected in the recommendations from KPMG and the process we had gone into. As you can hear from many here, this isn't exactly what we thought, and it doesn't align with the principles. We think that it should be taken out of an omnibus bill and that it deserves its own attention for those reasons as well as because it's an incredibly complex process. We want it to get the proper and deliberative attention it deserves.

Thank you.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for joining us today.

Ms. Nord, in a letter to the finance committee, you provided the recommendation to remove division 32 of part 5 from the bill. Can you elaborate, please, on why you think it should be studied independently of Bill C-19?

[Luc Beauregard, Secretary-Treasurer, Centrale des syndicats du Québec]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to begin by thanking the committee for giving as an opportunity to speak.

My presentation today will essentially focus on division 32 of part 5 of Bill C‑19.

My name is Luc Beauregard, and I am secretary-treasurer of the Centrale des syndicats du Québec, CSQ.

The CSQ represents 200,000 members, 125,000 of whom are education staff, including in higher education, which makes it the most representative organization in that sector in Quebec. It also has 11 federations, which bring together some 240 affiliated unions, and one retiree association. We are also present in the sectors of health and social services and early childhood education, as well as municipal, recreation, cultural, community and communications sectors across Quebec.

A few days ago, we shared our concern with Minister Qualtrough regarding division 32 of part 5 of Bill C‑19, which pertains to the Employment Insurance Board of Appeal and the Social Security Tribunal of Canada, commonly known as the SST. We asked her to remove that division from the bill so that it can be analyzed separately.

The SST was created in 2013 as a single point of contact to replace four administrative tribunals, including boards of referees. Prior to that, tripartite boards rendered first-level appeal decisions for insurance employment clients, which ensured better access to justice and participation by sector representatives who were familiar with the labour market and their region.

In 2019, the government announced, in a press release, that, at the suggestion of the KPMG firm, in its report on the review of the SST, reforms would be made to the tribunal, including a return to true tripartism as of April 2021. The announcement assured us that people would be at the heart of the appeal process and that the process itself would be accelerated, simpler and better adapted to Canadians' needs. That announcement also implied that sector stakeholders would be consulted.

The bill provides that the SST will report solely to the chairperson of the Canada Employment Insurance Commission. It is essential for the structure to be tripartite in order to ensure monitoring of how union and employer representatives will be deployed and trained and to ensure that they will fulfil their mandate on the board of appeal.

The board of appeal will not be a truly tripartite institution if social partners are not directly involved in the selection and appointment of members, workers and employers. In addition, the right to regional representation and to an in‑person hearing is missing from the bill. The necessary reforms should focus on the client, and they should be flexible and accommodating. Concrete access to an in‑person hearing was recognized as a key aspect of any reform of the employment insurance appeal system, and the presence of a tribunal member with expertise and knowledge of local markets is necessary.

Finally, the board of appeal is supposed to consist of two types of statuses: full-time tribunal members appointed by the Governor in Council and part-time members from the community of employers and insured people appointed by the commission. That distinction between statuses is a concern for us, as it necessarily causes inequity among members, but also a different level of commitment. Full-time members will have the special status of public service employees, which is reinforced by the fact that they will be the only ones able to hold the positions of chair, co‑chair and coordinating members. We feel that inequity is obvious.

In short, we would have liked to be consulted beforehand and given an opportunity to help develop the appeal process.

The provisions proposed in the bill do not reflect what was advanced and proposed by the government since the beginning of the process. Of course, we understand the delays caused by the health crisis, but that should not have limited the consultation of social partners in such an important file.

If no amendments are made to the provisions in division 32, we think the division should be removed from the bill in order to be studied separately.

Thank you for listening.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all our witnesses for sharing their testimony today. It's been very informative and very interesting. It's my very first time attending this committee, and I look forward to participating.

I'm going to follow up on some of the very brief testimony that we heard from Mr. Mangin and hopefully talk a bit about some of the issues around Bill S‑216 and the BIA.

The reason I want to do this is that we didn't get the opportunity to hear from Mr. Mangin, but this is an issue that's very, very important to me. I know it's very important to many members of Parliament, but I come at it from a bit of a special perspective, I guess, which is that I have been working on changing the direction and control legislation in this country since 2005. We have known that this is a paternalistic and a colonial piece of work within CRA that has needed to be changed for a very long time and has impacted the ability of the charitable sector to actually do the work they are mandated to do. It is in no way reflective of participatory, democratic good practice in charities. It needed to be changed.

When Senator Omidvar came to me and to many other parliamentarians to speak about the changes to direction and control within her bill, Bill S‑216, we of course were all delighted. We were all on board. We were all working with her. The sector has worked very closely with her, and legal experts have worked very closely with her and her team to develop a really strong piece of legislation.

Of course, when we saw in the BIA that it was named and that the spirit of Bill S‑216 was going to be implemented, I think many of us within the House of Commons and many more within the charitable sector were delighted. When we saw what was actually being proposed, the delight turned a bit to disappointment.

I'm going to read from a few different places for you, and I'd like to put some of this testimony into the record. Then I'm going to pose some questions to Mr. Mangin that he can respond to in writing, bilingually, when he's able to do so.

First of all, I want to start with a letter that was written to the government by Cooperation Canada. For those who don't know, Cooperation Canada is an organization that represents many of the charitable sector groups that work in Canada. It's a very long-standing organization that has been in place for over 50 years. It is very well respected and knowledgeable on this file and has certainly taken a lead on it.

In the letter they addressed to the government, they say:

...the BIA reinforces the colonial and paternalistic approach to the relationship between charities and the partner organizations supporting their charitable purposes. It makes the current regime more challenging for organizations to fulfill their charitable purpose by embedding a rigid and prescriptive approach to funding non-qualified donees inside and outside Canada in legislation. It makes the system more confusing, risky and challenging for registered charities and non-qualified donees to work together, and as such, impedes philanthropic and charitable resources flowing to communities that need them the most.

The serious concerns that the sector has with the BIA and that we would like to see changed within the BIA are the proposed definition of a qualifying disbursement, the proposed language relating to directed gifts and the prescribed conditions for qualifying disbursements to grantee organizations.

I know that this committee has received information from Imagine Canada; I wanted to make sure that that information from Cooperation Canada was also included.

I also wanted to give a little bit of insight into what this looks like on the ground. For example, if you're looking at perhaps an indigenous partnership and perhaps there is a requirement to work with indigenous groups that do not, for whatever reason, have charitable status, what we have in the BIA impedes the ability for charities to support indigenous groups that are doing the work within their communities. I think that's something that no Canadians want as we deal with truth and reconciliation in this country.

There's another example when we look at working internationally. Right now, we have an incredible crisis that is happening in Ukraine. I think it's really important that everyone on this committee recognizes that if we don't get this BIA right, if we don't get the direction and control right, those organizations that can do the best work in Ukraine and can do the best work with refugees who have fled Ukraine, Romania, Poland and other countries won't be able to work with Canadian charities because of the aspect of direction and control that we have in this BIA.

As Mr. Mangin was, I suspect, going to tell us, we need to amend the language on direct giving. This would allow Canadian charities to contribute to pooled funds and support non-qualified donees.

We need to remove the reference to disbursements meeting prescribed conditions and replace it with a requirement that the charity instead takes reasonable steps to ensure that the resources are disbursed and used exclusively in furtherance of a charitable purpose. We need to delete proposed regulation 3703 in its entirety. This would allow for regulations to remain in the CRA guidance documents.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I understand.

Mr. Lasnier, you have approximately 1 minute and 20 seconds left.

As you know, we're considering Bill C‑19. Bills may be amended in committee. At the end of your opening remarks, you stated three very pragmatic demands to the committee. Would you please repeat them to the members of the Standing Committee on Finance?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Do you think we should amend Bill C‑19 to apply the new tax solely to wine, the product at issue in the dispute?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I understand.

One of the factors that may explain the potentially mistaken application of this new tax is that the federal government has no expertise in wine. In Quebec, for example, we have the Société des alcools du Québec, and the regulations respecting cider, which for a long time was illegal, have been amended.

Do you think that this was a good-faith error resulting from a lack of expertise and that it could be corrected by an amendment to Bill C‑19?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

So I understand that apples are classified in the same category as grapes under federal regulations, which have been in force for some time. Your response shows just how obsolete those regulations are.

I'm quite familiar with these businesses. There's a lot of talk about processing and value-added products, and people say our resources must be processed in order to create employment and wealth, and that's exactly what these businesses do.

Do you know if the federal government did a study to assess the impact of this new tax before so quickly introducing the measures we now see in Bill C‑19?

[Leah Nord, Senior Director, Workforce Strategies and Inclusive Growth, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chair, vice-chairs and committee members. It's a pleasure to be here this morning to make an appearance regarding certain divisions of part 5 of Bill C-19.

I'm speaking today from Ottawa, the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples. I go by the pronouns “she”, “her” and “elle”. Today I am wearing a light blouse, grey sweater and grey glasses. My hair is pulled back and I am attending virtually with a blurred background.

I'm speaking on behalf of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which is the voice of Canadian business. We represent 200,000 businesses across the country, across sectors and across sizes, including our network of 450 local chambers and boards of trade from coast to coast to coast.

Today, I have two interventions to make and the first is with regard to division 26.

It's very important to remind ourselves that the EI program is estimated to have a debt of $29 billion for fiscal year 2022-23, and that is as it is, before we add any additional pressures into the system. The eligibility expansion for support measures and employment services within division 26 is no doubt well intended and might not look like much in and of itself. However, what has happened continually over the years—in fact, the past eight decades—is recurring drops in the bucket that have a cumulative burdensome impact on the program.

As the Government of Canada is starting phase two of its EI modernization consultations tomorrow, we at the Canadian Chamber have urged that this be a truly comprehensive review, not more nibbling at the edges, as it were. We have said that this is our once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to really look at the program and set it—and future generations of Canadians—up for success.

Importantly, this includes part II of the EI program, referred to as active measures, which involves the over $2 billion transferred to the provinces and territories annually for employment services and skills training, alongside a plethora of pan-Canadian programs and initiatives. This is not to say that we don't think skills, education and training aren't important. It's quite the opposite.

When I appeared in front of this committee in the early days of the pandemic, back in May 2020, I stated, “we need to identify the reform needed to build a system that can respond to current and future workforce needs to ensure Canadians remain connected to the labour force, and that includes strong upskilling and reskilling training components.” It's not the importance that we're questioning; it's the suitability and efficacy of having support measures and employment services funded by EI dollars. EI doesn't need to—and can't—fund everything, and if it does continue, the business community, which contributes seven-twelfths to the program, would like greater transparency and input into how that funding is spent.

The second intervention I have this morning is with regard to division 32 and the EI board of appeal. Our recommendation is to remove division 32 from Bill C-19 for a separate and focused review. This is not the first time you have heard this and it likely won't be the last. Importantly, you have heard this from labour and business representatives. The institutional structures that underpin the EI system are critical for a well-functioning system that meets the needs and expectations of Canadians.

The employment insurance board of appeal would be complex, and the changes proposed in Bill C-19 are significant and do not necessarily align with the tripartite principles and framework that had been agreed upon before the onset of the pandemic. The changes included in division 32 are not the ones we thought we would see, and they need to be examined and discussed in a more deliberative manner.

Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 27 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Given the ongoing pandemic situation, I expect anyone who is attending in person to follow the proper procedures.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. For those participating by video conference, please click on the microphone icon to activate your mike. For those in the room, your mikes will be controlled in the room.

I would like to advise you that you have the option of speaking in the official language of your choice. For interpretation, go to the bottom of your screen to choose the language of your choice. If there is an issue with interpretation, please get my attention and I will suspend the meeting until it's corrected. You can do that by using the “raise hand” icon at the bottom of your screen.

I would also like to advise witnesses that you will be given the opportunity to make a five-minute prepared statement to the committee, after which we'll go into questions. I would also advise that I will indicate to you when you have 10 seconds left in your time, and then I will move to the next speaker.

Today, as you are aware, we are meeting pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by this committee on Monday, May 16, 2022, that the committee resume its study of the subject matter of part 5, divisions 26, 27, 29 and 32 of Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 5, 2022, and other measures.

I would like to welcome the witnesses. From the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, we have Leah Nord, senior director of workforce strategies and inclusive growth. From the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, we have Luc Vachon, president. From Centrale des syndicats du Québec, we have Luc Beauregard, secretary-treasurer.

We will start with Ms. Nord for five minutes.

You have the floor.

[Marc-Antoine Lasnier, President, Producteurs de cidre du Québec]

Good morning.

Thank you very much for welcoming us and allowing us to state our position on Bill C‑19.

My name is Marc-Antoine Lasnier, and I am the president of Producteurs de cidre du Québec. I'm also the owner of Cidrerie Milton, which is located in the Eastern Townships.

I am accompanied by Catherine St‑Georges.

[Jean-Marc Mangin, President and Chief Executive Officer, Philanthropic Foundations Canada]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you very much for this opportunity to discuss the serious and unintended consequences of Bill C‑19 for the charitable and non-profit sector.

Like many other organizations in the sector, Philanthropic Foundations Canada, which is the largest national network of private and public foundations in the country, welcomed the government's budget announcement that it would adopt the spirit of Bill S‑216, the purpose of which is to treat organizations that contribute to the common good on an equitable basis even if they do not have official charitable status.

However, Bill C‑19 does no such thing. In fact, if passed in its present form, it would undermine the operational environment by adding more complexity and risk through overly prescriptive statutory measures. I believe that the government and opposition parties are fully aware of the problems involved and that there is a common willingness to correct these unintended effects.

With Imagine Canada, Cooperation Canada and leading charitable lawyers, we have provided three simple amendments that would remove the worst of these unintended consequences. These have already been submitted to the clerk of this committee. Together, we continue to offer our co-operation to fix Bill C-19.

Given the vast and complex set of urgent challenges facing our communities, our collective focus must be to encourage adaptive, learning-oriented results management, not to impose, in law, seven narrow and mandatory measures on all forms of partnership.

The former—that is, Bill S-216—offers real accountability to funders and communities alike who work across a myriad of partnerships. The latter—that is, Bill C-19 in its current form—is a straitjacket that will hinder social innovation, continue the damaging colonial practices of de facto direction and control, and ultimately restrict the flow of charitable dollars to those who need them the most. Let's focus on outcomes—

[Matt Poirier, Director, Trade Policy, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, everyone. It's my pleasure to be here on behalf of Canada's 90,000 manufacturers and exporters and our association's 2,500 direct members to discuss Bill C-19.

The manufacturing industry is 10% of Canada's GDP, produces two-thirds of Canada's value-added exports and employs 1.7 million people in high-paying jobs across the country.

In the lead-up to the budget, CME issued its 2% challenge. That is, the federal government should attract 2% of OECD manufacturing investment into Canada, up from our current 1%, by instituting a national industrial strategy. Doubling that investment to 2% would revolutionize Canadian manufacturing, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and increase our GDP and standard of living.

To get there, we must address our most pressing challenges: labour shortages, supply chain disruptions and declining investment and export performance. While there's a sprinkling of help in all those areas in budget 2022, we believe more must be done to help Canadian manufacturing grow. I will outline that plan now.

First, on labour shortages, manufacturers big and small are struggling to fill the 81,000 vacancies across Canada. All this is happening even though our sector is one of the highest-paying industries in the country.

We can tackle this problem in many ways, but the main drive should be to plug our labour shortages through immigration. Budget 2022 talked about processing backlogs, but we encourage the government to dedicate more resources to the problem. We must also speed up the introduction of a trusted employer stream to the temporary foreign worker program and reduce the administrative burden on companies applying to the program. Ultimately, however, the temporary foreign worker program is merely a pressure release valve. We need to aggressively increase our immigration intake targets to 500,000 per year in the economic stream alone. We need workers.

Second, on supply chain bottlenecks, according to a CME survey, nine out of 10 Canadian manufacturers report encountering supply chain issues. The added challenge for Canadian manufacturers is their lower position in the pecking order for critical components. We currently have the situation in Canada whereby a company can have an increase in customer orders and a workforce ready to go, but nothing to build because it's waiting on parts. The national corridors fund to facilitate the movement of goods and other initiatives announced in the budget will help, but in addition to long-term investments and modernizing our trade infrastructure, we must address the short-term problem by providing temporary financial assistance to manufacturing companies still feeling supply chain disruptions.

Lastly, on investment and exports, Canada lags behind other OECD countries in non-residential business investment, and this is leading to deterioration in our international competitiveness. On the net-zero transition, Canada's manufacturing industry has already started, but smaller companies are falling behind. On trade, while we enjoy some of the best free market access of any country on earth, our goods exports are stuck in neutral.

To respond to all of these challenges, the budget announced some measures that CME has long called for. The Canada growth fund and tax changes for SMEs are positive, as are the promises to look into adopting a patent box regime and SR and ED reform. A tax credit for investments in clean technology and a refundable tax credit for carbon capture will support manufacturers as they work to decarbonize their industrial processes.

While these are all positive developments, we worry that the money allocated to these measures may not be sufficient, so we urge the government to put up the money necessary to make these changes have a real impact. We also need to better incorporate SMEs into the design of these programs so they can qualify for them and be helped through the process of using them, particularly on the net-zero transition and growing exports front.

Before I conclude, I want to register our concern with the proposed luxury tax on planes, boats and autos. I echo all the others who have spoken out against this tax. We understand the allure of such policies but they are a siren's song, as they do a lot of damage to domestic manufacturing. Manufacturers and organized labour are united in their calls for this tax to go, and we urge the government to do just that.

In conclusion, while CME is pleased to see many policies we have long championed included in the budget, this is just the starting point. We look forward to working with you all to tackle our industry's challenges and ensure our economic prosperity for years to come.

Thank you for inviting me. I look forward to the discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 51 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the order of reference of May 10, 2022, the committee is meeting on Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. Per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members who are at their place during proceedings.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike. Please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

There is interpretation for those on Zoom. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of floor, English or French audio. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I'll remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard. I request that members and witnesses mutually treat each other with respect and decorum.

I would now like to welcome today's witnesses.

For our first panel, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., as an individual, we have Vass Bednar, executive director, Master of Public Policy in Digital Society program, McMaster University. I believe Ms. Bednar will be with us only until 11:40 a.m. this morning.

From the Canadian Dental Association, we have Lynn Tomkins, president, and Aaron Burry, acting chief executive officer. From the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, we have Matt Poirier, director of trade policy. From the National Marine Manufacturers Association Canada, we have Sara Anghel, who is the president.

From the Philanthropic Foundations Canada, we have Jean-Marc Mangin, president and chief executive officer; and from Les producteurs de cidre du Québec, we have Marc-Antoine Lasnier, president, and Catherine St-Georges, director general.

Our other witness is from Wine Growers Canada. We have Dan Paszkowski, president and chief executive officer. Mr. Paszkowski is in the room, members.

We'll now begin with Ms. Bednar, with her opening remarks for up to five minutes.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to share my time with my colleague Wayne Long.

I want to come back to division 32 of part 5 of Bill C‑19.

Ms. Legault‑Thuot, you referred earlier to a few elements from division 32 of part 5, which have surely been discussed or heard about during consultations.

Could you tell us what those elements from division 32 of part 5 are right now?

You also brought up a new system, which is more effective, faster and more transparent. I would also like to come back to that quickly, as I am sharing my time with my colleague.

[Alexandre Boulerice]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us this afternoon. My first question will be for Mr. Bolduc and Ms. Legault‑Thuot.

You both emphasized the right of workers to an in‑person hearing before this new appeal board and to regional representation, so that access to rights isn't limited by burdensome transportation and accommodation costs, for example. I don't know if you had a chance to listen to the people who were with us in the last hour, but I asked this question and was told that there would be these opportunities. Is an opportunity a right? I'm a bit skeptical.

Based on what you've heard, does this give you some comfort, or do you still have concerns with Bill C‑19?

I would ask Mr. Bolduc to answer first. Then I'd like to hear from Ms. Legault‑Thuot.

[Pierre Laliberté, Commissioner for Workers, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Pierre Laliberté and I've been a commissioner for workers at Employment Insurance Commission since 2016. I was therefore present for many of the deliberations on this issue. Having followed all of this quite closely, I have to say that it's a bit disappointing to be here conveying our concerns to you about what is being introduced in Section 32 of Part 5 of Bill C‑19, rather than celebrating the creation of the new board of appeals. It's too bad, but it is what it is.

I really like the remarks that have been made before me. I think they do a good job of pointing out the concerns and issues in connection with this reform.

The reform was announced in 2019 after a long process of study and consultation. Here, I will respond to Mrs. Kusie's comment about whether consultations took place. Consultations were held across Canada. They were facilitated by KPMG, which was mandated by the government to do a field investigation. I attended the seven or eight meetings held at the time.

Based on KPMG's observations, which were absolutely terse about the performance of the Social Security Tribunal, the minister at the time, Mr. Duclos, convened a working group that brought together stakeholders from the business community, the labour community, the community in general and the department, of course, to come up with a compromise and find something that could work.

The objectives were clear. The first was to reinstate a fast, unencumbered process that would meet people's needs. It must be said that at the time, the backlogs were horrible, in the style of what Mr. Boulerice mentioned earlier. Next, they wanted to bring back a peer justice system with the participation of community members. Finally, they wanted to bring back community-based justice by facilitating in-person hearings.

While cost was not central to the exercise, but it was an underlying issue. They discovered that, despite the fact that the Social Security Tribunal was created to save money, exactly the opposite was true. Right now, a decision by the Social Security Tribunal, which operates much more efficiently today than it did four years ago, still costs $4,000. When we had the boards of referees, which were local tripartite groups, it cost about $700 per decision. You can do the math. As you can see, even though the objective was to reduce costs, they didn't succeed.

Among all the organizations involved in this issue, I have not found a single one aligned with what's being recommended here. My colleague Nancy Healey, who is the commissioner for employers, and I sent a letter to Minister Qualtrough to voice our concerns. My colleague also made an effort to consult with her stakeholders and found that they did indeed have concerns about this. This led us to recommend that Section 32 be removed from Part 5 of the bill, rather than trying to amend it on the fly, and get the job done appropriately.

I'm not going to go into everything that has already been said. But I will talk about one thing in particular, and that is the role of the Employment Insurance Commission.

[Camille Legault-Thuot]

In closing, we too are calling for reform to be addressed in a separate bill. In other words, we would like Section 32 in Part 5 of Bill C‑19 to be removed. If passed in its current form, it will undermine any opportunity for meaningful review with stakeholders, and it stands in the way of achieving the goals set forth by Minister Duclos in summer 2019.

[Camille Legault-Thuot, Research and Communications Manager, Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi - réseau québécois]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for having me here today.

The Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi (MASSE) is an association of groups defending the rights of the unemployed in close to 10 regions of Quebec. MASSE has been campaigning for more than 20 years for a universal and fair-access employment insurance system.

We have read Section 32 in Part 5 of Bill C‑19 and we wish to voice our concerns regarding the reform of the appeal process that may be implemented this year.

My remarks are going to be similar to those of several speakers today. I will make sure it is not repetitive, but MASSE still wishes to share a number of observations that must be considered before the bill is passed.

Let's first point out that MASSE is disappointed that the government chose to reveal its intentions regarding the new board of appeal for the first time when it introduced Bill C‑19, that is, nearly 3 years after it announced reforms. By breaking its silence in this way after so many years, not only is the government now presenting stakeholders with a fait accompli, but it's also admitting that it deprived itself of a wealth of expertise, and this will undoubtedly influence the people's confidence in the quality of administrative justice.

Given the precarious situation of unemployed individuals who wish to challenge a decision by the Employment Insurance Commission, the government must ensure that the new appeal process is simple, quick, efficient, transparent and, above all, tailored to the needs of the unemployed. However, based on the information provided in Bill C‑19, there is nothing to indicate that the new board of appeal will truly represent a step forward in terms of access to justice for the unemployed. Moreover, it hardly constitutes a solution for the problems observed on the Social Security Tribunal. On the contrary, MASSE fears that, in an effort to reform an already fragile structure from the ground up, the new board of appeal will discourage the unemployed from asserting their rights, because it reflects too little of the recommendations submitted by the various stakeholders in the working group set up in 2018, in which MASSE was an active participant.

I'd like to make a few short points about the actual content of the bill, which will resemble those already mentioned.

In its current form, the new board of appeal seriously undermines the tripartite spirit that was, you will recall, central to the boards of referees. We must remember that an appeal process better adapted to the reality of the unemployed must certainly have employee and employer representatives, along with members familiar with the regional particularities of the labour market, but it must also ensure that unemployed workers have access to in-person hearings and that it appoints enough members to meet needs within a reasonable time frame. Remember that in the board of referees days, 300 people were appointed to represent workers. I understand from earlier comments that this number would now be about 100.

We make the same comment with respect to the independence of the new board of appeal. We have good reason to call its independence into question because the deputy minister of Employment and Social Development, not the EI Commission, would be responsible for managing the board of appeal.

What we at MASSE are wondering is, why are so many powers being taken away from the EI Commission? In the new bill, the commissioners only play a symbolic role. Contrary to what one of the speakers said, we believe that, in its current form, the EI Commission will have members recommended by the chair, but they will only be able to appoint them on a part-time basis. As an independent federal institution representing the rights of employees and employers, the EI Commission should have the same central role in organizing the appeal process to ensure that it represents those who pay into the regime. It should therefore have more say in the training and appointment of board of appeal members.

The same thing goes for accountability. In this context, how does the government intend to ensure the exchange of information between the EI Commission and the body that allows these decisions to be challenged? Right now, that is a major issue. The EI Commission is unable to become associated with the decisions of the Social Security Tribunal.

[Denis Bolduc, General Secretary, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members of Parliament and members of the committee, thank you for having me here today and for the opportunity to provide my organization's comments on Bill C‑19, specifically on division 32 of part 5.

The Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec is the largest central labour body in Quebec. With approximately 600,000 members, it represents over 40% of unionized workers in Quebec.

Our union is the main voice for salaried workers in Quebec. It is their privileged place for collective action and solidarity. The FTQ has members in every region and every sector of activity in Quebec, whether in offices, factories, shops or construction sites, in both the private and public sectors. In fact, we have members in public institutions. I would also like to point out that one third of the FTQ's members are women.

Division 32 of part 5 of the budget implementation bill tells us more about reforming the employment insurance appeals process.

In light of what was announced via press release in August 2019, we expected good news. However, it turns out that the bill is rather a source of concern for us. It does not correspond to what was stated in the press release. We are therefore greatly concerned about the way the reform is being set in motion by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion.

The first point I want to make is that the reform of the employment insurance appeals process is included in an omnibus bill that has five parts, the fifth of which has 32 divisions and three schedules. One would be hard-pressed to find a better way to bury the issue. Our fears that this reform will not get the attention it deserves are real, because of the number of topics included in the bill.

The number of places available in parliamentary committees, as we know, is not unlimited. So there is a real possibility that organizations with an interest in reforming the appeals process will be overlooked and not invited. So, we believe that division 32 of part 5 of Bill C‑19 should be removed from this omnibus bill and be the subject of a separate bill. This is what we recommend in order to ensure that the reform receives proper consideration and deliberation.

I would like to draw your attention to a second element: the bill on the reform of the appeals process must contain provisions for the new appeal board to report to the tripartite structure of the Employment Insurance Commission, not just to its chair. The government had promised a return to a tripartite body for the first level of appeal. This is a significant change in direction and a serious departure from the promise that was made. In our opinion, there must be a direct line of accountability to the Employment Insurance Commission. Why? In order to monitor how union and employer representatives are deployed and to ensure that people are properly trained and fulfilling their mandate on the appeal board.

In addition, provisions still need to be added to the appeals process reform bill to give employment insurance claimants the right to regional representation and the opportunity for an in‑person hearing. In 2018, we understood that reforming the employment insurance appeals process required reforms that were client-centred, flexible, and could accommodate diverse situations.

With respect to the appeal board, the bill provides for two categories of members: full-time and part-time. The reform bill should provide for all members of the appeal board to be appointed on a part-time basis. Giving separate employment status to different members of the appeal board may result in different levels of commitment and effectiveness for full-time and part-time members. Full-time appeal board members are deemed to be employees of the public service and members of the public service pension plan, but part-time members are not. Full-time members of the appeal board may be appointed as chair, vice-chair or coordinating member, but not part-time members. In our view, this is a perfect recipe for leaving room for unequal and inequitable information-sharing and for creating inequalities among appeal board members in terms of commitment and effectiveness.

The final point I want to make is that the reform bill must include language that specifies that the Employment Insurance Commission will oversee the selection process for the employee and employer members of the board of appeal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call the meeting back to order.

Welcome to the second panel on the study of the subject matter of part 5, divisions 26, 27, 29 and 32 of Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions to the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022.

We're appearing virtually. I will advise all witnesses that they can speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation is available with the icon at the bottom of your Surface. If you're in the committee room, use translation. If translation fails, please seek my attention and we'll suspend while it's being corrected.

I would like to remind the witnesses that they have five minutes for an opening statement, and to direct it through me as the chair. I would ask you to speak slowly for the benefit of translation services. I will indicate when your time is running out by indicating that 10 seconds are left.

We'll start with Mr. Bolduc, from the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec.

Mr. Bolduc, you have the floor.

[Alexandre Boulerice]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to use my time to say that I am pleased to see that in Bill C‑19 the federal government is providing paid medical leave. We worked hard and for a long time to make that happen, so I'm pretty happy with that.

I'll come back to the appeal board. I would like to better understand why a deputy minister, who is in a political position, is given the management of the appeal board.

What is the process for appointing candidates to the appeal board? What control does the deputy minister have over the list of candidates? Are there not concerns about the independence of the appeal board, which would really be in the hands of the deputy minister?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have heard your responses regarding division 32 of part 5. According to you, these measures meet the expressed needs. However, this does not reflect the state of play. Many groups, both from the trade unions and from the unemployed and employers, have intervened. Indeed, everyone was surprised to see this section appear in Bill C‑19. Everyone would like to see some consultation to be able to discuss this, so that it actually reflects the government's announced intention in 2019.

Two years and nine months after the government's commitment, what motivated the addition of this very important section in Bill C‑19? What would prevent us from removing it and studying it separately?

As you so aptly put it, employment insurance reform is announced and expected. Why not look at reform in a comprehensive way and include the important issue of the appeal board? With all due respect, contrary to what you are telling us, what is proposed here does not at all respond to the very spirit of what constituted arbitration boards at the time.

Is the government open to the idea that this important issue should be the subject of full, proper consultation?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For each division, what do you think the greatest risk is with the changes that are being proposed in Bill C-19?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Super.

I guess my final question will likely be for multiple officials.

With respect to each division we're discussing today, what do you think is the greatest risk to the changes being proposed with C-19?

[Zia Proulx]

One change that we included in C-19 was to make sure that employees whose employers change as a result of a transfer of business or a contract retendering process would not lose their earned days of paid sick leave during the year if they're working in the same job. That was one of the changes proposed in BIA 1 that was not proposed in the original Bill C-3, which received royal assent in December.

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

This is an important group of workers, but you will agree that it is not enough.

My next question is about division 32 of part 5 of the bill.

The government tells us that employment insurance reform is coming, that there are still consultations and that there are many things to worry about. Why did it not pay as much attention to the appeal board? Both employers and unions had high expectations of this reform.

In an omnibus bill of more than 400 pages, we see a section that deals with the appeal board, which is tripartite in name only, because it does not at all meet the objectives and commitments the government announced in 2019.

How has the government come to propose this now? As far as we know, the main groups involved have not really been consulted. In fact, so far the government is unanimously opposed.

What motivated the government to include in Bill C‑19 the new Employment Insurance Board of Appeal, which does not meet the government's 2019 targets?

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everyone.

It's good to see everybody at this meeting. It was a bit uncertain this morning if we would be having a meeting, as there were issues for the majority of our witnesses. Those have been clarified, though.

Welcome to meeting number 26 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, and I believe all participants are appearing virtually.

Am I correct, Madam Clerk? At least members are, so we will follow whatever health protocols are required.

I want to advise committee members that you have the option of speaking in the official language of your choice. If we have a loss of interpretation services, please get my attention by signalling me with the “raise hand” icon, and we will suspend the meeting while we correct whatever issues there are.

I would also remind all participants to address their questions through me, the chair. Please identify who you will be questioning.

Today, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by this committee on Monday, May 16, the committee will commence its study on the subject matter of part 5, divisions 26, 27, 29 and 32 of Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures. This is a subject matter study, not a clause-by-clause review of these sections.

I would like to welcome our witnesses. From the Department of Employment and Social Development, we have Annik Casey, director general of employment insurance benefits processing at the benefits and integrated services branch; Rouba Dabboussy, director general of the benefits and integrated services branch; Saajida Deen, director general of employment program policy and design at the skills and employment branch; Zia Proulx, director general of the strategic policy, analysis and workplace information directorate; Anamika Mona Nandy, acting director general of employment insurance at the skills and employment branch; George Rae, acting executive director of employment insurance policy at the skills and employment branch; James Scott Patterson, acting director of the benefits and integrated services branch; and Fariya Syed, director of employment program policy and design at the skills and employment branch.

I'm going to ask at this time which one of the witnesses is going to give an opening statement.

Do we have anybody? Is there no opening statement from any of the witnesses who are appearing?

[Louise Chabot]

Mr. Chair, I would like Mr. Beauregard to explain to us in 30 seconds why this is an important issue.

Mr. Beauregard, what message would you like to send to the Standing Committee on Finance and the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which are also going to be studying the issue about the importance of reforming the appeal process? We were all surprised to find this reform included in Bill C‑19.

What message would you like to send to the government to ensure that the reform meets the objectives that were set?

[Mark Agnew]

Absolutely it is the latter. We don't have any challenge with discussing how to modernize the penalties, because admittedly they are quite small today. We don't have a problem with talking about abuse of dominance, because we want to make sure there is something in there that balances the needs of both businesses and consumers.

Unfortunately, what we saw in the budget document, which was going to be something that was a bit more narrow in scope, has ended up being quite a broad piece now in Bill C-19. Having a more robust consideration of those and a more structured process as part of the phase two the government has committed to doing already I think would be the way to go about having that conversation.

[Louise Chabot]

Have you had any feedback about whether it would be possible to remove this division from the bill? This division doesn't really have a financial impact, whereas Bill C-19 is generally about budgetary matters.

[Louise Chabot, Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to everyone. I'd like to thank our witnesses for their presentations.

Mr. Beauregard, I'd like to ask you a question about division 32 of part 5 in Bill C‑19, which involves numerous reforms and over 400 pages. It's clear that things are going slowly for employment insurance. We had been promised a comprehensive reform in 2015, but nothing was done, except for minor amendments. In 2019, A major reform of the Social Security Tribunal was promised, with a return to tripartite appeal boards. Today, we find ourselves with this division, which contains the word “tripartite”, but I think that what you're resolutely asking for is the removal of this division from the bill for a separate study.

How would studying it separately facilitate everyone's approval of this bill?

[Mark Agnew]

Yes, I'll try to tackle that as best I can. It's a thoroughly broad question that probably behooves several committee meetings to discuss.

I think the one overarching point I would want to make about it is that when we talk to companies, it's easy for us as policy-makers and people here in the Ottawa bubble to really get caught up on what this level of government is doing, what this silo of government is doing and what that department is doing. It might be three levels of government, but it's one company at the end of the day.

It has to bear the cumulative burden of these things, whether it's on tax decisions, regulatory decisions or the ability to attract talent from both within and outside of the country, or having a much more robust economic competitiveness perspective to how taxes are done, and what the impact is going to be on business competitiveness when we pass a new regulation, and what it means for businesses.

I could sit here all afternoon and list the things that people aren't happy with and where they want to see change in the agriculture sector or the digital economy. It's quite a long list of things, but maybe to bridge back to some of the stuff we're talking about in the context of the budget implementation act, this is where there's a need to make sure we get it right the first time. Unfortunately, some of these competition provisions require a more deliberative approach, and competition policy is one of those things that affects the competitiveness of the environment in which businesses operate.

[Mark Agnew, Senior Vice-President, Policy and Government Relations, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Chair and honourable members, it's a pleasure to be here today.

The honourable members would have seen the submission that the chamber made via the clerk, so I'm going to focus my remarks mostly on the competition policy provisions of the budget implementation act as well as the luxury goods tax.

Let me start on competition policy. Given the evolving nature of the economy, our competition policies certainly need to keep pace; however, getting it right is critical. This means robust consultation with stakeholders, including the business community and others in legal, civil society and consumer groups as well.

The chamber is particularly concerned with three elements. It is urging this committee and the government to remove them from Bill C-19 and place them into the mandate of the full Competition Act review that the minister of industry has committed to undertaking later this year.

First is the abuse of dominance provisions and codifying a number of definitions. An overly broad approach to defining what is anti-competitive is particularly problematic because every act of competition may, at least in the eyes of the competitor, impede their progress or expansion. Indeed, an action seeking to outdo a competitor is at the very heart of healthy and necessary competition. Clarity is also needed on areas like privacy, given that we have a separate federal privacy regulator in this country.

While some have argued that these proposals codify existing practice, we should not be haphazard about amending legislation, given that it cannot be then changed back on a whim later on.

Second is the changes made to the administrative monetary penalties. The proposed changes to the AMPs represent a significant overcorrection. Such significant penalties of up to 3% of worldwide revenues are problematic when the provisions are being expanded and companies are left without the benefit of existing jurisprudence to understand what they mean in practical terms. The penalties additionally scope in activities that are not linked to violations occurring in Canada, by virtue of taking a worldwide revenue approach instead of a Canadian revenue approach.

Third, and finally, is the other provisions relating to no-poach. Others have pointed out in separate forums that this poses challenges in the franchise context where companies often have provisions written into contracts as a means to ensure that investments in training their employees are not being undermined. Interactions with provincial labour laws also need to be considered.

I don't have specific amendments to offer today, which reflects the time needed by the chamber to consult our members that sit across different sectors. A few hours of meetings on legislation at committees unfortunately does not suffice for the consultations we hope the government will make as part of the phase two review, rather than putting these three provisions into the budget implementation act.

Despite the assertions made by some that we should make the changes now and figure it out later through administrative guidance or by reopening it in the phase two review, I think that would be a mistake. We don't know what will happen from that review, given that it has not yet actually begun.

Additionally, there may be a tendency to view these Competition Act changes in the context of the current inflationary environment. Unfortunately, these changes will not address current inflationary pressures, so we should not have a knee-jerk reaction with that goal in mind.

I want to briefly end by talking about the luxury goods tax.

Members will be aware from other witnesses who have appeared about what the luxury goods tax means for Canadian aircraft manufacturers. The industry is still in recovery mode from the pandemic and concerns persist, from our standpoint, as to what this tax means for industry. We hope to see amendments made to specific areas of the bill, should the government continue to go ahead with the proposal. This includes exemptions for exports and also the treatment of liabilities when it comes to usage by the buyer after a sale has occurred.

We also need to understand how the tax will impact our competitiveness relative to other jurisdictions. The U.S. experience, of course, was to introduce such a tax, only to then repeal it a short time thereafter.

Thank you for taking the time to consider the chamber's perspective. I'd be happy to answer your questions.

[Luc Beauregard, Secretary-Treasurer, Centrale des syndicats du Québec]

Good afternoon, and thank you for this invitation.

Today, I'm basically going to talk about part 5, division 32 of Bill C‑19.

The CSQ represents approximately 200,000 members, about 125,000 of whom work in the field of education, including higher education. It is the most representative organization for this sector in Quebec. It also has 11 federations, which in turn represent some 240 affiliated unions, and the Association de retraitées et retraités de l'éducation et des autres services publics du Québec, AREQ. The CSQ also plays a role in health and social services, early childhood educational services, municipal services, recreation, and culture, as well as the community and communications sectors. In short, it is everywhere in Quebec.

A few days ago, we told Ms. Qualtrough, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion of our concerns about division 32 of part 5, in Bill C-19, which is about the Employment Insurance Board of Appeal and the Social Security Tribunal, commonly referred to as the SST. We asked her to remove division 32 of part 5 from the bill so that it could be analyzed separately.

The SST was established in 2013 to serve as a one-stop shop to replace four administrative tribunals, including the arbitration boards. Before that, tripartite boards made decisions at the first appeal level for employment insurance clients. This provided better access to justice and the participation of community representatives familiar with the labour market in their region. The appeal structure went from a three-member tribunal, which was viewed as a trial by one's peers, to a single decision-maker who was often remote from the appellant and that person's living and working environment.

In 2019, the government announced in a news release that, further to a recommendation made by KPMG in its report on the review of the SST, reforms would be undertaken. These included a return to the tripartite system to begin in April 2021. The government assured us that people would be at the centre of the appeal process, which would become faster, simpler and better suited to the needs of Canadians. The announcement also said that community stakeholders would be consulted. This did not happen, however, despite our many efforts to remind the departments of our full cooperation.

Bill C‑19 provides that the SST would report solely to the Commission's commissioner. And yet, it is essential that the structure be tripartite to ensure proper monitoring of how the union representatives and employers are deployed and trained to perform their duties within the Board of Appeal, which would not really be tripartite unless the social partners take part directly in the selection and appointment of member workers and employers.

In addition, the right to regional representation and an in‑person hearing is not found in Bill C‑19. The necessary reforms were to be flexible and client-centred. Genuine access to an in‑person hearing was recognized as an essential feature of any reform of the employment insurance appeal process. The presence of members of the tribunal with expertise and knowledge of local markets is essential.

The composition of the Board of Appeal also provides two types of status: full-time members of the tribunal appointed by the Governor in Council, and part-time members from the employers or insured persons, appointed by the commission. This different status is of concern to us because it necessarily leads to inequity between members, in addition to a different hiring status. The full-time members will have status as employees of the public service, strengthened by the fact that they will be the only ones eligible to hold the position of chair, vice chair and coordinating member. The inequity is obvious.

In short, we would have liked to have been consulted beforehand and to have had the opportunity to contribute to the development of the appeal process. The provisions included in Bill C‑19 do not reflect what was suggested and proposed by the government at the beginning of the process. Of course we understand the delays caused by the health crisis, but that should not have prevented consulting the social partners on such an important matter. If no changes are made to the provisions in the bill, we believe that they should be withdrawn and studied separately.

Thank you very much for hearing me out.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Gilbert, the changes to the board of appeal proposed in division 32 of part 5 of Bill C‑19 raise the broader and more general issue of reform of the employment insurance program.

Do you think this bill is a missed opportunity for the government to institute other necessary reforms of the employment insurance program?

Generally speaking, what changes to the plan do you think are necessary?

[Maxime Gilbert]

Yes, “distinct” is the word I was looking for. Thank you.

We feel we've been playing this game for years now. Despite our constantly repeated demands to government after government, we're ultimately stopped in our tracks. The object of our demands seems elusive. We think we're getting somewhere, and when we seem to be approaching our goal, the mirage vanishes and the result falls short of expectations.

Yes, sir, we think it would be appropriate to conduct a distinct examination of this division of Bill C‑19.

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

You mentioned in your opening statement and we heard from the Green Budget Coalition in the pre-budget consultation that you had five main recommendations for government. What kinds of things would you have hoped to see in the budget implementation act if the government had chosen to implement all five of your recommendations?

[Jean-Denis Garon]

I understand. I'm picking up the pace here because I only have a few seconds left.

You also discussed the part-time or full-time status of people who would be called upon to rule on these judgments.

Bill C‑19 allows for a distinction: it would be possible in a way to have two types of judges. Do you see that as a fairness problem?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Mirabel, BQ]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all the witnesses for being here today.

I'll begin with Mr. Gilbert, from the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques.

I was listening to you, and, unless I'm mistaken, it seems to me the employment insurance program is supported by the money of employers and employees.

For a long time now, we've been demanding a major reform of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada with respect to the EI first level of appeal. As you said, there seems to be a kind of imbalance in division 32 of part 5 of Bill C‑19, as a result of which employers, employees and unions would not be adequately considered in the appeals process.

I'd like you to tell us about the impact of that imbalance and how we could amend the bill to mitigate that impact.

[Andrew Jones, Executive Director, Government Affairs, Policy and Advocacy, Diabetes Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm Andrew Jones, executive director of government affairs, policy and advocacy at Diabetes Canada. It's a pleasure to be here this morning to assist in your study of Bill C-19. I'm looking forward to discussing an important issue for people affected by diabetes that aligns with your current study, which is the disability tax credit.

Before I dive into the details surrounding the disability tax credit, let me tell you a little about the burden of diabetes and a number of federal government initiatives from 2021 that are intended to address this burden.

Many of you will know that Canada gave the world the gift of insulin more than 100 years ago. It's a discovery that ranks among the leading achievements of medical research. Because of insulin, millions of people around the world with diabetes live long lives. However, insulin is not a cure and we are not at the finish line. Recently, Diabetes Canada released new diabetes figures that show a steady, continued increase in diabetes in our country, with 11.7 million people in Canada living with diabetes or prediabetes. Just a decade ago, that number was 9.2 million. That's a shocking 27% increase.

Diabetes continues to affect more Canadians than ever before, despite concerted effort and numerous diabetes-related accomplishments in Canada and throughout the world. There is no denying that diabetes is an epidemic.

The good news is that in 2021, in honour of the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin in Canada and in recognition of the huge and growing burden of diabetes on Canadians, the federal government and all parliamentarians made significant and laudable commitments to improve prevention, management and research in diabetes. Canada proudly co-hosted a World Health Organization symposium on diabetes in April 2021, and jointly with them, launched the global diabetes compact.

The 2021 federal budget contained important commitments to funding research and developing a national diabetes framework. On June 29, 2021, royal assent was received for Bill C-237, An Act to establish a national framework for diabetes, which was unanimously supported by all parliamentarians. These commitments laid a critical foundation that we can build upon to meaningfully reduce the burden of diabetes in Canada by implementing the recommendations of Diabetes Canada's diabetes 360° nationwide strategy.

Diabetes Canada is eager to continue to collaborate with the federal government on this important and urgent work. Diabetes Canada continues to recommend that the federal government dedicate the necessary financial and human resources required to realize the 2021 budget and Bill C-237 commitments to implement a national diabetes framework, based on the diabetes 360° framework, as quickly and comprehensively as possible. Previous stakeholder consultations suggest an investment of $150 million in funding over seven years.

I'd like to also take a moment to discuss with you our concerns surrounding the disability tax credit.

I know our friends in the diabetes community, JDRF, appeared before you last week. You may be comforted to know that our position regarding the disability tax credit is well aligned with what you heard last week from JDRF.

We at Diabetes Canada ask that the federal government consider granting eligibility for the disability tax credit to all Canadians with diabetes who are on insulin therapy. We maintain that the current eligibility criteria that requires a life-sustaining therapy for an average of at least 14 hours per week is antiquated and unfair.

Furthermore, we support recommendation 14 of the Canada Revenue Agency's disability advisory committee. They recommend replacing the current eligibility requirements, including the 14-hour rule, with the following: “Individuals who require life-sustaining therapies...are eligible for the [disability tax credit] because of the time required to administer these therapies.... Without them, the individual could not survive or would face serious life-threatening challenges.”

Insulin therapy is on the recommended list of therapies. We believe that anyone who is on insulin therapy, regardless of whether they are living with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, would qualify for the disability tax credit following the advisory committee's recommendation because unfortunately without insulin, they would not survive or they would face serious, life-threatening challenges.

Everyone with type 1 diabetes and some people with type 2 need to use insulin as a treatment. To determine a dose of insulin multiple times a day, people with diabetes must problem solve, make numerous decisions and undertake many activities. These include consulting regularly with their diabetes specialist, checking blood sugar six or more times a day and maintaining a record of the blood sugar levels. With that, they must identify trends requiring alterations to treatment, make complex calculations accounting for such things as the time of day, the amount or type of food they are eating, the activity or exercise they plan to do in the coming hours, how much stress they are under and whether they are fighting a cold or flu.

All of these factors can affect blood sugar levels. Many of these activities are not easily quantified and/or permitted to be counted towards the antiquated 14 hours a week disability tax credit eligibility criteria.

The disability tax credit helps offset costs and enables eligible Canadians with diabetes to manage their condition. We trust that you will amend Bill C-19 to make it easier and fairer for people living with diabetes and relying on life-sustaining therapy to qualify for the credit.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to answering any questions you might have.

[Maxime Gilbert, Lawyer, Social Law Department, Centrale des syndicats démocratiques]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I hope the sound is good. I unfortunately didn't receive the headset on time.

I want to thank you for this invitation on behalf of the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, or CSD, which I represent this morning.

My name is Maxime Gilbert. As mentioned, I am a lawyer with the CSD's social law department.

First, I want to thank you for postponing our appearance. It was supposed to take place last Thursday, but unfortunately, that wasn't possible. We're pleased to take this opportunity today to present our remarks on the budget implementation bill.

Our comments essentially focus on division 32 of part 5 of Bill C‑19. It's not that the rest of the bill isn't worth a few comments, but CSD wants to review Parliament's response to a demand frequently repeated by many labour organizations. Consequently, I'll be discussing division 32 of part 5, which is entitled Employment Insurance Board of Appeal.

In CSD's view, the fact that the government is finally proposing to reform the employment insurance appeal process is clearly excellent news, particularly since it announced that reform nearly three years ago. Of course, a pandemic occurred in the intervening time, but we are nevertheless pleased to see that action is being taken. However, this division of Bill C‑19 should be amended to ensure that the reform is conducted in accordance with the parameters outlined three years ago and based on the lessons learned from the failures of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada, the SST.

We feel that division 32 of part 5 should contain provisions stating that the new Employment Insurance Board of Appeal will report to the tripartite structure of the Employment Insurance Commission, not solely to its chairperson. In our view, the employment insurance appeal process shouldn't return to a tripartite approach solely when an insured is heard. This tripartite approach, which embraces all employment insurance stakeholders, must be part of the entire appeal structure. That would also be consistent with the discussions the government had in the fall of 2018 at the initiative of Mr. Duclos, who was the minister at that time, and with the announcement that Employment and Social Development Canada made in a press release in August 2019, and I quote:

The Canada Employment Insurance Commission will become responsible for first-level EI appeals through the creation of a new tripartite decision-making tribunal called the Employment Insurance Boards of Appeal. As a tripartite organization, the new Boards of Appeal will represent the interests of government, workers and employers, helping put first-level EI appeal decisions back into the hands of those who pay into the EI system, i.e. workers and employers.

Once again, in our view, there must be a direct line of accountability to the Employment Insurance Commission in monitoring the way that union and employer representatives are recruited, appointed and trained and the way they carry out their mandates on the boards of appeal. There must be no repeat of the error made with the SST, which is virtually unaccountable to the Employment Insurance Commission. For the record, when the SST was at its most dysfunctional, the commission was effectively powerless to elicit adjustments from the tribunal or to hold it accountable.

Provisions should also be added to division 32 of part 5 entitling employment insurance claimants to regional representation and to the strong likelihood, if not guarantee, of an in‑person hearing. At the SST, the default hearing, as it were, is by telephone. That trend must be reversed so the default hearing is the one conducted in person. Genuine access to an in‑person hearing has been recognized as an essential aspect of any reform of the employment insurance appeal system.

In addition, we want hearings to be held, where possible, in the region of the insured so that they are conducted by members who are familiar with the regional labour market rather than by members whose conception of that market is too general and thus detached from reality.

To cite only one example that I consider obvious, the actual situation in the regions is quite different from that in the major centres. As far as possible, decisions must take that fact into account and reflect it.

Furthermore, division 32 of part 5 should provide that all members of the board of appeal shall be appointed on a part-time basis. In its current form, the bill provides for some members of the board to be appointed part time and others on a full-time basis. As a result, part-time and full-time members may exhibit different levels of engagement and effectiveness. That imbalance, which seems apparent from a reading of the bill—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting 50 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the order of reference of May 10, 2022, the committee is meeting on Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. As per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members who are at their place during proceedings.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of the floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function and the clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard. I request that members and witnesses treat each other with mutual respect and decorum.

Now I'd like to welcome today' s witnesses.

For our first panel from 10 to 11:30, we have the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, and Maxime Gilbert, who is a lawyer in the social law department.

From the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, we have Tim Ross, executive director.

From Diabetes Canada, we have Andrew Jones with us in the room, the executive director, government affairs, policy and advocacy.

From the Green Budget Coalition we have David Browne, director of conservation, Canadian Wildlife Federation; Tom L. Green, senior climate policy adviser, David Suzuki Foundation; and Andrew Van Iterson, manager.

We'll now begin with Mr. Gilbert from the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques for up to five minutes, please.

Monsieur Gilbert, you have five minutes for your opening remarks. Thank you.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

My next question is for Ms. Quaid.

Ms. Quaid, we understand your questions about the inclusion of the first stage of the modernization of the Competition Act in a budget bill. We have also heard from others about this today. We heard from competition experts who told us that Canada's Competition Act was not in line with what was being done elsewhere in the world. According to the minister, Mr. Champagne, those changes stem from the urgent need to act in relation to digital giants.

In your opinion, are the provisions as they are worded in Bill C‑19 enough, and do they do justice to the minister's main objective?

[Benjamin Dachis]

Sure. I'm sorry about that.

With such large potential penalties, there's a risk of over-deterrence, and firms may shy away from practices that may be beneficial for Canadians. These potential fines raise reputational risks for Canada as not being supportive of foreign investment, given that fines will be disproportionately large for foreign multinationals.

The risks of over-deterrence are magnified by the changes in the BIA to allow private parties access to the tribunal to make a complaint about abuse of dominance. Although private litigants do not have the ability to receive damages themselves, the defendants in a privately brought case of abuse of dominance will face a large potential fine that will be paid to the government. This goes well beyond the appropriate role—and there is an appropriate role for private litigation in abuse of dominance—and risks creating “private sheriffs”, where competitor-driven complaints before the tribunal may result in government levying disproportionate fines against parties.

Moving to wage-fixing and no-poach agreements, there are very sound legal and economic reasons to address them. Price-fixing and wage-fixing are economically similar. However, as we've heard a couple of times today, the language of the new amendment is overly broad and creates great uncertainty.

There is uncertainty about whether the term “employee” captures all categories of workers. There's no definition of “employer” and “employee” in the Competition Act. Given the changing nature of employment, as well as the varying provincial definitions of employee-employer relationships, the proposed amendments would benefit from proper consultation with employment law experts directly from the government, rather than what a single committee like this or a single senator like Senator Howard Wetston can manage on their own.

I can get to various approaches on how to deal with wage-fixing in the questions, but William Wu is a real expert on this, so I defer to him in particular.

The last thing on substance is that the identification of privacy as a specific characteristic of non-price competition, separate from product quality, raises particular questions. If privacy is distinct from product quality, what does this really mean? Will competition law cases—mergers, for example—turn on a privacy issue even if competition issues are otherwise unproblematic? Once again, the amendment would have benefited from broader consultation.

Let me close on the core problem, and that's process. The problems of the BIA are reminiscent of similar process concerns that accompanied the legislative changes to the Competition Act in 2009 via the budget process. Some of the proposed amendments in the BIA now reflect legislative fixes to fix that flawed process, yet by following the same flawed process, the inevitable result is an overcorrection and the need for legislative amendments in the future, which, more importantly, do not achieve the government's objective of improving the operation of the Competition Act.

What's the practical bottom line? Carving division 15 out of the BIA would be the right approach. If that isn't feasible, the committee should call for setting the proclamation date for all provisions—not just some—for a year from passage. We also need to hear more from the government on their plans for further consultation, as they promised.

These proposed changes can be seen in concert with other proposed changes that would come as part of a prompt second stage of Competition Act reviews. Proceeding right to these amendments, especially ones that may be unconstitutional, taking force without further consultation could be potentially reckless. We can work out the details of the implementation of changes before they take effect, with a later proclamation.

I'll leave my opening remarks there, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you again for the invitation to speak on this issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I call this meeting to order.

Good afternoon.

Welcome to meeting number 25 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Friday, May 13, 2022, the committee is meeting to study the subject matter of part 5, divisions 15, 16 and 17 of Bill C‑19, budget implementation act, 2022, No. 1.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. Those who are here, in Ottawa, know the health rules in effect. Please act accordingly.

I am pleased to introduce our witnesses for today's committee meeting.

First, I'd like to apologize to the witnesses and thank them for their patience. A vote delayed the start of this meeting, and that somewhat shortens the time we'll have for the meeting today, because we must end at three o'clock exactly. I thank you for your patience and co‑operation.

As an individual, we again have Ms. Vass Bednar, executive director of the master of public policy in digital society program at McMaster University. In Ottawa, we have Ms. Jennifer Quaid, associate professor and vice-dean of research in the civil law section of the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa. We also have Mr. William Wu, partner, competition, antitrust and foreign investment at McMillan LLP.

From the C.D. Howe Institute, we have Mr. Benjamin Dachis, associate vice-president, public affairs. From the Canadian Bar Association, we have Ms. Elisa Kearney, second vice-chair, competition law and foreign investment review section, and Mr. Dominic Thérien, secretary, competition law and foreign investment review section. Finally, from Unifor, we have Ms. Kaylie Tiessen, national representative, research department.

I thank all the witnesses for being with us.

Ms. Bednar, you now have the floor for five minutes.

Taxation

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

Madam Speaker, the luxury tax in the budget bill is flawed.

Rather than taxing billionaires who buy private jets, the government is taxing our aerospace industry and putting it at a disadvantage in relation to its foreign competitors. Everyone agrees on that.

The government is working hard to get us to pass Bill C‑19 as quickly as possible, but there is nothing to indicate that the government is working just as hard to remedy the problems with its luxury tax.

Will the government commit to making changes to Bill C‑19 to prevent it from undermining Quebec and its leading industry?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you.

As I was saying, that was an incredibly comprehensive review.

Perhaps I can share my two critiques here, even though they will not go into the testimony of the review of this bill. The first one was that there was no timeline, despite the comprehensive evaluation of the EI consultation.

The second part was that there was no idea as to how the EI benefit would fit into the entire suite of benefits that the Canadian government provides. Again, I think this is something that Canadians would be interested in.

The part on the benefits related to employment is particularly ironic for this committee, because this was part of the Bill C-3 discussion, and again I think one reason Monsieur Boulerice was brought into this discussion was specifically around the negotiation of benefits—sick days there, but benefits in particular. I can imagine all sorts of witnesses who would have been so important to have here to talk about these types of benefits and the use of the benefits.

I guess the irony too is that I think these topics would be specifically relevant. Again, Madam Chabot recognizes this, I think, coming from a labour union background, so I'm a little bit surprised that this isn't more important to the NDP on this committee.

Another thing, again coming back to the labour code and division 29, is that I really think of the NDP historically as the party of labour. Just the fact that they potentially would not want to study this amendment to the labour code as outlined in Bill C-19 and—

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

I want to comment on the discussion around who is supposed to study which parts of the bill.

The Standing Committee on Finance asked a number of committees, including ours, to study parts of Bill C‑19. We were asked to study the part on the employment insurance system, which is within our purview because it falls under the responsibility of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion.

The motion we adopted says that we are supposed to spend three meetings studying that part of the bill if possible, subject to everyone's availability. In addition, we are supposed to invite the two ministers. Today, we are being told that we have to go down to two meetings. That was settled. We don't know whether the ministers are going to appear, but at least we have a list of proposed witnesses.

Furthermore, I don't think we should avoid holding meetings where witnesses could express concerns over certain provisions in the bill. I don't want to hear what department officials think, because it's futile. All they are going to tell us is why the bill is drafted the way it is. I want to hear from witnesses who have concerns about the provisions. If we go down to a single meeting without witnesses on Thursday, we are shirking our duty, which we agreed to fulfill.

As a compromise, I am willing to hold two meetings. I won't insist that we hold three, because that would not make sense.

If the ministers aren't able to come, it's no big deal. We should prioritize the witnesses.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

No. Okay, clarify what this is for me.

It says, “Pursuant to the motion adopted at the Standing committee on Finance...inviting the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to study the subject matter of the Part 5, divisions 26, 27, 29 and 32 of the Bill C-19, and taking into consideration of the uncertainty of the availability of the House of Commons services.... The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities hear from relevant officials from the department of Labour...."

The second hour of that meeting.... I don't understand the point of this motion. How is this different? We voted for two meetings, and this just references one meeting. You just want one meeting. That is what this is saying.

[The Clerk]

There is no clause-by-clause. We're doing a subject matter review of Bill C-19, and based on the letter, it's only recommendations that we're providing to the finance committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Rosborough.

The time has gone well over, Mr. Van Bynen.

I will suspend for a few minutes while the witnesses leave. We need a few minutes for committee business.

The witnesses have left, so we will move to committee business for a few minutes.

We need to discuss the upcoming meeting that is scheduled for next week as per the motion that was adopted on Monday, which referenced the Standing Committee on Finance adopting their motion inviting HUMA to consider the subject matter of part 5, divisions 26, 27, 29 and 32 of Bill C-19. We thought today would we would be dealing with that, but we did not have any witnesses.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

It surprised me, too, I should confess, when I first took a look at the bill, because it does seem like there's a climate emergency out there. The government keeps shouting that at the walls, yet they haven't moved forward on a carbon tax credit in over a year since I first put it on the docket as a bill in Parliament.

Now it's in the budget after more than a year of consultation, and it's not in the budget implementation act, so we're still waiting. I know that industry is still waiting to see what that looks like before they commit to actually moving forward with many projects.

You're in Alberta. You know how many projects are sitting there waiting for what happens here as we go forward. Would it also surprise you that the Canada growth fund, which you referred to, is not part of the budget implementation act?

[Michael Holden]

Thank you for the question.

I confess that I was not aware of that. In the time we had to prepare our comments, we focused on the issues that we were paying most attention to in the budget itself, rather than what was contained in Bill C-19 specifically.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's good to see everybody again. It's a committee I miss.

I am going to get right into the questioning.

Welcome, everybody, in person and on screen.

I have the honour today of asking questions of the Business Council of Alberta and Mr. Michael Holden.

Mr. Holden, I heard your comments. Thank you for what I think are very informative and future-thinking alternatives on where we have to move in going forward here.

You talked in your comments about the investment tax credit for CCUS. Would it surprise you if I told you that we're dealing with Bill C-19, the budget implementation act, and there actually is no provision in this act for the investment tax credit?

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Rubinstein, Bill C-19 incorporates another government bill, Bill C-17, which has among other things, some money for housing and transit. I understand the need for ongoing operating support for public transit and certainly understand the need for public investment in housing.

I'm still trying to get a better sense of how the government intends to mix those two in this funding pot. I'm wondering if you're aware of any work or consultation that's gone on to better define for provinces and municipalities how those two important policy areas are meant to interact within this funding envelope.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first questions are to the C.D. Howe Institute with regard to your presentation earlier this afternoon. What did you mean by part of Bill C-19 being “unconstitutional”? I did hear that comment, and it really intrigued me. Could you explain what you meant by that comment?

By all means go into detail so that we can really understand what was being projected there.

[Chris Roberts, Director, Social and Economic Policy, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thanks.

Just to add to the violent agreement about the shortcomings of omnibus bills, this is another example of where removing division 32 from Bill C-19 for separate study would be a service to parliamentarians and to all stakeholders of the EI system who want to see this fundamental institutional reform happen prudently and with the right amount of accountability, so that we don't repeat the experience of the Social Security Tribunal.

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

Thank you very much.

I want to start my round with Ms. Vipond and Mr. Roberts from the Canadian Labour Congress to talk a little bit about some of the reforms for the EI appeal board that are in Bill C-19.

I know the CLC and others have expressed concern about the reforms that are there. I wonder if you want to highlight some of the ways you believe Bill C-19 could be amended in order to address the concerns that are coming out of the labour community.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I welcome all the witnesses and thank them for their presentations and attendance.

My questions are for Mr. Mueller, from the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, and Mr. Chartrand, from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.

Bill C‑19 calls for a tax on personal luxury goods. Unfortunately, this tax will also apply to aircraft for corporate use.

The tax appears to be ill-conceived. It is rare that both business and labour agree that there is a problem and that it will impact the manufacturing sector. We cannot afford to weaken the aerospace cluster, which is very important in terms of expertise and jobs.

Mr. Mueller and Mr. Chartrand, your presentations could not have been more compelling. I hope the government will take note and act quickly.

Mr. Mueller, in your presentation, you said that this tax was problematic, and that if the government still wanted to keep it, the aerospace sector would have to be exempted. You went on to say that you had tabled recommendations to better support that industry, should the government want it to apply to that sector as well.

What are those recommendations?

Mr. Chartrand may then comment.

[William Robson]

I think a shorter budget does make sense.

If you look at the provincial budgets, you'll see documents that are much closer to what I described. They're businesslike documents. The key numbers are up front. There is not a lot of commentary—an uncharitable person would say “political spin”—and an MP, somebody who is not a financial expert, can readily find key numbers and make sense of them.

Federal budgets are uniquely bad. This goes back a number of years. It's not a partisan comment. We now, though, have this situation where the actual summary statement of transactions, which is the key fiscal statement in the budget, is not even in the main document. It's in an annex.

I think that simply reorganizing budgets and committing to putting the fiscal information front and centre would be a good start.

Omnibus bills are frequently decried, and we have seen election platform commitments not to do them. I think those impulses are well founded. It's tempting to resort to them once in power, but there are too many examples of legislation passed in haste where elected representatives simply did not have the bandwidth to examine them properly. There is no reason why individual pieces of legislation that deal with different things could not be sliced up.

Bill C-19 is not uniquely bad in this regard, but if you look at the range of topics covered in it, there is no way that even as committed and as able a committee as this one can really be expert on everything that is in front of you.

[Daniel Rubinstein, Senior Director, Policy and Government Relations, Federation of Canadian Municipalities]

Thank you very much.

I’m Daniel Rubinstein. I'm the senior director of policy and government relations at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We're the national voice of Canada's local governments, representing 90% of Canada's population, coast to coast to coast.

We are grateful for every opportunity to discuss how our two levels of government can work together and improve the quality of life for people.

I'm pleased to be here today to speak to budget 2022 and relevant provisions in Bill C-19.

Budget 2022 equips local leaders with tools that deliver concrete results in our communities—the places where people live, work and raise their families. First, it recognizes that municipalities are essential partners in solving our greatest national challenges, including housing affordability. We know that tackling our housing crisis means getting all orders of government working together better and faster. The federal budget makes major investments to tackle common goals, from growing housing supply to taking important steps to end chronic homelessness.

Municipalities, which best understand local supply needs, welcome the housing accelerator fund. It has transformative potential to help get housing built faster, through direct and flexible investments, if we work together to design it with speed and results in mind. The fund can help communities regardless of size. From cities to fast-growing rural towns, the potential is there for sure.

We were also glad to see the budget commit to improving the rental construction financing initiative and the national housing co-investment fund. The changes could mean more affordable rental supply for more Canadians. That's a direct call from local leaders and FCM and really is a critical component to expanding housing supply options for all. Municipalities have significant ambitions to tackle the housing crisis, and these investments—especially the accelerator fund—give municipalities the ability to take action and grow the right kind of affordable housing supply for Canadians.

The budget scales up the rapid housing initiative and extends the Reaching Home program. Both are critical to support the shared goal of ending chronic homelessness in Canada. The rapid housing initiative has been a genuine success story. It's working, and FCM will continue to advocate for growing the rapid housing initiative into a long-term tool to eradicate homelessness.

One critical outstanding need is for a robust urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy. We look forward to discussing this further.

Let me now turn to a second important issue for the public, namely climate action.

With the support of the federal government, municipalities are ready to take action on climate change.

Municipalities are on the front lines of new climate extremes. The new investments in this budget, from broadening electrical vehicle charging infrastructure to building retrofits and nature-based solutions, provide municipalities with the tools they need to take local action on climate change.

We welcome the federal government’s recognition, in the emissions reduction plan, that municipalities are critical to achieving Canada’s 2030 emission goals. We look forward to working with this Parliament on the implementation of that critical plan to ensure that municipalities have the direct funding tools they need.

That brings me to a third focus area for the budget, which is strong communities of all sizes. We know that Canada’s recovery needs to take root in our rural communities, which represent one-third of the economy. In particular, we welcome new investments in natural climate solutions and wildfire prevention and also the commitment to ensure that growing rural and smaller communities can access the housing accelerator fund.

When we look at the scale of need for rural climate adaptation and disaster mitigation, it's clear there's more to do through the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund. The need for this is urgent, as we saw last year in B.C. and Atlantic Canada, and as we’re seeing right now with the flooding in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories.

Finally, many communities across the country are grappling with retroactive contract policing costs resulting from the new federally negotiated RCMP labour agreement, and rural communities will be particularly hard hit. This situation requires urgent federal attention and collaboration with FCM and affected municipalities.

The relationship between the federal and municipal governments is essential for the recovery Canadians deserve. Like never before, the past two years have exposed our most pressing national challenges. They have taught us that, when we work together across orders of government, we can face these challenges in a way that supports the economy, builds strong communities and ensures Canadians’ quality of life.

Local governments are ready to continue this vital work with Parliament, and the budget will help keep us moving in the right direction. That certainly includes the $750 million in emergency operating funding for transit that is included in Bill C-19.

Thank you.

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Siobhan Vipond, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress]

Good afternoon, Chair and honourable members.

My name is Siobhán Vipond. I am the executive vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress. I am honoured to be joining you today from the traditional unceded territories of the Anishinabe and Algonquin peoples.

We at the CLC speak on behalf of working people in Canada in every industry, occupation and region of the country. The congress welcomes many aspects of the budget implementation bill. The introduction of a labour mobility tax deduction, improvements to Canada's trade remedy legislation and restoring the prohibition on wage-fixing in the Competition Act are all steps that Canada's unions have been urging the government to take.

However, there is a great deal that is missing from this bill. Budget 2022 provides an additional $2 billion one-time top-up to provinces and territories for health services, yet health workers are facing dire staffing shortages and growing burnout. The bill fails to take urgent action to improve the retention and recruitment needed to address this crisis.

Also missing is action to help Canada's care workers, including in early learning and child care and in long-term care. To appreciate the scale of this problem, in March, Statistics Canada estimated the value of unpaid care at between $515 billion and $680 billion.

The budget takes steps on housing affordability and transit shortfalls, but it falls short of addressing the affordability crisis facing working people. The cost of food, fuel and shelter has shot up while wages lag far behind. Workers' spending power is falling. Living standards are declining for workers whose real wages are dropping at the fastest rate in memory. Pensioners who lost inflation-protected pensions are seeing their fixed incomes quickly eroded by soaring inflation.

The government should be urgently responding to this crisis by taxing corporate superprofits, housing speculators and the concentrated wealth of the richest Canadians; allowing wages to rise by strengthening labour standards and removing barriers to unionization; and strengthening social programs by implementing national pharmacare and dental care, quickly getting child care fees down and expanding free high-quality public transit.

Instead, the government is ramping up employers' access to vulnerable migrant workers, while the Bank of Canada is preparing to hike interest rates in the hopes that it will cool inflation. These measures are going to hurt working-class households and worsen inequality while doing nothing to tackle the entrenched power and corporate greed responsible for price-gouging and pandemic profiteering.

Let me end with some specific recommendations for amending Bill C-19, starting with the EI board of appeal.

For many years, labour and community organizations have struggled to restore important elements of the EI boards of referees that were scrapped by Stephen Harper's government in 2012. EI appeals should be heard by worker and employer representatives: people who understand their communities and the realities of workplace life.

Instead of the board of appeal reporting only to the government, we, Canada's unions, urge the committee to make the board of appeal answerable to the entire Canada EI Commission, including both worker and employer representatives.

We also urge the parties to restore the commission's lead role in selecting labour and employer members of the board. Historically, this was done in consultation with the commission's social partners, which included local labour councils. Workers have a right to regional representation and the option of an in-person hearing, another key recommendation of the 2018 tripartite review.

Establishing accessible, accountable social safety nets like our proposed changes to EI ensures workers have the support they need during turbulent economic periods. In our current climate of economic insecurity, workers must have confidence in the services they receive and the future of their employment. The proposed strategic policy review must not be a Harper-style attack on public service workers that opens the door to cuts and the privatization of services that workers and families rely on.

Thank you. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[William Robson, Chief Executive Officer, C.D. Howe Institute]

Thank you very much.

I'll start off, and then I'll turn it over to my colleague Ben Dachis. We appreciate your inviting Ben and me to join you here today, and we hope our contributions will help you and your work on the 2022 federal budget and Bill C‑19.

By way of background, federal fiscal policy is a long-standing area of focus for the C.D. Howe Institute. Our work covers accountability and transparency, macro questions of debt and sustainability, detailed work on taxes and an annual shadow federal budget.

Our opening remarks will necessarily touch on only a few topics, mainly the elements of Bill C‑19 dealing with competition issues. We would be glad to answer questions on a wider range of topics if that would be helpful to members of the committee.

Although it's applicable to much more than Bill C‑19, I hope members will excuse my starting with a high-level comment about budgets and budget implementation bills, which is that there is too much in them.

A budget should be a fiscal document first and foremost. The key financial information—the pre-budget track for revenue, expense, the surplus or deficit, and the change in the accumulated surplus or deficit, plus what the budget projects are on those things—should be in the first 10 pages. Changes in taxes belong in budgets, as do changes in programs that affect expenses. Other program changes and commentary likely often belong in separate documents.

I have a comment about implementation bills. Even though Bill C‑19 deals with only some elements of the 2022 budget, it is a daunting document. Omnibus bills have a bad reputation for good reason, and I mean no disrespect to MPs but rather the opposite. I mean great respect to Parliament when I say that it ought not to be challenging for elected representatives to get on top of the text of a bill, let alone to anticipate the regulations and the contingencies and all the consequences.

Among the specific items that are covered in Bill C‑19 that Ben and I would answer questions on if there's interest would be the luxury tax. I did not know that Messieurs Mueller and Chartrand would be appearing on this issue. I think many economists would share the view that specific taxes of this kind are not good taxes. They distort purchases and production, as we've just heard from Mike and David. What they said about aircraft applies equally to motor vehicles and boats.

I'm not very enthusiastic about this but I'll say it anyway. If you think that it's really a good idea to single out specific products and services, use the GST. It's not as good as a low uniform rate on everything consumed, but it has some advantages compared to this.

Because Mr. Tobin...and we just heard also from Michael Holden on labour markets, I'll just quickly mention that a key test of any labour market policy—notably EI—is whether it impedes or promotes the matching of talent with opportunity. As everyone knows, the unemployment rate is at a record low. This is a good time to unwind provisions that encourage people in places or with employers that do not offer opportunities for stable jobs that pay well and offer advancement. We also would be happy, if people are interested, to answer questions with regard to vaping and the prohibition on foreign buyers of residential properties, among other things.

Let me just say that competition policy is a major focus of the provisions of Bill C‑19. It's also a major focus for the C.D. Howe Institute, particularly of my colleague Ben Dachis, who has been introduced already. He's our internal lead on the institute's competition policy council, and I turn my remaining time over to Ben.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 49 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the order of reference of May 10, 2022, the committee is meeting on Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. As per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask except for members who are at their place during proceedings.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as well as we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard. I request that members and witnesses treat each other with mutual respect and decorum.

I would now like to welcome today's witnesses.

From the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, we have with us Mike Mueller, president and chief executive officer. From International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, we have David Chartrand, Canadian general vice-president. We have Steven Tobin, chief executive officer of LabourX, as an individual. From the Business Council of Alberta, Michael Holden is with us. He's the vice-president of policy and also the chief economist. From the C.D. Howe Institute, we have Benjamin Dachis, who's the associate vice-president of public affairs, and William B.P. Robson, chief executive officer, although I am told that William Robson will be with us only until 4:30, members, so be aware of that.

From the Canadian Labour Congress, we have Siobhán Vipond, who's the executive vice-president, and we also have Chris Roberts, director, social and economic policy. From the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Daniel Rubinstein, who's the senior director of policy and government relations, is with us today.

We'll now begin with Mr. Mueller from the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, with his opening remarks of up to five minutes.

Go ahead, please.

[John Clayton]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to our work in Ukraine.

It was my privilege on Sunday at 2 p.m. at Pearson International to receive 28 Ukrainians on an aircraft we had coming back from Poland and that landed in Toronto. I got to spend the entire afternoon with them at the airport. They're now in Vegreville, Alberta, the home of the world's largest Easter egg—so they're in familiar territory—and wonderful people. We're anticipating receiving another 21 people tomorrow, on Friday.

We continue to be active. I know that there are many other organizations that are very active across Ukraine and the periphery, so our current activities, using the donor support that we have, are in the 17 projects that we are currently funding in Poland and a number of other European countries in supporting displaced and refugee Ukrainians who have made their way across Europe. We're very active with that.

Our particular interest here today is about direction and control and “own activities” and specific provisions that are in the budget implementation act. I trust that you've made yourself aware of—or we could make them available to you—the specific amendments that we are seeking. I've already spoken with MP Lawrence. We see it as very important for us to keep our charitable sector and the way we can function modernized and to update things. That's something we're seeking.

It's really great to hear you recognizing our work. We have a lot of Canadians—70 Canadians, I think—who have served in Ukraine in our emergency field hospital and in the work we're doing across the country. There's an awful lot going on, and Canada plays a big part across the entire charitable sector in Ukraine.

Thank you.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the officials for coming to our committee today.

I have questions in both areas, so let me first go to the piece around the fees. Just to be clear, under our current rules, the Service Fees Act for immigration requires the government to reimburse portions of fees when service standards are not met. Then there are certain exemptions to areas where service standards are not met such that the government does not have to reimburse. They're exempt.

Bill C-19 is now asking for further categories to be exempt in terms of the government having to reimburse fees if they don't meet service standards. Is that correct?

[Denis Trudel]

On the same topic, I would like to know how francophone immigration is going to change in practical terms. It's a fact that the numbers for 2022 are still below the targets set by the government.

How will Bill C-19 change things?

[Denis Trudel, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being with us today. Immigration is just as important as it is interesting.

Let's talk about Quebec, where permanent residents are selected on the basis of selection certificates issued under the 1991 Canada–Québec Accord relating to Immigration and Temporary Admission of Aliens.

Will the amendments proposed in Bill C-19 affect the agreement or Quebec in any way?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

I'd like to thank the witnesses for appearing before the committee on such short notice. I have a few questions for them.

I'll go straight to my questions.

I understand that Bill C-19 aims to make enhancements to the express entry program for highly skilled individuals who want to immigrate to Canada.

Could you briefly summarize these enhancements, please?

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

I will do the same thing as MP Chatel with the Native Women's Association, and thank them for coming and ask if they were they consulted on the budget this year and if any of the items they recommended to government are reflected in Bill C-19.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call the meeting to order.

Today we are here to study the subject matter of part 5, division 23 of Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other matters.

I would like to welcome and thank our witnesses from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration for appearing before the committee today. We are joined by Julie Chassé, director general, financial strategy; Philip Somogyvari, director general, strategic policy and planning; Marcel Poirier, director, fees and activity based costing division; and Jonathan Joshi-Koop, acting director, express entry policy.

Thank you for appearing before the committee. You will have five minutes for your opening remarks, and then we will go to a round of questioning.

You can please begin. You will have five minutes. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions are also for the Council of Canadian Innovators, namely, Mr. Schiavo or Ms. O'Born.

Mr. Schiavo, in your presentation, you said that the programs are difficult, long and tedious. That's also what Ms. O'Born said.

Can you give us some examples and tell us what could be changed?

I only have two and a half minutes, and I would like to ask you another question.

In Bill C-19, where could amendments be proposed to better support innovation?

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

Thank you, Ms. Groulx. Meegwetch.

You raised five very important concerns that we’ve taken note of. I thank you for sharing them with us.

Have you and your organization had time to peruse the 440 pages in Bill C‑19?

You've accurately outlined what may be missing and what your concerns are, in general. Is there anything in Bill C‑19 that you feel strongly about? Are there any amendments that you think could be made to improve it?

Specifically, what does the budget have to offer and what does it still urgently need to address?

[John Clayton, Director of Programs and Projects, Samaritan's Purse Canada]

Mr. Chair and members of the finance committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today concerning Bill C-19, the budget implementation act, and specifics related to charities.

I've spent 30 years working in the charitable sector. Back in August 2019, Samaritan's Purse studied the Senate report on the charitable sector, specifically the pages concerning CRA direction and control. We decided to pursue changes to ITA legislation to correct problems we and many other charities in Canada have been experiencing. Samaritan's Purse then joined Cooperation Canada, where I am co-chair of the direction and control working group.

I don't know the precise history, but about 70 years ago the Government of Canada enacted legislation in the ITA that enabled charities to function but required that they only pursue their “own activities”. Subsequent to this, the CRA policy was developed around this idea.

I need to mention that the idea of “own activities” is unique to Canada. No other country uses this concept and every other country has found ways to hold non-profits accountable without using the idea of “own activities”. It is the cause of the problems we are dealing with today and the issues within the budget implementation act.

Cooperation Canada, Imagine Canada and Philanthropic Foundations Canada, together with a group of Canada's leading charity lawyers and Senator Omidvar, worked together for the last two years bringing forward Bill S-216. Bill S-216 would have eliminated “own activities” requirements, but in the last days, and after two years of advocating for changes to the Income Tax Act, this year's budget announcement indicated that the charitable sector's concerns had been heard. We were grateful for this and considered it a great success.

However, our initial euphoria turned to concern when the details of the BIA emerged. The BIA proposes changes to the Income Tax Act that would add new rules allowing charities to make “qualifying disbursements” or grants to non-qualified donees. The qualifying disbursement mechanism is a workaround to the problem of “own activities”. The BIA claims this would provide the needed funding mechanism for charities to work with non-charities and that this was in the spirit of Bill S-216, but what the BIA proposes is not in the spirit of Bill S-216. Instead, it would add 800 words of tightly defined, inflexible and prescriptive terms and conditions to the ITA.

The BIA's proposed qualifying disbursement mechanism will not work and will not be used by charities. Charities need to work with non-charities. This happens in Canada and around the world. The ways these partnerships and arrangements take shape are complicated and are determined by contextual realities, current events, cultures and a myriad of other factors.

I'll give some examples. In the last month, Samaritan's Purse, my organization, and many other organizations have responded to the Ukraine crisis. We are currently working with 17 local partners across Europe that are providing assistance to Ukrainian refugees. Another aspect of international work is that many charities are affiliated parts of larger networks. When they come together to respond to events like Ukraine, they need to be able to easily combine or pool their resources in a common response. This increases effectiveness and efficiency. Other charities are engaged in long-term development projects involving multiple partners, complex programs, funders and local governments. Lastly, within our own country, the government provides funding to charities, expecting them to work with community groups, marginalized, racialized and indigenous groups, and other non-charities.

I need to make it clear that the BIA's proposed inflexible terms and conditions don't work in any of these contexts. The qualifying disbursement mechanism would provide a one-size-fits-all regulatory straitjacket. The qualifying disbursement mechanism doesn't fit the real world. With this approach, we appear to be taking the problems of “own activities” and making them worse. Charities will avoid using this mechanism and its codified rules in the ITA because any failure to perfectly comply would result in a loss of charitable status.

If the BIA proceeds as is, we would see a combination of ITA regulations, CRA policy and a regulatory hierarchy that would be complicated and confusing. This should not be allowed to happen.

If we're going to work around the problem of “own activities”, we need to make amendments to the BIA to connect a qualifying disbursement mechanism to the practical realities and operations of charities. We all acknowledge the need for accountability. The CRA needs to monitor and enforce policy when tax-protected dollars are involved. The charities themselves are concerned about integrity and the public trust that they must preserve with their donors.

Nobody is asking for relaxed or reduced accountability. We need appropriate accountability for practical, workable mechanisms for engagement with non-qualified donees. The BIA as is will not provide this. The committee already heard earlier this week from Bruce MacDonald of Imagine Canada and has received a detailed briefing note from the three organizations, Imagine Canada, Cooperation Canada and Philanthropic Foundations Canada, which was signed by 66 significant Canadian charities.

If I have time, I'd like to restate the three specific amendments we are seeking: to refine—

[Dave Prowten, President and Chief Executive Officer, JDRF Canada]

Thank you very much.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Dave Prowten. I'm the president and CEO of JDRF, the leading charitable funder of type 1 diabetes research. Today I'm joined by Mr. Matt Stimpson, who is a person living with type 1 diabetes and also the proud father of a wonderful young woman, Tilly, who's 14 years old and also lives with type 1 diabetes.

First of all, thank you for inviting us back to committee today. We are here again to reiterate our request to propose an amendment to the budget implementation act that would remove or reduce the 14-hour requirement under the “life-sustaining” category of the disability tax credit. This change would make life better for the 300,000 Canadians who live with this disease 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The 14-hour requirement really is arbitrary and antiquated and has not been changed since 1988. Since then, diabetes management has come a long way and lives have drastically improved, but only with the right supports and technologies.

Type 1 diabetes continues to be a very costly disease for everyone—for individuals, families, the health care system and society overall—so we implore the committee to amend the budget implementation act and call for either a removal of the 14-hour requirement entirely or, alternatively, a reduction in the hours to seven so that more Canadians with type 1 diabetes can qualify.

We know there's a willingness to make the change, as evidenced by the budget's inclusion of additional criteria that will help more people qualify, but there's still a level of interpretation around the amount of time per week of these activities. Our proposal to remove or reduce to seven hours is really not arbitrary. It will be very clean and clear. It will really make it easier for the health care practitioners to approve and improve equity for those with type 1.

The purpose of the disability tax credit is to really ensure that Canadians with a disability are eased of financial burdens. This arbitrary and antiquated requirement for 14 hours is really preventing many with type 1 diabetes from accessing this. Therefore, the policy is not living up to its mandate. It needs to be modernized to ensure it's delivering support to some of the most vulnerable Canadians, who can use the support right now.

In our opinion, we have a very rare opportunity. This is an important change. JDRF has been working on improving the disability tax credit since 2017, so that's five years. The time to get it right is now.

I'm going to turn this over to Matt, Mr. Stimpson, who will share with you his personal experience with the disability tax credit.

[Nicholas Schiavo, Director, Federal Affairs, Council of Canadian Innovators]

Good morning to the chair, vice-chairs and members of the Standing Committee on Finance. Thank you for the opportunity to present today on Bill C-19 and the implementation of certain provisions in budget 2022.

My name is Nick Schiavo and I am appearing today as the director of federal affairs on behalf of the Council of Canadian Innovators. I am joined today by CCI vice-president of strategy and advocacy, Dana O'Born.

We are a national business council representing 150 of Canada's fastest-growing companies. Our member companies are headquartered here in Canada, employ north of 52,000 employees across Canada, and are market leaders in the sectors of health, clean, financial technologies, cybersecurity and more.

Following the release of budget 2022, CCI celebrated the strong investments in Canadian innovation. We were pleased to see a focus on supporting Canadian innovators, bolstering intellectual property generation, driving clean economic growth, and doubling down on Canada's fastest-growing sectors. These investments are a critical step to support Canada's rapidly growing innovation sector and ensure we generate true economic prosperity in the knowledge-based and data-driven economy.

However, there is more the government can do to ensure our innovators can scale up and remain competitive in the fast-paced global economy of today. First, Canada's tech sector is facing a skilled talent crisis that is threatening to suffocate innovative companies and slow new job creation. New strategies and investments to train, attract and retain top talent are desperately needed and if done right, these measures will improve Canada's innovation outputs.

The shift to remote work, especially in the tech sector, means that Canada's skilled workers are now part of a global labour market where geography is no longer as important. Our domestic innovators are finding themselves in fierce competition with highly profitable foreign tech giants that can offer significantly higher salaries for the same pool of high-skilled workers.

In April, CCI released our talent and skills strategy, with 13 key recommendations to meet the talent needs of our country's fastest-growing companies. Broadly speaking, these recommendations present ideas for the attraction, generation and retention of skilled talent in Canada.

The federal government has started to work on valuable investments in upskilling, which is an important step forward in generating more skilled talent. Deploying funding in ways that create the maximum benefit for innovators should be a key priority in the months ahead. Recently we have seen Canadian technology companies take the lead in developing their own skills training programs. The federal government should support these types of company-led initiatives and tailor funding to ensure we are generating skills to meet market needs.

Moreover, the government's funding for skills development programs should be bolstered with policies to ease immigration pathways for skilled workers. Immigration is the fastest route to boosting the supply of skilled labour in Canada, and the federal government should consider policies like a high potential tech talent visa, and a digital nomad strategy.

The second item I'd like to speak about is the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program, lovingly known as SR and ED in the innovation ecosystem. This $3 billion program is intended to incentivize research and development, but in practice the program is overly complicated, bureaucratic and restrictive. We were pleased to see in budget 2022 that the government is moving ahead with a review of SR and ED to modernize and streamline the program. We are currently undertaking the policy work to offer detailed and substantive recommendations for how to ensure that SR and ED is fit for purpose.

However, in broad terms we believe that SR and ED reform should focus on expanding the tax credit to include intellectual property as a key component of R and D. In the 21st century knowledge economy, patents and other forms of IP are the most critical sources of economic advantage for firms and economies.

In 2020, more than 91% of the value in the S&P 500 came from intangible assets. As the pandemic continues to drive a wave of digitization, we believe that algorithms, patents, data and other intangible assets will only become more important. As Canada looks towards the postpandemic economy of tomorrow, Canadian intellectual property and its acceleration by programs like SR and ED will be a driving force.

Including a patent box tax structure in SR and ED would be a big step in the right direction to ensure that IP generated in Canada continues to reside in Canada, and we were pleased to see this idea mentioned in budget 2022. We also believe costs associated with developing and prosecuting intellectual property should be eligible under SR and ED.

Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, SR and ED eligibility criteria and processes should be streamlined and clarified. Today, many tech companies rely on costly consultants to help them navigate SR and ED and we would all be much better served if that money were spent on innovation outputs, rather than a cottage industry of professionals who help navigate the thicket of confusing regulations.

To conclude, we are pleased to see budget 2022 offer a number of smart investments for Canada's innovation ecosystem. It's clear that the government is thinking about how best to position the Canadian economy for the 21st century. To ensure they have the maximum impact on our shared prosperity, we look to the government to implement these policies in the most effective and strategic way possible.

Thank you. We look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Welcome to meeting number 48 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the order of reference of May 10, 2022, the committee is meeting on Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. As per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members who are at their place during proceedings.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. Interpretation is available for those on Zoom. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of either THE floor, English, or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

I'd now like to welcome today's witnesses. From the Council of Canadian Innovators, we have Dana O'Born, vice-president, strategy and advocacy; and Nicholas Schiavo, director, federal affairs. From JDRF Canada, we have Dave Prowten, president and chief executive officer, who is joined by Matt Stimpson. From the Native Women's Association of Canada, we have Christian Boucher, senior director, government relations; and Lynne Groulx, chief executive officer. Finally, from Samaritan's Purse Canada, we have John Clayton, director of programs and projects.

At this time, members, we have the opportunity to hear from our witnesses. Each of them will have five minutes for opening remarks.

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

I thank Mr. Beech for his response.

I'd like to make sure that when he can, he will tell us the government's position, that is, whether it would be prepared to remove division 32 from Bill C‑19 and make it a different bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to start by making a comment to committee members in connection with Mr. Laliberté's testimony. I will then have a question for Terry Beech in his role as parliamentary secretary, and so as a representative of the government.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Laliberté.

Your points are extremely clear. I agree with you. I think division 32 has to be separated from Bill C‑19 to be sure it can be studied properly.

If the government agreed to this proposal, that would be ideal. In fact, I'm going to ask Mr. Beech a question about that. Of course, the government might not accept it.

We have already asked that the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities study that division.

We would need to make sure that we can hold the necessary consultations and examine all the amendments relating to it. If that committee isn't able to do that, the Standing Committee on Finance will have to take it on. I will then ask that the committee take the time needed to do a thorough study of division 32 in its entirety.

As the representative of the government, can Mr. Beech tell us now whether the government would be open to the idea of removing division 32 from Bill C‑19 and making it a different bill?

If he doesn't have an answer to give us, can he consult his government colleagues and give us one?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to address my questions to Mr. Guénette.

Just before doing that, I'd just like to point out that Mr. Giroux, the parliamentary budget officer, does studies every year and shows us that the federal government has more leeway than the provinces. Because transfers have been cut in recent years, we have to be worried about the problem that the debt load represents in the provinces, which Mr. Giroux tells us will continue to grow.

Mr. Guénette, how does Bill C‑19 meet your members' needs and respond to their requests?

If not, what is missing from Bill C-19 that should be in it, in particular regarding the labour shortage?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of our witnesses for sharing your expertise on Bill C-19.

I will first address the representatives of the Quebec Employers Council.

Mr. Blackburn, you could start by telling us about the luxury items tax that has been proposed by the government. What will the impact of that tax be on your industries, particularly when it comes to the rebates?

[Corinne Pohlmann, Senior Vice-President, National Affairs and Partnerships, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Thank you.

Thanks for the opportunity to be here today. I am joined by my colleague Jasmin Guenette, who will help with answering some of the questions when we get to that point.

First of all, CFIB is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization that represents 95,000 small and medium-sized companies across Canada. Our members come from all regions of the country and are representative of all sectors of the economy.

It's important to remember that small businesses are still feeling the impacts of the pandemic. Only two in five are making normal sales. Just over a third are reporting no pandemic-related debt. Fewer than one in five indicate that they're not holding any pandemic-related stress. This means that two-thirds of small businesses are dealing with, on average, about $160,000 in pandemic-related debt. More than 80% are still dealing with the mental health impacts of COVID.

While we're pleased that restrictions have lifted, COVID support programs have now ended. Small businesses are now facing a host of new challenges. The most notable are rising prices and inflation, supply chain challenges, increasing government costs and labour shortages, all of which contribute to the rising cost of doing business. In fact, over nine in 10 small businesses are telling us that their costs have increased substantially since the pandemic began and that this is now the number one issue facing Canada's small and medium-sized businesses.

As you might expect, our focus going into this budget was to push for initiatives that might help small businesses deal with their costs, or at least do no further harm. This is also the lens we brought to our reaction to Bill C-19, the budget implementation act. We feel that there are some elements in the act that certainly can help, but there are also a few things that worry us and a number of things that we think are still missing.

Starting with what we liked, we are pleased to see that immediate expensing is finally moving forward after being announced in budget 2021. We've had many calls from small business owners hoping to leverage this incentive, as it was supposed to come into effect as of April 2021. However, without legislation, CRA could not process claims, delaying the use of this incentive at a time when some businesses could really have used it. It's also going to unfortunately result in extra paperwork, as those businesses that may have claimed now have to refile to get the incentive passed back over to them.

We were also pleased to see the labour mobility deduction as part of this bill, as labour shortages continue to cause major issues right across Canada. Having a deduction that allows sought-after tradespeople to deduct up to $4,000 in travel and/or relocation expenses will help make it easier for some of them to accept jobs in more remote areas that struggle to find the skilled workers they need.

We were also pleased to see some provisions that would provide CRA with the discretion to accept late applications for the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the rent subsidy and the hiring program. These programs have been essential for the survival of many small businesses but can be very complex and challenging to apply for. Giving CRA some flexibility with applications will go a long way in making sure businesses that have legitimate claims are still able to access those funds.

However, there are also several elements that we feel were missing from Bill C-19 that could have helped alleviate some of the challenges currently facing small businesses and their economic recovery.

First, we noted that one of the most significant elements of budget 2022, which was to raise the taxable capital limit to access the small business tax rate from $15 million to $50 million, was not included in the bill. This provision is important, as the taxable capital limit has not changed in more than 20 years, and it would allow more small businesses to access the small business tax rate. It's disappointing that it's not part of this bill. We hope to see it implemented very soon.

Similarly, the employee ownership trust is another announcement from that particular budget that was very well received by small business owners but is not included in this bill. Again, we would like to see some movement on that, because it's an important new option for those looking to exit their business.

We were also disappointed to see nothing to help hard-hit small businesses deal with their debt. As mentioned, there are substantial amounts of debt, averaging about $160,000 among about two-thirds of small businesses, and we had hoped the government would respond by potentially doing something like increasing the forgivable portion of the CEBA loan or potentially extending the deadline to pay it off another year.

We were disappointed to see that federal payroll taxes like CPP and EI are scheduled to go up again in 2023—well, for CPP again, and EI for the first time in three years. These types of taxes are actually particularly challenging, as they are profit-insensitive and difficult for smaller businesses to absorb. As a result, when these taxes are increased, they tend to eat into the training costs, the wages they can pay and their ability to grow their business. Finding some ways to offset these costs, at least partially—maybe through an EI tax credit, for example, that allows them to keep some of these costs in the business—would be welcome in the future.

There were also a number of other tax changes that were narrower in scope but would nonetheless have an impact on many different small businesses in the sectors affected by them. These include the introduction of a luxury tax, the ongoing escalator of the beer tax, the elimination of the excise tax exemption for Canadian wine and the introduction of an excise tax on vaping products.

While each may have a purpose on its own, it's really the accumulation of all these taxes that can be devastating for small businesses already reeling under lots of debt, dealing with higher costs of shipping and supplies and trying to find staff who can help them keep their businesses afloat.

The coming months are going to be challenging as we transition Canada from a COVID pandemic with lots of supports to a post-COVID economy with no supports but many new challenges. While supports may no longer be the right policy choices, governments must remain focused on making sure that policy decisions do not make things worse for small business.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 47 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the order of reference of May 10, 2022, the committee is meeting on Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room or remotely by using the Zoom application. As per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members who are at their place during proceedings.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. For interpretation, those on Zoom have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either “floor”, “English” or “French”. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard. I request that members and witnesses mutually treat each other with respect and decorum.

I would now like to welcome today's witnesses.

As an individual, we have Pierre Laliberté, Commissioner for Workers. Welcome.

From the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, we have Corinne Pohlmann, who is the senior vice-president of national affairs and partnerships, and Jasmin Guénette, vice-president of national affairs. Welcome.

From the Quebec Council of Employers, we have Karl Blackburn, president and chief executive officer, and Norma Kozhaya, vice-president of research and chief economist. Welcome.

We will begin with Mr. Laliberté's opening remarks. You have up to five minutes, and the floor is yours.

[Leila Sarangi, National Director, Campaign 2000]

Hello. Thank you very much for inviting me to appear today to speak to Bill C-19.

My name is Leila Sarangi and I'm the national director of Campaign 2000, which is a coalition of over 120 organizations working to end child and family poverty.

Today, more than one in six children in Canada lives in poverty. There are measures in budget 2022 that are extremely important for these children and families: dental care for children, starting this year, and new investments in Jordan's principle to advance equitable access to services for first nations children. Infrastructure investment in housing and child care, if designed well and targeted, would also eventually help low-income children and families, but that is still years away. Today, low-income and marginalized families continue to struggle with poverty and the ongoing effects of the pandemic.

We know this budget wants to turn the page on income supports to individuals. This is where I'm going to focus my comments today, because it's so crucial to the families I'm representing.

On May 7, just over a week ago, all pandemic-related income benefits to individuals expired. This included the lockdown benefit, the sickness benefit and the caregiving benefit. Temporary EI eligibility requirements are set to expire on September 25 of this year, and promised permanent reform is not allocated in this budget. We have not yet turned the page on the virus and it is still out there making people sick, but now there are no income supports for people who need to isolate or care for family.

Further, budget 2022 does not deal with the punitive clawbacks to income benefits experienced by low- and moderate-income families. These clawbacks started almost immediately for people who received social and disability assistance. Taxes filed last year triggered further clawbacks on GIS and Canada child benefit payments, as well as to a range of provincial and territorial benefits. In July of this year, we expect yet another round of clawbacks to refundable tax credits, including additional clawbacks to the Canada child benefit, a program that we know is crucial to lifting children out of poverty.

I want to be really clear on this point: These clawbacks are detrimental and punitive. From the outset of the pandemic, we have been collecting stories about how income benefits help low-income earners meet their basic needs. People shopped locally and buoyed local economies with their purchases. We have been collecting stories about the shock of these clawbacks, which were not expected. These families do not have the financial resiliency to deal with unforeseen reductions, or even foreseen reductions, to their monthly budgets—budgets that have to account for every nickel and dime, because there is so little money, especially right now with rising inflation and the rising cost of living.

Now the government is seeking CERB and CRB repayments. Letters have been sent out by Service Canada and the CRA. Maternity benefits are already being garnisheed by 50% for new mothers. We understand that flexible payment plans are being offered on an individual basis, which is a nice gesture, but even a $25 monthly repayment plan means that families will skip a meal, medication or Internet bill payment to make that payment.

Clawbacks to GIS for low-income seniors have been reversed, repayment relief has been given to the self-employed and partial relief has been provided to students. Our recommendation today is to provide what we have been calling a “full CERB amnesty”. This includes immediately ceasing pursuit of people living on low or moderate incomes for repayments of CERB and CRB; legislating the reinstatement of pandemic income benefits at the full $500 weekly amount until employment insurance is reformed; refunding all lost benefit amounts related to CERB and CRB receipt; and ensuring social and disability assistance adequacy through increased investments in the Canada social transfer, tied to adequacy standards and accountability mechanisms.

Thank you for your time today. I look forward to answering any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 46 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the order of reference of May 10, 2022, the committee is meeting on Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application. Per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members who are at their place during proceedings.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike. Please mute yourself when you're not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either “floor”, “English” or “French”. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. All comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard. I request that members and witnesses treat each other with mutual respect and decorum.

I would now like to welcome today's witnesses. From the Coalition of Canadian Independent Craft Brewers, we have Brad Goddard. From Boating BC Association, we have Bruce Hayne, executive director. From Campaign 2000, we have Leila Sarangi, national director. From the Fédération québécoise des municipalités, we have Jacques Demers, president, and David Boulet, an economist with the policy section.

We will now begin with Mr. Goddard from the Coalition of Canadian Independent Craft Brewers for his opening remarks.

Mr. Goddard, you have up to five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Blaikie.

I want to thank the witnesses. We really appreciate your time and expertise. Thank you for coming before our committee on Bill C-19. You may submit anything that you would like to put in writing to the members, if you were not able to give a fulsome answer.

On behalf of the committee members, the clerk, the analysts, the interpreters and all the staff here, we thank you very much. Have a wonderful day.

The meeting is adjourned.

[René Bougie]

Thank you very much for the question.

Within our association, we had the opportunity to speak to some negotiators from the Quebec ministère de l'Économie et de l'Innovation. They told us that, in their negotiations, they were able to make the distinction between the various types of alcohol.

So, in talking to Australian officials who negotiated at the WTO, we learned that it was grape wine that was really targeted, a major source of aggravation for the Australians.

As we said earlier, the amount of mead we produce in Quebec is really limited, about 90,000 litres in total. However, this production is constantly increasing, and it is a growing industry.

So the fact that mead is currently classified in the same category as other types of alcohol, such as grape wine, is really a major burden for our types of businesses. What surprises us most is that the provincial negotiators were able to make this distinction and have the mark-up applied by the SAQ on meads, ciders, berry wines and maple wines removed as of December 1, 2023.

However, in the federal regulations, more specifically in Bill C-19, this distinction is not found in the exceptions section. As I said earlier, all costs are increasing, and this tax creates undue pressure on our production at a time when we are increasingly seeking to diversify and add value here in Canada. This distinction would be essential for our businesses to continue to grow.

In addition, this tax on all wines made from 100% Canadian ingredients has not been collected since 2006. Although there are some compensatory programs, we realize, when discussing with all of our colleagues at the national level, that the money that is put on the table would not even compensate for the sums that would have to be committed.

Our first demand is therefore that the exemption be maintained and that our products be included in the exceptions. If this is not possible, we would at least like to have access to compensatory programs that would allow our producers to be compensated at their fair value, especially since our products were not taxed before.

We would therefore like to obtain the committee's support so that the special nature of our businesses is recognized and their products are included in the exceptions.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to greet all the witnesses and thank them for their presentations. I also thank them for being with us today.

My first questions will be for Mr. Bougie or Mr. Lambert.

In Bill C-19, the government is imposing the excise tax on wine producers as a result of a WTO dispute.

The problem in your case, Mr. Bougie and Mr. Lambert, is that at the federal level, when we talk about wine, that includes mead. That is not the case in Quebec.

Can you confirm that and explain to me once again how imposing the excise tax on wine will have an impact on producers in your sector?

Thank you.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I really appreciate that. Thank you.

I just want to take a moment to ask the folks from Publish What You Pay Canada something, with my remaining 90 seconds.

If I could, I wanted to go back. Your organization was one of the driving forces behind the push to adopt a beneficial ownership registry. Bill C-19 has taken the first step towards that with the amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act. Can you tell us why a beneficial ownership registry is so critical?

[Sasha Caldera, Campaign Manager, Beneficial Ownership Transparency, Publish What You Pay Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and House finance committee members. Thank you for inviting me to speak today.

I might have connection difficulties. If I am lagging, please let me know, and I will turn off my screen.

My name is Sasha Caldera, and I am the beneficial ownership transparency campaign manager at Publish What You Pay Canada. Publish What You Pay Canada is part of the global Publish What You Pay movement of the civil society organizations working to make oil, gas and mineral governance open, accountable and responsive to all people. For the past four and a half years, I have been leading a coalition consisting of three civil society organizations to advocate for a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry with our partners Transparency International Canada and Canadians for Tax Fairness.

In budget 2022, we applaud Minister Freeland's commitment to accelerate the timeline for a publicly accessible corporate beneficial ownership registry by 2023. This commitment is two years earlier than anticipated and includes participation from willing provinces and territories. Budget 2022 also includes a commitment for discussion with provinces and territories for a beneficial ownership property registry. Together these announcements are important to combat the proceeds of crime from entering Canada's economy.

Experts estimate that $45 billion to $113 billion is laundered annually into the country. Canada's announcement for a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry is in line with other G7 and G20 countries committing to deploy such registries. These tools are now urgent national security priorities to prevent Russian oligarchs and other corrupt foreign officials from hiding dirty money in liberal democracies. Currently 105 countries around the world have made commitments to implementing publicly accessible registries.

The commitment in budget 2022 for a public registry includes ensuring that provinces and territories can participate in a registry system. As a vast majority of companies are registered within provinces, Ottawa will need to offer a blueprint that provinces can get behind. We recommend that the federal government reach an agreement with provinces and territories to allow provincially registered companies to send beneficial ownership information directly into a central registry that is managed by the federal government.

In turn, provinces can mirror legislation to their own business acts based on legislative amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act. Using this approach, provinces would not have to devote resources to upgrading their own business registries, and provincial authorities can access the back end of the registry for investigations. Additionally, provinces can use beneficial ownership property registries to track down properties that might be owned by oligarchs on sanctions lists. We hypothesize that provinces can reap substantial revenues from asset forfeitures, as we recognize that properties are commonly used as vehicles to launder money in Canada.

Ottawa's leading the design, staffing and maintenance of a registry would be practical for a number of reasons. First, it would be appealing to smaller provinces that might not have the resources to collect and scrutinize beneficial ownership information. Second, Ottawa can commence work with willing provinces and eventually expand the registry to cover the entire country. Finally, if provinces start to collect and publish different information about beneficial owners on their own, it will be frustrating for businesses that require consistent data to fulfill anti-money laundering reporting requirements. Businesses having access to a free and searchable registry with verified data can reduce administrative costs to carry out due diligence checks and improve compliance with federal regulations.

With respect to the legislative changes in Bill C-19, I would recommend that under division 30, proposed subsection 21.21(1) should be revised to as follows: “The corporation shall conduct ongoing monitoring and, at least once each financial year, ensure that it has identified all individuals with significant control over the corporation and that the information in the register is accurate, complete and up to date.”

This revision is necessary because companies controlled by criminal organizations that wish to abuse the system or to evade taxes can delay updating beneficial ownership information by simply relying on this annual reporting requirement. The proposed change places the onus on the company to be proactive and ensures that the director of Corporations Canada is kept informed. Moreover, the public registry will possess the most accurate information about individuals of significant control.

Moving forward, we urge the federal government to ensure that all design elements of a publicly accessible registry are included in the second budget implementation act in order to meet the federal government timeline of 2023.

Furthermore, stakeholder consultations must be carried out in the most transparent manner, where a diverse cross-section of civil society, journalist and industry submissions are made public. We see this approach to be consistent with the goal of a publicly accessible registry, which is a crucial anti-money laundering tool that can strengthen the integrity of Canada’s economy.

Thank you so much for your time, and I'm happy to take your questions.

[René Bougie, President, Association of Mead and Honey Alcohol Producers of Quebec]

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee.

My name is René Bougie, and I am the co-owner of Miellerie King—distillery and meadery, located in Kingsey Falls, in the Centre-du-Québec region. I am also the president of the Association des producteurs d'hydromels et d'alcools de miel du Québec, or APHAMQ.

Our association represents about half of Quebec's mead producers, who produce over 50% of all meads.

Currently, Quebec has issued about 25 mead production permits, and that number has increased in recent years.

The reason we are here today is that in June, Bill C-19 will eliminate the excise duty exemption for wines. This would have a major impact on our industry.

The situation for mead producers is unique. Indeed, we are currently facing several challenges. There is the bee mortality rate, which has been increasing steadily over the past few years, the increase in various production costs, such as raw materials, fields to look after our bees and diesel. There are also the costs of transporting our various goods and the costs of packaging the bottles and putting labels on the jars. The costs are constantly increasing. Eliminating this important exemption would have a significant impact on our various productions.

What we are asking for is that this exemption be maintained. As a result of negotiations undertaken by provincial negotiators, Quebec mead and berry or maple alcohol producers will not have to pay the mark-up to the Société des alcools du Québec, or SAQ, in the context of the World Trade Organization, or WTO, negotiations.

We would like the federal government to apply this type of exemption. In fact, this is what the bill provides for the production of alcohol at home.

I have presented the main elements related to our demands.

I'm happy to answer questions from members of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 45 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the order of reference of May 10, 2022, the committee is meeting on Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. As per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members who are at their place during proceedings.

I would now like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and the members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. Interpretation is available for those on Zoom. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of floor, English or French audio. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard. I request that members and witnesses treat each other with mutual respect and decorum.

I would now like to welcome today's witnesses.

We have with us, from Agri-Food Analytics Lab, Sylvain Charlebois, director and professor. From the Association of Mead and Honey Alcohol Producers of Quebec, we have René Bougie, president, and Vincent Lambert, secretary. From JDRF Canada, we have Dave Prowten, president and chief executive officer, and Alanna Weisman, endocrinologist. Also, from Publish What You Pay Canada, we have Sasha Caldera, campaign manager, beneficial ownership transparency.

We'll now begin with Mr. Charlebois from Agri-Food Analytics Lab and his opening remarks for up to five minutes, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Dzerowicz.

Thank you to our excellent witnesses for your remarks. Your many answers to the many questions by members were really appreciated in informing us about Bill C-19. On behalf of the members, the clerk, the analyst, and everybody here who helps with this production, thank you very much to all for joining us.

The meeting is adjourned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Martinez Ferrada.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for appearing today and for providing the valuable testimony that you have during your time in this meeting. You can see that an hour is a short period of time for this very important topic.

Before the committee adjourns, I would ask for a few minutes on committee business to consider a request that this committee has received from FINA.

The witnesses may leave.

Committee members, could give me your indulgence for five minutes?

On Thursday, FINA, the finance committee, adopted a motion inviting HUMA to consider the subject matter of part 5, divisions 26, 27, 29 and 32, of Bill C-19. This would have to be done by Friday of next week, if we are going to consider it.

The finance committee will still review the sections of the bill in clause-by-clause, amend it where they choose and approve it. HUMA is being asked to review it and provide recommendations, if we so choose. Having said that, if we're going to do it, we would possibly have to sit during the constituency week.

I'm at the direction of the committee members. The finance committee will still review it.

Madame Chabot has her hand up, and next is Madam Kusie.

We have Madame Chabot.

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

The government really needs to consider the provisions in question if it wants to support a booming industry made up of artisanal cider makers. It should encourage producers and make sure that the legislation does not have a negative impact on them.

Mr. Rooke, in your opening statement, you spoke about how the excise duty the government is imposing through Bill C‑19 could negatively affect the industry.

Can you talk more about those negative consequences?

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. Their input on Bill C‑19 is very helpful.

Mr. Hinton, I was especially struck by what you said about the lack of Canadian intellectual property.

We've seen small and medium-size businesses in Quebec come up with innovative products. As soon as the product becomes commercially viable and profitable, however, the business is bought by an American company most of the time.

Do you have any recommendations on how to improve that situation, and keep Canadian businesses and their intellectual property in Canada?

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

I would like to ask you about that, because certainly there is a bottling deadline. Enter Bill C-19, in the English on page 106, subclause 129(2) says, "Subsection (1) comes into force, or is deemed to have come into force, on June 30, 2022, but does not apply to wine packaged before that day". That also could mean cider.

Are your members aware that anything that is bottled as of July 1 will have this extra excise tax added to it?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our presenters today for your expertise and individual opinions and for wanting to come and share what Bill C-19 means to some of the stakeholders out there.

I'm going to start with Mr. Rooke.

Mr. Rooke, in my riding we have wineries, absolutely, but we also have cideries like Left Field Cider Company just outside Logan Lake, Dominion Cider, Millionaires' Row, Summerland Heritage Cider, and NOMAD Cider, and that's only in Summerland and Logan Lake. There are others.

I want to talk to you a little bit about the trade challenge that has been the reason the government says we have to make these amendments to the Excise Act, especially to the sections on wine.

My understanding is that the government completely capitulated to the Australians and didn't fight it in the WTO. That's where we are. Unfortunately for you, because your industry is defined under the Excise Act as being under wine, you were thrown in there indiscriminately.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Life is better when you live next to a lake, but unfortunately, people in the regions often have to deal with connectivity issues. That is still a huge problem.

My next question is for Mr. Rooke, of Cider Canada.

Mr. Rooke, I am really impressed by the quality of the cider our craftspeople produce. In the past few years, product quality has been tremendous. My latest discovery is a cider produced by Qui Sème Récolte, a business in Saint‑Jean‑de‑Matha. Not only is the industry booming, but it's also a source of great pride.

I want to make sure I understand the problem. Bill C‑19 would restore the excise duty on wine, further to a World Trade Organization, or WTO, ruling in a dispute between Canada and Australia.

As I understand it, the dispute had to do with grape-based wine. The problem is that Ottawa doesn't distinguish between wine made from grapes and other alcoholic beverages such as cider and mead, so the excise duty will apply to your members.

Do I have that right?

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

Thank you very much. That's very much appreciated.

I want to go next to Mr. Cochrane.

You said that you had hoped for the opportunity to talk a bit about some of the housing measures that are contained in the budget implementation act. I wanted to make sure that you got some time to do that.

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

Thank you.

Thanks to all our witnesses for appearing here today.

Mr. Strickland, I want to start first of all by congratulating the Canadian building trades for getting the building trades tax proposal over the finish line. I know that it's something the building trades have worked on with a lot of my NDP colleagues over the years and, of course, members from other parties as well. Congratulations to you on that.

I just wondered if you had any comment on the specific wording of the budget implementation act and on anything that you think needs to change in the wording. My impression is that it's a pretty decent representation of what you've asked for, but I wanted to give you a quick opportunity for some reflections there.

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

Thank you, Mr. MacDonald.

When I compare Bill C‑19 with Bill S‑216, my take-away is that the Department of Finance was concerned that certain provisions of Bill S‑216 could be abused, making it possible for resources to be used for a non-charitable purpose. That is problematic from an accountability standpoint. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Do you think ill-intentioned people would be able to use charitable donations for non-charitable purposes?

The prescriptive nature of this legislation seems to be borrowed from the American law. Are we to understand that the American model is the best way to oversee a charitable partnership system?

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

Thank you, Mr. MacDonald.

You also suggested amendments to the bill that the committee could recommend. I want you to know that they will certainly be discussed by the committee.

You referred to a shared platform. Can you tell us more about that?

How do the changes made under Bill C‑19 affect charitable partnerships of that nature?

[Bruce MacDonald]

Thank you for being patient.

I am going to respond in English.

It's really important as we are on the cusp of how Canada is changing to be able to evolve with that.

As we seek to address long-term issues of truth and reconciliation, systemic inequities, we find that many of the organizations that are serving those communities are, in fact, non-qualified donees. It is essential that the language of Bill C-19 be amended to enable these organizations to engage with charitable organizations so that they can create innovative, unique solutions while not reducing accountability to be able to provide service to those groups—their stakeholders, their constituents—and to ensure that we're moving forward as a nation.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for that, Mr. Blaikie.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being with us today. Their opening statements were very informative.

My first questions are for Mr. MacDonald.

Mr. MacDonald, my understanding is that the measures in Bill C‑19 are inadequate. Bill S‑216 would actually do a better job of meeting the needs expressed by various organizations.

How would Bill C‑19 impact equity-seeking groups wanting to work with charities?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first questions are for Mr. MacDonald, from Imagine Canada. Then, I will have questions for Mr. Rooke, from Cider Canada.

I want to begin by thanking all the witnesses for being here today. I really appreciated their opening statements, which were all very informative, especially Mr. Cochrane's.

Mr. MacDonald, we had an opportunity to meet with representatives of your organization to discuss the problems with Bill C‑19 at greater length. My understanding is that you would prefer Bill S‑216, because it does a better job of meeting the needs of the organizations you represent.

How do you think Bill C‑19 would impact equity-seeking groups wanting to work with charities?

Effective and Accountable Charities Act

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House to speak to Bill S-216, an important bill supporting the good work in the charitable sector.

I will begin by expressing what we have seen over the last few years, particularly during this pandemic, and how important the work of so many has been, including the many who have gone above and beyond in the charitable sector in our communities to support people in this very difficult time. We saw during this pandemic that many were forced to turn to food banks and soup kitchens and needed help during this crisis. We know that thanks to the volunteering and contributions of many, Canadian charities across various sectors were able to step up.

I recognize the important work that has been done in northern Manitoba and across the country during this very difficult time. Many charities in our communities share values, such as the importance of community, justice and partnership, and the sense of solidarity that is critical to us moving forward during times of crisis.

I also want to talk about how the government, especially over the last two or more decades, has turned to charities to take over the work that government should be doing. The government should be foremost responsible for the social well-being of all in our country. It is clear that government must be doing its part to ensure the collective good, rather than overly relying on charities to do its work. The reality is that inequality in Canada has increased over the last number of years in significant ways. Instead of the government stepping in to address that shocking inequality and the rise in inequality, it has often turned to philanthropy and the charitable sector to try to fill in the gaps, and that is not okay.

The charitable sector cannot and should not replace the government's social mission. It should have effective tools to be able to accomplish its work. The charitable sector should not be seen as the solution to government programs, particularly government programs targeted at closing the inequality gap in our country. If social justice were fully realized through effective government policies, particularly at the national level, we would not need to rely on charities to do the critical work of feeding people, clothing people and supporting people who are on the margins. Charity is relied on by government and is not a substitute for social justice policy.

As Paul Taylor, a great activist in Toronto fighting back against food insecurity, has said, “The most effective remedy for food insecurity is also the simplest: provide people with income to purchase food”. This shows clearly that the federal government is not doing enough for people. Food banks, for example, are helping so many, not because food is unavailable in many communities, but because poverty is so high in so many places that people cannot afford to get the food they need. We must recognize that food is a right, not a privilege, and beyond food security, social well-being is also a right, not a privilege.

Because of inadequate social assistance rates provided by governments and because our social safety net has been cut and privatized, many more people in Canada in recent decades have been pushed into poverty, forced to choose between dangerous housing conditions and homelessness and between paying basic bills and the groceries they need. As we have seen during the pandemic and now with the rise in inflation and the increased cost of living, the reality is that people are suffering and families are crying out for help.

While charities help and do important work, we cannot rely on them to replace our collective responsibility in government. It is the federal government that should be stepping in to eradicate poverty in our country and close the growing inequality gap here in Canada.

The solution is clear: Give more to those who have less. I urge the government to take responsibility for helping those in greatest need and to help the most vulnerable with direct support. We saw that take place during the pandemic. I am proud of the work that we did in the NDP to push the government to invest in CERB and to expand supports to students, to seniors and to people living with disabilities. Unfortunately, those supports were only temporary. The reality is that Canadians are suffering and need direct income support now.

I want to acknowledge the important work of my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who has pushed for a guaranteed livable income, and the support of many in this regard. I also want to acknowledge the important work of many in pushing for tax fairness and recognizing that the richest among us in our country are not paying their fair share. The rich and corporations ought to be paying their fair share so that money can be reinvested in the social programs that are necessary to close the growing inequality gap in our country.

Let us turn to the charitable sector as well. It has been clear, in consultations undertaken by the government and the House of Commons, that charities are subjected to outdated, restrictive and onerous rules. Their funds come from donations that are tax-deductible. However, as the rules are now, charities can spend their charitable dollars only on activities that they undertake themselves. In short, a charity must maintain a “direction and control” role in the activities carried out on its behalf and in the use of its resources by the intermediary.

These restrictions were implemented during the 1950s to ensure that these tax deductions were not diverted to other means than the charitable ones, but it is necessary to recognize that the “own activities” requirement is inefficient and unrealistic. Canadian charities must expend significant time and money to provide their direction and control requirements when they deal with what are known as non-qualified donees.

As a result, charities do not have flexibility. They have limited resources to fulfill their missions, and they are restricted in entering partnerships with other non-profits as a result. As a consequence, charities cannot fully focus on the essential mission that they have defined for themselves.

Bill S-216 addresses these shortcomings. It is a step forward in reforming the charitable sector and it should significantly improve the legislative framework for public and social well-being. It would give charities the flexibility they need on how they can enter into partnership to accomplish their charitable purpose.

Bill S-216 would eliminate the “direction and control” requirement, which would allow charities to transfer their resources to non-qualified donees as long as required measures are taken to ensure that these resources will be used only to fulfill a charitable purpose. This includes the collection of information on the identity, experience and activities of third party recipients before providing resources.

We believe that this bill can address the challenges that the charitable sector is facing. I want to acknowledge those who have come forward to support this proactive solution.

Let us be clear: The federal government has failed to meet charitable organizations' needs with what has been proposed in Bill C-19. We believe that Bill S-216 is a step in the right direction. Let us also be clear that the government's work must remain primary, and we must catch up on the gaps we have created that are pushing so many Canadians through the cracks. It is up to the government to act to address inequality and end poverty in our country.

[Chris Lewis]

Thank you very much.

To build off of your testimony, you had mentioned about three million workers in North America who are represented. I do believe it to be true that another 350,000 skilled trades workers will be needed by 2025 in Ontario alone.

In and through Bill C-241, I'm a really big believer that if we're going to build Canada back—if we're going to build our bridges, sewers, electrical systems and the homes that we all agree we desperately need—we have to get skilled trades and get skilled trades moving.

In and through the introduction of Bill C-19, there was an introduction from the government. It's a great start, but it has a cap of $4,000. That $4,000 could equate to a month and a half or two months of travel. Under C-241, my private member's bill, there's no cap because if we are going to have our skilled trades moving to various areas across the country, I believe that they should not have any restrictions. As a business person myself, there are no restrictions as to how many times I can get on an airplane, stay in a hotel or have a meal out of town.

I'm curious, sir. Could you expand on how exactly you think this would perhaps be more beneficial to the legislation than Bill C-19?

[Bruce MacDonald, President and Chief Executive Officer, Imagine Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to bring important considerations to your attention as you discuss the first budget implementation act.

As you are all aware, the charitable and non-profit sector is a vital part of the very fabric of our communities, improving the lives of everyday people here in Canada, and working with others around the world. In addition, this sector contributes to the nation's economic well-being. Charities and non-profit organizations employ one in 10 Canadians, and contribute 8.3% of Canada's GDP.

As a sector that is of significant importance to supporting Canadians, we were encouraged by two recent announcements in budget 2022. These are the changes to the disbursement quota and the stated intent to amend the Income Tax Act to allow a charity to provide its resources to organizations that are not qualified donees. It was stated that this would implement the spirit of Bill S-216. In combination, these measures would infuse the sector with additional financial resources and allow for more of those new resources to support vulnerable and marginalized communities, including working with organizations often serving and led by Black Canadians, indigenous people and persons of colour.

I'm here today to let you know that the proposed language in the budget implementation act has significantly missed the mark and would, in fact, make things worse for charities wanting to work with non-qualified donees. While the intent is clear, the specific language is hugely problematic.

The spirit of Bill S-216 includes a number of critical elements. It is a made-in-Canada policy solution that reflects our international commitments and integrates the latest evidence-based accountability and trust-based philanthropic principles. Unfortunately, the specific language of the BIA instead offers a rigid and ill-suited integration of U.S. tax measure into Canada's ITA.

We continue to encourage the government to support the spirit and substance of Bill S-216, and a wide collective of organizations, including Cooperation Canada, Philanthropic Foundations Canada, Imagine Canada and a group of the nation's leading charity lawyers, all of whom are offering concrete solutions to improve the legislation.

If not amended, Bill C-19 will have a number of harmful effects. Rather than removing the concept of direction and control, the BIA retains the current “own activities” regime, which requires direction and control. The language of the BIA would then codify direction and control through regulations and make it part of the fabric of the new qualifying disbursements regime.

In practice, casting existing CRA administrative guidance into legislation will result in a less flexible approach, and the CRA will require more direction and control-like conditions than before for qualifying disbursements. This will result in fewer types of collaborations, less flexibility in their design, and fewer partnerships with non-qualified donees overall.

The proposed language does not reflect the spirt of Bill S-216, which is trust-based philanthropy on equal footing, but instead perpetuates the current paternalistic regime by embedding a long and overly prescriptive code-like list of requirements that would govern the relationship between funder and grantee. By doing so, the BIA retains the colonial, parent-child nature of the relationship that we were trying to get away from.

The BIA reinforces and, in fact, enhances the administrative burden. Organizations will have to incur legal fees, hire lawyers and control actions to abide by these regulations.

In order to encompass the spirit of Bill S-216, we are pleased to offer three amendments to the language of the BIA for consideration.

In subsection 149.1(1) of the Income Tax Act, we propose to refine the definition of “qualifying disbursement”. Remove the reference to the disbursement meeting prescribed conditions, and replace it with a requirement that the charity instead take reasonable steps to ensure that the resources disbursed are used exclusively in furtherance of a charitable purpose. This would allow for more inclusive partnerships to better support non-qualified donees providing programs while retaining accountability and further charitable purpose.

In clause 21 of the bill, amend the proposed language in paragraph 168(1)(f) of the act related to directed giving. I won't read the full amendment, but will say that the amendment provides a solution to the directed giving issue in the BIA. The problem with the language isn't that charities can't grant to non-qualified donees, it's that they cannot receive gifts for the specific purpose of giving them to non-qualified donees, even if this aligns with their charitable activities.

Delete proposed regulation 3703 in its entirety. This would allow for the regulations to move back into CRA guidance documents, and not exist as codified rules in the Income Tax Act.

The language of the BIA has yet to be finalized. As members of the finance committee, as members of Parliament and as the voices of your communities, you can have an enormous on the final wording, and I urge you to use that influence and to support these amendments. By doing so, you will establish a system that is more respectful, less complex and less costly, and that can adapt to the needs of the future.

Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this particular issue. As I said in my question earlier, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in my mind of the good work done by charities. After discussions with many of my colleagues within the Liberal caucus, and I am sure this is true of MPs on all sides belonging to all political parties, I can share endless examples of the good work and the deeds of charities not only here in Canada but also around the world.

If we were to look at it, what we would find is that Canadians on a per capita basis have to be one of the most generous groups of people in the world. I really believe that. I would like to cite a couple of examples. However, before I do that, I would like to recognize Bill S-216 and thank the senator for the fine work she has done in ensuring that it comes for debate in this chamber.

What we are debating today is in good part being discussed in one of our standing committees. The Prime Minister and the government recognized a while back that we wanted to make some modifications, believing that the charitable legislation in place for Revenue Canada for income tax is a fairly comprehensive system of taxation and the need for modifications in certain areas has been well demonstrated. During the pandemic, the Prime Minister, in particular, and other members of this chamber have talked about what we can learn from the pandemic so we can continue to build a better system. One of the things that has come out of that is the need to look at ways in which we can enable more power to our charitable organizations.

Today, Bill C-19, the budget implementation bill, happens to be in a committee, which provides opposition members and all members, through House leadership teams and their colleagues, the ability to contribute to the debate on how we can make some changes to the legislation that will better enable charities going forward. An opportunity for this has been made available for us because the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance brought forward a budget document through the budget implementation legislation. I would encourage members of all political stripes to contribute. As we have seen in the past, and as we will no doubt continue to see in the future, the government is open to changes and modifications to improve legislation. In fact, I understand some charitable organizations are having that dialogue now to see if there are ways in which we can improve it.

One of the charities I want to highlight concerns Ukraine. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the reaction around the world was fairly profound in the sense that Ukrainian solidarity, if I can put it that way, went well beyond the borders of Ukraine. In fact, Canada's population of Ukrainian heritage is estimated at over 1.3 million people. It captured the imagination of people from coast to coast to coast, even those who are not of Ukrainian heritage, in what we can do as a community here in Canada to support our brothers and sisters in Ukraine, the war heroes in Ukraine. We have organizations, such as the Ukrainian Canadian Congress or Canadian Red Cross, which have charitable tax receipts.

Canadians turn to those organizations by the thousands, and they have contributed millions of dollars. Those charitable organizations are providing humanitarian aid to Ukraine. In fact, the federal government matched funds for donations to the Red Cross. I think initially the cap was $10 million for matching donations, which was quickly used up, so we increased the cap to $30 million, and I believe it hit that also.

This demonstrates a couple of things for me, personally, as I know it does for my colleagues. One is that the fine work our charitable organizations is doing, in this case, for Ukrainian people in Ukraine and the bordering countries, where Ukrainians are fleeing for a safe haven, has absolutely been astounding. Arguably, it is second to very few others. That is one of the reasons Canadians have opened their hearts, wallets and purses, and that is done through charitable organizations.

I understand what the debate is today. What about those who want to be able to contribute? Staying on the topic of Ukraine, there is a new organization recently established in Manitoba called Manitoba Operation Blue Skies. My understanding is that it is 80 volunteers who have all come to the table in the last number of weeks, saying they want to participate and help the people who are looking to relocate and possibly come to Canada, at least for the short term and possibly even the long term.

Manitoba Operation Blue Skies does not have a charitable tax number, so it goes to the Canadian Ukrainian Institute Prosvita, an organization that has been there for many years and given a great deal of support in many different ways. Through the co-operation and indirect support of that organization, and there is a high sense of accountability, Prosvita is able to support Manitoba Operation Blue Skies in some of its initiatives. I do not think there is anyone inside this chamber who would not recognize the value of that.

The idea that there are organizations out there, and I use Ukraine as an example, but it is just one example of many, shows that there are a lot of people who want to do good work, whether here in Canada or internationally. They have demonstrated that, both financially and by providing resources.

The Canadian government does have a role to play, and we recognize that role. That is why it was so important that we incorporated the idea we are talking about today in the budget implementation bill, which will pass. With support, both from opposition members and from government members, the budget implementation bill, I believe, will pass.

We will see some changes, and we are going to see changes because members on all sides of this House recognize the true value and contributions made by the charitable organizations that are rooted here in Canada. Those who want to support those organizations want to be able to continue to play a vital, critical role, not only here in Canada, but also throughout the world.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear the thoughts of my colleague on how Bill C-19 ought to be amended to better reflect what has been put forward in Bill S-216 and how important it is to make sure that good work can be done in this sector.

[Dr. D.T. Cochrane, Economist, Canadians for Tax Fairness]

Thank you very much.

Thank you kindly for having Canadians for Tax Fairness comment on this budget implementation bill.

Let me begin by commending the government for acting with the appropriate urgency to create a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry. The need for this registry is acknowledged by members of all parties.

Efforts must now be turned to getting the provinces on board so the registry is truly pan-Canadian. To that end, we recommend the government fully fund the endeavour. Further, implementation should move ahead with all willing partners. Any laggards can be later enrolled.

There are several other components of Bill C-19 that C4TF will happily address during the Qs and As, particularly the luxury goods tax, the measures on housing speculation, the home accessibility tax credit and the tax measures for climate action.

However, today I want to address things missing from the bill: the one-time and ongoing surtaxes on the profits of banks and insurance companies, plus an updated general anti-avoidance rule to crack down on tax avoidance. We understand that these measures might require more consultation. However, we are concerned that there is a lack of urgency. Too much time allows for too much influence by well-resourced elites and their agents, leading to weakened, if not ineffective, measures.

During the pandemic, the government provided unprecedented amounts of money to support Canadians and stabilize our financial system. Unfortunately, deficit Chicken Littles are now misleading Canadians by claiming that these supports are responsible for inflation.

The standard inflation story claims that it is from “ too much money chasing too few goods”, but there is a much simpler explanation: Corporations are using their price-making power. This is not to discount significant external forces disrupting global supply chains and causing many costs to rise. However, our research found that the 2021 profit margin of Canada's publicly listed corporations almost doubled to nearly 16% from a prepandemic average of less than 9%. This strongly suggests that corporations are doing more than just passing along higher costs.

We have a trickle-up economy. That means some of the public money added to the economy inevitably found its way into corporate coffers. With corporations also boosting their profit margins, an ever-larger flow of public money ended up under corporate control. This overwhelmingly benefits the elite owners.

C4TF welcomes the surtaxes on banks and insurance companies; however, they are too narrow in application, set too high a threshold and are too low. While finance companies have seen the largest jump in profit margins—going from 14% to 22%— extraordinary profits are seen across many sectors. There is no good reason to limit the one-time tax to incomes above one billion dollars or the ongoing rate increase to incomes above $100 million. Also, a one-time extra 15% and the ongoing additional 1.5% are timidly low.

Successive governments have been cutting the corporate income tax rates for decades. From almost 40% in the 1980s, the current rate is a meagre 15%. We were promised that the cuts would result in more productive investment. In fact, investment out of corporate profits is lower now than it was in the 1980s.

Of course, corporations don't actually pay taxes at the statutory rate. In 2021, even while they were making record high profits, corporations were pushing their effective tax rates to record lows. They create and exploit loopholes to lower their taxes. We were pleased to see that budget 2022 included plans to close some of these loopholes.

We also welcomed more concrete steps towards strengthening the general anti-avoidance rule, also known as GAAR, which will empower the Canada Revenue Agency to crack down more forcefully on creative corporate accounting, but this process needs to be given greater urgency. Currently, the deck is heavily stacked against the CRA and its efforts to deal with tax avoidance by the largest corporations and wealthiest individuals.

Recent decisions by the Supreme Court against the CRA highlight the fact that the agency is working with one hand tied behind its back. We need an updated GAAR ASAP.

When the pandemic struck, it was widely accepted that we needed our public institutions to support Canadians. Corporations and their owners have nonetheless profited handsomely.

The need for robust investment in public programs only grows. A stronger excess profits tax, a higher corporate income tax rate and stronger GAR can reduce the excessive benefit going to corporations and help to create a more just, equitable country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 44 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the order of reference of May 10, 2022, the committee is meeting on Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely, using the Zoom application. Per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members who are at their place during proceedings.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone and please mute it when you are not speaking.

For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of the floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I would remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

I would now like to welcome today's witnesses. Please note that today's witnesses are here to speak about part 5 of the BIA.

I will welcome today's witnesses. As an individual, we have James Hinton, intellectual property and innovation expert from Own Innovation. From Canada's Building Trades Unions, we have Sean Strickland, executive director, and Rita Rahmati, government relations specialist. From Canadians for Tax Fairness, we have D.T. Cochrane, economist. From Cider Canada, we have Barry Rooke, executive director, and from Imagine Canada, we have Bruce MacDonald, president and chief executive officer.

We'll now begin with Mr. Hinton from Own Innovation for his opening remarks of up to five minutes, please.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for their interesting testimony.

Ms. Quaid, I'm going to continue with you and ask you my question more broadly.

Competition Bureau Canada has reached a decision on the merger between Shaw and Rogers. I listen to the automotive industry people on the matter of data properties. All the web giants in the world are accumulating data on us, and so on.

My question is very broad, but I'm going to give you all my speaking time to answer it.

Is Canada lagging behind other countries? If so, in what circumstances should we expedite changes to the legislation in order to catch up on this whole digital transformation issue?

Data will obviously become the new gold. In fact, we said it earlier: it's the new gold today, as it were.

What's your overall view on the issue?

You discussed Bill C‑19 and division 15 of part 5 of the budget bill. What should Canada's priorities be right now?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I would also like to take this opportunity to respond to Ms. Quaid's comments. As you know, the Standing Committee on Finance has proposed that our committee consider divisions 15, 16 and 17 of part 5 of Bill C‑19. As we say in the House, upon verification with all the parties, I think you will find unanimous consent once again so that we may indeed reflect on the matter put before us.

Consequently, Ms. Quaid, you may be receiving an invitation, worded in the manner we choose, to appear and expand on those points. I believe our committee has a responsibility to consider them, at the invitation of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Mr. Chair, do you wish to handle this or would you prefer that I ask my questions?

[Dr. Jennifer Quaid, Associate Professor and Vice-Dean Research, Civil Law Section, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee.

My name is Jennifer Quaid, and I am an associate professor and vice-dean for research in the Civil Law Section of the University of Ottawa. My fields of expertise are corporate criminal law, competition law, anti-corruption law, business law and general criminal law.

I am very pleased to be appearing before you today to discuss competition law as it relates to SMEs.

I will begin by briefly providing some general competition law background. I'll be switching between English and French during my remarks. I hope that isn't a problem for anyone.

I would like to focus my remarks on the ways in which competition law and policy relate to SMEs. In doing so, I will discuss the current amendments that have been put forth in the first budget implementation act and how these may affect SMEs. I will also touch on the importance of broader reform to competition law and policy and the importance of integrating competition policy into a larger, transversal approach to economic policy.

Competition policy is a part of economic policy and as such should operate in tandem with other policies across departments and agencies in the service of Canadian society as a whole. At present, competition policy, particularly the specific framework of rules that form the body of competition law, the act and its legal interpretations, has developed largely as a distinct field. It has tended to have a small footprint, erring on the side of lesser intervention rather than greater. It is built on a foundation of neoclassical economics, which assumes that in general market capitalism should be left to operate with as little intervention as possible. I am generalizing here. Where an intervention is required, it should be as minimal as possible, to address the worst of anti-competitive effects that could have been or might be caused.

There are a couple of things that characterize competition law that are germane to the work of this committee.

First, the purpose of the act is not competition for competition's sake. The guiding principle is that competition is the best way to generate certain desirable benefits in society. These desirable benefits are identified in section 1.1 of the act. Other experts who have appeared before you have spoken about these benefits. There are four of them: promoting the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy, expanding opportunities for Canadian participation in world markets while at the same time recognizing the role of small and medium-sized enterprises, ensuring an equitable opportunity to participate in the Canadian economy, and providing consumers with competitive prices and products.

There is much debate about the purpose clause and which goals are or are not identified in it. At this critical juncture in the digital transformation of society, the time is right to take a hard look at the purpose clause. Is it, as some have argued, an arbitrary and unworkable collection of aspirations that are largely incompatible? Does it identify too few goals? If so, what other goals should it expressly include? Would it be better to create a single statement oriented to the public interest or, as others have argued, should we just fall back on economic efficiency?

I won't go over what other experts have talked about in terms of the debate over the purpose clause, but I think it's very important to consider the context of SMEs in the larger discussion about competition policy.

The second point that's germane to SMEs in particular is that the Competition Act is a law of general application. This is typical of the drafting style we use in Canada. It is also characteristic of legislation that applies to business entities. However, the practice of using general rules tends to obscure important structural differences and economic realities of SMEs versus larger business entities. The sheer range and variation in models of business organization mean that rules intended to apply equally, because they are the same for everyone, in fact produce profoundly different effects.

I would be happy to expand on this in the question and answer period, in particular in relation to the proposed amendments to Bill C-19.

There is a third crucial point, and it relates to the previous one. The digital transformation is having significant impacts on business practices, business models and corporate growth and innovation strategies.

However, SMEs are experiencing the digital transformation in a different way than large businesses. Without meaning to overgeneralize, it is important to acknowledge that, as in situations of asymmetrical power between consumers and businesses, there is also an imbalance between SMEs and global-scale businesses, particularly those that control online platforms and develop information technologies that are necessary to access e‑commerce and digital markets.

The concentration of power in the hands of a small number of private actors, together with significant deficiencies in the framework governing the various aspects of the economy and society that we characterize as digital—a framework that embraces privacy law, data protection law, interoperability issues, the use of artificial intelligence in a growing number of fields and the impact of social media—create a situation in which access to economic participation may be restricted or subject to conditions that are onerous and even exclusionary for SMEs.

I would like to comment briefly on Bill C‑19. I will do so as quickly as possible, but I'll be happy to address these issues in greater detail if you wish to know more about them.

It is important that you pay particular attention to the amendments being proposed, even though the budget process is quickly moving ahead. These proposals, which could well be adopted without change, will have a major impact on SMEs.

To put it bluntly, there can be no doubt that the proposed amendments to the Competition Act would effect substantive changes. They may be appearing in a budget bill, but they are set forth with the clear aim of starting a reform of business law.

According to the government's statements, division 15 of part 5 of the budget bill is only the first draft of a two-part reform. Division 15 constitutes the preliminary phase. The second phase, for which we do not know the timeline, will be preceded by a public consultation designed to survey every party interested in the role of competition policy in the 21st century, particularly with regard to the digital transformation of the economy and our society.

Of course, I have much more to say on these matters, but I'll stop here with regard to this part. However, I would like to provide a brief enumeration of the amendments proposed in this bill.

Eight changes are here proposed. Four of them are widely expected, since Minister Champagne and Commissioner Boswell have expressly referred to them in public statements in recent months.

The amendments are as follows: the addition of a provision creating an employment-related conspiracy offence; an amendment of the maximum amount of certain fines and administrative monetary penalties; the addition of a clause providing that the use of drip pricing constitutes a false and misleading representation that could result in criminal or civil prosecution; and the creation of a right of private access to the Competition Tribunal to remedy an abuse of dominance.

However, there are four more amendments. Although they are not entirely surprising, we didn't necessarily expect to see them immediately in a budget bill. They are as follows: amendments to sections 78 and 79 respecting abuse of dominance, particularly what constitutes conduct that may result in a proceeding instituted by the Commissioner; the addition of factors to be considered in determining the prevention or appreciable reduction of competition simultaneously affecting the provisions on abuse of dominance, amalgamation and civil collaboration; the addition of a general anti-avoidance provision in the notice of amalgamation process, which may be of less interest to the committee; and amendments to the power to order production of documents under section 11.

According to the government, there is a consensus on most of the proposed amendments, at least among those who have publicly stated an opinion, particularly as part of the consultation that was conducted by Senator Wetston, in which I took part.

This allusion to consensus suggests that the inclusion of these changes in the budget bill should not be of great concern, as few will disagree with them.

I could not disagree more.

While the Competition Act is in need of reform—and urgently—for reasons related to SMEs as well as the economy in general, the budget bill process is unlikely to be conducive to a thoughtful reform, even on those issues that some may consider low-hanging fruit. It is important to modernize the act, but if we do it poorly, without consideration of the bigger picture as well as the technical nuances, we risk simply changing the law without making competition policy any better.

I have two more points, and then I'm finished.

I just want to highlight that there are two modifications in this law that concern me greatly. The first is the creation of the wage-fixing offence. I'm happy to go into detail about why I think it's highly problematic, especially for SMEs. The second is the matter of the penalties that have been modified and the use of scalable penalties but in a very limited fashion. Here, I think there was an opportunity lost to make the act more aware of the differences between sizes in enterprises.

I will close by reiterating the importance of competition policy reform and that we need to do it well. This requires consultation from a plurality of stakeholders, notably owners of small and medium-sized businesses and all the people who are affected by this sector or who participate in this sector of the economy. We need to identify what values matter to us and what principles matter to us. Then we can decide how to change our competition policy. Half measures are simply not going to do it.

Thank you. I remain at your disposal for questions.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Following the point of order raised by the member for Joliette, I would like to provide clarification concerning Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

The member noted that the paper copy of the bill obtained in the lobby differed from the version found on the parliamentary web site. It would seem that there are some pages missing. Consequently, he asked which version is the correct one. He asked the Chair for clarification concerning the rules.

The Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel was consulted, and I would like to assure members that the first reading copy that was signed by the minister and the Clerk contains all the clauses of the bill.

The problem seems to be with the reproduction of the advance copies available in the lobbies. The Speaker notes that these copies are provided by the government so that members can read the key provisions of the bill. After first reading, the bill is published officially, which might change the pagination and line numbers of the version used for the purposes of the House of Commons.

The copy placed in the lobby is therefore not the official version published under the authority of the Speaker. The version available on the LEGISinfo website is verified by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel before it is put online.

Different Versions of Bill C‑19

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few words in support of the point of order raised by the member for Joliette. I think he is right.

If it is true that there are differences between the copies of Bill C‑19, then there is a major problem in terms of respect for this institution. On behalf of the Green Party, I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will make a wise and fair ruling.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I want to thank the hon. member for bringing to your attention exactly what happened.

We, as Conservatives, experienced the same situation. The information that was received by us in the lobby was not complete, so it would obviously call into question whether we received the accurate information.

As the hon. member said, it is a 440-page omnibus bill, despite the fact that the government said it would never introduce an omnibus bill. We have and share the exact same concerns, not the least of which is its contents, whether in fact we have received the proper contents and whether we are able to disseminate those contents in our work at committee and in the House as well.

I will speak to the broader issue, which is that this is a pattern on the government side of not having the ability, for some reason, to manage providing this type of information in an appropriate way to the opposition.

I would add as well that, in spite of the information we received, which we deem as incomplete, and as the hon. member argued, we were only allowed five hours of debate in this place on Bill C-19, which amounted to a total of 11 speakers. Obviously, the privileges of the members in the House are paramount and we should be receiving exactly identical information, particularly on an important piece of legislation such as the budget implementation act, which is 440 pages. Several of those pages were missing from what the opposition parties received, and it was therefore incomplete.

I ask that you look at this judiciously, and come back with what I would expect to be a favourable ruling on the hon. member's point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, on April 28, the government introduced Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, at first reading. Although the bill passed at second reading under time allocation on May 10, the printed version of the bill presented in the House and received in the lobby differs from the one on the House of Commons' LEGISinfo site.

Members may therefore have received two different versions of Bill C‑19. The paper version contains 477 clauses on 421 pages and actually ends abruptly under the heading “Commission” at paragraph 68.2(b).

The virtual document contains 502 clauses on 440 pages and includes three schedules. That means pages 422 to 440, which include clauses 477 to 502, are missing. Either the wrong version was provided to opposition members when the bill was introduced in the House, or the wrong version is being provided to members and the public on LEGISinfo. I believe the correct version is on LEGISinfo, but I would like confirmation from the government on that.

The paper version clearly states that it is an advance copy that must be formatted and reprinted by Parliament, but still, it is missing roughly 20 clauses and 20 pages. We are talking about an omnibus bill of over 400 pages. We are accustomed to using the copies provided by the government, clearly for environmental reasons, but also because we have, and we want to maintain, confidence in the consistency of the documents tabled and printed in the House.

The opposition parties must simply trust the government on a number of occasions, including when bills are introduced, when budgets are tabled and when the business of supply is being considered. It is therefore important for us to check the content of the bill and ensure that there are no hidden surprises between the hard copy provided to the opposition and the one found on the House website.

When a government bill is tabled, it is customary for the government to publish the contents of the bill immediately after tabling it. However, if the paper version the opposition receives is incomplete, how can we comment on the bill? Could the government manipulate the information provided to the media? Which version of the bill should we now use for the committee study?

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states at page 728: “In the past, the Speaker has directed that the order for second reading of certain bills be discharged, when it was discovered that they were not in their final form and were therefore not ready to be introduced.”

Are we at that point? I do not think so, but there has been a real mix-up involving the hard copies provided to the opposition and the printing of the bill.

On April 22, when the bill was tabled for first reading, the Deputy Speaker clearly stated, as is customary in the House, “Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed”. I ask that the Speaker provide clear rules for ensuring that the printed copy provided to the opposition is complete when the bill is introduced in the House, given that this has a direct impact on our ability to answer questions from reporters.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I'm glad that Mr. Chambers is here to keep some of us in line. They're giving themselves until June 10.

Why? It's because as independent and regionally or conservatively minded senators, they have decided among themselves that the best way for them to balance between presenting legislation promised by an elected government to properly scrutinizing bills.... I'd be really interested to see how many ministers and how many hours ministers are required for in the other place versus the simple one hour that we got here.

By the way, I do think we can improve that process. If a minister is going to come for one hour, we should only be giving them a five-minute introduction, because that really did cut down the amount of time the rest of us had to really do what our focus is, which is holding the government to account.

I know you'll take that, Mr. Chair, and you and the clerk will try to work on that, or at least I'm hoping.

I'm looking to see, Mr. Chair, that you're listening. Okay, there's a dutiful nod. Anyway, I'll take what I can get. Mr. Chair, thank you for giving me that nod so I know that I'm not just speaking into the ether.

I've talked a little bit so far about previous experiences, whether it be the miscellaneous tax amendment bill of close to 700 or maybe 800 pages that in the 41st Parliament the NDP wanted to look through, even though most of those laws had already been through the ways and means motion process or acted like it was....

I've talked a little bit about Bill C-12 and how that really strained what was really a well-functioning committee, and the absolute gong show that happened. Again, if you listened to Michael Geist interview the former heritage chair, Liberal member Scott Simms, you'd know that the process did not do anyone right.

I would like us to avoid those issues, Mr. Chair. I would like us to actually see better communication and for the government to start saying, maybe we have to make the committee process work for everyone and not just simply for a few members here and there. They should actually say, perhaps...and if they don't want to agree with me, then they can maybe agree with Mr. Chambers. I can understand not wanting to say that they agree with the member of Parliament for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola because that might be publicly frowned upon, but at least I would hope they would say that they would agree with MP Chambers.

Again, I have talked about how this process could be improved. I've been speaking with some of my Conservative colleagues. We're not at a stage where we can talk about that because right now we're discussing a subamendment to MP Ste-Marie's amendment, but I just have to say again that the process the government is pursuing here is not the right way to do it.

I would hope that the government is getting the drift of where Conservatives are coming from. I think that a reasonable timeline would allow us to get back on track. Unfortunately, the unreasonable timeline that we have, the programming in the original motion and the subamendment that we have here have created a sense of bad faith among members of the committee.

What we've seen with the passage of just the short time between our Monday meeting and today is that this schedule, again, which looked ambitious then, right now is just looking like Bill C-10 or Bill C-12 from the last Parliament waiting to happen.

We pitched over 46 witnesses, from right across this great country, and we want to hear from them. That's where I think the government members need to just simply back off of the process we have ahead, table the motion, get committee witnesses in and let's go through them all. They can always come back with a motion.

We actually have some ideas about a much more reasonable timeline, but unfortunately at this stage of debate we can't do that.

Let's be mindful that we didn't really have to put out a call for witnesses. They were coming to us. I'm sure that MP Ste-Marie's phone is going off the hook with people wanting to speak with him and wanting to come here. In fact, I saw that the clerk had sent out, to all committee members, other witnesses who have suggested that they want to appear before the committee outside of the usual process of speaking to individual members. Why? It is because they want to be heard by this government.

I'm not going to claim that all of our witnesses are the right ones. There might be others who other members might have heard from who right now we can't hear from because this government has chosen to start with a programming motion rather than letting a process evolve.

There is always a time, Mr. Chair, when either the compromises that MP Dzerowicz spoke of need to come together or there needs to be a democratic vote, but we are not at that time right now.

I would also say that one thing that is missing from Mr. Beech's subamendment is any reference to our being able to hear from the Parliamentary Budget Officer in addition to hearing from the Minister of Industry or having the Minister of Finance come back. I know the PBO pays particularly close attention to the tax-related measures and financial figures put out by the government. I think that would be a much better improvement to the subamendment that MP Beech has put out here.

Again, I should disassociate that. It's not fair to MP Beech to always make this program motion his, because really at the end of the day he's a parliamentary secretary, and this was written by someone else. At least I hope he would clarify if I'm mistaken on that point, Mr. Chair.

I say that because the Minister of Finance is a busy minister. In fact I think she's too busy.

I'm just going to talk quickly about this, because I think that is the direct reason she's not here in the subamendment by MP Beech. I think she'd be cross with him if she were in here, but I think it's worth pointing out that the job of being finance minister is busy enough as it is. A deputy prime minister, Mr. Chair, I can only imagine is so much more, and again it's not up to the Deputy Prime Minister in her function as that, or as the Minister of Finance, to decide what her job is. That is the Prime Minister's job.

The Prime Minister by putting those two roles together, despite the talents of any individual, Mr. Chair.... I think this is a point that needs to made: She doesn't have the time. She doesn't have the time to stay more than an hour at this committee. She doesn't have the time to answer conclusively questions by members. In fact, again, the process of giving her 10 minutes.... Look, I'd love to give every minister 20 minutes if we had three hours. To me that would be fair, but, again, for a minister to have only 50 minutes spread among all these members here, I just don't think that is a very good process.

I do think that the Prime Minister should be looking into that, because if the Prime Minister wants to have a finance minister who is on top of her file, who is able to come and spend the time with the finance committee to defend her bill, to be able to spend the time, it obviously is not here.

From what I've heard from member of Parliament Mr. Ste-Marie, the luxury tax is not properly designed. We have heard that there wasn't even an economic impact study. There were no jobs and whatnot, and that may reflect that the Department of Finance is not getting enough attention. I do know from speaking to people who worked with former finance minister Jim Flaherty, who is no longer with us, that when you had someone who was completely concentrating on that file, they would ask every question of every proposal that came forward.

Then they would have to bear the scrutiny of members of Parliament whether in the minority years or later in the Harper majority from 2011 to 2015. Not having a finance minister who is also the deputy prime minister would probably also improve this process. Again, this particular motion doesn't include having her come back. I would simply suggest that is something we should all consider. I'm not satisfied with the amount of time that's there.

I saw that president for the wine growers was here on Monday. I'm sure he wanted to give an earful because, when I asked the Minister of Finance about some of the provisions in regard to this government's treatment of their industry, I was deeply disappointed that they were just surface answers when there are so many issues going on here.

To members of the government, if this is a serious discussion we're having and you're truly saying that politics should be about compromise, I do hope that right now you're taking the time to text, to message or to email one another. Again, you don't have to say that you agree with Dan Albas, but you could certainly say that you agree with MP Chambers that we could make a much better process.

I know they've already done that for MP Ste-Marie because he put forward the amendment that they said they, in essence, support.

Time is incredibly important in this place. We have until June 23 where we could actually be discussing legislation. The government has a lot of time, especially now with motion 11 that was passed with the NDP, which gives them the opportunity to extend midnight sittings. Those sittings certainly can have more debate. I'm really upset that I wasn't able to speak to C-19 in the House. I think there are a lot of provisions in here that Canadians largely need to know about.

That's not your fault, Mr. Chair, because a lot of people, believe it or not, don't actually watch the committee work. In fact, I get more responses from people on speeches in the House of Commons because they watch CPAC. They see the chamber functioning, but they don't always get a chance to see us here at committee.

This is really the only place I'm going to get a chance to talk about C-19. I can't talk about C-19 until we have a process that will work for this committee. I will not allow this committee.... At least, I will do my utmost to make sure that this committee fully understands that if we go along with this programming motion—even if it's slightly improved by MP Ste-Marie—to where suddenly we have “recommendations in relation to the provisions considered by them, in a letter to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, in both official languages, no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday May 20, 2022”, those other committees won't have a chance. That is literally eight days from now and we're still talking about this because that's an unreasonable time frame.

The parliamentary secretary, even though he didn't write this motion that someone in the minister's office.... Maybe it was the minister, but probably it wasn't. Why? You're right, Mr. Chair. She's too busy with too many things. For us to be considering these, I have to say that I don't believe the government has given this committee adequate time. It's certainly not giving other committees adequate time when it comes to consideration of C-19.

Do you know what, Mr. Chair?

If a standing committee listed in (a) chooses not to consider the subject matter of the provisions, it advise the Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance by letter, in both official languages, no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, May 13, 2022.

May 13 seems to me a bit of a problem. Why? May 13 is tomorrow. If a committee chooses to say that it's too busy, it's supposed to let you know in formal writing that it is not possible. They won't even have the opportunity to do that, so either we're forcing them to do that or we're forcing them to not respond.

To me, Mr. Chair, as I said, it's time, time, time. This government is too short with the time of others, and rather than letting the parliamentary calendar settle this, and to have all reasonable parties come together by the 23rd, they are pushing not just this committee into a terrible process but other committees into a worse one.

On my point on that, Mr. Chair, if they can't write to you under this motion by tomorrow, what then? Are they obliged to now study it? Are we going to have, because of the M-11 motion, extended sittings where some committees are being cancelled? How are they supposed to get the resources? Is the government going to give us more translators, along with Mr. Beech's motion, or I should say the Minister of Finance's office's motion...?

These are things that they are not commenting on. Again, if they don't reply to you in writing by tomorrow, then they're obliged. When do they call their meetings? Are they supposed to attach committee business? I guess there are just so many unanswered questions here that, obviously, it comes back to my original premise that this is not really a good-faith process. Do you know what? We can simply sit back and be told by a government, by its parliamentary secretary on committee, what we're going to do and what other committees are going to do. It's just not healthy.

It's not what the Liberals promised in 2015. They promised many things. Omnibus legislation, that was out. It didn't happen. Parliamentary secretaries would be non-voting members. That's out. They've always said that the committees are independent. That's out.

I say there needs to be a few things in. One of them is that you have to get Conservatives in a process that we feel is fair. It doesn't mean that we agree with everything in that process, but that we believe the process is fair.

The second thing is that we want to see those witnesses. We want to have them here. We want to ask them questions. We want to see the PBO. We want to see the Minister of Industry. We want to see the Minister of Finance come back and actually show some ministerial accountability for what was, I think.... This is how bad inflation is now. I thought at the start of this it was a 423-page bill. Actually, it's 468. That's the inflation under this government.

I kid, but I would much rather that we be studying that bill and having the Minister of Finance come for a second hour, or having her come here and talk for three hours as was set out by the previous motion on the inflation study. I even think that my colleague, MP Stewart, put forward a very good motion on studying advance pricing arrangements. The decisions made by CRA that have been in the news of late.... We haven't even been able to get to that, because this government is again putting forward a programming motion that has been amended by a Bloc member, or at least may be amended by a Bloc member. That is now being further amended, because the government ultimately wants to control the process. The process itself is not connected to a proper process, the proper scrutiny of it.

I have sat on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights—one of the best committees we have, very important. I would hate to put that committee in a position where they do not have proper process. Because for goodness' sake, if we can't have that at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights so that they can look over some of the issues that are in this bill....

The judges' quadrennial pay review is in this bill. There are Criminal Code amendments, ones even relating to the moon and extending Canada's Criminal Code jurisdiction outside of its waters. In fact, I hear there is water on the moon, so maybe we can argue that there is Canadian water on the moon somehow. I don't know how that will work. I don't think we can apply maritime law to that.

Pardon me, Mr. Chair. I have to read that into the record, because one of our members said specifically that he should be asking former astronaut Marc Garneau, our former transport minister. Do you know what? I wish this government consulted a bit more widely with members of Parliament, even its former ministers. Bring him as a witness, someone says.

That's the thing. There could be other witnesses who have similar experiences. We can ask MPs to come. We can't summon them. It would be quite a meeting to hear about that at the justice and human rights committee.

Again, whether they can schedule all of the hearings to talk about many of these matters.... They can't. I don't think it's feasible. I don't think it's reasonable. I don't think it's possible at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, because what are they studying? They're studying Bill C-5, which is making major changes to our Criminal Code.

The government is essentially saying, yes, we will send these things, but they won't be able to do clause-by-clause and we won't give them any time, and then somehow.... I don't understand how the government thought it would be. Again, I don't blame MP Beech, because I don't think he wrote this, unless he wants to make that point clearer, but May 13 is not doable.

That is a big issue. Other committees will have other things that they are studying. Given that M-11 and the late-night sittings won't allow for many of these committees to happen, they can't possibly meet, or if they do, they can't do clause-by-clause. I guess they could do what the member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands has to do and come here as an independent member and table those amendments that way, but they are going to have get started very quickly. Right now, many of them, like the justice committee, are studying Bill C-5.

I don't understand why the government is so firm on these timelines. Why not let us start having witnesses? Do you know what? We have lots of time between June 23 and today. With the right spirit, the spirit that this member here—MP Chambers, an eternal optimist—has had, maybe we can reward some of those people who believe that reasonable minds can set aside some divisions and that we can start moving forward.

Do you know what, Mr. Chair? After this particular subamendment is debated by other members, perhaps we can have a vote and it will get defeated. We will then have another motion come forward that is more in line with what MP Chambers was discussing in his intervention. I hope so, because the world needs optimism. We have so many things that are not going well.

I know that the government wants what it wants, but it should also want to have members of Parliament feel that they are doing their jobs. The government should try to empower MPs, because that is what many members of Parliament came here to do. They came here to get a sense that they could ask questions, they could move amendments and they could have a process where they feel that they are part of something. I'm sorry to say that the programming motion and the subsequent subamendment by MP Beech, which may not be from MP Beech himself, doesn't allow for that. It doesn't make us feel like we are in and part of that process.

Again, there are so many things we could be doing here. I would like for us to again be bringing in the CRA commissioner. I would like for us to be talking about competition when it comes to open banking. I would like for us to be talking about.... MP Dzerowicz has talked a bit about the effects that getting rid of trade barriers would have, but, no, we're stuck here because MP Beech and the person who wrote this felt this was the best thing to come forward right now.

To try to somehow jerry-rig a committee, as dignified as the finance committee, is not in the best interests of this committee, and I will not be going forward with my support.

I've mentioned a few things that might have my support. I really do hope that other members have listened to my intervention and that perhaps they are moved. Perhaps they are moved and will move at the appropriate time an amendment. Maybe we could just say, “No, cancel it. This is over. We're not doing this motion.” Maybe MP Beech, himself, realizes now that having a program motion that literally says, “No later than 4 p.m. on Friday, May 13”...I don't even know.

Mr. Chair, can I ask you, through the clerk, how fast could you get a letter out if you needed to? Do you have these letters already prepared? Do you have the letters ready?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to say that I know how difficult these conversations can sometimes be, and I do like the tenor, the tone, that we have all embraced as members of Parliament. We are all sent here to try to work together.

I will disagree with some of the things my honourable colleague MP Dzerowicz said earlier, but I'll save that for a moment other than to say that I appreciate that these meetings are not only important to our constituents, but they can be long because you can't put a price on democracy. There are rules that have been enshrined in this place to allow committees to function as independently as possible, as MP Chambers said earlier.

There are obviously other tools the government can use such as a House order. It, in fact, directed the study of Bill C-19 to this committee. Ultimately this committee was created to serve the House, but without having further instructions, we have a responsibility to set our own sail.

While the original programming motion that was put forward by MP Beech as the parliamentary secretary was received in good faith by MP Ste-Marie, who I admire very much for his passion for his constituents, for the questioning he's had and the lack of answers he's been able to receive when it comes to the luxury tax and the occasional intervention by my honourable colleague from the NDP, what has happened is that he put that forward, and now we've had a further subamendment to his amendment, which was to try to make sure that there was a proper process.

The government—let's be mindful, Mr. Chair—at the very beginning tried to apply its direction to what is supposed to be an independent committee. Right off the bat, I believe I made it known that it was an issue. I believe I made some arguments about how there were promises by this government to not have parliamentary secretaries on committee. They would occasionally sit down in the corner and listen in thoughtfully so that they could report back to their ministers the goings of this committee, which is a very august body, and I've always enjoyed being on it.

Again, this is a bill, 468 pages, I believe, because when I put it to the minister when she came in for the hour, I said 421. Again, Mr. Chair, you might be mindful that there are a number of pages we did not know about. The government didn't even give us the courtesy in their courtesy copies to say that there's more on the website, even just a note to go along with it, so there are missing pages, which I raised earlier.

As I open my comments today, I go back to the tone that Mr. Chambers presented earlier. In fact, he made a little bit of a joke saying someone had to listen to him, and when he said thank you for staying, they said, “No, I'm the next speaker.” That was very funny. It reminds me of a very similar joke I used to give when I first set out in politics. I said that my goal in any speech or presentation was three things: to be bold, to be brief and then to be gone. Actually, I think it wasn't to be bold. I think it was to be brilliant.

I'm going to let everyone now know that I used to joke that at least you'll get two out of three. I have become a little bit more of a realist, so I'm going to let everyone know not to expect any of the three today.

I'd like to start with why we should be concerned about the programming motion put forward by the parliamentary secretary, and I have already touched on it. Governments are tethered to this institution. They are not the ones who tell us as members of Parliament to have confidence. They're the ones who have to put forward bills that show confidence. In this case, we have a motion that is directly telling us how many presentations we can have. I guess it just gives us a time limit, and it also puts in when we should have clause-by-clause.

The very thoughtful motion by MP Ste-Marie does actually propose that we divide this up, because in those 460-odd pages there are many clauses that pertain to areas of expertise in other committees, and committees like international trade, industry and technology, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights—all very important bodies.

When we send something to them, the very premise should be that we are in good faith seeking their responses. Now if you harken back to our last meeting, Mr. Chair, I believe it was confirmed that clause-by-clause would be done only by this committee. Regardless of what those members on those other committees think, ultimately they will not be able to substantially do what we do, which is to put forward amendments and to debate them. I don't think that is fair.

I should also point out that there is going to be a bit of a challenge, because I don't think independent members are being taken into account under this particular motion by the parliamentary secretary, or even in his amendment. Don't worry, though. I'll save that for closer to the end.

What I think is important to note is that when you offer someone something in good faith, the idea is that it's a legitimate offer. Now for those committees to suddenly decide whether or not they can meet at the time that has been listed here by the parliamentary secretary...and let's note that it is today, Thursday, May 12. When this was first tabled, obviously it was earlier in the week. Already days have slipped by, and while I do understand that MP Baker and MP Dzerowicz had both raised the idea that politics is the art of compromise, compromise means thoughtful discussion and give and take. It does not necessarily mean overriding other members without having some sort of thoughtful process.

As you can see, Mr. Chair, that leaves the Conservatives with very few options other than to say that we do not believe that this particular motion or its amendment.... Actually, I should say that the amendment seems to improve upon it, but the subamendment by the parliamentary secretary is not being done in good faith. Why? Because time has already been whittled away.

We already had to say no to those witnesses who came here on Monday ready to present. I presented a motion to try to see if we could speed that up. The importance of having witnesses cannot be overstated. Why? It's because obviously this is a very large omnibus bill and I find it lamentable that the Minister of Finance, the deputy prime minister, spent only an hour with the committee. I would have preferred a second hour, because I would have asked several other questions that pertained directly to Bill C-19.

I don't see any provision here in the subamendment for having the minister come back. In fact MP Chambers had expressed his desire to have the Minister of Industry come and speak to the competition components, the Competition Act amendments. I do enjoy Minister Champagne. I think he's a very thoughtful individual. If it is the will of the committee to have him come in for an hour, I would certainly make the time in my schedule for that. I think this particular subamendment that Mr. Beech has put forward has neither the Minister of Industry nor the Minister of Finance.

What worries me as time cuts away at this is that ultimately we're going to have less and less time, because the Liberals have not tried to work co-operatively with all members. I think that's really at the heart of this. I don't blame the Bloc or the NDP for playing ball because maybe their preferences have been met.

Maybe they see a different reality from the one I do, but this particular subamendment of Mr. Beech does not necessarily meet those needs from our perspective. Again, while we know the saying that politics is all about compromise, it's usually referred to as the art of the possible.

Do you know what, Mr. Chair? What's possible isn't always probable.

What's probable is where you make.... You don't think you should speak to other members and try to get them on board. Instead, we have motions, amendments and subamendments that do not have the consent of each and every party or member. Obviously, there's a way to have a democratic debate about this and, eventually, a vote, but I am not going to be keen to give that until we have had a thorough venting of some of the issues with this particular motion.

Let me go into some of my concerns.

In the last Parliament—I'm going to give a personal example—I was on the environment and sustainable development committee. It's a very good committee. Much like in this body, I got a chance to work within a group where we may have had distinct views on policy. I felt that the people around the table were generally respectful and understood that we were all here to represent our constituents and to have an exchange of views. Where we might have disagreements, we would talk them out until either we found some consensus or compromise, or we put it to a democratic vote.

We went to a bill called C-12, and there's something very similar between Bill C-12, the net-zero bill presented by the minister of the environment—at that time, it was MP Wilkinson of North Vancouver, a fellow British Columbian.... Similarly, in that particular bill and study, the parliamentary secretary put forward a programming motion. Unfortunately, the member of Parliament for the NDP at the time decided that they would opt into that programming motion. Again, I don't want to prejudice or call into question anyone's character, including the previous member of Parliament or the current NDP representative at this table, who I'm sure is here in good faith.

What ended up happening was, in my mind, remarkable. We had witnesses come forward and we listened to the testimony. All parties, the Bloc, even the Green individual.... My colleague MP May from Saanich—Gulf Islands brought amendments, as did the Liberals, the New Democrats and the Conservatives. We brought forward a number of meaningful amendments that we felt would have improved the bill, even though we opposed the bill in the House due to some issues over the net-zero advisory committee. I will not get into that discussion of what happened in the House. I will say it was rather unfortunate how that shut down.

What ended up happening was that they jammed through such a tight process that we were literally hearing witnesses when the period for submitting amendments to the bill had already expired.

Think of this. You get a call from the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. You have dedicated your professional career or your voluntary hours and expertise to writing up a brief. In fact, one witness told me that the moment he got the letter, he started furiously typing up his presentation, but by the time he got on the schedule, all of the suggestions that he had presented in his report and in his remarks were moot.

Why were they moot? It certainly wasn't because of bad faith by that individual, but because of the way the committee had jump-started the process and programmed in that there was only going to be a certain amount of time to get amendments in. That person was deeply disappointed, as were others.

The government probably never heard from those individuals in person, but I can say that MP May attested at committee that she heard the same thing. Why? Many groups want to be invited back and they want to keep the government, at least, in a somewhat neutral, positive state.

In that case, I have to say that the environment committee process—a committee ably chaired by one of your colleagues, MP Scarpaleggia—was so bad that we ended up jamming through witnesses after the period for amendments had already closed. People felt that process was not in good faith. I see many of the same hallmarks—many of the same markers—in this process, in fact, and I will say that I did speak up at the time. I did very much what I'm doing today. I said to other members, “If we adopt this process, we are jamming witnesses.” We are going to end up with a process that does not lead to a better outcome than Bill C-12 did.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what transpired. In fact, when we look at the amendments, it was such a bad process. Some amendments were supported by certain witnesses, but others, effectively.... The NDP joined up with the Liberal members and voted down pretty much every single amendment, except for a Bloc Québécois motion that established a five-year review. There are some real parallels that I'm starting to see between that process and now. Where did we end up? We ended up where committee members were at each other's throat. It wasn't very good. Witnesses felt bad and, at the end of the day, the government got what it wanted. I see many of the same things happening here.

I would say that it probably wasn't a lot of fun for Mr. Scarpaleggia, but let me tell you what was even worse. Your former colleague, Mr. Scott Simms, said publicly.... He was on Michael Geist's podcast, Law Bytes, where he talked about what was known as Bill C-10 and the shenanigans that ended up happening there.

Why? Well, there is a direct connection with what has happened here with MP Beech's subamendment. The process and timelines were so tight in the original programming motion that, at one point, during clause-by-clause, because of a programming motion, the committee members, in many cases, did not know what they were voting on. In order to meet the programming motion set out by the government, which happens to be the same government here, they ended up voting on amendments without even knowing what they were voting on. The chair would call out a number, and what's even worse, for the people.... There were stakeholders there, obviously, from industry and cultural groups—artists, etc.—who all had a real concern about this. These were people who study the Internet and freedom of expression—those kinds of legal constitutional concerns. All of them were horrified because they didn't even know what the members were voting on. They just heard numbers being shouted out, and that brought the whole committee process into disrepute.

What's even worse is that Conservatives had to appeal to the Speaker in the chamber regarding such a bad process. Do you know what ended up happening? The Speaker said that was not how Parliament was intended to work and ordered the committee to restart the process. The government did end up getting its way, but, for the people who were following along, the parliamentary committee process was in question.

I would say to all members here that the same issues the environment and sustainable development committee had, and the standing committee on heritage had with Bill C-10.... There are certainly parallels with what we have here today—a large omnibus bill, where the witness time is being dictated by the government.

Again, this particular bill is much larger than traditional ones, Mr. Chair.

On one of the things that MP Chambers pointed out—because there will be some arguments that say, if the Conservatives are so serious about not proceeding on this side, there are tax measures that can affect Canadians and that they will not be able to take advantage of—was that for the ways and means process, actually, the government can table ways and means motion tax measures and the CRA will treat those as having been passed, even if that is not the case. Many Canadians, as I was explaining to one of my constituents the other day on Bill C-8, would be quite surprised.

Now, obviously, during a minority, I would surely hope that they would be very careful around those measures. I know, for example, that Bill C-208 in the last Parliament, Larry Maguire's bill, was a change in law. That was actually passed by Parliament, and they still have not put out the regulations. Most people would say, wait a second, when Parliament passes an actual law that allows that if you're a farmer or you have a fish operation, you could transfer that intergenerationally to your family without having to pay extra costs associated with it.... If CRA and the Department of Finance can hold back on those provisions, how in heck...? Pardon the language. I'll repeat: How on earth, Mr. Chair, can it be that CRA can take a proposed law and start acting like it is a law?

Online Streaming Act

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that the cultural aspect of our lives is extremely important. For years, we have had the means to allow Canadians across the country to hear the voices of other Canadians, to listen to music, to watch movies, to watch television and to experience a Canadian culture that is extremely complex and very diversified.

When I think of Quebec culture, for example, I remember the first time I listened to Robert Charlebois, on a Sunday evening, because we could listen to French radio at home, in New Westminster, British Columbia. He was the first Quebec artist who forged my understanding of the diversity of Quebec's cultural life.

What artists are telling us is that there is currently a real imbalance in the system. Consequently, as talented as they may be, artists cannot fully reap the benefits of all their potential, as artists, to create and to promote our cultural life and to make it so complex and so profound.

That is really the message tonight. Our artists across the country are saying there is something wrong with the system. We have web giants, these massive companies, that are foreign-owned and the Conservatives support them to the detriment of Canadians and Canadian artists. These companies make these enormous profits while paying scraps to Canadian artists.

As we know, the reality is when we are talking about the word “censorship”, we are throwing it around so loosely when it comes to Bill C-11, and I will come back to that in just a moment. The reality is the censorship that takes place now with the web giants is the algorithms that withhold Canadian content from Canadians. Even Canadians trying to access that content cannot do it because of the algorithms that are not shared or not transparent that censors what Canadians can see and what Canadians can hear. That is the reality.

As members well know, other countries are putting forward legislation so that these web giants, these massive foreign-owned corporations, that pay no taxes in Canada and do not show the responsibility they should be showing in Canada, actually have to be transparent on the algorithms that control what people see, what people watch and what people can hear.

The idea that we put in place an update to the Broadcasting Act makes sense, because it establishes a level playing field so we do not see the situation we are seeing now. We see that Canadians musicians have lost 80% of their income as more and more of their product goes online and they get paid less and less by the massive web giants that are supported, for reasons I do not understand, by some members of this House.

As that happens, it is important for Canadian MPs to step up and try to level the playing field. Musicians losing 80% of their income should be something that all members of Parliament should be concerned about. About $3 billion has been taken out of musicians' pockets. That should be something that all Canadians are concerned about.

I talked earlier about listening, for the first time, late one evening in New Westminster, British Columbia, to a Quebec artist, Robert Charlebois, and understanding the incredible depth of Québécois culture. When I was growing up, I was able to listen to Rush, Gordon Lightfoot and Bachman-Turner Overdrive and so many other Canadian artists that would not have been able to get into the market if the American record companies and the American broadcasters had told Canadians what they could or could not listen to. That is the reality here.

When we have foreign companies deciding what Canadians can watch and listen to, we need to establish a level playing field so our Canadian artists can shine through.

The Conservatives, who are opposed to this legislation moving forward, even to get answers on it, should understand that not one of them has quoted a Canadian artist or musician tonight. They cannot, because artist associations, everyone from the Canadian Independent Music Association to ACTRA, are all very supportive of the legislation. What, then, should we be doing tonight in this debate?

My Conservative colleagues, and I have respect for them, have said that they simply do not want this legislation to move forward, just as they have been saying for months that they do not want any other legislation to move forward. We have seen it with Bill C-8. Teachers were asking for their tax credit and the Conservatives said they would not pass it. We have seen it with Bill C-19 and dental care, which the NDP pushed forward. For the first time, there was an affordable housing platform, and the Conservatives said they did not want that to move forward either.

On Bill C-11, as we have heard in the debate tonight, the Conservatives have talked about three concerns. First off, they reference a bill that no longer exists and say they did not like it. That is fair enough, but that is not the bill we are debating. Then they talk about a bill that may be coming in a year or so that deals with online harms, and they say they do not like that bill either. Well, that debate will be in a year.

Then they say, about this bill, that they believe in a level playing field, but they have some questions. At the same time, however, they do not want this bill to go to committee, where we can get answers to the questions they have asked. Some of the questions they have asked around the CRTC are legitimate. How it defines its powers is a legitimate question, and I have that question too.

We would love to have the bill come to committee, because the committee, as part of our legislative process, is the place where we get answers to questions. We could sit here to midnight every single night, but we are not going to get the ministry and the CRTC to answer our questions until the bill gets to committee.

This is where it becomes passing strange. We have had debate now for a number of days. We should be referring the bill to committee. If Conservative members do not want to vote for the bill they do not have to vote for it. However, for them to say they are going to stop any member of Parliament from getting the answers they are asking around the bill by refusing to have it go to committee does not make any sense at all.

It is also not respectful to the artists from coast to coast to coast who have been asking for years to have a level playing field. They have been asking for years for us, as members of Parliament, to play our role and establish a level playing field to allow them, finally, to have some presence in the online world so that Canadian content can shine and the web giants will not decide what Canadians get to see and hear.

This is really the challenge this evening. We will be sitting until midnight, but the Conservatives will say they want to keep sitting and sitting and will say the same things. As I mentioned earlier, they have debated a past bill that no longer exists and a future bill that may or may not exist, and on this bill, they say they have questions.

We should all agree that the way to get answers to those questions is to refer the bill to committee and allow the heritage committee to sit down and get answers from the minister and the CRTC. In that way, we could respond to our legislative role, which is to make sure that as we pass this legislation, it is done in the most effective way possible and actually does what it purports to do: level the playing field for Canadian artists so that our musicians, actors and all of the Canadian cultural and artistic sphere can shine.

We know that when there is a level playing field, it is not the web giants deciding what Canadians can see and hear. When there is a level playing field, Canadian artists will shine. My message to the Conservatives is to let Canadian artists shine. Let us get answers to the bill. Let us get this bill to committee.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canadians from coast to coast to coast sent us here to get work done for their benefit and to move legislation forward. I am very happy to see that the NDP is working constructively with us to do that, whether it is on this bill, Bill C-19 or other pieces of legislation.

We need to bring online streamers within the system. They benefit from access to the Canadian market, but they do not contribute to the creation of Canadian content. We need to change that, and part of Bill C-11 would do that. We also need to level the playing field, which Bill C-11 would do as well.

Statement Concerning the Similarities Between Bill C-250 and Bill C-19—Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I would like to make a statement concerning similarities between two bills that are currently before the House. These are Bill C-250, an act to amend the Criminal Code (prohibition—promotion of antisemitism), standing in the name of the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, and Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, and other measures.

Clause 332 of Bill C-19 contains near identical text to Bill C-250. To be more specific, the two bills seek to amend section 319 of the Criminal Code pertaining to hate propaganda, for similar purposes. Both make it an offence to wilfully promote antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust through statements communicated other than in private conversation. There is only a minor difference in the wording of one of the acceptable defences.

Bill C-19 was adopted at second reading and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance yesterday. The House is now placed in a situation where a decision was made on one of the two bills that contain very similar provisions.

There is a long-standing practice that prohibits the same question from being decided twice by the House during the same session. As stated at page 568 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition:

...two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of. If a decision is taken on the first bill (for example, to defeat the bill or advance it through a stage in the legislative process), then the other may not be proceeded with.

The Chair recognizes that these bills are not identical, as Bill C-19 is much broader in scope and contains other provisions related to the implementation of the budget.

However, in adopting Bill C-19 at second reading, the House has also agreed to the principle of that bill, and consequently, has agreed, among other things, to amend section 319 of the Criminal Code dealing with hate propaganda. As I explained a few moments ago, these are provisions substantially similar to the ones contained in Bill C-250.

Therefore, the question for the Chair is, should Bill C-250 be allowed to proceed further in the legislative process at this time? In the Chair's opinion, it should not be allowed. The House should not face a situation where the same question can be cited twice within the same session, unless the House's intention is to rescind or revoke the decision.

Government and private members' bills belong to different categories of items and are governed by different sets of rules and precedents. Standing Order 94(1) provides the Speaker with the authority to “make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of Private Members' Business”.

Applying this authority, I am ordering that the status of Bill C-250 remain pending and that it not be called for its second hour of debate. This leaves open the possibility that Bill C-250 could be reinstated in the next session, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, should by any chance Bill C-19 fail to be enacted in this session.

I thank all members for their attention on this matter.

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It being 3:15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the amendment on the motion at second reading of Bill C-19.

May I dispense?

The House resumed from May 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance to share some reflections with respect to the budget and the implementation act, Bill C-19.

I want to start by talking about housing. In my view, the extent to which all levels of government work together to address the skyrocketing cost of housing will define my community over the coming years. I am sure this is true for the communities of many other members in this place as well.

Last year, as I have shared before, there was a 35% increase in the cost of housing in Kitchener. What does that mean? It means we have seen, by the last point-in-time count, a tripling in the number of folks who are living unsheltered. We are seeing encampments continue to grow, where folks are resorting to living in tents. We are seeing students who are unable to move out of their parents' homes and unable to afford rent, as well as seniors on fixed incomes whose anxiety continues to rise as they see their rent rising too. I often think of the health care workers I met this past summer, who shared with me that they were planning on leaving and heading further west because they, too, could not afford the soaring cost of rent.

As I have done here before, I want to start by sharing what I appreciate about what is in the budget, and that is some early signs that the federal government may be finally beginning to take some meaningful action when it comes to addressing the cost of housing.

A specific example is that there is significant investment in this budget with respect to co-op housing. Back in the eighties, in 1982, there were 6,500 units built that year alone of deeply affordable, dignified co-op housing. I have personally had the experience of living in co-op housing. I can attest to how important co-ops are and ensuring that units remain affordable in perpetuity. In this budget, there is a commitment to build 6,000 units. Now, that is not in one year but over several years, but it is significantly more than the 477 that were built in 2020. It is a $1.5-billion investment. Those are the kinds of investments I would like to see more of.

There is also a commitment to reinvest more funding in the rapid housing initiative, a program that has been oversubscribed. What does that mean? It means that great organizations like Indwell, which is looking to repurpose faith communities to build affordable housing, have not been able to get funds in the past. My hope is that, with a renewed commitment to the rapid housing initiative funding, which has $1.5 billion allocated to it, more organizations like Indwell will be successful in securing funds to build more affordable units.

There is also a commitment to end the blind bidding process, which we know would only allow for more information to be shared that could also address the crisis we are in.

I want to mention two items that were in the budget but are not in Bill C-19. One is removing the preferential tax treatment currently given to house flippers. I hope the government will ensure that this is in future legislation. It was committed to in the budget, as well as the housing bill of rights. It would ensure the requirement of a home inspection, which is one of the things that would help address the overheated market.

Of course, we do need more investments from both the federal and the provincial governments in non-market housing and other ways to reduce the commodification of housing.

There are several items I remain deeply concerned about. I will start with climate, because no doubt we need to be honest. If we want even a 50% chance of keeping global average temperature increases below 1.5°C, which is what is required for a livable planet, and we do our fair share of the global carbon budget, it means 86% of our known fossil fuel reserves in this country need to remain unextracted. To do so means that we will need to invest in workers, in their upskilling and retraining, to ensure they have access to the economy of the future.

There are organizations like Iron & Earth, a worker-led not-for-profit that has been calling for $10 billion to go to workers for a prosperous transition, to ensure they have access to the support they need. Instead, what is in the budget is $7.2 billion directed toward carbon capture and storage, a new fossil fuel subsidy, at a time when we are being told these would be phased out. That is exactly what we need to be doing. We need to be phasing out these subsidies and prioritizing those funds to workers and to proven climate solutions.

When it comes to health care, this pandemic has exacerbated existing gaps, so I want to pause to reflect on a few other significant gaps that I would encourage the governing party to move forward on.

The first is with respect to mental health. Many parliamentarians will say the words “mental health is health”, and I am glad that more folks are saying those words, but we need to treat it that way. Mental health advocates across the country have been calling for a new Canada mental health transfer to provinces. While the budget mentions an intention to engage in this, the only commitment is to a wellness portal. While I am sure this is a worthy investment, we need to be mindful of the significant dollars that are required from the federal government to move toward parity in mental health funding so that it is true that mental health is health and we can eliminate the wait times we see across the country, and certainly in Waterloo-Wellington. I am hearing that this remains the case in our community as well.

When it comes to long-term care, I had the chance to ask the Prime Minister directly last week about the safe long-term care act, which has been talked about in the supply and confidence agreement between the Liberals and the NDP, and when there will be plans to introduce that act. There is no mention of that in Bill C-19 or in the budget. In fact, the only mention of long-term care in the budget was the money that was allocated in 2021.

Just a few days ago, I was speaking with a woman who was reflecting about her mom, who is waiting for a bed in long-term care. With tears in her eyes, she shared that she did not know whether her mom would make it out of hospital and into long-term care. I think of the personal support workers I have spoken with, who have shared that they do not get to give four hours of care. They are lucky if they do four minutes of care a day. We know there is more that the federal government can and should be doing to put standards in place when it comes to investing in long-term care. I would encourage the governing party to prioritize doing so.

Last, I will pause to reflect on following through with promises made to Canadians with disabilities. It is actually one of the areas that I have been encouraged by in my time in this place. We now have 100 MPs from all parties, including four colleagues in the Waterloo region, who have all said that it is time to follow through.

We know that Canadians with disabilities are disproportionately living in poverty across the country. About 40% of those living in poverty are Canadians with disabilities, and it is 1.5 million people across the country. The governing party has promised to introduce substantial legislation for the Canada disability benefit, a guaranteed income for every Canadian with a disability across the country. In this place, I have had the chance to share stories of folks in my community about what it means to them not to have access to this and what it means to be living in poverty as a result of not getting appropriate supports.

I continue to encourage the governing party to introduce substantial legislation for the Canada disability benefit. I will pass my thanks again to the 103 MPs from all political parties who have come together to say we can do better and we must.

Some might say, “Well, wait a second. This all sounds well and good, but can we afford these things?” I want to close by sharing some of the ways we can afford these significant and important investments, and we do not need to do it simply by increasing debt.

We can and should stop gifting oil and gas companies, which are making record-breaking profits, billions of dollars and should reinvest it. We have had a lot of promises about taxing the rich, but the budget reduced the campaign promise for a 3% surtax on some of the largest companies, whose profits soared in the pandemic, down to 1.5%. It avoids any talk of an inheritance or a wealth tax. Even the vacancy tax, as I have shared in this place before, in Bill C-8 was down to 1%, and it exempts every Canadian and every corporation in the country. In Vancouver it is up to 5%, and in doing so, they have been able to reinvest millions of dollars in affordable housing. Of course, there is no talk of closing corporate tax loopholes, which we know is a measure we need to do.

With that, I will close and welcome questions.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-19, the budget implementation act. I will be honest. I found the title of this year's budget quite misleading. The NDP-Liberal government titled this year's budget, “A Plan to Grow Our Economy and Make Life More Affordable”. If the government really wanted to grow our economy and make life more affordable, it would have looked at Canadian agriculture. Unfortunately, when I looked for Canadian agriculture in the budget, I noticed that not one page was fully dedicated to agri-food or agriculture. The blatant lack of priority for Canadian agriculture would be concerning in any budget, but even more concerning in budget 2022.

We are in a food crisis. There is a global food shortage, and the Canadian government is nowhere to be found. I am going to quote Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, a professor and researcher of food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University, who has been sounding the alarm on this crisis. He stated, “We need to be clear on the fact that by fall more than 100 million people will experience either famine or severe hunger.” Let us let that statistic sink in: By fall, more than 100 million people will experience either famine or extreme hunger.

Corn and wheat make up 30% of the calories consumed on earth, yet the region responsible for 25% of these exports is at war. That means that the poorer countries will lose access to their food supply and developed countries will pay higher prices to secure their food. Where in the budget was there anything to ramp up the production of export capacity of these commodities? I sure did not find it.

When I read the budget implementation act, I saw things like new taxes on luxury goods and vaping products. These are the types of things that the government has prioritized over Canadian agriculture. This reminds me of Maslow's hierarchy of needs: one of the best-known theories in human motivation. This hierarchy is modelled in the shape of a pyramid. At the top of the pyramid is the need for self-actualization. Beneath that are the need for esteem, the need for love and belonging and the need for safety. At the bottom of the pyramid are the foundational psychological needs, including food, for example. Society does not care about the higher levels of needs if the foundational needs are not met. At a time when the world is in a food crisis, the NDP-Liberal government is more focused on some higher ideological need than on the foundational need of food security.

I am shocked that the government is not focused on replacing the global reduction in food from Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Not only could Canada feed the world, but we could also create wealth and jobs for our rural communities. We are one of the few remaining agriculture-exporting nations on earth. I believe we have a role to play in feeding the world. However, when I read the budget, I do not see any priority given to this by the current government.

The government has the mentality that western Canada should be limited to simply producing, harvesting and exporting raw commodities. This means that even if Canadians produced a record crop, we would still have to rely on other countries to process our commodities. This is the wrong mentality. We can do so much more. The government should create the right business environment so industry can create more value in Canadian agriculture products. When we turn our raw commodities into high-quality products such as canola oil, flour and starch products, we not only grow our economy but we also meet the demands of the world.

It was the current government that commissioned the Barton Report. In that report, agriculture was identified as a sector where Canada has the potential for substantial growth and export improvement. The report mentioned global population growth, a rising protein demand in Asia and the need for trusted markets. Canada could and should meet these new global demands, if only the government would let it.

Production and processing capacity is not the only bottleneck in the agriculture value food chain. We must also improve the resilience and reliability of our transportation system. There is no mention of investing in transportation to export our agri-food products faster and more efficiently. I think all members of the House would agree with the notion that our country is too reliant on a few transportation systems.

We saw this last year when the flooding in B.C. completely landlocked our ability to export product. Imagine the drastic consequences of not being able to feed the world because we could not get our agri-food products to tidewater.

I am noticing a consistent theme with this Liberal government. It is more focused on the farming of the past than on the farming of the future. The Liberals try to be visionaries in many areas, but never in agriculture. The lack of thinking is limiting our nation's potential and starving the world. If the Liberals want to grow our economy, I can tell members how: It is through agriculture.

Not only does the budget fail to prioritize increased food production, but it also fails to address the restrictions and regulations that are preventing Canada from becoming an agriculture superpower. We know that this government's carbon tax is restricting our ag industry's competitiveness and driving up the cost of food from the day it is planted until the day it is consumed.

APAS reported that the government's carbon tax would add an additional $12.50 of input costs per acre on wheat by 2030. At the same time, when the world is desperate for wheat, it is absurd that this government is actually making it more expensive to produce such an essential commodity.

The government also appears to be drafting regulations that would restrict fertilizer usage for Canadian farmers in the name of the climate agenda. Any plan to meet fertilizer emissions reductions should not be at the cost of production. Is the government aware that there is a global fertilizer shortage? The less fertilizer that is available, the less food we can grow.

MNP reported that reducing Canadian fertilizer use to achieve 30% emissions reduction would result in yield losses. Corn, for example, would see losses of over 67 bushels per acre per year, which is about 40%.

Where is the investment in creating a more competitive fertilizer industry? Where is the focus on exporting Canadian fertilizer? I did not see that in the budget.

I also learned last week that Health Canada has yet to release its regulations on gene editing. This innovative plant science technology is an important tool in helping Canadian farmers be more productive and efficient. Plant science innovations have been responsible for a 50% increase in crop productivity over the past century. Without these innovations, prices would be 45% higher, on average, for many food staples.

The government should create an investment environment that fuels plant science research and development. There is no reason why Canada cannot have the fastest and most responsible regulatory process in the world. Where was this investment in the budget? I did not see it.

The world is facing a food crisis. Food is becoming unaffordable for millions of people and, for some, food is becoming unavailable. Millions will starve if Canada does not step up to the plate. Instead of focusing on fulfilling the basic needs of society, this government continues to focus on a political agenda. This government's disregard for the food crisis before us is deeply disturbing.

Not one page in the budget is focused on agriculture and agri-food. That should concern every single member of the House. It is time to focus on the future of farming. It is time to make Canada an agricultural superpower, and it is time for Canada to feed the world when the world needs us most.

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

Madam Speaker, in his speech earlier on Bill C‑19, the member across the way did not mention anything about a topic I very much wanted to hear him talk about. That may be because it is not in the budget either. I am talking about the word “health”.

Almost every province, including Quebec, asked for health transfers. I have been a member of Parliament since 2015, while the Bloc Québécois has been in the House for I do not even know how long, and I cannot recall one year or one week when the Bloc did not talk about the fact that health transfers need to be increased. The federal government's response has been insulting, namely that the government will talk about it once we become more efficient.

On the one hand, who is the federal government to tell the provinces how to run their affairs?

On the other hand, since this is a unanimous request that keeps coming up, how are we unable to come to an agreement on this fundamental need?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the $300 billion was an investment in Canadians, from all aspects, whether it was directly to individuals or to businesses in various sectors, and as I said in my speech, the result is evident now. We are back with 115% job recovery; we are back with over three million jobs. We have shortages of one million jobs, and we have the potential to do much better. As we roll out various programs in Bill C-19, not only will we address the labour shortage, but we will also make sure that people have an affordable place to live and that we can also welcome new Canadians to Canada.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to join today’s debate on Bill C-19, the budget implementation act. Let me begin by stating something that I have mentioned before about this budget. This is a fiscally prudent budget that is also focused on economic growth. If we are looking for a theme and a direction, here is the theme and here is the direction.

We were able to shift this budget’s focus onto these elements because of how well we have done in recovering from a global pandemic that has exhausted economies around the world.

Starting with jobs, we have recovered 115% of the jobs lost since April 2020, which is equivalent to three million jobs. Just this past Friday, on May 6, Canada’s job numbers were released, and they showed that the labour market has gained over 15,000 jobs in April alone, bringing our unemployment rate to 5.2%, the lowest since 1976. These numbers are not to be taken lightly. They represent the resilience and strength of real people and real Canadians who made effective use of the supports and programs rolled out by our federal government. They worked hard to get back on their feet, stronger than ever.

However, there is more to be done, and that is exactly what the measures in budget 2022, implemented by Bill C-19, set out to do. The budget builds on the progress we have already made, by investing in workers, small businesses, our supply chain and more.

We also need to acknowledge that every success has its ups and downs. Canadians know that our recovery from COVID-19, along with our continued fight against it, has come at a very high price. This global pandemic has had not only health consequences, but also economic ones, as the international phenomenon of inflation has made things more expensive, both in other countries and right here in Canada.

We acknowledge the higher prices of groceries. We acknowledge the high and rising costs of homes, and we also acknowledge that the impacted supply chain has already deeply hurt the pockets of everyday consumers at the checkout counter. We know that the causes can be sourced to the pandemic and the current international conflicts, but we have to do something about it right here at home.

With budget 2022 and Bill C-19, our government is advancing and introducing measures that will address these concerns and help mitigate the rising costs of living for Canadians. The budget is grounded by a focus on housing, the climate, jobs and growth, and affordability, but one key common element in all of these pillars is people.

Our people are the backbone to a strong and growing country, and Bill C-19 ensures that we continue to have their backs through measures for affordable housing, clean and good jobs, and a safe place to live.

Before we get into those overarching categories, let us quickly review the key ways in which the budget implementation act will help Canadians.

On housing, Bill C-19 doubles the maximum for the home accessibility tax credit, and also proposes a two-year ban on foreign investment in Canadian housing that will make housing more affordable.

On health, Bill C-19 proposes $2 billion for the provinces and territories, to reduce backlogs in surgeries and procedures.

On the labour shortage, Bill C-19 introduces a labour mobility deduction that will make travel easier for tradespeople, who will be able to fill the gaps in important projects.

On a cleaner economy that is fuelled by our small businesses, Bill C-19 proposes a reduction by half to the corporate and small business tax rates for businesses that manufacture zero-emissions technologies.

Now that we have gone through some of this overview, let us get into some of the big themes, starting with the most pressing concern in our local communities and in my riding of Richmond Hill, which is housing.

We have never had such an ambitious plan as we do in budget 2022 to address the fundamental issue of housing affordability. Through Bill C-19, we can implement measures that would make housing not only more affordable for our first-time homebuyers, but also more accessible for all.

We know that gaps in supply are leading to increases in costs, which is why budget 2022 indicates our government’s commitment to doubling the number of new homes built over the next 10 years. This budget also includes measures to reduce the barriers for first-time homebuyers who work so hard to save up for a place to call their own. Bill C-19 would prevent foreign investors and commercial enterprises from parking their money in Canada and driving up costs to the point that young buyers can barely afford to enter the housing market.

We talked about youth, but what about seniors or persons with disabilities? They have made significant contributions to Canadian society and deserve homes that are accessible to them and continue to fit their needs. However, renovations can be pricey, and with the rising cost of living, such home improvements are far out of reach for seniors and persons with disabilities.

That is why Bill C-19 proposes to double the home accessibility tax credit’s annual limit to $20,000 to help make significant alterations and renovations more affordable. This would mean an additional $1,500 in tax support, which will in turn make alterations such as the installation of wheelchair ramps, walkers or non-slip flooring more affordable. For members of Richmond Hill's community council on seniors, who are concerned about the costs associated with customizing their homes to their current needs, I know this is going to be a significant aid in helping them age well in the houses they know and love.

We delved into housing affordability, but we know that to be able to purchase or maintain homes, people need good jobs, which is why investing in jobs and growth is a key pillar of budget 2022. Primarily, let us talk about the jobs that need support.

Currently, our economy can absorb nearly one million jobs, 300,000 of which could be fulfilled by the construction trades. 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. To ensure that we can get the workers where they are needed and address labour shortages in an equitable way, we need to support the mobility of workers within Canada. If they can travel without worrying about associated costs, we will have more workers and more projects will be completed, even some potentially in housing, which will indirectly increase our supply.

Through the labour mobility deduction for tradespeople, Bill C-19 proposes to provide tax relief on eligible travel and temporary relocation expenses. However, it is not just tradespersons who need the support in getting to work.

Lastly, Bill C-19 has measures that will make Canada a cleaner and safer place to live. We are committing to smart climate investments today that will not only be good for the planet, but good for the Canadian economy. Whether it is through the $15-billion investment in the Canada growth fund, the creation of the Canada water agency, the $1.7-billion incentive for zero-emission vehicles or the expansion of the low-carbon economy fund with $2.2 billion over seven years, this budget implementation act will bring to fruition Canada’s global efforts in fighting climate change in a way that is not only planet friendly, but economically friendly.

In closing, I ask all members of the House to join me in supporting this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to my Conservative colleague's passionate speech. I found it interesting and stirring, so to speak.

When we talk about Bill C-19, we are also talking about the budget that the government tabled not too long ago. What I really did not like about that budget was the lack of action on climate change. With the approval of the Bay du Nord project, we see that the government is continuing to get more deeply involved in oil.

Could the member who just gave that wonderful speech tell us more about what the government should do to combat climate change and get away from oil?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a huge privilege and honour to rise today on the budget implementation act, Bill C-19. I am also very grateful to serve the federal NDP as the critic for mental health and harm reduction.

There are many things in this budget that are a movement toward progress. There are many areas of this budget where there are huge shortfalls. I really want to follow up on what my colleague for Mississauga—Erin Mills spoke about recently, which is housing, because housing has such an impact not just on the economy for small businesses, workers and volunteers in our communities but also on people's mental health, especially when we are seeing the skyrocketing rates of real estate and rents that are out of touch for Canadians. The people who are the most impacted are workers, seniors and those who are the most marginalized. People who were not homeless before are becoming homeless because they are being pushed out onto the streets.

In my home riding and the community I live in, Port Alberni, we saw real estate go up in the last year by 46%. In Oceanside, it went up 34%. The average price of a home is over $1 million, yet we have seen wages remain fairly stagnant. I am probably the only member of Parliament in the House who, after being elected, moved away from his home community to better serve his riding and cannot actually move home. This is because the price of real estate in my home community of Tofino has gone up 400% since I was elected. This not only has an impact on me, but we can imagine the workers in Tofino and how impossible it is for them, or for the small businesses that require workers.

I know this is a huge challenge. We heard solutions come from the Liberals and questions from the Conservatives about housing, but they are fairly consistent in that they have centred their efforts around the free market. The free market will not solve these problems.

I grew up in the seventies and eighties in Victoria, British Columbia. I am really proud of where I grew up and the community I lived in. It took leadership and worked with the federal government to develop some co-ops. As we know, Canada went on a robust co-op housing program that was actually developed through a minority government of the Liberals and the federal NDP working together in the early seventies under our leader David Lewis. It was that agreement that got the national housing program going. They started to develop about 25,000 units on average throughout the 1970s and 1980s.

I was really fortunate to grow up in a co-op housing development. My dad was a transmission mechanic. He still is, actually, and is in his early seventies. He has been working on transmissions for over 50 years. I am so proud of my dad. My mom worked at HRDC as a clerk. They were middle class, if we want to call it that. I am proud of my mom, and it was Mother's Day yesterday. To my mom I say that I know I was not home, but happy Mother's Day. I love my mom and thank her so much. To all the moms in our community, I give thanks.

My parents worked really hard. The co-op was unique in that it provided safe, secure and affordable housing for my mom and dad and my brother Rob and I, but it also provided safe and secure housing for seniors, single parents, people of lower incomes and people on income assistance. I can go back to that co-op in Victoria to this day and some of the friends I grew up with are grandparents and live in that co-op. Their kids and their grandkids live in that co-op.

The problem is that there are not enough co-ops anymore. When the government pulled out of building co-ops and pulled out of the national housing strategy in the early 1990s, we lost 25,000 units a year. We are talking about over 750,000 units to this day in the shortfall of co-op housing.

I was visiting my friends John and Beth last night, who live in co-op housing here in Ottawa. They received safe and secure housing. They were on a wait-list for four years, terrified, which impacted their mental health. They were working two or three jobs and trying to figure out how they were going to make ends meet. They wanted to make sure their daughter Kira could live in a co-op, but they are not even taking names now in the co-op where they live because the wait-list is so long.

In fact, my daughter, who just graduated from the University of Ottawa, dropped me off today and she said, “Dad, I can't talk about ever owning a home, because I don't want to be disappointed.” It is just terrible that this is what we are leaving our children and the people in our communities.

We can look to Europe. First, I will go back to where we are at. We were at 10% of our housing being non-market housing in the 1970s and 1980s. Now we are at about 3%. We can look to Europe, which is at 30%, and Vienna, which is at 60%, because they understand how important it is to have safe, secure and affordable housing. The free market is not going to give us that. It has not. We are developing very rapidly on Vancouver Island.

I sat in local government in Tofino. I remember how frustrated we were when the federal government downloaded to provinces, which then further downloaded to local governments. I was part of the initial Tofino housing corporation. I am proud that today we are finally building a development that we talked about 20 years ago. Here we were, this small local government: this small municipality was trying to figure out how we were going to develop non-market housing to meet the needs of our community.

What a task for small communities to take on. They do not have the expertise or aptitude, and often do not have the leadership. They do not know how to do it. I can assure the House that if the federal government puts money on the table, local governments will access it. They will find the land.

Our province of British Columbia is building half of the non-market housing in the country right now. It needs a federal partner to go to the lengths it is going to. The province just had applications for over 12,500 shovel-ready units by local governments: local non-profit housing. They had funding for 2,500. It would have been great to see the federal government pick up the other 2,500. We are halfway there on shovel-ready developments that could help make sure people have affordable housing.

I get frustrated. I look to my community. We have a non-profit housing group in Ucluelet. Randy Oliwa called me the other day and said, “Gord, we can't even get an answer on a $5,000 planning grant to get things off the ground.” The Beaufort Hotel was being purchased. It is a hotel that already has low-barrier housing and private sector housing. The group made an application through the rapid housing initiative. The applicants were told that it looked very positive, but they got denied because they were oversubscribed. They had $5 billion in applications and they only had $1 billion on the table.

They were told to reapply, so they reapplied and got denied again. They decided to apply through the women and children shelter and transitional housing fund, and then got denied again. They brought in Lookout, a great partner from Vancouver, to develop non-market housing and ensure that the people living in this building were not going to get punted and thrown out on the streets. Again, they got denied. Now they are using the co-investment fund. The steps and hurdles these groups have to go through to make sure people have affordable housing are just ridiculous.

I want to speak a little about how important housing is, not just for small businesses, workers and people in our communities, but also to ensure that people are not suffering: those who are on the streets and who may be living with a substance use disorder. I was at a low-barrier housing unit in Duncan, B.C., where they built these sleeper cottages. I met a man who had his first home. It was basic needs. It was not low barrier; it was no barrier. For the first time in his adult life, he told me, he was not homeless or living in prison. He was on opioid therapy as a result, which he could never access living as a homeless person. He was treated like a criminal: He was moved from park to park, living in fear and not sleeping.

Another woman I met at the same low-barrier housing was moving to low-barrier from no-barrier housing. As a result of having that, she had been sober for eight months. For the first time in her adult life, she has a chance. Without housing, how can people have mental health? When people are homeless, they do not sleep.

The Prime Minister's goal to house 50% of the homeless people in the next 10 years is not good enough. It is not good enough. We need to move rapidly. We need to build non-market housing, and the government needs to step up its game. We need all parties to work collectively on this, because the free market simply will not solve the problems of our needs right now. Housing is a basic human need. It is a human rights issue. It is an economic issue. It is a social issue.

I have not even tapped into indigenous housing, because I am being told I am running out of time. I could speak another 10 minutes on that alone. I hope we can work together in the House to scale things up rapidly.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, I am proud that it was this government that enhanced the CPP so that future seniors will have more pension to live on.

I am proud of this government for increasing old age security. I am proud of this government for investing in affordable housing and investing in long-term care for our seniors.

Bill C-19 shows us the empathy and the care that we have to really build upon in Canada to ensure that seniors in my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills and that member's riding, as well, are able to thrive and sustain themselves.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the question from the member opposite, I think it is ill-informed. We did spend the past two years making sure that Canadians had roofs over their heads, had food on their tables and were able to safely isolate themselves if they had COVID.

Bill C-19 and budget 2022 are really about providing that economic recovery. The child care plan that we had installed across the country is addressing these very issues. The housing affordability piece in budget 2022 and Bill C-19 is addressing these very issues. The makeup and the buildup toward a greener economy are addressing these issues.

I will remind members in the House that inflation and COVID are not specifically Canadian things. They are worldwide phenomena. Right now is the proper time to invest in Canadians and ensure that they have that foundation to lift up the economy in Canada and globally.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-19, the budget implementation act. This bill proposes to officially implement many of the important measures contained in budget 2022, tabled just a few weeks ago, measures that would impact people from all walks of life in my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills.

Budget 2022 contains targeted and responsible investments to create jobs and prosperity today and build a stronger economic future for all Canadians tomorrow. Its proposed measures set out to make investments in Canadians and to make life more affordable for them, in economic growth and innovation and in promoting a clean economy. In particular, budget 2022 takes significant steps to help build more homes and make housing more affordable across the country, and it is housing that I would like to talk about today.

As we know, everyone should have a safe and affordable home, but this goal, which was taken for granted by previous generations, is no longer within the reach of a growing number of Canadians, including young people in my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills. Increasing the supply of housing would make housing more affordable, but it is not the only solution; there have to be more measures taken.

For example, in budget 2022 there is an issue that is addressed, and that is the concern that foreign investment and speculation will increase the cost of housing in Canada. The government has an important role to play in addressing these issues. The 2022 budget proposes new measures that would prohibit foreign investment in residential real estate and ensure that speculators and homeowners who quickly sell their properties pay their fair share of taxes. I know that Vancouver and Toronto have received most of the attention in this regard, but those impacts can also be felt in other parts of the country, including in Mississauga—Erin Mills.

Bill C-19 would enact the prohibition on the purchase of residential property by non-Canadians act. It is a new statute that implements a ban on foreign investment in Canadian housing. The ban on foreign investment in Canadian housing is aimed at curtailing foreign demand in light of concerns that foreign buyers may be contributing to pricing some Canadians out of the housing market. The proposed legislation would prohibit people who are neither Canadian citizens nor permanent residents from acquiring residential property in Canada, whether directly or indirectly, for a period of two years.

The government's intention in this regard is that refugees and persons who have been authorized to come to Canada on emergency travel to flee international crises would be exempt. Foreign students who are in the process of obtaining permanent residence would also be exempt in certain circumstances, as would work permit holders who are residents of Canada.

As well, speculative trading in the Canadian housing market contributes to higher prices for Canadians. These transactions can include the resale of homes before they are built or before they are lived in, such as the assignment of a contract of sale. This creates an opportunity for speculators to be dishonest about their original intentions and creates uncertainty for everyone involved in an assignment sale as to whether GST or HST apply. The current rules also result in the uneven application of GST or HST to the full and final prices of these new homes that have not been lived in before.

Therefore, as proposed in budget 2022, Bill C-19 would amend the Excise Tax Act to make assignment sales in respect of newly constructed or substantially renovated residential housing taxable for GST or HST purposes. The amendment also excludes from taxable consideration the amount of deposit paid under an original agreement of purchase and sale that the original purchaser is recovering through that assignment of sale.

This amendment would eliminate the ambiguity that can arise under the existing rules regarding the GST or HST treatment of assignment sales by making all assignment sales by individuals taxable. It would also ensure that the GST or HST applies to the full amount paid for a new home, including any amount paid as a result of an assignment sale, resulting in greater consistency in the tax treatment of new homes.

The government also wants to make housing more affordable for the homes people already live in. For example, seniors and persons with disabilities deserve the opportunity to live and age at home, but renovations and upgrades that make their homes safe and accessible can be costly. In my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills, we see a lot of multi-generational homes, where grandparents live with their children and grandkids in a single dwelling. The opportunity for them to live comfortably is significantly reduced because of the inability of homeowners to provide for important renovations to have that accessibility available to parents as they age.

The home accessibility tax credit already provides supports to offset some of the costs that I am talking about. However, with the rising cost of home renovations, many seniors and people with disabilities feel that they cannot afford the modifications that would allow them to continue to live safely in their homes.

As proposed in budget 2022, to better support independent living and to better support these multi-generational homes, Bill C-19 would amend the Income Tax Act to increase the annual expense limit for the home accessibility tax credit from $10,000 to $20,000. This enhancement would apply to the 2022 and subsequent taxation years. It would provide up to an additional $1,500 in tax support for renovations and alterations that are already eligible under the home accessibility tax credit, for such expenses as the purchase or installation of wheelchair ramps, walk-in bathtubs, wheel-in showers, building a bedroom or bathroom to permit first-floor occupancy, and installing non-slip flooring to help avoid falls.

Our government was elected in 2015 with a promise to deliver a national housing strategy, because even seven years ago it was already hard for Canadians to own a home. We have delivered that strategy and continue to build upon it. We are taking further action to make housing more affordable and to give Canadians that same chance to own a home, as our parents did.

We all know that no one level of government can solve this problem. Our Liberal government is leading the way, and we need every level of government to recognize this issue and work with us to take action. When we talk about building homes, we have to work with the provincial, regional and municipal governments to ensure that developers are operating in a fair and equitable way that is promoting affordable housing and promoting the swift and quality construction of homes that people in my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills, for example, can take advantage of.

The measures I just mentioned today in Bill C-19 and from budget 2022 would help make the housing market fairer for Canadians and support more affordable home living for seniors and people with disabilities. If we are serious about taking action on the housing market, I hope that all members in this House can support Bill C-19.

In conclusion, each and every member in this House has a story of a constituent in their community who has struggled with housing and who cannot see a future with a comfortable living space that they can rely on. Housing is a basic right that we should be able to afford to Canadians, and I am proud of the measures being taken in Bill C-19 to ensure that we are continuing to build upon all of the important work we have done with respect to affordable housing over the past seven years.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech with interest as he connected Bill C-19 to international events.

I want to ask him something that relates to his role as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue. There were some moves against banks to tax their excess profits. Why is the government so reluctant to extend that tax on excess profits to the big box stores and gas companies that are profiteering while other Canadians are struggling to make ends meet?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills.

It is always an honour to stand in the House and speak to a number of measures, in this case it is one of the most important measures that a government could introduce, the budget implementation act, or the BIA. I remember when I was on the finance committee for a number of years, this was a very important time of year, when the BIA was sent to the committee for deep analysis and study. I know this year will be no different at the finance committee.

I want to take an opportunity to address Bill C-19 in the House, and to speak to it from, I suppose, a different point of view. I want to speak on economic matters but economic matters that are proposed in the bill that would impact Canada's foreign relations. I think it would be appropriate to begin, arguably at least, with one of Canada's most important voices on the international scene, and that is former prime minister Lester Pearson.

Long before he was a prime minister, in 1957, while accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, Lester Pearson said:

Of all our dreams today there is none more important — or so hard to realise — than that of peace in the world. May we never lose our faith in it or our resolve to do everything that can be done to convert it one day into reality.

This is a tremendous insight, obviously, one that Pearson believed in very strongly when he was speaking in 1957, and one that has occupied the attention of statesmen and even members of Parliament in democracies throughout the world. Canada is no different.

The question, the challenge, is how to best achieve this, particularly from the vantage point of a middle power such as Canada, a middle power that has tried to find its way, particularly in the post-World War Two order, surrounded as we are by superpowers, such as the United States, China and Russia. How exactly is it possible for a middle power to exert influence on the international scene so this goal of world peace could be possible?

The dilemma is a real one and one that could be achieved by looking at what Canada has done. I speak here not only in terms of the Pearsonian legacy of foreign policy, which is a strong and very proud tradition in the Liberal Party, but also of the real important voices from the Conservative Party through Canada's history who have sought to find a place for Canada in middle power terms.

One possible path forward that has worked is diplomacy. I think of Pearson, and I think of diplomats such as George Ignatieff and Saul Rae, and there are others I could point to as well. They, in their work as diplomats, found a way. They carved a way for Canada so we could exert influence on the international scene. That would involve, of course, peacekeeping. That is a great example of what Canada has done in the past to pursue this goal of international peace.

Another example would be working with international development organizations, specifically those non-governmental organizations that are on the ground, carrying out vital work in lesser developed countries, in countries where poverty is the experience of so many, or is the experience of the vast majority.

When we look at governments of the past, when we look at the government, we see governments that have funded, have helped to fund and worked with NGOs, which are pursuing those very laudable aims of economic growth and development, encouraging entrepreneurship, encouraging peace and bringing people together at the same time.

Since 2015, I have had the opportunity to visit a number of countries in my tenure as a member of Parliament, including Ukraine, and I wonder if there will be an opportunity later in questions where I could speak to that. Ukraine was one example, and there is also Colombia, Nicaragua, Kazakhstan, Poland and Latvia. I have had the opportunity to see NGOs, supported by the Canadian government, carry out that vital work. Through that, the goals of a middle power could be achieved, with that goal of ultimately coming back to peace.

Contributing to multilateral institutions is another key way that a middle power such as Canada could make a contribution to this outcome. Especially now, how relevant it is that we see Canada highly engaged in NATO.

I know there are voices out there that want us to do more, and yes, of course, we can do more. I think if we were to canvass the opinion of NATO allies and NATO leaders, we would find that Canada's contributions, specifically with respect to what is happening now, vis-à-vis Russia and Ukraine, is not just applauded, it is admired. We need to continue that work, and of course there are policy innovations that can help us move toward the path of peace and human rights, which ultimately underpin peace.

That brings me to the budget implementation act, or the BIA, Bill C-19. I am thinking of the Special Economic Measures Act, the SEMA, and the Magnitsky law, which takes its name from the great champion of human rights, Sergei Magnitsky, who lost his life for his advocacy at the hands of Vladimir Putin and his regime. Under those existing laws, property held in Canada by individuals involved in the undermining of international peace and security, or the gross and systematic violation of international human rights norms, can be seized. That property can, in fact, be seized by the Canadian government. There is a challenge, though, which is where the BIA comes in. What is exactly meant in the SEMA and in the Magnitsky act by the term “property”? How is that defined conceptually?

Under SEMA, for example, property is defined as any real or personal property. That is one way forward. Again, I go back to criticisms that have been raised before that this needs greater clarity and greater precision in the legislative language. Bill C-19 rectifies that and would add an extended definition if it is agreed to by the House, which I think and hope it will be. Should Bill C-19 pass, property would be defined as any type of property immovable or movable, tangible or intangible.

What does that mean in concrete terms? It means that property includes not just physical assets, such as a building, for example, or planes, homes, helicopters or jets, all the things that certain individuals, such as tycoons around the Russian regime, for example, are known to keep, but also money and, very importantly, virtual currency. Cryptocurrency would fall under this new definition and something called non-fungible tokens, which are, for example, digital art or audio recordings that can be found and purchased online. This is important because it is crucial that legislation along these lines keeps up with modern developments. I am glad to see the government recognizing that and moving in the right direction.

Most importantly, though, is the change that allows for seized assets to be sold by the Canadian government. Those assets that would be seized from individuals who have been found to be going against or somehow undermining international peace and diplomacy, or who are involved in the violation of international human rights, could be not only seized under this proposed change but also redistributed as compensation. They could be sold, to be simple about it, with the proceeds going to victims to advance goals of international peace and security in some way, or to assist the rebuilding of a foreign state after war. The post-war rebuilding process always proves to be very important. It is complex, to be sure, but very important.

Should this pass, I know that the government has said that certainly the aim would be to assist the Ukrainian people, the victims of Putin's war and, after the carnage that it has brought about for Ukraine, to assist the government in a massive rebuilding. Canada needs to be there and must be there as part of what some have called a “Marshall Plan”, envisioning what Ukraine could look like in terms of a project for the future. I say “project” in the sense that allies would come together and assist another vital ally, which is obviously going through a very difficult time.

Others have raised a point of checks and balances, so I am heartened to see that only a superior court justice would be able to give the order allowing for seized assets to be sold. I think that is quite crucial when it comes to ensuring that there are checks and balances on the decision to seize and sell an asset in the way I have described, the way the bill proposes.

Finally, I will conclude on this point: There has been a lot of commentary in the media and other circles that points to the fact that this amendment to the SEMA and the Magnitsky act comes in the context of the crisis in Ukraine. I would say that it sends an example for the world, and I am glad to see that Canada is the first G7 country to lead the effort. Hopefully, the other democracies pick it up and employ it as well.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise here to speak to Bill C-19, the budget implementation act.

This pandemic has been incredibly difficult for many Canadians, and now we have a housing crisis, rising inflation and a labour shortage, which are all adding to these difficulties. Our health care system has come close to a breaking point on several occasions. Thousands have died. Millions have been seriously ill. Doctors, nurses and all health care workers have been under unbelievable stress and physical exhaustion. I want to say a personal thanks to all of those who cared for us and our loved ones over the past two years and more.

Businesses and workers suffered through a series of lockdowns. Nine million Canadians found themselves out of work, without income and with no way to pay their rent, their mortgage and their grocery bills. Companies were in similar dire straits. Fortunately, this House came together to pass measures that kept people financially afloat and measures that allowed businesses to keep employees on the payroll. However, last year, we learned that still over half of Canadians were only $200 from insolvency at the end of every month, and that was before the housing crisis reached another level of unbelievable house prices, monthly rents and rental availability.

The NDP is focused on helping Canadians, making sure they get the health care they need no matter where they live or their level of income, making sure they can find a home they can afford, making sure they have the means to live out their senior years in dignity, and making sure that those Canadians who did well through the pandemic, some of whom made billions of dollars in profits, pay their fair share.

This is the first budget after the Liberals and the NDP announced their confidence and supply agreement, so I would like to highlight some of the gains that we achieved in this agreement by using our power here in the House of Commons to help Canadians.

It is fair to say that the big gains have come in creating a stronger health care system here in Canada. When we created the universal health care system that we are so proud of, several aspects of health care were left out. At the top of that list is dental care, so I am proud that we will be bringing dental care coverage to all Canadians who need it, through this agreement. It would start with free dental care for all children without coverage this year, and by the third year we would have dental care for everyone with a household income of less than $90,000 who does not have coverage now.

I have already spoken in this House about the impact this would have. It would be literally life-changing for so many lower-income Canadians, who would have access to dental care for the first time, access that so many other Canadians just take for granted. It would not only change people's lives, but it would save our broader health care system millions of dollars. Alex Munter, the CEO of the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, has told us that dental restoration is the most common surgery carried out in that hospital, restoration that is needed because of the lack of preventive care. This program would keep kids out of hospital. I have to remind Canadians that both the Liberals and the Conservatives voted down this exact initiative less than a year ago, so the NDP is very proud that it would move ahead to change lives for the better.

Similarly, the confidence and supply agreement ensures that universal pharmacare would be added to our health care coverage. Canada is the only country with comprehensive health care coverage that does not include prescribed medications in that coverage. This program would not only save lives, as 10% of Canadians simply cannot afford to fill their prescriptions, but it would save the Canadian economy more than $4 billion a year through the power of a single buyer when we purchase medications. More savings, over $10 billion per year according to some estimates, would accrue by simply keeping people out of hospital and keeping them healthier through proper medication.

I recently spoke here about the crisis in long-term care, so I will not go into detail, other than to say that one of the other points in our agreement was to bring a safe long-term care act, which would go a long way toward ensuring that our seniors can live in dignity.

The issue that is critical for many Canadians, certainly in my riding, is housing: the impossible cost of buying a house, the ridiculous rental rates and the extreme difficulty in even finding rental accommodation. My riding has an unenviable combination of high housing prices, with the average house price in my riding running at about $1 million, and low incomes. The average single income in my riding is around $30,000.

In our agreement with the Liberals, the NDP won an extension of the rapid housing initiative, which would add $1.5 billion in funding to build more than 4,500 affordable housing units.

We have also made the government's rental construction financing initiative actually work for renters across the country. Previously, this program, which is the biggest CMHC program for rental housing, was doing little or nothing to provide affordable housing. It was giving money to developers to build rental units that were then being rented at an average of 50% above the average market value, so we were giving out taxpayers' money to help developers charge excessive rent. The NDP has fixed this, to ensure that 40% of these units will be rented out at below 80% of average market rent. In my riding, that means the production of units that will be offered at $900 per month, compared to the former Liberal rates of $2,000 per month.

We still have more to do. The NDP has pledged to build half a million units of affordable housing over 10 years, to make up the effort lost over the past 30 years, after successive Liberal and Conservative governments got out of the affordable housing game. We will continue pressing the government to make these necessary investments so that all Canadians can have a roof over their head.

I will briefly mention that I am disappointed that this budget seems to do little for the fight against climate change. In particular, I have real concerns that billions of dollars will be given to highly profitable oil and gas companies to try to implement carbon capture technologies that will likely delay rather than hasten our shift to a cleaner energy future.

When balancing budgets, governments too often forget the revenue side of the equation. During the pandemic, most Canadians have suffered financially, while a few in the 1% have made extraordinary profits. The NDP had called for an excessive profits tax, as well as a wealth tax of 1% for those Canadians who have assets over $10 million, to make sure the costs of the pandemic are borne more by those who can afford it rather than have the burden fall on the majority of Canadians who have suffered.

While the Liberals did not agree to our reasonable request, they have agreed to levy a one-time excess profit tax of 15% for banks and a permanent 1.5% tax increase for banks. These two measures will recoup over $6 billion in taxes over the next five years. The NDP would have preferred that the excess profit tax be extended to big corporations such as big oil companies and big box retailers such as Walmart, which made a $3.5-billion profit in the fourth quarter of 2021 alone. We are also disappointed that these taxes are not included in this budget implementation act.

I will finish by mentioning one small victory in excise tax reform that stems from my private member's bill, Bill C-267, which would remove the alcohol excise tax from low-alcohol beer. Low-alcohol wine and spirits do not face this tax. None of Canada's trading partners charge this tax. My bill was meant to make a common sense change to the excise tax to level the playing field. The beer industry was paying more than $1 million every year in excise tax on low-alcohol beer. The beer industry and millions of Canadians who drink low-alcohol beer, and myself, are all happy to see this bill incorporated into this budget implementation act.

I was disappointed to see that other issues stemming from the changes to the Excise Act were not dealt with in this budget. Many wineries in my riding will be paying excise tax for the first time, since their exemption was eliminated after a challenge at the World Trade Organization. Wine Growers Canada has been calling for permanent trade legal support for the industry to match the supports provided by other major wine-producing countries. The government has offered temporary 18-month support, but I was hoping for a more long-lasting measure that would really make a difference in this important industry.

The NDP will continue working to make life better for Canadians. I believe this bill is a step in the right direction, but we have a long journey to go.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I would like to hear her thoughts about immigration and resources, particularly when it comes to temporary foreign workers.

I am a bit disappointed that there is not much about that in Bill C-19. There are a few general measures on economic targets, but they will not really affect Quebec, because Quebec makes its own selections in the economic classes. What we need is significant resources to process applications.

Again this morning, I spoke to an asparagus farmer in my riding who had asked to have his workers by April 23. He was so worried he would not get any workers at all that he was prepared to pay them to sit around and do nothing until May 10. Tomorrow is May 10 and he is still short six workers. That is a loss of $100,000.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to rise to speak to this issue and to Bill C-19. There is a lot to discuss, of course, and we have already talked about some of it.

It is really too bad that our debate time has been cut short, as we saw earlier. To say that we deplore it would be a massive understatement. The Liberals across the aisle do not like to debate. We saw this during the election campaign. Important bills were scheduled to be voted on, but the Liberals called an election and wiped the slate clean, killing bills like the one on the Official Languages Act. This means we have to start over on a number of important bills. They also prorogued the House two years ago. Now we have this important, mammoth bill before us, which does not even contain all the measures in the budget. Only some of them are included.

However, I am going to focus on the part that interests and concerns me the most. I think everyone in the House knows that I have risen here about a billion times to talk about the housing crisis.

In fact, there are four major crises in Canada at this time. We spoke about the language crisis earlier. My colleague from Salaberry—Suroît introduced a bill on that issue. It is an important issue for my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île, who is a staunch advocate for the French language in Quebec, as I and all members of the Bloc Québécois are. There is a major language crisis in Canada. The federal government does not want to acknowledge that French and English do not have equal status. That is a major problem.

Obviously, there is the health crisis, from which we are emerging. We are pleased and we are hopeful. Once again, the repercussions of the health crisis will be difficult to deal with. There are major problems in the area of mental health. Once again, even though it says it sent money during the crisis and one-time transfers to help the health care system in Quebec and across the country, the federal government is rejecting all the provinces' ongoing request to increase health transfers from 22% to 35%. This could help them deal with the next crisis. We are talking with organizations across the province, and another crisis is looming, the mental health crisis. It will be costly, and the federal government needs to get it through its head that this is a provincial jurisdiction. It is not up to the federal government to establish standards. It just has to sign the cheques. The provinces run the hospitals, pay the doctors and manage the system, and they need money because they know what they require. However, the money is in Ottawa.

The climate crisis is another crisis, and it is connected to the housing crisis, which is the main topic I want to talk about today and one of the topics I talk most often about in the House. The government has taken some small steps to address the housing crisis, as it has for the climate crisis. A year ago, in the span of about a month, the government increased its targets, which were around 30% before the latest budget. With its latest budget, the government wondered why it should stop there. Since the government was not going to meet this target anyway, it might as well increase it to 36%. The government increased the target to 36% but still had no way to reach it. The government did not know how it would meet its targets, but at 36%, it was not afraid of anything. On Earth Day, the government increased the targets to between 40% and 45%, still without backing them up with any measures. There are still no details about how we will reach those targets. The Liberals are not afraid of anything, so they are throwing out percentages and hoping to meet them. In the meantime, along came the Bay du Nord project, which will extract one billion barrels over 30 years. I remind members that Canada has never met a single one of its greenhouse gas reduction targets. Now, the government expects to reach a 40% to 45% target, but that is nonsense.

This brings me to the topic I wanted to talk about: housing.

On housing, the government is taking the same kind of gamble. In other words, it is offering up figures, any figures, and then crossing its fingers, closing its eyes, bracing itself and hoping everything works out. That is how the federal government is acting.

The budget says that Canada needs 3.5 million housing units to address the current crisis. We are not entirely sure how the Liberals came up with that number.

In a study published a few months ago, Scotiabank said that we would need 1.7 million housing units. I think the bank was talking about current needs, but the budget is talking about the government's projected needs to 2031 based on higher expected immigration numbers for the coming years. The government added 1.7 million housing units to the 200,000 to 300,000 people who would arrive each year and somehow came up with 3.5 million housing units, which is a significant target.

The budget actually contains an admission of failure, since it recognizes that Canada needs 3.5 million housing units in order to solve the crisis, but it does not say how the government is going to get there, just like the climate change targets. There are a few programs, figures and dollar amounts for dealing with the crisis.

The example of the rapid housing initiative is already a major problem and a scandal. The municipalities are creations of the provinces. When the federal government says again that it is going to send money directly to Matane, Rimouski, Quebec City, Longueuil or Valleyfield, it is bypassing Quebec.

At some point, the federal government is going to have to come to an agreement with Quebec on this. The last time it tried to negotiate with Quebec, it took three years, during which money was spent in Toronto, Vancouver, and Winnipeg, but nothing in Quebec—

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was saying that, even though the Bloc is in favour of the principle of the bill, many of the measures described in Bill C‑19 could do with being fleshed out.

That is what we will do in committee. My colleague, the member for Joliette, will make sure that every measure in the bill is examined and scrutinized so it can be passed with due diligence. Even though we support the bill in principle, we will still take the time to improve it in committee.

This bill includes several measures we feel are reasonable, emergency measures that, in all sincerity, I think are pretty good. Let us start with the extension of pandemic-related measures. We are in favour of this idea and always have been. Even now, many businesses need economic support to weather the pandemic. I want to make it clear that the Bloc Québécois has always supported targeted assistance.

We want businesses to be supported. As we know, the pandemic disrupted the various sectors of the economy in different ways. While some sectors are coping well, other sectors, such as tourism and hospitality, are still struggling. People have changed their habits and are not going back to the theatre, the movies or restaurants. It is great to be able to help certain sectors that have been especially hard hit by the pandemic.

The second urgent measure is the extension, by five weeks, of employment insurance for seasonal workers. Again, we commend this measure. The third urgent measure is the one‑time immediate payment of $2 billion through the Canada health transfer, in addition to $750 million for public transit.

Let us come back to the extension of pandemic-related financial supports. We are in favour of well targeted assistance. We agree in principle with this measure. I just want to point out that businesses have been approaching us for months. We contacted the government and wrote letters to the minister, but there is nothing in the short term to help the businesses affected by the semiconductor shortage. It is bad.

Businesses are being forced to lay off workers or shut down completely because they are missing an essential component needed for their products to function properly. I am talking about semiconductors. Even though I have asked the question several times in the House, there is still nothing to help these businesses in the short and medium terms. There may be a line or two in the budget about plans to potentially have this technology in Quebec or Canada some day. However, for now, there is nothing tangible; in fact, there is nothing at all for these businesses that are losing employees, losing jobs, losing expertise and even facing the risk of bankruptcy. This is unacceptable at this point in time.

The five-week extension of EI benefits for seasonal workers is all well and good, but I think many of my colleagues would agree that employment insurance needs to be completely overhauled. We would not have needed financial assistance measures during the pandemic if our employment insurance system were working properly. This is still not the case, and it is a real problem. One of my colleagues is working very hard on this issue and has made all kinds of proposals, but we all agree that the EI system is completely broken. The system is designed to ensure that people get the least amount of benefits possible, despite having paid into the system. It is just wrong that the system is managed by the federal government, when it is our money. It is unacceptable that it is so dysfunctional, when we have needed additional financial supports for nearly two and a half years. EI reform is critical, and it must be done now.

Lastly, the third measure that is urgent and warrants discussion today is the immediate one-time payment of $2 billion in Canada health transfers. We have been waiting and asking for this for quite some time now. Our health care system is suffocating. We have the know-how, but we need the money and the Canada health transfers with no strings attached right now.

We obtained $2 billion through the Canada health transfer with Bill C-19. However, that is our money. Why must we always beg for our own money?

Not only that, but it is also tied to $750 million to support public transportation. That is a good thing because public transportation took a big hit during the pandemic. Ridership on most public transit systems is very low. As I mentioned, low ridership is due to the fact that people have changed their habits and are still afraid of the virus, which continues to spread.

We need to upgrade this infrastructure and provide new options. More money is needed to support public transportation. I repeat that this money belongs to us and there should be absolutely no strings attached to it. It is not right that our money has strings attached to it.

We will ensure that the money that will be put to good use by the various provinces and Quebec will not have strings attached.

I will now digress for a moment to talk about the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, on which I have the pleasure of serving.

As we have been examining the public accounts in recent months, we discovered that there was information on how different departments provide funding or make expenditures. We know who they fund, where that funding goes and how much is being given. Departments are subject to certain accounting standards. The average person can see how any amount over $100,000 has been spent, where it was spent and how much was spent.

We recently discovered something that is quite significant. Crown corporations, such as Export Development Canada and the Business Development Bank of Canada, are not subject to these same accounting rules. That means that citizens will not be able to see how their money is being spent, for expenditures over $100,000, by Crown corporations, because these corporations are subject to IFRS. IFRS are internationally recognized standards, but they are used by the private sector and should not apply to the government. The public must have the information they need to see how expenditures over $100,000 are spent, who received the money, in what province and what it was used for.

Between 20% and 30% of all government spending goes through Crown corporations. That means it is impossible to know how much money is being handed over. However, we hear a lot about equalization. In the case of equalization, it is easier to have an approximate idea of how much is given and how much is received. There is a lot of emphasis on that, yet we do not know how much we receive in total in terms of government spending because the Crown corporations make it impossible know how much each province in Canada receives, which is unacceptable.

Until we know how much we are receiving, we demand that the transfers, our money, be given to us without conditions.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague, the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

Today we are debating Bill C‑19, a massive, 500-page bill that contains a little of everything. This bill could be considered an omnibus bill. However, it does not contain all of the measures from the budget statement. We expect to see another bill introduced in the coming weeks.

The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill, although a number of measures could have been, and would benefit, from being studied more carefully. Allow me to explain.

Although we agree on the principle of the bill, we will nevertheless wait to study all of its measures carefully in committee. We certainly will not agree to pass this bill so that we can finish far too early after debating it for just a few hours.

The House resumed from May 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Bill C-19—Time Allocation Motion

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I share concerns with how long it took to get Bill C-8 through this place. I also recognize and appreciate that the government House leader is a reasonable person.

However, let us be honest about what is in Bill C-19. Climate is mentioned only with respect to the climate action incentive's being delivered once a quarter as opposed to once a year. I do not see a section in here that implements dental care.

If this does move through time allocation, does it mean we will see more substantial climate legislation? Does it mean we will see legislation for the Canada disability benefit? Over 100 MPs from all parties in this place have made clear they want to see the government move forward fast on that.

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

This has no bearing on you, Mr. Chair, but again, I received a copy. There was a nice binding, and I started going through it. I went through page after page because I couldn't get a clear answer on whether the ways and means motion was the exact same as in Bill C-19. We know from finance officials that it wasn't.

Again, on the courtesy copy that MPs were given in the opposition lobby—and again it's not your fault, Mr. Chair, and not reflective of the clerk or anyone other than the government—I've actually looked into doing a question of privilege, but you know what, Mr. Chair? It's already been said by the Speaker that these are considered “courtesy copies”.

Well, I'll tell you what: When a courtesy copy is not the whole bill, when we find out that the technical briefing does not cover the whole bill, and then we have a subamendment that actually allows for no clause-by-clause consideration by these committees that are actually far more versed in these things, Mr. Chair, that's again why I think Conservatives have said that we will simply bring in our critics and we believe that we can do most of the work to hold this scrutiny to account.

But we object—and I will say categorically object, Mr. Chair—to a parliamentary secretary bringing in a motion on a good faith amendment exercise by our colleague MP Ste-Marie, only to then find out that they are going to add a subamendment that actually does not do what it is intended to do. It is simply a deflection by the government. This is another step in a bad faith process, and I'm sorry that I have to see it, because the finance committee is one of the finest committees I've served on.

We had multiple witnesses who were supposed to speak here today, and I do hope that they are not personally insulted. We had many members decide to do points of order or make certain references in their comments, Mr. Chair, so I hope I'm not going to get points of order or be interrupted by anyone when I say this: They said specifically that if we just stopped talking, we could go hear them, but that's not what occurred. Either we would have had to cut the time for them to be able to speak their minds in their presentations or we would have had members here who never would have had the chance. Had members supported my motion to adjourn the debate, I think we all would have been better off by having heard those testimonies in full, and then we could have simply discussed the business of the committee, such as this particular amendment put forward by the parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Chair, I've said a number of times today that in the way this government operates, parliamentary secretaries again have started to move in what I feel is an interventionist way, and now we have the parliamentary secretary actually trying to push out work and trying to direct other committees so that he and his minister can look like they're making good faith efforts. I think it's a real shame, and they need to be called out for that.

Mr. Chair, I've made a number of points here. I do hope that Liberal members are right now pulling out their phones and are right now texting Terry Beech and saying: “MP Beech, this particular motion is not what we think it is. Maybe we should think about removing it.” Then maybe we should go back to MP Ste-Marie, who has already said that he has other amendments to try to make this process better from his viewpoint.

I do hope that members, especially those Liberal members, are reconsidering my arguments, are making their own arguments directed to the parliamentary secretary and are asking the parliamentary secretary to put them in charge. At one point this Liberal government was in its sunny ways approach. Now, as my colleague from Abbotsford has said, they're in the spendy ways approach, trying to boss around committees to push through billions of dollars of spending that quite honestly will not be reviewed in the proper way it should be.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to come to an end. I'm happy to answer any questions other members may have for me, but again, I have to say that the process has to be fair, and this particular deception by the parliamentary secretary..... He's been given a hard task. It's a hard task being the parliamentary secretary. It's a hard task being the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary, but we have to call it out as we see it.

Thank you.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Here are the facts, Madam Speaker. Two concurrence motions have been moved: one on fisheries and one on ethics. There was an important issue with respect to fisheries coming out of committee and, of course, important issues as they relate to the scandalous behaviour of the government on ethics.

Bill C-8 was introduced December 16, and we had 10 weeks when the House was not sitting. What did the Liberals expect for the fall economic statement, when we are not going to have debate on this?

The other thing we are seeing is that before the coalition agreement with the NDP, the NDP sided with the government 89% of the time on votes. Since that coalition agreement, it has sided with the government 95% of the time. It is not surprising to me that I am hearing the NDP House leader parroting the talking points of the government.

The fact is that we are seeing a decline in democracy. This is the government's attempt to seize complete control over this place on important legislation, such as Bill C-19, when members have the right to speak and members have the right to move motions. We have those rights because these are important issues to Canadians.

Will the government House leader just admit that he is contributing to a further decline in democracy in this country, and that Canadians did not vote for a coalition agreement between the NDP and the Liberals? They actually voted for an effective opposition, including the Conservative Party, which, by the way, is the official opposition: Her Majesty's loyal opposition. We will continue to do our job, despite the fact that the government does not want us to do it.

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

Yes.

The subamendment to the amendment, to me, at the surface level, seems like it is a good faith exercise, but unfortunately, it's not.

Again, that's not on Mr. Beech. I know that he has a job to do. In fact, Mr. Chair, as a former parliamentary secretary I used to joke when people asked what I did. I'd say, “Well, there are really two types of parliamentary secretaries, and they both burn shoe leather. One shines the shoes of their minister, and the other one gets work done.” I'll let Mr. Beech decide which one he is.

With regard to this, the good faith nature of Mr. Ste-Marie's original amendment was to have a thoughtful scrutiny of several areas of Bill C-19.

On Bill C-19, I think it's important to get something on the record, Mr. Chair, because I've been raising concerns right from the very beginning. You will remember better than anyone that in front of this committee, we had officials from the Department of Finance. I had asked specifically, because we had a technical briefing by the parliamentary secretary on the ways and means motion, whether everything that was covered in that technical briefing was in Bill C-19, and they said no, there were other additions. We have yet to hear back from Department of Finance, and that is raising some questions.

I'll tell you what else concerns me. The copy that I have in this place is what I received as a courtesy copy. I went online, Mr. Chair, and found that there was a whole section from page 421 onward that simply cuts off. Here's page 421 in my copy; notice that it just goes blank. I find out at this late juncture that there are a large number of clauses in here, and even some charts and some areas with regard to duties on vaping products and qualifying flights for remote communities, and then a whole schedule on a table of weeks of benefits for seasonal workers.

I have to say that this process by this government has not been a good one, and that's where I see a pattern. Nixon used to say something to the effect that he was paranoid but that people were actually going after him. I guess I'm paranoid, but I see a pattern here. We see time and time again that the government gives us a courtesy copy, but it's not the whole bill. The government does a technical briefing, and it's not the whole bill.

Now, the parliamentary secretary has made a subamendment to a good faith initiative by Ste-Marie, and it is not in good faith, Mr. Chair. These are all huge challenges that members of Parliament have faced in this process.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by noting that I have supported time allocation motions in the past and we had a sufficient number of speakers. I will also mention, on the point by the government House leader, that I have been similarly concerned by some of the motions for concurrence we have seen here over the past week. That being said, my understanding is that we have had 11 speakers so far on Bill C-19 at second reading, out of 338 members in this place. This is a substantial piece of legislation. As we have heard from the Bloc, there are 452 pages.

How can we ensure that sufficient debate is provided? If the government House leader is concerned with some tactics from opposition parties, why is the response to those tactics to further erode the quality of debate that we can have in this place?

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

Madam Speaker, I knew that this time allocation motion was coming, but I did not think it would be moved so soon. It is important for people to know that we have not yet even had five hours of debate on Bill C-19, which is a big bill with numerous measures. Many sectors have been calling us after seeing the budget. We need to debate this big, important bill, and five hours is not enough time.

I am surprised because I think this demonstrates carelessness and contempt on the part of the government. The Liberals are saying that we have debated this long enough, and they are eager for the bill to be passed. We, too, are eager for it to pass, but debating bills is part of our job. I am therefore very surprised, and even appalled, that this motion was moved today when I was not expecting it until later.

I think that is an exaggeration. I think the government is counting on its tacit agreement with the NDP to prevent meaningful and thorough debate, especially in the case of Bill C-19. This is not a small bill; it is 452 pages long and the Standing Committee on Finance has already begun its study.

This is not a question, but I will say to my colleague that it is a bit discouraging to see that the leader continues to be contemptuous of the legislative work that we have to do here in the House.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not quite surprised by this. The only thing surprising me is that the motion was not seconded by the NDP House leader.

This is just amazing to me. This is a government that argued with its coalition partners in the NDP about Motion No. 11. What Motion No. 11 was going to do was expand the time, give more opportunities for members to speak by expanding the hours, and yet, with just two and a half days of debate, the government moved time allocation on an important piece of legislation, doing the exact opposite of what it argued Motion No. 11 was going to do.

Before the Liberals spare us the false indignation of obstruction, in fact what the government is doing is utilizing this motion to obstruct members of Parliament from doing their job, which is providing oversight and scrutiny on important pieces of legislation. Therefore, it is not surprising to me that we are at this point. I know the opposition House leader is going to go on about Friday and about the movement of a motion to committee, splitting up a bill. We called a vote. There was no reason for Bill C-19 not to be debated, except the filibuster by the government.

My question is a simple one. Is it not true that the government House leader and the Prime Minister, in fact, because of this tag-team partnership with the NDP, actually have exactly what they want and need in this Parliament, and that is an audience, not an opposition?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

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

In essence, ultimately all of us are going to have to monitor every single meeting that happens there, or hear from the testimony, and then draw in amendments. To me, that doesn't seem like a great process. If those committees had the ability to do clause-by-clause consideration, it would make a lot more sense.

Lastly, Mr. Chair, we have witnesses today. I believe that you, Mr. Chair, in good faith, worked with the clerk to arrange for them to be here. Can you perhaps arrange for a future committee business meeting and show some respect for those witnesses who are here to speak to Bill C-19 and are prepared for that?

I move that we adjourn this debate and allow you, Mr. Chair, to go to the witnesses.

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

That's excellent.

This is the next question I have, Mr. Chair. Obviously, the committee itself has chosen to do a prestudy of Bill C-19. Inevitably one may ask, particularly thanks to the confidence agreement and the supply agreement that the NDP has with the Liberals, whether, if they were in such a mood—because we know that when the Prime Minister gets into a mood, he gets what he wants—it is possible that the House might just send Bill C-19 in its entirety to us, and where does that put our committee?

Are we actually asking these committees to do clause-by-clause study, and what if that's in conflict with the order from the House? Maybe you and the clerk could speak to that.

I don't want to agree to do something, Mr. Chair, that ends up actually running against the House.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I thank Mr. Beech for providing us with the text of his subamendment in French; I am very pleased.

I apologize for not putting my proposed amendment in writing in both official languages. Incidentally, Mr. Chair, I thank you for accepting it.

With respect to the subamendment, I agree with the proposal to divide the bill among the various committees. However, I have reservations about the deadline, as I said before.

Politics is the art of compromise without surrendering principles. I can accept the subamendment, but I would have preferred, as Mr. Chambers has just pointed out, that there be no deadline for the other committees or that there not be a later date. I am uncomfortable with that, but if that is the compromise we reach, I am prepared to accept it. However, I am not prepared to set a deadline today for the work of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C‑19.

I am prepared to vote on the subamendment and the amendment, and I will move another amendment to the main motion to remove paragraph (b), so that there is no limit to the committee's study at this time. We can come back to it if the work progresses well. After that, the other amendment could be put to the vote.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all members for their comments.

I certainly have been working diligently with all members in various phone calls over time to take into account all the needs, wants and desires, including trying to get more study time than we've had on average over the previous five years. In listening to the debate now, I've been feverishly working on language that I hope will meet the majority of needs for the committee.

I'd like to move a subamendment, I guess, to Gabriel's amended motion, and I think it would be best if I read in the entire language of a revised motion. I have to get this over to the clerk as well. Let me read it and see if this meets the needs of members. It would be:

That:

(a) the Chair of the Committee write, as promptly as possible, to the Chairs of the following standing committees to invite them to study the subject matter of the following provisions of Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures,:

(i) the Standing Committee on International Trade, Part 5, divisions 9 of the Bill;

(ii) the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, Part 5, divisions 15, 16 and 17 of the Bill;

(iii) the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, Part 5, divisions 26, 27, 29 and 32 of the Bill;

(iv) the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, Part 5, division 23 of the Bill;

(v) the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Part 5, divisions 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the Bill;

(b) for the standing committees listed in (a),

(i) recommendations in relation to the provisions considered by them, in a letter to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, in both official languages, no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, May 20, 2022;

(ii) if a standing committee listed in (a) chooses not consider the subject matter of the provisions, it advise the Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance by letter, in both official languages, no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, May 13, 2019.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

—Mr. Chair, of course, it gives me the right to respond to that point of order.

All that is to simply say that I have continually referred back to Mr. Ste-Marie's efforts to spin out different elements of this budget implementation bill in order to make sure it goes to the committees that are best positioned to review those issues.

The reason that is the case is that this government has tabled an omnibus bill. This is not exclusively a spending and taxation bill, as most budgets are; this is an omnibus bill that is basically a grab bag of issues that the government has decided to push into a budget bill, and it's providing us with great frustration because we can't exercise the oversight we're supposed to.

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

Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, the parliamentary secretary has now gone from trying to tell just this committee what to do to telling multiple House of Commons committees how to do their work.

In fact, Mr. Chair, I think you out of all people would know, having worked so closely with the clerk, that everyone wants to come to finance. We're one of the busiest committees. There are other committees, such as industry, that are extremely seized as well. To suddenly say that you have 11 days to report back on major areas means members would have to stop what they're doing, immediately start a call for witnesses and then immediately start planning sessions. By the time they even got to the first meeting, we probably already would have hit that hard deadline of May 20. That is patently unfair to those other committees.

I totally understand that the member from the Bloc Québécois, MP Ste-Marie, is honourably trying to do his job, Mr. Chair, and trying to work with this and find a way so that he can have his concerns raised in front of those different committees, but you know what? Conservatives have been taking a different approach right from the start. You will know that we've been bringing in shadow ministers who have specific responsibilities to ask questions of the officials specifically on Bill C‑19. We will continue to do that. Unfortunately for my friend from Quebec, MP Ste-Marie, even though his heart and his temperament are 100% in the right place, to have the parliamentary secretary now compound the damage that I think this government is doing to the independence....

Last week, Mr. Chair, as you will remember—you were there in question period—I asked specifically the Minister of National Revenue if she would support a Conservative motion, my colleague MP Stewart's motion, about the concerns of allegations around advance pricing arrangements at CRA. She said, “Oh, well, the member knows that we don't take opinions at all on who comes before committee.” Well, I guess the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance certainly doesn't mind telling the finance committee what to do. Our parliamentary secretary sure doesn't seem to mind telling other committees what to do. I think that's a bit of a shameful process.

Look, I'm not going to make it personal. I know that Mr. Beech as a parliamentary secretary has a job that he is given. I would simply suggest to him to maybe reflect on the points, because it's a long way from when he was elected in 2015, when parliamentary secretaries could come into the room, listen to the debate and maybe have conversations on the sidelines with their other members of Parliament. They would not be voting members.

That changed in 2019. They became voting members.

Now it has changed yet again, Mr. Chair. Now we have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance dictating not just what the finance committee will do but actually what multiple independent parliamentary committees will do, at the drop of a hat. I think it's not a good faith request that he's made of MP Ste-Marie. Not for one second would I hold it against Mr. Ste-Marie—not in any way, shape or form—that he would be as mad as heck at this government for how they are treating this parliamentary process, and particularly this budget implementation act in this committee, so I would—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will speak to the motion. Bill C‑19, which is the budget implementation bill, contains a whole host of measures and legislation and hundreds of pages. We have had discussions about this. My intention is to ask my committee colleagues that we take the time to consider the implications of each part of the motion.

During the pandemic, the House rushed through government bills, and often had to come back with other bills to correct deficiencies that had not been identified. This is because we did not have time to study every implication of the proposed legislation. The 10‑day paid leave provision is reappearing in Bill C‑19 today because it had been worded improperly.

There are a lot of items in this bill. One of my major concerns is the application of the luxury tax. As I have often said, I am very much in favour of it in principle, as I think most of my colleagues are, but I have serious concerns about the impact on the manufacturing sector that we would not have taken into account. There has been no impact assessment on that. My Conservative colleagues have talked about the impact of this tax on the shipbuilding industry, particularly with regard to ship maintenance. I have talked a lot about the impact on aircraft. I hope that the committee will eventually suggest amendments to the proposed bill to the minister so that the manufacturing sector is not overly affected by this new tax.

We understand the government's intention in terms of passing this bill by the end of the parliamentary session, but as there is a huge amount to consider, I would suggest two solutions. The first is to work overtime in committee to study each section in depth. In that case, I would ask my colleagues who are the spokespersons for their parties on different issues to appear before the committee, accompanied by their witnesses, so that everything is dealt with properly.

The alternative, which has often been used in the past, would be to divide the study of the bill among various committees in the following way.

The Standing Committee on International Trade could consider, among other things, division 9 of part 5.

The Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, on the other hand, could consider divisions 15, 16 and 17 of part 5.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities would consider divisions 26, 27, 29 and 32 of part 5, which deal with various aspects of employment insurance.

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration would deal with division 23 of part 5 relating to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Finally, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights would review divisions 18, 19, 21 and 22 of part 5.

I know that other committees have a lot of work and studies to do, but we are dealing with a major piece of legislation from the government here, and it deserves the full attention of members.

On Mr. Beech's motion, at this time, I am uncomfortable with setting a date for completion, as we have not had an exhaustive discussion and there are many implications related to the legislation being discussed in mammoth Bill C‑19. I would therefore be in favour of removing this part. I would also be in favour of dividing the study between various committees. I understand what that means for the other committees, but I think it is necessary to get to where we want to go.

So I am proposing an amendment to the motion. I have not drafted it yet, but it is to divide the study of the bill among the committees that I named earlier.

If it is convenient for everyone, I can name them again, speaking slowly.

I suggest that we refer part 5, division 9 to the Standing Committee on International Trade for consideration; part 5, divisions 15, 16 and 17 to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology; to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, divisions 26, 27, 29 and 32 of part 5; to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, division 23 of part 5; and to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, divisions 18, 19, 21 and 22 of part 5.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, members. As I was saying before, I hope everyone had a tremendous Mother's Day.

As we all know, I circulated a motion last week with regard to our study on the budget implementation act. After speaking with members from all parties, I believe we have majority support to proceed in this matter.

I therefore move the motion as circulated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 43 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting on the subject matter of Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021.

Alleged Interference of the Government in the Work of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the short time that I have, I will just remind the House that all of today could have been avoided had the question been put. We would have had a vote on Monday. We could have resumed the government legislation and debated Bill C-19, but instead, in a shockingly funny situation, the government moved time allocation on itself.

I know that the member for New Westminster—Burnaby showed his complete indignation to the fact that petitions have not been read. The member supported the government moving to orders of the day all week. That is why they were not.

I am seeking unanimous consent, and I hope that the others will agree, to move that the House proceed to presenting petitions today.

Bill C-19—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Furthermore, I am tabling the government's responses to Questions Nos. 409 to 417.

Criminal Code

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset that I am very disappointed that we are at this juncture today. Bill C-5 is a very important piece of legislation, and I can walk the House through my perspective on this.

I want to confirm that I will be splitting my time with the member for Whitby.

When Bill C-5 was introduced back in December, we heard from a number of different organizations and people who had been directly impacted by systemic racism. I realize that not everybody in this House understands, and not every party in the House recognizes what systemic racism is, but it is a lived reality for many Canadians.

All I have to say is that if we look at what The Globe and Mail has reported over the last three days, we will find a very coherent set of news pieces that talk about systemic racism. For example, it included that 50% of women who are incarcerated within the criminal justice system are indigenous, whereas indigenous people only make up 4% of Canada's population. If we look at Black Canadians, we know they are disproportionately represented within the criminal justice system.

This is one of the reasons why we brought forward Bill C-5. It includes a number of mandatory minimum penalties that were struck down by the Supreme Court for their unconstitutionality. We have also brought forward very important amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

After several days of debate, including at committee, we are at a stage now where Bill C-5 will be going through what is called clause-by-clause as of May 17 and May 20. We have three more meetings, the first of which is supposed to start in about 10 minutes, and we will have two subsequent meetings next Tuesday and Friday. As of two days ago, all parties represented, the Liberal Party, the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives, agreed that we would have two more meetings as of this week to conclude the study on Bill C-8, so as of next Friday we will conclude the study.

We have had so many witnesses come and speak about the impacts of the criminal justice system, especially with respect to mandatory minimum penalties, on racialized and indigenous people. We had the president of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers speak about his personal experience: It was very powerful testimony of how he felt he was impacted by the criminal justice system.

At this stage of the game, to have the bill split into two parts is completely unacceptable. It is not a routine motion on a Friday afternoon. This warrants debate. This is a bill that is fundamental to who we are, as Canadians.

We may reject the notion of systemic racism, and I respect that because I am not here to educate people on what systemic racism is: It is a lived experience for many people in this country. Our legacy of colonialism, and what has happened with indigenous and many racialized people in Canada, will speak to systemic racism. It is a lived experience. It is not up for debate. I am not here to educate, but the reality is that people came to committee, they shared their lived experiences, they showed us and demonstrated why this has had a harmful impact on particular groups of people.

That is why it is so disingenuous for the Conservative Party to bring this forward today. This is after we had consensus. We were very particular not to have a vote on this, because the bill is so important and so fundamental. We did not vote on it, but we compromised. In fact, the Conservatives wanted eight meetings, we wanted six, so we compromised and said seven in the interest of getting consensus. That is how we are here today.

After today, we have two more meetings to conclude the study. We have very important witnesses who are going to speak about the bill in its totality. If we split the bill, we will essentially lose what we are trying to achieve here. It is not a frivolous PMB or a frivolous issue for us to dispose of on a Friday afternoon without any debate.

For us to be here at this juncture on a Friday is completely disappointing. We do have a budget implementation act, and I spoke to it just before we broke about an hour ago for question period, and I, in fact, have several minutes more to speak to C-19.

With respect to Bill C-5, the way that this has transpired, I believe, just speaks to the fact that the Conservative Party is absolutely not ready to deal with systemic racism. It is not ready to deal with smart criminal justice policies. If we look at places where they have implemented mandatory minimum penalties, such as the United States, which had, at the height of it, the largest number of mandatory minimum penalties, they are now rejecting this notion because it is something that impacts racialized people. It particularly affects Black communities in the United States.

Today, we have an opportunity in Canada to address this issue in a very meaningful way and in a balanced way. While I know that Bill C-5 may not have gone far enough for many, it is one that fundamentally will change the criminal justice system and make sure that we have smart policies, one that ensures that people are able, if they do not pose a danger to the public, to continue their sentence in a community with supervision. It also ensures that they are able to get the right supports in order to continue with their lives, so that their lives are not disrupted, and they are not in a maze of criminality among those who are in prison.

This is very smart and balanced criminal justice policy, one that I believe Canadians want us to embrace, and one that has, for far too long, impacted vulnerable communities.

I believe that the splitting of this bill will be fundamentally wrong, and it will be the wrong approach. I would say it would be a complete failure on the part of the House to address something that has been so pronounced in our country. All we have to do is look at the annualized reports from the office of the correctional investigator, who painstakingly, year after year, demonstrates that the numbers of those who are in penitentiaries in Canada are, increasingly, young Black men, indigenous men and indigenous women who, as of last December, surpassed 50% of the prison population.

What I ask today, and what I ask the House, is that we continue on pursuing Bill C-5 in its entirety as one bill, and that we continue to have our witnesses, who have been very thoughtful. While I may not agree with all of them, I think they have been very thoughtful in the way they presented this, and we look forward to ensuring that the matter comes back to the House. I welcome the opposition to have a robust debate on this and continue the debate on Bill C-5 that we had earlier this year and be able to come to, hopefully, a consensus, if not a vote, that can make sure the bill passes through the House and the Senate.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, to follow on the question from the member for Barrie—Innisfil, I wonder if we should not have just quickly put the question.

I hear the parliamentary secretary speaking not to the motion, but to Bill C‑19, so he is preventing us from debating Bill C‑19.

Does that not show that we should have simply gone directly to putting the question on the motion before the House?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister would be proud of this member for his intervention today. The Prime Minister refers to spreading disinformation quite a bit.

Let us go back to what actually happened here. The member for St. Albert—Edmonton, who is a member of the justice committee, proposed the motion during Routine Proceedings to split Bill C-5 at committee to allow the committee to effectively do its work. I then stood up and said that we want to put the question, which means we want to put it to a vote. That vote would have happened on Monday. There would have been no need for debate. There would have been no need for the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader to stand up and do this filibuster, and I suspect there are going to be others as well. They could have easily gone to Bill C-19 to debate it. I am guessing that maybe either the whip of the Liberal Party or the House leader has called the House leader of the NDP to prepare him to speak to this just to filibuster this.

Let us be very clear about what happened. We put the question. We could have voted on this on Monday and we could have gone to Bill C-19.

This is not a question, but more of a comment. I am curious as to why the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has decided to filibuster his own piece of legislation to delay time so that we cannot get to Bill C-19. It just does not make any sense.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, having gone through that, I should be given a bonus five minutes, I would suggest.

At the end of the day, the Conservatives like to play their games, and we saw that just now. They do whatever they can to play a game, cause distractions and lose the focus on what I believe and the government believes is important to Canadians, such as the budget and the budget implementation bill. We do not get very many bills that are more important than the budget implementation bill, something that invests billions and billions of dollars into supporting Canadians in all sorts of different ways. That is what we were supposed to be debating today. On a Friday afternoon, the Conservative Party, Canada's official opposition party, wants to play games.

As much as the Conservatives want to focus on their games and their character assassinations, I can say that all members of the Liberal caucus will continue to have their focus on Canadians and the people of Canada first. That is the reason why we are very excited about Bill C-19, no matter what sorts of games might be played by the Conservative opposition. We understand how this budget is going to have a profoundly positive impact on building a stronger, healthier Canada. We will continue to support the middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, and push aside the games. That is the assurance that I would give members.

I do not support this motion. Bill C-5 should stay as one bill, as was the intent.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member were actually listening, it is 100% purely relevant. Prior to their cousin in the Bloc's interruption, I was speaking specifically to the motion. After the Bloc's interruption, I made references to why the Conservatives are trying to change the topic to prevent us from being able to talk about C-19, and my Conservative friend got all upset and stood up to say that I am not being relevant. The Conservatives really need to start putting on their thinking caps.

At the end of the day, what we should be debating today is the good-news budget. There is no doubt that there are many things within it which they can raise, but they are the ones who have chosen not to want to debate it today. Instead, they want to have a discussion or a debate on a motion dealing with why we should split into sections a government piece of legislation through this particular motion.

It is interesting because, as I was pointing out, there are different approaches to justice. There is a Conservative approach versus our Liberal government's approach to justice.

I highlighted the one difference regarding incarceration, but that is not the only one. We have confidence in our judicial system. We recognize the independence of our judges and the judicial system. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have a difficult time with that. They really and truly do.

They believe that if we cannot trust judges, we put in minimum sentences. The legislation they are attempting to split up, and increasing the number of votes for, is a reflection of some of the reforms the Minister of Justice has been working for a good period of time now. He has been looking and listening to the different stakeholders, working with different jurisdictions, provincial or others, within the civil service.

I know that we just have to listen to question period and we can understand that the Conservative Party has a lack of faith and trust in our civil service, but that is not shared universally. We recognize the hard work and the efforts that our civil servants put in, whether it is in passport offices or in ministerial offices formulating legislation and ensuring the type of legislation we bring forward is ultimately for the betterment of Canada.

That is what we are seeing here. I have had the opportunity, in the days in which I was an MLA, not only as a provincial justice critic, so I have fairly significant experience in dealing with justice-related issues, but also as the chair of the Keewatin youth justice committee for a number of years. The youth justice committee was where I learned a great deal about how communities can be involved in ensuring that justice is not just being seen as being done, but is in fact done.

One of the best ways I have seen this is through restorative justice, where we get the victim and person who committed the offence together, and that does happen. When it does happen, we see it as a good thing, because often through that process, we see that the victim will get a greater sense of satisfaction. Now, obviously, that does not work in all situations.

The youth justice committee would often have young offenders come before it. Committee members would listen to what the young offender has to say and come up with a disposition in terms of what the consequences should be for that young person for whatever offence was committed. To give a specific example, let us take shoplifting. We all know that shoplifting is a bad thing. However, because of the justice committee, it is personalized so that the victim, a store in this case, would have the opportunity to provide input from the victim's perspective, and then the offender would come before individuals in the community who are, in essence, honorary probation officers.

I raise this because, even at that level, there is a certain amount of expertise that is provided from constituents, from people who live and work in our communities. They get a good assessment of the environment that this young person was in, and through that assessment, they are able to give a disposition that is more fitting for the individual. I use this as an example because we can take some of the principles from that example and apply them even to a courtroom, where there are a judge, lawyers, a victim and an offender.

When we take a look at the legislation that the Conservatives want to divide, they are saying that if person X commits crime Z, that person has to serve a minimum amount of time. They want to override everything that has been said in the courtroom. They are saying to the judge that they do not have the confidence in the judge to get an evaluation of the situation that might have ultimately caused the crime and led to the actual offence itself.

When I think of minimum sentences, I think in terms of limitations. At times, there is a need for minimum sentences. However, the idea that we need to review them and make some changes is long overdue. We need to recognize that there is systemic racism within our communities. Not to consider our courts and our institutions when we think of the issue of racism would be a huge mistake.

I was not in committee during the discussions on second reading of the bill, but I suspect we would find a number of witnesses who recognized that systemic racism is found within our courts, and one of the ways we can minimize some of that racism is by looking at ways in which we can address the issue of minimum sentences.

When we really stop and think about it, the motion being brought forward by the Conservative Party does two things. One, it addresses the specifics of Bill C-5 in wanting to divide it up. One could question the motives of trying to do that. Is it as simple as having—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough, we now have the “double blue”, the “true blue” and the “light blue”, with the Bloc being the “light blue”, as one of my colleagues called them. They kind of like to work together to cause a little bit of mischief. On the one hand there is the Conservative Party, the leading party of the “double blue coalition”, moving a motion to prevent debate, and on the other we have the “light blue” or the “mini blue” trying to look at ways in which we can end the session for the day.

It is amazing, truly amazing just how much the Bloc and the Conservatives feel that we do not need to debate Bill C-19. Think about it. The Conservatives are saying they want to change the topic today, as they do not want to talk about the budget. I can appreciate why. I can appreciate why because, at the end of the day, there is so much good news in this budget that the Conservatives do not want to talk about it, and that is—

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

Madam Speaker, I am a little surprised the Conservatives would choose to move a motion of this nature. My understanding is that, once again, we are seeing the Conservatives hoping to be able to cause a little confusion and frustration with government legislation. That does not necessarily surprise me, but I must say that I am somewhat disappointed in the official opposition.

We started by talking about the importance of Bill C-19. It is the budget implementation bill. That is something that I think Canadians, as a whole, are very much interested in. After question period, we would normally go through routine proceedings and then get back to debate. The purpose of debate today, I had thought, was to continue the discussion on the budget implementation bill. Instead, the Conservatives went into the procedures of the day and pick Motion No. 78, which I will read to see what they are hoping to achieve by this particular motion. It states:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that, during its consideration of Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the committee be granted the power to divide the bill into two pieces of legislation....

Why would the official opposition move a motion of that nature on a Friday afternoon? It is surprising. The members opposite are very much aware of what was supposed to be debated today. Instead, they want to change the topic. They want to discuss separating out a bill and causing more votes on legislation that would ultimately make some significant changes to our justice system.

There is a significant gap between the approaches of the government of the day and the Conservative Party on the issue of incarceration. When we think of incarceration, we on the government benches, the Liberal Party, recognize that in a very real and tangible way there is a high percentage of people who become incarcerated in our jails who will ultimately come out of jail. To that degree, we need to recognize that it is better to have a system in place that ensures there is a greater likelihood of those people remaining in our communities and contributing in a positive way.

It is important that we recognize that. The Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to want to give an impression that the best way to keep Canadians safe is to put people in jail who break the law and keep them in jail. That is their speaking point. That is why we will often hear Conservatives talk about minimum sentences—

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is clearly on fire today, as is often the case.

Back to the question I would like to ask my colleague.

Bill C-19 establishes a tax for luxury items such as luxury cars, luxury boats and aircraft. People are either for or against this idea. The Bloc Québécois agrees with it.

However, during the pre-study in committee, the government and public service representatives informed us that no impact study has been conducted on the jobs and sales numbers for this manufacturing sector.

I would like to hear my colleague's views on that, but also, more specifically, on an aspect that is of great concern to us. The tax is supposed to apply to personal aircraft use. However, the structure of the tax suggests that it may apply to the business sector.

Think of the mining companies that want to transport their workers. It will be difficult for them to opt out. Moreover, for everything that is exported, the tax will have to be paid first before being refunded—

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for his speech.

The government is using Bill C-19 to implement a new tax on luxury items—

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

Madam Speaker, I want to salute my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable and thank him for his speech.

Bill C‑19 is the first budget implementation bill introduced by the Minister of Finance, which would implement certain measures of the budget.

This bill is more than 420 pages long and it extends far beyond the content of the budget. This bill talks about laws being enforced in space, in a galaxy not so far away. The next division talks about strip-searches in prison.

Does my colleague think there is a legitimate reason to include all kinds of other bills in an already massive bill? Why does he think the government is choosing this approach?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, and, of course, to my colleague's amendment.

First of all, I would like to quickly revisit what happened in the House this week. Every day, I have tried to get answers from government representatives on various topics, including the Emergencies Act and the government's desire to keep information confidential, and therefore hidden from Canadians, about the reasons why it invoked the Emergencies Act.

I also asked the Prime Minister about his knowledge of our country's justice system, specifically whether someone should be allowed to avoid a criminal charge because the act was allegedly committed a long time ago. I also asked about the current delays in accessing various government services such as passports, immigration, employment insurance payments or access to information about the Canada Revenue Agency.

All week, the Prime Minister and the rest of the ministers consistently failed to answer the perfectly legitimate questions I asked about issues that affect all Canadians. I asked questions that affect each and every member of the House on a daily basis because each and every one of us gets calls from constituents who are concerned about how long it takes to get a passport or how long they have to wait on hold to talk to agents at various government departments. Unfortunately, I got no answers, and the government has taken no action to inspire hope in the people dealing with these problems.

To make matters worse, yesterday, the minister responsible for Service Canada clearly invited people who cannot reach federal government services to try going through their MP's office. That is essentially taking a problem from over here and putting it over there, in hopes that the added delay will get people to wait just a little longer before they get an answer. That is unacceptable, and I hope the message we sent the minister, and especially her government, this week will be heard. People are sick of waiting and they are sick of this government's inability to make the right decisions. The right decision would be to let all federal employees go back to work doing what they were doing before the pandemic. The right decision would be to let federal employees go back to their offices so they can get back to a process that worked, sort of, but that at least gave people access to someone they could talk to on the phone and access to services. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening now.

I hope this message will be heard. The government says that it is in the process of reviewing the various health measures imposed on its federal employees. I hope that, one day, it will present us with a plan for getting back to normal and learning to live with COVID-19.

I remember very well that, at the time, we called on the Minister of Health to table any documents showing that the vaccine mandate and various other measures imposed on federal employees were based on science. Unfortunately, I still have not seen the Minister of Health or any other government minister table any documents in the House that would justify imposing these health measures or, more importantly, maintaining them, when every other country in the world is fully reopening their doors. Quebec is even going to lift its mask mandates almost everywhere on May 14.

Given what I just said, it should come as no surprise to anyone that I was rather disappointed with the budget the Liberal government tabled on April 7. This budget has Canadians shaking in their boots, for many reasons. It does not take an expert to realize that the highest inflation rate in 30 years poses a direct threat to the savings of young families, workers and seniors.

Over the past few weeks, and months for that matter, the cost of living has risen dramatically everywhere. The price of groceries, gas and housing is at record highs. Yesterday in Quebec, the price of regular gas passed the psychological barrier of two dollars a litre. The Conservatives had asked the government to temporarily eliminate the GST on gasoline as a small gesture of goodwill. This would have left a little more money in the pockets of Canadian and Quebec families. Unfortunately, the NDP-Liberal government said no.

There is no doubt that with rising inflation and interest rates, families are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. Small businesses are suffering from labour shortages, supply problems and rising costs on just about everything.

We need better leadership. Unfortunately, the government has none. In fact, when we ask members of this government for explanations, when we ask that they take action for young families and professionals or for young Canadians who are seeing their dream of homeownership completely disappear and go up in smoke because of rising interest rates and the cost of homes, which is scandalous, the Minister of Finance flat out dismisses all these claims and everything Canadians are going through by quoting us figures on Canada's performance globally.

According to the Minister of Finance, since Canada's global performance is so good, everyone in Canada is doing well. Families are not struggling and businesses are problem-free, because Canada's global economic record is so good. Families need not worry that milk, bread and everything else costs more at the grocery store, or that some products are hard to find. It is not so bad.

It is worrisome to hear such comments from the Minister of Finance of our country. It is insulting and very disrespectful to Canadian families. I hope that before the end of June the Minister of Finance will take two minutes to realize the magnitude of the extra financial burden that has been put on the shoulders of Canadian families and that she will stop reading talking points so she can finally respond to the concerns of Canadian families.

This is the first NDP-Liberal budget. Some may say that we had one before, because it was in fact the Liberals with the NDP, but we can now confirm that the NDP has joined forces with the Liberals and that this coalition, as the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions called it yesterday, has unfortunately done its job.

In this NDP-Liberal budget, there is $56.6 billion in new spending that has nothing to do with COVID-19 or anything else other than the Prime Minister's desire to buy a majority that he did not earn in the election that was called in the middle of the pandemic. As he did not earn a majority, he bought one, and that is costing Canadians $56.6 billion. Unfortunately, our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will have to pay for the decision made by the Prime Minister, who is putting his personal interests before those of Canadian families in order to remain Prime Minister of Canada as long as possible.

Naturally, for all these reasons, I will be opposing the budget, and I invite all my colleagues to do so for the good of all Canadians.

The House resumed from May 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I too want to thank all the officials for being with us today.

My first question is about the Copyright Act. There is a change under clause 276 of the budget implementation act. It talks about a period of “70 years”. Is the change from 50 years to 70 years? Can someone clarify that?

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

Thank you.

I will now move on to division 27 of part 5 of Bill C‑19, still on the Employment Insurance Act.

We are pleased to see that the government will support seasonal workers. However, once again, this is a renewal of a temporary measure to address a problem that requires a permanent solution. The government itself acknowledges this in its budget.

The Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion has been mandated to implement an EI reform plan by the summer, given that the temporary measures in the program end in the fall. So time is of the essence.

Mr. Pierre Céré, of the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses, had this to say: "We were expecting a concrete announcement, but that is not the case. We ask the question: are we postponing a possible reform to the next budget, in 2023, or worse?“

What are your observations on this?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all the officials from all the departments who are here today to answer our questions.

My first questions concern the Employment Insurance Act and relate specifically to divisions 26 and 27 of part 5 of Bill C‑19.

With respect to division 26, as I understand correctly, the bill seeks to ensure that previous intergovernmental agreements are respected. This is referred to in section 408 of the bill relating to part II of the Employment Insurance Act.

However, I wonder if the changes included in division 26 are not intended to circumvent these agreements by, for example, withdrawing existing federal assistance for employment support.

Could you shed some light on this?

[Jennifer Miller, Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was waiting for acknowledgement.

I can speak to these amendments on behalf of the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. The amendments that were proposed as part of the budget implementation act are the product of ongoing policy dialogue with stakeholders and the Competition Bureau dating back several years, and the Bar Association is included in those conversations. They're also informed by public stakeholder positions, such as those provided to parliamentary committee hearings and the ongoing policy dialogue on this important topic in the public sphere.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 42 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting on the subject matter of Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely, using the Zoom application. Per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10th, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members who are at their place during proceedings.

I'd like to take a few moments to make comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone and please mute it when you're not speaking.

For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of the floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I would remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Finally, I request that members and witnesses mutually treat each other with respect and decorum.

I would now like to welcome today's witnesses from the finance department. Please note that today's witnesses are here to speak about part 5 of the bill.

Today we have representatives from the Canada Border Services Agency; Canada Revenue Agency; Correctional Service of Canada; Department of Citizenship and Immigration; Department of Employment and Social Development; Department of Finance; Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development; Department of Indigenous Services; Department of Industry; Department of Justice; Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions; Privy Council Office and Treasury Board Secretariat.

Members, I will be suspending the meeting at approximately 5 o'clock or so to go in camera. It takes about five to ten minutes to make that switch.

Since we don't have opening remarks by any of our officials today, we are going to move right into rounds of questions. For the first round, we'll start with the Conservatives, who are up for six minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Chambers.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I understand my hon. colleague has a birthday coming up next week, so I wish him a very happy birthday between now and the next Thursday question.

On the question with respect to the ministers the member is requesting be present in the committee of the whole, I will be happy to get back to him on that.

With respect to extending sitting hours, I request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the sitting on Wednesday, May 11, 2022, be 12 o'clock midnight, pursuant to an order made Monday, May 2, 2022. I am learning that this is the member's birthday, so he gets an opportunity to celebrate in this august place.

This afternoon, we will resume second reading debate on Bill C-11 on broadcasting. Tomorrow and Monday, we will be continuing second reading debate of Bill C-19, the budget implementation act. Next Tuesday and Thursday will be opposition days, and we will return to the second reading of Bill C-11 on Wednesday.

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands.

Today, I am so proud to speak in the House to Bill C-19, the budget implementation act, to highlight some of the measures that would move Canada forward. This is a key piece of legislation that is important for Canada's economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

In my speech today, I want to focus on certain priority areas for my residents in Brampton South that I believe this budget responds well to. These are the issues I have heard through consultation, as well as at the doorsteps of my residents. I heard that we need to confront the challenges before us while continuing to build a stronger Canada. All Canadians want clean air, good jobs and a strong economy. Budget 2022 lays out our next steps to build a clean economy that will create good-paying jobs, middle-class jobs and concrete actions.

Last week, the Prime Minister was in Windsor to announce the recent $3.6-billion investment by Stellantis to retool and modernize its two plants in Windsor and Brampton. This means good new jobs in an innovative sector. These historic investments will create thousands of new jobs, specifically with the return of a third shift at both plants, and transform the plants into flexible, multi-energy EV assembly facilities ready to produce electric vehicles for the future. This government will help more Canadians drive zero-emissions vehicles by continuing to provide rebates for Canadians, rebuilding charging infrastructure that drivers can rely on, and supporting critical mineral projects for Canadian-made EVs and batteries.

Budget 2022 reiterates the $9.1-billion commitment presented in the emissions-reduction plan as we continue to deliver for Canadians and the economy. A key element of this plan is the electrification of public transit. Recently, the Canada Infrastructure Bank finalized an investment of $400 million to the City of Brampton for up to 450 zero-emissions buses through 2027. Brampton Transit is a great partner in this work. It is another great example of how we are building a greener city and healthier communities.

Since the start of this pandemic, the federal government has introduced significant investments to support Canadians and communities. This government is continuing with these targeted measures that will help meet the needs of our workers, our businesses and the Canadian economy so that it can keep growing stronger for years to come. These investments have worked. Canada 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. That is real progress to set up the Canadian economy for success, deliver good jobs and keep our air clean.

Shifts in the global economy will require some workers in sectors across Canada to develop new skills and adjust the way they work. I have seen this first-hand in Brampton South, where we have a diverse and resilient workforce. This is why I want to talk about upskilling and re-skilling. At the Brampton Board of Trade Federal Issues Forum, I heard from community leaders that skills training is the key to Canada's future prospects. I am glad that we are targeting high-growth business sectors with new strategic investments that will have a significant and positive impact on the regional labour force and long-term job growth.

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 our workers to jobs. The measures in Bill C-19, the budget implementation act, would build on these past investments. These measures include working with provincial and territorial partners on improving how skills training is provided in key areas.

One of those key areas is trades. Improving labour mobility for workers in the construction trades can help to address the labour shortage and ensure that important projects such as housing can be completed across the country. That is why Bill C-19, the budget implementation act, is proposing to introduce a labour mobility deduction. This measure would provide tax recognition on up to $4,000 per year in eligible travel and temporary relocation expenses to eligible tradespersons. Providing quality settlement services for workers is another important part of the budget.

I was proud to welcome the President of the Treasury Board to Brampton South recently to visit the Achieve organization. Its settlement workers told us about how important this budget's measures are to providing additional skills training and support services. Workers need to have the skills to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow. Bill C-19 would implement the plans proposed in budget 2022 after paying attention to the needs of Canadians as we set them up for success.

Budget 2022 lays out $2.6 billion for skills development, job training and related needs. It also supports cybersecurity technology for small to medium-sized businesses to help boost cyber-resilience. This is something I have been working hard on with Rogers Cybersecure Catalyst in my riding. Skills training will support Canadians in learning new skills to put to use in their careers and grow our workforce by addressing these barriers. We are building an inclusive economy for the 21st century.

When we talk about an inclusive economy, we have to talk about child care. This is why we are helping all parents, especially women, to have the ability to build both families and careers, because we know that child care is not a luxury. It is a necessity. This is something I heard at many doors when talking to residents. Too many parents across Brampton and across the country are struggling to find affordable, high-quality child care. That is why we have now signed agreements with all provinces and territories, including Ontario, which signed on in Brampton South last month. We are making $10-a-day child care a reality for families across the country, with a historic $30-billion investment. Businesses, economists and women are in agreement that we need more child care options and we need them to be flexible, affordable and inclusive. This agreement gets this work done.

We have heard of the challenges many Canadians have faced during COVID-19. Every Canadian should have access to quality health care. This government is taking action to work with the provinces and territories to invest in health care for everyone. We know that COVID-19 resulted in a backlog of surgeries, and some patients are facing longer wait times for surgical treatment. The government has announced the intention to provide provinces and territories with an additional $2 billion through our top-up to the Canada health transfers to address these backlogs. This would build on the $4 billion in support provided in 2021. Over the past two years, many non-urgent elective surgeries had to be postponed, and these investments will make a real difference in the lives of all Canadians when it comes to accessing high-quality health care services.

When we talk about this pandemic, we need to acknowledge that many women were hit hard. It is important to understand the implications of the pandemic, especially in the area of gender-based violence, which we have been studying in the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Budget 2022 proposes to provide more than $5 million to Women and Gender Equality Canada to enable provinces and territories to improve services and supports to prevent gender-based violence, and to support survivors. We need to ensure that all women are safe and have access to economic opportunities. That is exactly what we are doing.

In conclusion, by taking action with Bill C-19, we are building more homes and creating good-paying jobs for Canadians. Passing this bill would enable our government to continue this important work. That is why I urge all members of Parliament to support the passage of this bill.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, to the member across the way, I appreciate that.

I am pleased to rise today, not only as the member of Parliament for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, but also as the critic or shadow minister for indigenous services on behalf of the official opposition, to speak on the budget implementation act, Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the 2022 budget.

As I am sure many colleagues already know, I am a Conservative with libertarian leanings, and one of the predominant concepts of libertarian thought is the natural harmony of interests. It is predicated on the idea that individual interests are harmonious, in so far as acting in one's own interests furthers the interests of the community. In other words, it is the free market.

Another pillar of conservativism and libertarianism prompts groups to work out conflicts because of the benefit of joint prosperity. Farmers benefit from the prosperity of merchants. People benefit from competition between those merchants, and the resulting wealth creates jobs and opportunity.

In a system where everyone benefits, interests will naturally align. Only when government begins to hand out rewards based on political pressure do we find ourselves involved in an unresolvable conflict between groups that must contend for their piece of the budgetary pie.

That brings me to my first point of contention with Bill C-19. Rather than support indigenous people to achieve economic freedom from centuries of political oppression at its worst, and apathy at its best, the government has chosen to inflate the very bureaucratic system that purports reconciliation yet does everything it can to stymie it with the broken “Ottawa knows best” approach.

Recently, the first nations financial management board, a top-notch, indigenous-led financial organization that supports economic development for indigenous communities, wrote a letter to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. In that letter, the executive chair, Mr. Harold Calla, summed up the situation, using the example of housing. He stated:

While the budget makes significant investments in new housing, it does nothing to change the failed systems for getting homes built nor [does it] change the pay-as-you-go systems that [purport to] support First Nations housing.

Before I continue to quote more from Mr. Calla, I want to let the House know that I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain. I apologize for not kicking that off. I appreciate the help from the table in front of me for reminding me about that.

As I mentioned, rather than tackling those systematic inequalities that keep indigenous people in poverty, poor health and without adequate housing, the budget simply throws money out, hoping the problem goes away.

Mr. Calla continued:

Building homes on-reserve is possible when homeowners have access to employment income, and economic development that creates employment can be one of the sources of stable, long-term jobs. Securing private sector financing is the key to moving away from the status quo of proposal-based government funding. To our team at the Financial Management Board, this is what systemic change and a new nation-to-nation relationship can look like.

Rather than pitting groups against each other, the government could solve the housing crisis for indigenous communities by, number one, listening to indigenous communities; two, not haemorrhaging money into a broken system; and three, getting out of the way of the free market.

Bill C-19 is not a responsible budget. This is a budget that, as I have said, simply pumps money into a broken “Ottawa knows best” system. This budget does nothing to empower indigenous communities to make decisions for themselves. Rather, it simply grows bureaucracies in Ottawa.

Again, one of the first pillars of libertarianism that students of political science are introduced to, although they may not know it at the time, is summed up neatly in the famous quote from Lord Acton: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Of course, at the time, the English parliamentarian, historian and writer was referring to the absolute power of popes and kings, but he might as well have been referring to the Indian Act and those government structures put in place to support it.

I will concede, thankfully, that in a parliamentary democracy, legislation is never absolute, and bad laws can be cast into the dustbin of political history, but that does not negate the fact that the Indian Act, like the absolutionist powers of historical Europe, suppresses the individual liberty of indigenous people and hampers their sustained economic growth.

I will take a moment to respond in advance to the government's retorts to the House about not taking advice from Conservatives, to say that successive Canadian governments have had the opportunity to raise indigenous people up, but chose instead to keep them down through the paternalistic policies of broken systems.

As we all know, Canada is in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis and in desperate need of economic recovery. It has serious geopolitical issues abroad. Now is not the time for the Prime Minister to grant himself even more power and be less accountable to Canadians.

We all share in the shame of the discriminatory historical policies that enshrined a broken, paternalistic system that limited indigenous rights, freedoms and prosperity. However, it is the government that continues to inflate and support those very structures that sustain the broken system that the Liberals promise to fix every election.

My second point of contention is that the budget has unleashed an avalanche of uncontrolled spending while failing to present a fiscal anchor and failing to present a plan to control inflation. We cannot simply keep printing money and seizing the earnings of Canadians to pay for bigger prices and more government spending.

For the first time in over 31 years, prices are up 6.7% compared to a year ago. More and more people are barely making ends meet as the pinch of inflation is making everything in their daily lives more expensive. Families are spending more on groceries. Gas is costing workers more, and home heating is shrinking seniors' savings. There is an affordability crisis here in Canada, and after seven years of Liberal out-of-control spending, Canadians are facing record inflation. The budget does nothing to address this, and it also does nothing to tackle skyrocketing house prices.

It is hubris to think that this government can make houses cheaper by continuing to spend even more money on its so-called priorities, but in fact it may create a shortage of housing that will undoubtedly cause prices to rise even higher as demand outstrips supply. We can say that, whether it be a physical house itself or the materials to build it, governments will never be able to replicate the free market.

A more sustainable, long-term approach to affordable housing would include reducing government red tape and making it easier, faster and ultimately cheaper for homes to be built. There are a number of non-taxpayer-funded initiatives that could support affordable housing, and it starts through the creation of socially responsible investment instruments, mandating federal tax laws to favour investments in affordable housing, and working with the provincial and municipal governments to unshackle the barriers to land use.

Now, a growing number of working Canadians simply cannot afford more of the tax-and-spend agenda of this government. They want real action to fight the cost-of-living crisis and an outline of a clear commitment to control inflation.

My third and final critique of Bill C-19 is that while our financial liability to government debt increases, the government's obligation to the taxpayer decreases. In the last month, my constituency office has been inundated with calls for passports. People cannot get through to Service Canada on the phone and are waiting days with no answer. Some constituents have reported that they stood in line for hours, only to be turned away at the end of the day, even though some public servants had no one in their lines. With the pandemic coming to an end and the anniversary of the 10-year passport, the increase in demand for passport renewals should have been pretty easy for the government to predict. The government expects Canadians to pay their taxes. Well, news flash, Canadians also demand services for those taxes.

Now, small businesses pay their taxes, and their ask has been pretty clear: Prioritize red tape reduction and ensure that the cost of doing business does not increase by tackling inflation. The Liberals have failed to bring forth a budget that prioritizes either request.

Farmers, as we all know, pay taxes. They are struggling to keep up with inflation, and the increased cost of fertilizer due to the war in Ukraine is really causing hardship for these farmers. By 2030, the rising cost of the carbon tax will take over $1.1 billion from farm families, which could be used to upgrade machinery and adopt more sustainable practices. To add insult to injury, the Liberals have chosen to spend $30 million just to administer carbon tax rebates to businesses and farms.

Canadian manufacturers and exporters continue to face high inflation rates. Supply-chain disruptions resulted in losses of more than $10.5 billion and critical labour shortages, with 81,000 vacancies. Budget 2022 fails to do enough to address those issues and many others.

These are just a few issues on which the budget fails to meet the needs of everyday Canadians, and they are why I cannot support this budget.

Milton Friedman once mused that if you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there would be a shortage of sand. We need less government liability, not more. We need more economic freedom, not less. Unfortunately, this budget delivers on neither.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for his speech. We used to work together on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I am glad he is not on the committee anymore because he made me do push-ups. He forced us to do physical activity. There is a reason he is now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Sport. Seriously though, it was a pleasure to work with him.

Obviously, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage discussed culture and the challenges facing the cultural industry during the pandemic. There is a tax measure in Bill C-19 that involves extending the period for incurring eligible expenses and other deadlines related under film production tax credits. That is great. I am completely in favour of that.

However, does my colleague agree that the scope of this measure could be expanded to include more than just film production? The pandemic was definitely hard on film production, but other sectors could also benefit from this kind of generosity from the government.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, it is a real privilege for me to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, which is very important.

It is a privilege to speak in the House today to Bill C-19, the Budget Implementation Act. Budget 2022 plots a course forward for our country: our destination is a greener, cleaner, fairer, more equitable country with more well-paying jobs and more affordable housing for all Canadians.

I have heard before that in order to know where we are going, we must first know where we came from. Today, May 5, is Dutch Liberation Day, for my fellow Dutch Canadians. I know there is more than one Dutch diaspora individual in the House. My dad arrived here in Canada as an infant with his parents and siblings almost 70 years ago. He texted me today that the exact day that he remembers is October 15, 1953. My dad, Joe, is on his way to Ottawa today, so we can all go to the Dutch heritage event tonight.

His family settled in southwestern Ontario and, like many Dutch immigrants, took to farming and agriculture to support themselves and to build a new life. Much like the contributions from Canada's proud Ukrainian diaspora, it is a fact that Canada is a strong farming and agriculture nation because of our roots that include so many of Dutch heritage.

On this Dutch Liberation Day, l would like to acknowledge the extraordinary efforts and contributions from the Canadian Armed Forces in World War II, who led the liberation of Holland. On my run this morning, I saw some beautiful tulips poking their colours through the green stems, and I was reminded of the gift from Holland and Princess Juliana commemorating the significant role that Canadians played in the liberation of the Netherlands and in providing Princess Juliana a safe haven during the birth of her daughter. The Dutch still remember us today for those proud efforts, and every year the Dutch royal family and people of the Netherlands each send 10,000 bulbs to Ottawa. If people venture out in town, they will see them coming up now.

Like many of my colleagues, I have had the chance to discuss budget 2022 with many diverse groups and stakeholders in Milton, and I am incredibly grateful to represent such an engaged community. I could not do this work without the expertise and perspectives of my neighbours in Milton. I had the chance to consult with the Chamber of Commerce, Milton's Downtown Business Improvement Association, housing advocates, small and medium-sized businesses like Sargent Farm, Fix Automotive, DSV, Lumberville, La Rose Bakery and so many more, as well as with child care operators and parents who are thrilled that our government has signed deals with every province and territory across the country for universal country-wide early learning and child care.

Before I move on, I would like to thank my local stakeholders, in particular the Milton Community Resource Centre, Advancement of Women Halton, Community Living North Halton, the Muslim Advisory Council of Canada, the YM-YWCA and so many others for contributions to this program, because they engaged early. We worked together to ensure that local priorities were heard, and indeed they are reflected in our national universal $10-a-day early learning and childcare program that will help families get back to work and continue their careers. It will build new jobs in the sector and ensure that kids get the best possible start.

On the subject of early learning and child care, I also want to acknowledge the work being done across the country to ensure that our early learning and child care programs include physical literacy, in particular Active for Life. I am so proud of our government's support for Active for Life's building capacity and resilience through physical literacy and active play projects. It received over $428,000 to continue ensuring that kids get the best possible start.

I will move on to something that is very, very close to home for me: that is co-op housing. Budget 2022 rapidly commits to building new affordable housing for Canadians. This includes additional affordable housing units that are urgently needed in our communities, particularly for those who are experiencing or are at risk of homelessness. It ensures that more affordable housing can be built quickly. Budget 2022 proposes to provide $1.5 billion over two years, starting this year, to extend the rapid housing initiative. This funding is expected to create at least 6,000 new affordable housing units with at least 25% of the funding going toward women-focused housing projects.

Finally, something new and very personal for me as I mentioned, budget 2022 also commits to a new generation of co-operative housing development in our country. For generations, co-ops have offered quality, affordable housing to Canadians while empowering their members through inclusion, personal development and security of tenure through their community-oriented model of housing. I do not mind saying I am a proud co-op kid. I am a product of a co-op: The Chautauqua Co-op in Oakville. My mom and dad moved there in the early eighties and when my parents divorced, my mom moved back into Chautauqua Co-op. I lived there until I was 26, and through university as well.

Co-op housing did not just put a roof over our heads. Co-op housing also put a guitar in my hand and made sure that I took guitar lessons. I went to summer camp. My mother could afford to send me to the canoe club. Co-op housing literally got me to the Olympics.

The community was far more than just a safe place to live: It was also a security blanket. My mom lost a job at one point, but we did not have to worry about losing our home. I am so proud that this government is committing to a new generation of co-operative housing in this country.

To be a bit more specific, budget 2022 proposes to reallocate $500 million of funding, on a cash basis, from the national housing co-investment fund to launch a new co-operative housing development program aimed at expanding co-op housing in Canada. This program would be codesigned with the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada and the co-operative housing sector. Budget 2022 also proposes an additional $1 billion in loans to be reallocated from the rental construction financing initiative to support co-op housing projects.

One of the proudest days of my co-op life was in 2017, when my co-op paid off our mortgage. Our co-op is mortgage-free, so that means that we have the ability to keep rental costs, which we call “housing charges” in the co-op housing sector, extremely low for families. When we take profit out of housing, we actually make it affordable. It is a remarkable concept.

Back in 1984, Canada was building lots of co-ops, but since then co-op construction has been in decline. Budget 2022 commits to a new generation of that. The Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada has said that this “federal budget [represents] a turning point, as it acknowledges the unique value of co-operative housing and commits to its expansion.” That is something I just could not be more proud of.

Finally, I will close by acknowledging the heartbreaking and ongoing tragedy of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls in this country. Today is Red Dress Day. We are all wearing that on our lapels, but we are also wearing it on our hearts. The systemic racism and gender-based violence against indigenous women and girls and 2SLGBTQ2+ people is a horrific national tragedy, and it underscores the work that we as a nation still must do in order to accomplish the meaningful transformative change that is necessary to help end these despicable events.

While there is still a lot of work to do, it is important to highlight the work that we have done, and that we continue in, alongside Canada's indigenous peoples to address these historical injustices. In budget 2022, the government expanded on these commitments and laid out an additional $11 billion over six years for continued support for indigenous children and families, and to ensure that indigenous communities have resources necessary to continue to grow and shape their own futures.

Included in these investments is $275.3 million to address the shameful history of residential schools and western colonialism that were so utterly devastating to indigenous peoples and their cultures. This money would go to documenting, locating and memorializing burial sites, allowing for the appointment of a special interlocutor, supporting and encouraging community-led responses, supporting document digitization, and commemorating and memorializing former residential school sites.

Our government is also committed to eliminating barriers that prevent first nations children from being able to access the services and supports they need in order to thrive. Jordan's Principle, which helps ensure that those children have access to the cornerstones of health care, as well as the social and educational services they need, when and where they need them, is a key part of this work. That is why this budget proposes $4 billion over six years, starting this year, to make sure that Jordan's Principle has the resources to provide these necessary supports to first nations youth.

It is important issues such as this that this government will continue to fully support as we acknowledge the ongoing national tragedy of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls with Red Dress Day. I know that our government will continue to work alongside indigenous peoples every day to address historical injustices, support nations and their communities in their rebuilding efforts, and accelerate self-determination and self-government.

I will now be pleased respond to any questions or comments my colleagues may have about this important bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's intervention today and his attendance at the occasional finance meeting, where we can discuss housing inflation, among other things.

He mentions, specifically, the so-called foreign buyers ban in Bill C-19. The minister has to, first of all, identify a particular property that falls outside the many loopholes and exemptions the government has given for all sorts of people, but if they legitimately find it, the minister has to go through a provincial court process, which can take years, and the ultimate slap on the wrist is $10,000.

Does the hon. member think that taking up court time and years of process to have someone who has violated the law of this country be fined $10,000 is sufficient? Does he think it should be much higher than that?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is great to see everyone. I wish all my colleagues a wonderful and productive day. The sun is shining outside, and warmer weather is close at hand. I think we are all happy about that.

I will be splitting my time with my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Milton.

It is a pleasure to rise to speak on Bill C-19 and the measures in the bill that would continue to drive the Canadian economy forward by leveraging the inherent strength and resiliency of all our citizens, create good-paying middle-class jobs, and ensure a bright and prosperous future for all Canadians, including the wonderful residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge, who I have the privilege of representing.

As many of my colleagues know, I am an MP who is focused squarely on the economy, competitiveness, job creative and fiscal prudence, backed by my entire educational and professional career in the field of economics and working in the global financial markets literally throughout the world. It is the economy for me.

At the same time, I am a socially progressive person who believes fundamentally that we as a society must always ensure that human rights, women's rights and the rights of minorities and the most vulnerable are always protected. As a father of three beautiful young girls, including a seven-month-old, I will state this in reference to what we are seeing transpire in the United States, where I lived and worked for several years and where I have many friends and family. A woman's right to choose is simply not up for debate. A woman's right to reproductive health services is not up for debate. We must always ensure that women across Canada, from coast to coast to coast, have full access to the health services they need. Protecting and promoting women's rights is something we must always stand for, full stop, non-negotiable.

The Canadian economy is strong, characterized by historically low unemployment and strong economic growth. The future is truly bright. I am the chair of the Liberal auto caucus and in the last two months we have secured, as a government working with industry and our partners, more than 13 billion dollars' worth of investment in Canada's auto sector, maintaining and creating more than 16,000 direct jobs.

The auto sector is something near and dear to my heart, since my time in New York City working for a rating agency. At the rating agency, I was actually in charge of the global auto parts coverage, and worked in tandem on the global OEM manufacturers, visiting Wolfsburg Volkswagen in Germany, Peugeot in Paris, Fiat in Turin, Hyundai in Korea, and Japanese manufacturers as well. It is an industry I am very well versed in, and something I have been watching for many years, including during the 2008-09 recession.

It is great to see our government working hand-in-hand with industry, leading the charge, so we can have a vibrant industry here in Canada. It is also good to see the ongoing transformation to electric vehicles, for which Canada is uniquely positioned, both on the human capital side and on the natural resource side.

Turning to Bill C-19, tradespeople and skilled trades build and maintain the critical infrastructure we utilize, and we are dependent upon them on a daily basis in the communities where we raise our families. In my youth, I worked at a pulp and paper mill in northern British Columbia. I spent a few summers there. It was a phenomenal experience, and I learned a lot from the hard-working Canadians who work in our resource sector.

Much like in other infrastructure, be it refineries, pipelines, chemical plants, major infrastructure projects, people who work in the trades travel. They travel quite a distance for what are called “turnarounds” or “shutdowns”. I remember experiencing that. They also travel for permanent relocation.

With that, I am very happy to see, and I was very happy to advocate for, the labour mobility deduction of $4,000 in Bill C-19. It would allow these skilled trades folks to offset some of the costs associated with this travel. It is a well-needed measure that I again advocated for, and it is great to see it in the BIA, Bill C-19.

My riding is home to the training centres and the headquarters of LiUNA 183 and the Carpenters Local 27, and the individuals from these two unions, day in and day out, toil, sacrifice and build without a lot of fanfare. They build our infrastructure and communities. I salute them, and I am proud to be their representative in Ottawa. I will always have the backs of all of them and all the great skilled trades people across this country.

Budget 2022 focuses on three main goals: investing in creating economic growth and innovation, continuing to invest in Canadians, and investing in the ongoing green transition.

We all know quite well that we must act with all levels of government and all stakeholders to make housing more affordable for Canadians. With that, we know we cannot have a growing and strong economy and a diverse and talented workforce, particularly for newcomers coming to Canada, without more homes. We will act, and we are acting.

First, we will allow Canadians who intend to purchase their first home to help them save via a tax-free home savings account. Second, we will increase the supply of housing by launching a $4-billion home accelerator fund to support and incentivize municipalities to build more homes faster. We must break down the red tape, and we must break down the barriers to getting more shovels in the ground and boots working. Third, we need to protect buyers and renters by introducing a homebuyers' bill of rights and bring forward a national plan to end blind bidding. We will also ban foreign buyers from owning non-recreational residential property for two years.

I am one of the representatives in the city of Vaughan, along with the members for King—Vaughan and Thornhill. The city of Vaughan and the York region are home, frankly, to the largest number of home builders in the province of Ontario and, really, in the country.

The joke goes that infrastructure projects in Ontario all seem to touch the city of Vaughan because of the many infrastructure participants there in one shape, form or another, such as names like Greenpark Group, Deco Homes, The Remington Group, Empire Communities, Sorbara Group, Gold Park Homes, TACC Construction, Cortel Group, CountryWide Homes, Canvas Developments, Fernbrook Homes, Royal Pine Homes, Arista Homes and Caliber Homes. Those are from just doing a quick search, and I probably missed about another 10 names.

These are all home builders who are based in the York region in the city of Vaughan. They are entrepreneurs. They came to this country as newcomers. They worked hard and toiled, and they build. They build the communities that we live in. They sacrificed. They employ, directly, tens of thousands of Canadians and, indirectly, many, many more.

Their goal is simple, which is to ensure that Canadians have a home, to create memories for them and their families. We need to build. That is what we will be doing, and that is what these individuals and these firms do. We will work with them and we will work with the municipalities to ensure that we increase the supply of new home construction across Canada and more than double housing construction over the next 10 years.

On my last topic, I am a strong believer in our free market economic system and in competition. Competition leads to innovation and, yes, disruption as well, but competition in our free market and our capitalist system has brought with it the highest standards of living and pulled literally billions of individuals across the globe out of poverty.

However, competition can be eroded. When anti-competitive practices take hold, and with that, I have long advocated for changes and the strengthening of Canada's Competition Act to ensure that business practices do not hold back innovation and competition, it can be detrimental to the interests of consumers and employees. We must hold back on that.

With that, I am pleased to see, in Bill C-19 significant amendments to the Competition Act, which I know are highly technical, but they are very important. They include a proposed criminal offence for so-called wage-fixing and no-poaching agreements between competitors; an explicit prohibition against drip pricing; private access to Canada's Competition Tribunal for abuse of dominance claims; an increase in administrative monetary penalties; an expansion of the scope of the competition bureau's evidence-gathering powers pertaining to section 7; an expansion of the list of factors that may be considered when assessing the prevention and lessening of competition for merger review and non-criminal competitor collaborations; and the amendment of the definition of anti-competitive act for abuse of dominance.

Competition is the essence of our free market and capitalist system. It is wonderful to see the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister, along with the Minister of Innovation and their teams, collaborating and working in unison to ensure that anti-competitor practices are both disallowed and that the Competition Act be modernized, which we will need to continue to work on fo the penalties to be updated.

There is nothing more important to someone like me than to see healthy competition that leads to innovation, job creation and a growing and strong middle class, and there is nothing that makes me angrier and makes me speak out more than when I see anti-competitive practices take hold in any markets.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, what I actually said at the very beginning of my speech was that Bill C-19 “is when rhetoric meets reality.”

I pointed out very clearly that all of the promises made by the Liberals, even some where we might find consensus in the House, were excluded from Bill C-19, including all of their commitments to address the supply-side crisis we are facing in this country. In addition, Bill C-19 does not even include their signature program of a new savings account.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, and other measures. For my constituents, budget implementation acts are the mechanisms for Parliament to approve the spending outlined in the government's annual budget. In other words, it is when rhetoric meets reality.

My constituents were hopeful that budget 2022 would provide much-needed relief and address the key challenges facing Canadians, such as the labour and housing supply shortages and, of course, the rising cost of living. Instead, budget 2022, while indeed making many promises, fails to meaningfully address critical issues facing Canadians. It has piled more debt onto the backs of taxpayers, and has raised taxes while failing to address tax evasion. Bill C-19 is very long, yet it somehow manages to leave out most of the things the Liberals promised to do. Imagine that. Why did the Minister of Finance table a budget that makes so many promises if she had no intention of implementing them at this critical time?

During my time, I am going to talk briefly about the labour market, Pacific economic development, housing and some local issues.

On the labour market, it never ceases to amaze me how many businesses in my riding need employees right now. I see “help wanted” signs on billboards across my riding, on window fronts, in newspapers and on company vehicles. There is a significant shortage of skilled workers throughout not only my riding and province, but our entire country.

We all know Canada's population is aging. In fact, we have known this for a long time. For years we have been warned of a coming “grey tsunami”. I would argue today that the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated this point. It means that more people right now are exiting the workforce through retirement, with fewer people entering to replace them.

Budget 2022 makes lots of promises about labour shortages and attracting new skilled workers, but when I looked at Bill C-19, I saw only two of the nine different commitments made in the budget.

The first one in Bill C-19 is the amendment to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that commits to increase the number of permanent residents accepted each year. While this sounds great on the surface, what this budget does not do is address the other side of this problem. If we are increasing the number of skilled immigrants coming into this country who want to buy homes and use their capital, we are only making the housing supply shortage worse. The government never addressed this key fact. The permanent residency point only conflates the housing problem that we are facing.

The second point is that, while I support tax recognition of up to $4,000 a year in travel and relocation expenses, as outlined in Bill C-19, this will not add new workers to Canada's labour force, nor will it provide the skills training for Canadians who seek a promotion or a new career.

One commitment that could have been included, which even the Liberals have talked about, is foreign credential recognition. Many skilled workers who enter Canada come here under the pretense that they will serve as doctors or nurses or work in skilled health care fields. The current government, which does not work with the provinces, does not address that issue. This is an easy way we could solve part of the doctor and nursing shortages that my province is so acutely facing at this moment.

Another important promise missing from Bill C-19 is the opportunities fund supporting people with disabilities. This is a segment of our workforce that does not get enough attention. It is a segment of our workforce that wants to find purpose in the work they do. The government made a promise to work with them, but it is obviously not a priority because it is not in Bill C-19. I would encourage the Liberal members of the House to push their government to include the promises on workers with disabilities. That is very important.

Third, the government made multiple promises regarding temporary foreign workers, but they are also excluded from Bill C-19. I raise this point because I come from an agriculturally rich area of the country. In fact, the riding of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, the riding of Abbotsford and the neighbouring riding of Chilliwack—Hope have the highest farm gate sales in the entire country. The greenhouse growers, dairy farmers and fruit growers are all calling for more temporary foreign workers to help meet the food security challenges that we are facing. The government could have done that and it failed to.

Turning to Pacific economic development, last August the government launched the department of Pacific Economic Development Canada. This agency was touted as a long-term partner dedicated to supporting B.C.'s economic development on the ground and in our communities. Indeed, it came with a lot of fanfare and big announcements, but almost a year after it was launched, Pacific Economic Development Canada has not opened its new office in Surrey. It is still in the old western economic development office in downtown Vancouver, and it has not fulfilled any of its promises to serve rural Canada.

I mention this today because, as everyone in the House knows, the one thing I have spoken about most is disaster recovery and emergency management. Pacific Economic Development Canada and, by extension, Community Futures, which I believe is the most efficient government organization, could be doing a lot more, so I encourage the government to fund Community Futures to help address labour shortages and business capital shortages for the many people in rural British Columbia. It could have gotten this done.

Finally, on Pacific economic development, what irks me the most is that when I went through the estimates, I found out that PacifiCan will receive just $48.44 on a per capita basis for every citizen in the province of British Columbia. Members can compare that with Ontario, where the agency will receive $55.14 for every citizen, and Quebec, where it will be $67.85.

Why is British Columbia being underfunded again? Why now, especially when our province has faced unprecedented challenges, is the government not empowering an organization in the government or Community Futures to do the work that we need to do right now to help people who are facing some critical situations? It is not fair to British Columbian taxpayers that we are underfunded. In fact, it kind of sets the stage for the argument that the Laurentian elite do not care about British Columbia.

I will turn to housing. Last year, as the opposition's shadow minister for housing, I highlighted the failure of budget 2021 to address the critical supply shortages, money laundering and foreign investment that have contributed to the high cost of homes. On this side of the House, we have said over and over that supply is the biggest factor in skyrocketing home prices. We are not alone in this. There is industry consensus, and CMHC has been saying the same things. We are not keeping up with demand.

The government claims it is finally addressing the issue of foreign investors flooding Canada's real estate market, doing so through its temporary ban on foreign non-residents purchasing residential properties. However, Bill C-19 is very vague on the details. It says that temporary residents are exempt from this ban. We are left to wonder what this government means by temporary residents. Could wealthy foreign families still buy real estate through their children who come to Canada as international students? The loopholes are just astounding.

In the months leading up to the budget, we heard a lot from the Liberals about how they heard Canadians and how they would address the housing crisis. The Liberals made grand promises in this budget, including a housing accelerator fund for 100,000 homes, a direct payment to those struggling to afford a home, doubling the first-time homebuyers' tax credit, a new savings account and increased funding to tackle homelessness. However, the previously mentioned ban on foreign buyers and a tax on house flipping were the only items included in Bill C-19. They are not even including their primary promises in this bill. Canadians just want an affordable place to call home, so when we talk about rhetoric and reality, all we are seeing from the government is rhetoric on housing. It is not even doing what it says it is going to do.

In conclusion, from this budget my constituents were hoping for a commitment to improve infrastructure, which was wholly ignored by the government; a partner to support much-needed economic development in B.C. after devastating floods and wildfires; a substantial increase in our housing supply; and a plan, which I did not have a chance to talk about, for the backlog at Passport Canada that is stopping people from travelling right now.

With that, I would like to wrap up my comments today by moving a subamendment to Bill C-19. I move, seconded by the member for Bay of Quinte:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following:

“, and fails to combat tax evasion.”

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to see my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill in the House again. It has been a while, and we miss hearing her during our debates.

One section of Bill C‑19 has to do with the luxury tax. I agree on the principle: Those who benefited more during the pandemic can and should contribute to helping those who struggled a bit more.

However, this section includes a measure on private aircraft. When we talk about privately owned aircraft, we think of well‑off people with means, but that is not always the case. Private pilots are often enthusiasts who spend a tremendous amount of money on their hobby because it is expensive. They often have to get together as a group to buy a small plane, and even then it will cost far more than $100,000, which is the threshold for the luxury tax.

Does my colleague think that this luxury tax may have been designed without any consideration for the reality of people who enjoy recreational aviation?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be here today to speak on the topic of Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

Over the past two years, we have faced unprecedented challenges. There is no part of our lives that was not impacted in some way by the coronavirus pandemic. Challenges were both personal and collective in nature. “Budget 2022: A Plan to Grow Our Economy and Make Life More Affordable” contains significant investments in key areas that would help Canadians continue to recover from the detrimental impacts of the pandemic.

Despite the challenges we have faced, Canada has emerged stronger. Because of our government's response to the pandemic, we are able to maintain the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio relative to our G7 international peers, with one of the fastest recoveries. We have the strongest job recovery in the G7, having recuperated 112% and maybe even 115% of the jobs that were lost since the peak of the pandemic, and our unemployment rate is down to 5.5%. This nearly matches Canada's best unemployment rate in 50 years, which we saw in 2019 when the unemployment rate was 5.4%.

The targeted investments in budget 2022 are designed to support people, economic growth and a clean future for everyone as we continue to navigate pandemic recovery. Through these targeted measures, this budget would help make it easier for Canadians to buy a home and move forward on dental care, help Canadian businesses scale up and grow, ensure that wealthy corporations pay their fair share, invest in a clean future, and help Canada become a world leader in producing electric vehicles.

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight just a few of the many important investments outlined in this budget that are particularly impactful for my riding of Surrey Centre. These include important investments in housing, immigration, health and dental care. Regarding housing, we know that access to safe and affordable housing remains an incredible challenge for far too many. This is an issue that constituents raise with me often. Access to safe and affordable housing is one of the biggest concerns faced by many residents in the lower mainland. This region has some of the highest housing prices in the country, and as our population continues to grow, we need more homes to meet the demand.

Surrey Centre has been a recipient of significant investments through the rapid housing initiative over the past few years, including $16.4 million under the major city stream to support the creation of affordable housing units for the new Atira Women's Resource Society facility. I had the opportunity to tour the Atira site currently under construction with the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister a couple of weeks ago. This modular housing apartment will provide approximately 44 new affordable units. Owned and operated by Atira Women's Resource Society, this supportive housing complex will serve women experiencing, and at risk of, homelessness, including indigenous women, trans and two-spirited women, and women who are struggling with substance abuse, mental health and spiritual wellness. The $16.4 million funding also assisted Atira to create more units, including next door, where now dozens of units are there to help women in need.

Our government has also invested in the Foxglove supportive housing complex in my riding, which I had the opportunity to visit with the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion recently. This complex includes a total of 130 units: 66 are supportive housing, 34 are for complex care and 30 are shelter beds.

Housing is a complex issue, and I am pleased to see that budget 2022 contains significant investments to address the many layers of challenges with housing that we face and would help expand access to housing in our communities.

This would include doubling the construction of new homes over the next 10 years. Budget 2022 provides $4 billion over five years to CMHC to launch a new housing accelerator fund. This fund aims to remove barriers and help municipalities build housing more quickly. It would target the creation of 100,000 net new housing units in the next five years.

Budget 2022 also contains investments to help Canadians buy their first homes, including by introducing the tax-free first home savings account and doubling the first-time homebuyers' tax credit, and introducing a multi-generational home renovation tax credit that provides up to $7,500 in support for constructing a secondary suite in a home for an additional loved one. This would help keep seniors at home longer, and give them better, safer, more comfortable places to say.

The tax-free first home savings account would help thousands of Canadians save, tax free, up to $40,000 to buy their first home. This is on top of their RRSP options, thereby giving Canadian families up to $15,000 or $20,000 in tax savings.

As members may know, immigration is an issue very near and dear to my heart. I have one of the busiest constituency offices in the country and receive hundreds of immigration files each month. Budget 2022 proposes investments to make our immigration system more efficient. Applicants currently face long waits and delays with processing times. Our government has already begun to address these issues and I am pleased to share with everyone that we are continuing to do more.

Budget 2022 proposes $187 million over five years, and $37 million ongoing, for IRCC to improve its capacity to respond to a growing volume of inquiries and to invest in the technology and tools required to better support people using those services. The budget also proposes $386 million over five years, and $86 million ongoing, for IRCC, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and CBSA to facilitate the timely and efficient entry of a growing number of visitors, workers and students.

I also recently introduced a private member's motion, Motion No. 44, to expand pathways to permanent residency for temporary foreign workers. Budget 2022 contains a number of proposed investments relative to Motion No. 44 to improve the temporary foreign worker program.

Throughout the pandemic, employers have found it challenging to find workers. As demand grows for the TFW program, we need to make changes to meet the needs of the system and ensure that TFWs are protected and have health, safety and quality of life while they work and contribute to our communities. These proposed measures include millions of dollars in funding for increasing protections for workers, reducing administrative burdens for trusted repeat employers and ensuring employers can quickly bring in workers to fill short-term labour market gaps.

Health care, pharmacare and dental: Our health care system is vital to the functioning of this country. Our government made significant investments, more than $69 billion, to lead a coordinated federal, provincial and territorial response to fight COVID-19 and protect the health and safety of Canadians, with more funding to be rolled out in the future. This additional funding includes a $2-billion top-up, plus $45 billion to the Canada health transfer to the provinces and territories.

Budget 2022 proposes initiatives to attract more health care workers to rural communities and to support access to mental health resources with $140 million for the Wellness Together Canada portal, as well as $100 million for the substance use and addiction program to address the opioid crisis.

Finally, I would like to highlight the $5.3 billion over five years to provide dental care for Canadians with family incomes of less than $90,000 annually. It starts in 2022, with those under 12 years old, and expands to cover people under age 18, seniors and persons living with a disability in 2023, with full implementation by 2025.

There are far too many other important issues that budget 2022 proposes investments in for me to cover in the 10 minutes I have today. On that note, I will end with the hope that we can work collaboratively to pass this bill and begin the important work of getting these programs to Canadians as soon as possible to make life more affordable from coast to coast to coast.

The House resumed from May 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I like hearing the member, even when he gives the same speech three times in a row. All members are honourable, except that he said a number of things that are factually incorrect. He contradicted you on a number of rulings that you have already made. I think the official opposition House leader has a responsibility to respect the Speaker's rulings, which have been repeatedly contradicted by what Conservatives have been saying in the House.

For two months, we have had the Conservatives block everything in the House of Commons. When they are not putting up this committee report, and this is the third time the member has given the same speech on this one-paragraph report, they put up other reports. They have blocked Bill C-8. Teachers and farmers implored Conservatives to let it get through the House, yet for months they blocked it.

Now we have the budget implementation act, which puts into place two important things for the good people of Barrie—Innisfil. As colleagues well know, national dental care, which the NDP pushed for and forced the government to put into place, would actually help 29,000 people in Barrie and the immediate area. The national housing that the NDP has forced the government to finally invest in would also have significant positive impacts.

My question is very simple. The ethics committee has a responsibility, of course, to do its good work, but why are the Conservatives systematically blocking all pieces of legislation in the House of Commons? Why will they not allow good things to happen for Canadians?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. member missed what I proposed. What I proposed was that we get to a vote on this, that we move concurrence on this, get it back to committee and extend the hours so that we can do the work on Bill C-19.

Conservatives are willing to work. We are willing to work, and that is why I put that proposal. Only a Liberal would think that accountability and transparency are a character assassination or a personal attack.

We are responsible, all of us on all sides, to Canadians for the way money is spent in this place. If money is spent in an inappropriate manner, then the Liberals, for the sake of all Canadians, should want to get to the bottom of this as much as we do, as well as any member of the NDP and the Bloc.

I encourage the government to accept the proposal. Let us move to a vote on concurrence. We will stay late till midnight tonight to debate Bill C-19.

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, tonight I have the privilege of speaking to Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

Last week, I spoke about the budget and about the importance of balancing programs and spending to meet Canadians' needs while being fiscally prudent. I also spoke at length about the importance of the budget's housing initiatives. Today, I would like to touch on some of the areas I was unable to cover last time.

We have three indigenous communities in Kings—Hants: Sipekne'katik, Glooscap and the Annapolis Valley First Nation. Whenever I visit a community, the first issue raised by the chief and the council is the importance of increasing the housing supply and of funding renovations to existing housing. I am very pleased to see $4 billion in investments in this budget. This is historic and significant.

Kings—Hants is also Atlantic Canada's agricultural heartland. We have the largest concentration of farms, including the biggest supply-managed sector east of Quebec. Budget 2022 outlines the government's commitment to providing fair and equitable compensation to supply-managed farmers with respect to CUSMA in the fall economic update.

I want to compare that to those in the previous Conservative government who did not show consistent support for the system, including the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, who has suggested that the supply-managed agricultural sectors and the system are responsible for food inflation. The pandemic has highlighted the importance of national capacity and we, on this side of the House, will support our supply-managed farmers.

I neglected to mention at the start that I will be sharing my time with the member for Surrey Centre.

I want to highlight the nearly one billion dollars' worth of initiatives for the agriculture sector, particularly through an environmental lens, that are being made available in budget 2022. There is nearly $400 million for the on-farm climate action program, and we are tripling the agricultural clean technology program.

I would be remiss not to mention the fact that the Minister of Environment and his department are working closely right now on offset protocols. They will be available and will be a boon for our agriculture sector, particularly in the prairie provinces, which have done a really good job on soil sequestration. There is an opportunity to reward that work and continue to encourage farmers to apply those practices and do even more. I think this is going to be a really important program in the days ahead.

I also want to talk about the importance of some of the wetland preservation programs that were in budget 2021 and reaffirmed in this budget. We will continue to roll those out to reward farmers who are doing tremendous work in sequestering carbon through carbon sinks on farm. This is going to matter across the country and indeed right in my backyard of Kings—Hants.

We know that labour is a major issue across the country. This is a reflection of the fact that the economy is very strong right now and that we have been there to make important investments. Indeed, I believe Statistics Canada reported that in the last quarter of 2021, nearly 900,000 jobs needed to be filled.

This budget really focuses on the importance of immigration, and our Minister of Immigration and my colleague from Nova Scotia provided a levels report to the House earlier in the year. We are focused on making sure that Canadian businesses and our communities have new immigrants to drive the important economy that we are seeing right now. By and large, I think all parties and all members of the House support that. It is extremely important, but it is not necessarily the case across all western countries.

We in Canada need to continue to promote immigration as an important element for supporting not only community diversity, but also our economic growth. I give credit to the government for its focus in this budget on that element.

Specifically, the budget allocates money for an agriculture-specific labour strategy. This was part of the platform the Liberal Party had in the 2021 election. Whether it is the seasonal agricultural worker program or otherwise, these programs are going to make a difference. I know they make a difference in Kings—Hants, but in places such as southwestern Ontario and Quebec they will as well.

I believe I am running out of time, and perhaps—

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague said, teeth are important for digestive health and self‑esteem.

We are not against dental insurance. What we are asking for is a right to opt out with compensation for provinces that want to implement their own insurance plan.

Does my colleague think it would be possible to include this provision in Bill C‑19?

The House resumed from May 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the House for granting its consent, which gives me the opportunity to say a few words today. I hope to use this time to make some relevant remarks.

Let us get one thing straight. The member for Winnipeg North tacitly accused my colleague of finding excuses, false reasons and pretexts for voting against Bill C-19. Let me be perfectly clear. We will be voting in favour of the principle of the bill. We will work hard in committee to rework the bill, but we will vote in favour of its principle.

Incidently, I would encourage my colleague not to applaud me too quickly. I would be concerned. Several things need to be addressed. The only reason we are voting in favour of the bill is to amend it, and quite extensively in certain areas.

Let us talk about the process first. We are dealing with a bill that is a real juggernaut. It is a thick tome of some 500 pages with about 60 measures that amend 37 laws, along with several concurrence amendments. The summary alone is eight pages long. This is a bit of a kitchen-sink bill. It includes budgetary measures, non-budgetary measures, minor measures, as well as apple pie measures, as we say back home. At the same time, it also includes much more substantial things. I think a distinction should have been made between minor legislative amendments or small measures and much more substantial and profound measures that should have been examined separately. It includes measures to update certain things, as well as provisions from three bills that presumably would have died on the Order Paper.

That is the issue we have with this government and this parliamentary culture. We are constantly having these tomes forced on us and have to live with “all or nothing”. We have to agree with it all or reject it all. What we call a parliamentary monarchy is a bit of a paradox that way. We are told that, in this system, Parliament is the ruler. However, we are still in a system where, as the word “monarchy” implies, transparency is sorely lacking and where, all too often, a parliamentarian's purpose is to rubber-stamp mammoth bills, legislative monstrosities, like the ones that have been surreptitiously foisted on us.

What it boils down to is that the Bloc Québécois opposed the budget statement. As everyone knows, we voted against the budget. However, we are prepared to live with the principle at this point. I said “principle” because we are not ready to commit to supporting it to the full extent, unlike a certain other opposition party. We will see what happens next, when it is studied in committee, but we are willing to live with the principle because we think that many of the bugs that were in the budget are not in this bill. For example, the budget announced massive oil subsidies, including for carbon capture. There was also the issue of small nuclear reactors, and the budget contained major conditions and major intrusions on the health care systems of the provinces and Quebec. Fortunately, none of that is in this bill.

In addition, there are a few urgent measures that have been mentioned and on which we agree, particularly with regard to EI. My colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville explained that well, and there are some significant grey areas that were well clarified in the last speech.

There are also some measures that look interesting on paper and several that require closer inspection. One that I find particularly interesting is the obligation for federally regulated pension fund managers to disclose climate-related information. That is a first step towards what we call green finance, which is an important issue for my colleague from Mirabel. What we need to do is reorient our banking and financial systems toward supporting the energy transition instead of the energy of the past, fossil fuels. That calls for political will.

Some things look interesting on paper. One of those is aerospace, which is a very important file.

Bill C‑19 includes a tax on select luxury items. This was already in budget 2021, which reads as follows:

... it is also fair to ask those who have prospered in this bleak year to do a little more to help those who have not. That is why we are introducing a luxury tax on new cars and private aircraft [manufactured after 2018 and seating up to 39 passengers] worth more than $100,000 and pleasure boats worth more than $250,000.

Here is another excerpt:

If you've been lucky enough, or smart enough, or hard-working enough, to afford to spend $100,000 on a car, or $250,000 on a boat – congratulations! And thank you for contributing a little bit of that good fortune to help heal the wounds of COVID and invest in our future collective prosperity.

When we read that on paper, there is no problem. The Bloc Québécois is fine with the wealthy contributing more. The division of wealth takes political will as well. It is too bad there is not as much will to combat tax havens, but that is another story. The Bloc Québécois agrees with the division of wealth because it is a social democratic party. We have no problem with that.

Now, the problem is that, unfortunately, the devil is all too often in the details. The way the bill is written, all new aircraft designed after 2018, including planes, helicopters or gliders with a maximum capacity under 40 seats, including corporate aircraft, will be subject to the tax. Aircraft usually used for commercial activities, like the ones equipped for carrying passengers or designed exclusively for transporting goods, are excluded.

As I was just saying, the Bloc Québécois agrees in principle. The idea of a tax on luxury items and luxury jets sounds good.

However, we do have major concerns about the negative impact of the tax. As described in Bill C‑19, it is a tax on the Quebec aerospace industry. I can say that we have had various meetings with the aerospace industry, which is a key sector. The late Jean Lapierre used to say that aerospace was to Quebec what the auto sector was to Ontario.

Quebec is the third-largest aerospace cluster in the world, after Seattle and Toulouse. These three clusters are in three different countries. Canada is the only country with such an important cluster that does not have an aerospace policy, and Bill C‑19 does nothing to fix that.

I want to come back to the luxury tax. We have had meetings on this. I have had meetings with several industry players. Both the unions and the companies, including Bombardier, are concerned about this, as are the associations that represent small and medium-sized businesses in the industry. Obviously, when we think of aerospace, Bombardier immediately comes to mind, but there are a lot of very innovative, powerful and dynamic SMEs in the greater Montreal area, especially in Longueuil and on the north shore. There are a lot of them. Everyone is worried. Generally speaking, workers' associations can hardly be said to favour seeing the bosses line their pockets and not getting a share of the income and wealth, so when workers' associations, SMEs and large companies are in agreement, it is a sign that there is a real consensus on the fact that this tax must be reviewed and reworked. As it stands, it will fundamentally harm an industry that has not gotten the policy it deserves.

Last November, my colleague from Mirabel and I issued a statement. We would have liked to see the government get involved in aircraft salvage. North America is a huge aircraft graveyard right now. Given that Airbus has announced that it intends to accelerate aircraft recycling by creating partnerships with several regions in the world, we would have liked to see Ottawa hurry up and seize this opportunity.

We therefore reluctantly support this bill, but the Bloc Québécois will be extremely active when studying it in committee in order to fix its many problems.

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

Madam Speaker, I may not be able to say that I had time to study all 500 pages of Bill C-19, but I have a few comments.

There is a lot of talk about work, workers and the importance of employment. I wanted to know what the government had put forward for workers, whether it had an ambitious agenda and vision, and whether it was able to do something tangible to support workers and improve their conditions. After all, at the end of the day, labour is an important part of the economy.

Based on my analysis, I find that the sights are set too low when it comes to workers. I will provide a few examples. In the last budget and in the Minister of Labour’s mandate letter, the government promised legislation to prohibit the use of replacement workers under the fundamental right to associate and to bargain. There is nothing in this bill to indicate any intention or action in this area. What happened with that?

Another issue is fair employment. I do not know if anyone knows this, but the Employment Equity Act was passed in 2018. Currently, in federally regulated businesses, there is differential treatment based on employment status using “orphan clauses”. The Act was passed in 2018, but there is still no plan or vision to move forward with this. What is going on there?

Recently, we passed Bill C-3 here in the House to give workers 10 days of paid sick leave. That legislation will come into effect at a later date fixed by order-in-council, but we still have not found anything yet.

Climate change is one of the reasons we opposed the budget. We want to see an end to fossil fuel production and a just and fair transition to green or clean energy. What is there for workers?

Last week, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development said that Natural Resources Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada were not prepared to support a just transition to a low‑carbon economy for workers and communities. It is serious: There are more than 200,000 workers, and there are no plans or measures to support this just and necessary transition.

I would also say that the government is abandoning health care workers by firmly refusing to increase Canada health transfers, as Quebec and the other provinces are calling for. If we want quality health care, we must rely on these workers. To do this, Quebec needs the necessary subsidies to match the expenses so it can better support the health sector.

I looked everywhere in the budget and found only one paragraph on employment insurance. This is where workers are being totally abandoned, even though comprehensive EI reform had been promised. Once again, the government missed an opportunity to act. In one paragraph of the budget and in Bill C-19, the government announced the extension of pilot projects that provide up to five additional weeks of EI benefits to seasonal workers. That is it, nothing more.

The Minister of Employment's mandate letter clearly states that she is to work on modernizing employment insurance by the summer of 2022. The Prime Minister himself said that he asked the minister to focus her energy on building a more equitable system by June 2022. On January 1, she indicated that this was likely to happen.

Right now, workers everywhere, in all regions of Quebec and Canada, are struggling to qualify for fair and accessible benefits. There are serious shortcomings that need to be addressed. We know what the issues are, we know what it will take to fix them, yet there is still a delay in implementing the changes that are needed.

Surely we do not need to be reminded that the EI system is a social safety net that protects workers who lose their jobs. It also protects them in the aftermath of life events, as the minister said. For example, sickness benefits are still capped at 15 weeks when they promised to extend them to 26 weeks. We are being told that this may not happen in July, as first thought, because the computer system will not be ready. They are abandoning people.

I am quite surprised and disappointed that the orange team did not leave its mark in the budget when it comes to workers; it clearly lacks teeth.

All unemployed workers' groups and labour groups support employment insurance reform. More consultations are on the books. Consultations have been going on for years. When will the government get on with it? This is a broken promise at present.

EI reform is important for workers. I meet with workers, unemployed workers' groups, community groups and civil society groups to look at the economic and social realities in some regions. In regions where the seasonal industry holds a predominant place in the economy, five extra weeks in the event of job loss is not enough. There is the issue of the spring gap, which is when a worker does not have enough weeks of benefits to cover the period between the end of the job and when the job resumes. We could tell workers to go work somewhere else, but that is not the answer; rather, we have to support the seasonal industry when it comes to tourism, the fishery. We know that major sectors are affected. A region's economy depends on that. It is not by once again carrying forward a five- to 10-week pilot project that we are going to to give the regions the capacity to support their economy and give workers the capacity to maintain good jobs and experience. We need to protect the vitality of the regions.

The inequities in the EI system for women and young people are another example of needed reforms. The current rules are outdated and significantly discriminate against them. All kinds of criteria regarding hours of eligibility need to be changed. I think the government needs to send a clear message that EI reform is a priority. It is a priority for workers and for the economy. This program is a social safety net that is very much needed, but what the government is doing is very disappointing.

I want to mention the little note about reviewing the Social Security Tribunal and creating a multi-stakeholder tribunal. All the better, since workers have been calling for this for 10 years.

Since I have just 30 seconds left, I want to conclude by saying that workers are in dire need of support. The Liberal government must send a very clear message in its budgets and financial policies that we are counting on them. If we are counting on them, then they need support and they need it now.

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

Madam Speaker, these Liberals continually promise the moon to millennials, especially when it comes to housing affordability, but their new savings account for first-time homebuyers is not in this bill. The things that are in it either make the problem worse, or they do not help at all.

In Bill C-19 itself there is an assignment of sale that would only give more revenue to the government, which would be allowed to charge GST on a second unit, and that is simply going to raise the price of housing. There is also a ban on foreign ownership. I thought that the original policy was so full of holes that it was like Swiss cheese, but they left the biggest loophole to the government. What was that? It would essentially allow the government to choose if and when the actual ban ever comes into place.

Can the member please comment on a few other things that are in the bill or the budget that the Liberals have promised but do not deliver on?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, that was quite an introduction to my speech. It basically took all the oxygen out of the House.

Let me start by saying that this bill is effectively the budget implementation act, which would implement a portion of the last federal budget, budget 2022, which was tabled just over a month ago. Not surprisingly, after having given this much thought, considered it and looked at all the different elements of this particular bill, as well as the budget itself, we as the Conservative opposition have no choice but to oppose it. I will tell the reasons why.

When I spoke earlier to the budget itself, I highlighted the fact that there were a number of issues we took very seriously. One was that, contrary to expectations, it was not a growth budget. In fact, it was very much like the previous budget in 2021, which was panned by the Liberals' own former advisers, who said that the claims that that budget was a growth budget were actually profoundly wrong. In fact, it was a spending budget. It turns out this budget, budget 2022, is also a spending budget.

Why can I say that it is a spending budget? We know the figures, and the officials have confirmed them. There is somewhere in the order of $57 billion or $58 billion of new spending in this bill. That is not just carrying over from the previous year or established programs simply carrying those forward. This is, on top of that, $57 billion more that the government would spend.

I believe we need to place this all in context because the government took over some six and a half years ago in 2015, and over those six and a half years, and members will not believe this, spending has grown 53%. To put this into further perspective, just between 2019, so just before the COVID pandemic, and today, spending has increased by 25%, so by all measures this is a tax-and-spend Liberal government. Canadians should not be surprised. That is the reputation they have earned over many decades.

Is this a growth budget, which is what it was supposed to be? It was intended to be about fundamental changes that were going to improve the prospects for long-term growth for our country. About the growth we are seeing in the economy today, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that growth is actually “GDP inflation.” In other words, it is not organic or substantive growth that is generated by improving productivity within the economy that would improve our competitiveness on the world stage and the global marketplace.

For example, there was nothing in this budget about comprehensive tax reform, which would clearly position our tax system as being fairer, making sure the wealthy pay their share, and also position Canada to be competitive within the global marketplace. Such a tax system would attract investment from all around the world, because today Canada has a reputation of being a place people do not invest in. They shy away. It has too much regulation. Taxes are too high. There is no certainty that the investment will ever be approved, and it has a federal government that is not supportive of this investment, certainly not investment in our resource sector and certainly not investment in our oil and gas sector.

This is also not a growth budget because there is nothing in it about regulatory change or about regulatory reforms that would speed up the approval process for worthy projects. That just is not here.

There is nothing in this budget about interprovincial trade barriers, which have bedevilled governments for many, many decades. It is tougher to do trade among the provinces and territories than it is to do trade with some of our free trade partners around the world. What a sad comment on the performance of the government, which had nothing in the budget or in this bill that addresses that serious problem.

There is nothing in the budget that addresses Canada's lagging investment performance. In fact, Canada is at the bottom of the list of the 38 OECD countries when it comes to investment performance. Investors from around the world just do not see Canada as an attractive place to invest.

I want to hearken back to a comment that the finance minister just made. She made it seem like Canada's growth rate is the best in the world. There is nothing to see here. It is all great. “Don't worry, be happy.” In fact, she quoted the IMF, which said that Canada is going to have a good growth rate for a couple of years.

Do members know what the OECD has said? Canada ranks 38th of 38 countries when it comes to expected future growth of our economy over the next 30 to 35 years, between 2030 and 2060. Canada will be at the bottom of the list of the developed countries of this world. That is a failure on the part of the Liberal government. This is not a growth budget. The prospects under the government are bleak when it comes to future growth.

Second, let me address the issue of inflation. Inflation is the biggest challenge to Canadian families today. The affordability crisis stretches from coast to coast to coast. Yes, there are external influences that have driven inflation from around the world, supply chain challenges and spiking commodity prices, but the government has to take responsibility as well. Economist after economist notes that governments cannot keep spending and spending and pumping more money into our economy without paying a price, and that price is the inflation we see today, especially in our housing market. The housing affordability crisis is as severe as I have seen in my lifetime. It has never been so bad in this country. Right now, the government cannot give Canadians any hope that things are going to get better in the near to mid-term.

The problem is this. The Liberals had something in their budget called a housing plan. They said they were going to pump $10 billion into Canada to help ease the housing crisis, but $4 billion of that is simply a transfer from the federal government to municipalities across the country. It will not create one extra house in Canada. It will not build one extra house over the next few years. It is going to be used, purportedly, to help the municipalities improve their application processes, to make sure they are more efficient, more timely and speedier, so they can get more permit approvals out the door, but that is going to take years to manifest itself. I think we all in the House know that this is not a quick fix.

The other $6 billion from this $10-billion fund is going into a program that will allow first-time homebuyers to set up a savings plan where, over a period of five years, they can invest $8,000 per year for a total of $40,000 in an account that has tax-deductible investments into the fund and one can take money out tax-free. It sounds great, but it is only $40,000 and it is over five years.

Over five years, these families are going to be left far behind by a housing market that is raging out of control. To boot, that program is going to increase demand for housing in Canada even more as more Canadians take advantage of this. We are going to have a problem on the demand side and a problem on the supply side of housing in Canada.

The real challenge here in Canada is the housing crisis itself, and the inflationary aspect of it is a made-in-Canada crisis. Some of the elements that go into our home construction would be impacted by global forces, but for the most part, housing inflation in this country is a made-in-Canada crisis. We had the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem, at our committee not long ago and we specifically asked him if it was possible that some of the inflationary spending that the federal Liberals had done, the borrowing and spending, with record deficits and record debt, could be contributing to housing inflation. He admitted that yes, that was true. Housing inflation can be driven by excess liquidity in the marketplace.

It is not available to the Liberal government to simply wash its hands of the inflation crisis besetting our country and afflicting homes across this country. It has to take some ownership and responsibility for a crisis of its own making. It is not solely of its own making, I will be the first to admit, but it is significantly of its own making.

That was the cost of living, and of course it is going to get worse because on one side we have inflation. How do the Bank of Canada and Mr. Macklem fight inflation? He now has to increase interest rates. At committee last week, he admitted he was going to have to do that quickly and that the increases in interest rates would be significant.

Now we are between scourges afflicting families across this country: on one side, we have skyrocketing inflation, and on the other side, we have rising interest rates. Canadians who have mortgages that are due for renewal are going to be paying higher mortgage rates. That means higher payments, which in turn mean less disposable income for those families. That is the story and the legacy of the Liberal government.

I will go to the third problem that we see with this budget and this bill. The finance minister was expressly directed by the Prime Minister, just over a year ago, not to engage in any more new permanent spending. That was in the middle of the COVID pandemic, and the government I thought had realized that we could not keep spending. We need to discipline spending because, at the end of the day, we also have a duty to future generations of Canadians who have to pay back this massive debt that has been incurred because of the COVID pandemic and because of the government's reckless spending.

Instead, after receiving that clear directive, a year later what did the Prime Minister do? He gave the finance minister another mandate letter in which he purged any reference to eliminating new permanent spending. I do not know. Maybe the Prime Minister already knew that he was cooking up a coalition between the NDP and the Liberals, that it would cost taxpayers a lot of money, and then the government would have to borrow a lot of money to satisfy the NDP. I do not know that, but I do know this.

Shortly after the finance minister received that mandate letter, she started crafting her 2022 budget, which introduced a massive amount of new permanent spending, including a dental care program. In the last budget, it was a child care program. In the next one, we expect there will be a pharmacare program.

What was shocking to me, as a member of the finance committee, was the process when all of these requests were pouring in as we did our pre-budget consultations. There were stakeholders from across Canada. Five hundred written submissions came in, and many more witnesses were basically asking the government to fund this program or that program or to give them this subsidy or that subsidy. We asked the other members of the committee if we could at least go through a process of prioritization and triage all the requests flooding in, so that we could bring a critical eye to them to determine which ones were actually affordable for Canadian taxpayers and future generations, who would have to pay the bill.

The Liberals, NDP and Bloc said that they were not interested in prioritization. They wanted to take all the recommendations and send them up to the minister to see what she would do with them. What a reckless way of doing business. That is not the kind of country I want to live in. I want to live in a country that is fiscally responsible. I want to have a Prime Minister who actually thinks about monetary policy, not who shuns it and says it is something that does not concern him.

It is the monetary policy of this country that is requiring interest rates to go up because of the reckless borrowing and spending of the Liberal government. That is the permanent spending part of it. There is $57 billion of new spending just in this budget alone, and that will saddle future generations with an albatross. It is a huge indebtedness that they are going to have to pay back with rising interest rates.

The last point is taxation. The Liberal government often talks about having Canadians' backs and being there for the middle class. “Hear, hear,” they say, yet the budget is tax after tax. It is unbelievable. Look at the escalator on wine excise taxes, for example. It is unbelievable. The escalators automatically drive up the taxes on goods that Canadians purchase every single day. It is tax after tax. What is worse is the fact that with the dramatic escalation in the price of gas at the pumps, Canadians who already had a tough time filling up their tanks are now realizing, because we Conservatives are telling them, that on top of that gas price, they are paying GST, which means more revenues for the federal government but less disposable income for them.

We, as Conservatives, brought forward a proposal, because we are solution-oriented. We are problem-solvers on this side. We came forward to the Prime Minister and said that we could at least temporarily suspend carbon taxes and temporarily suspend the GST on gas so we could give Canadians a break. The Liberals said no.

Let me close by saying that there is no way the Conservatives, the official opposition and the loyal opposition, can support a budget bill that is irresponsible. I have a motion that I would like to table in this House.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-19, an Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, since the bill fails, among other things, to address inflation, provide tax relief for Canadians and take immediate action to increase housing supply.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance for opening her speech with a condemnation of the loss of women's rights that appears to be imminent in the United States.

I want to address the issue of the budget implementation act by starting with a fair statement. I have gone through the bill, and of course it is very long. I do not find any hidden, sneaky things that should not be in a budget implementation bill, as we experienced in 2012 with two budget implementation bills, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, that were disastrous. Then we had, in 2018, one sneaky thing that I lament, which was putting deferred prosecution agreements in the Criminal Code. That should not have been in a budget implementation act. It is hard to prove a negative, but right now it looks like there is nothing sneaky in this bill.

The main thing I want to ask the minister about is her reference to the climate crisis as an existential threat, which is defined as a threat to existence. It is a threat to the existence of a habitable planet. If we read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's April 4 report, we are currently on a trajectory to an unlivable world. This budget is not taking us away from that trajectory; it doubles down on it.

Would the hon. minister consider re-examining this bill and all bills in relation to the IPCC report?

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

Madam Speaker, when we look at the budget implementation act, we see there are some modest changes to the employment insurance system. There is some tinkering with the paid sick day provisions too. However, neither get full implementation.

Canadians are still in need of widespread and ambitious employment insurance reform. There is still more legislative work to do to finally get the 10 paid sick days that were promised some time ago. We have the looming deadline of May 7 for a number of the pandemic benefits that have helped cover off some of the important things that Canadians have had to do during the pandemic, such as stay home with their kids when their kids are sick and stay home from work when they themselves are sick. Not having implemented those EI reforms and the paid sick days fully before having those benefits expire means there is a gap, and it is workers who are going to suffer for that gap.

I wonder if the government is considering an extension of those benefits until it completes those much-needed employment insurance reforms and a final full implementation of the 10 paid sick days.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, Terrebonne is a magnificent riding, and I hope you will visit us very soon.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her speech. We agree in principle with several of the measures proposed in Bill C-19. However, I have an important question to ask her.

On March 4, we sent a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister concerning the semiconductor shortage. Unfortunately, Bill C-19 contains no measures to address this serious shortage affecting many of our businesses. What we are seeing is a loss of expertise and jobs, and a number of businesses might have to declare bankruptcy or have already done so.

What do the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister plan do about this?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

moved that Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I would like to first say that, like so many Canadian women, I was both shocked and deeply worried by the news from the United States last night about abortion rights. The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this morning that the leaked document was authentic, but that it does not represent a decision by the court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.

I also want to recognize that this decision is a decision for American judges, American politicians and the American people. However, having said that, and speaking here today as a woman, as a mother and as Canada's Deputy Prime Minister, it is important for me to begin by underlining our government's clear and determined commitment to protect a woman's right to choose. I want every single woman and girl in Canada to hear me say that here today.

Abortion is a fundamental right. Feminists fought for decades to secure it, and here in Canada we will not let it be undermined in any way. As part of Canada's feminist foreign policy, it has been a priority for our government to support the reproductive rights of women and girls around the world. We will continue to do so with greater determination than ever.

We cannot take any of our rights, including this fundamental one, for granted. In a democracy like our own, our rights are ultimately secured by the will of the people, as expressed by the decisions of their elected representatives: all of us here in the House. That is why it is so important for me to make this statement today and why all Canadians, especially all Canadian women who care about a woman's right to choose, need to be active and vigilant and need to speak out.

I am pleased to start today's debate on Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

I would like to begin by explaining the context of the current debate. When COVID‑19 struck for the first time, Canada suffered a tremendous economic shock. Three million Canadians lost their jobs and our economy shrunk by 17%. This gave way to the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Our main objective was to keep Canadians at work and to keep their employers afloat. That is why we provided unprecedented emergency help to Canadian families and businesses. It was a bold plan and it worked.

We have recovered 115% of the jobs lost in those awful first months, compared with just 93% in the United States. That means that more than three million jobs have been created or recovered. Our unemployment rate has declined to just 5.3%. That is the lowest level since Canada first began collecting comparable statistics in 1976. Our real GDP is 1.5% above where it was before the pandemic, with annual GDP growth of 6.7% in the fourth quarter of 2021, and a remarkable 13.9% on an annualized basis in February of this year.

The IMF projects that Canada will have the strongest economic growth in the G7, both this year and next. Last Thursday, S&P again affirmed Canada's AAA credit rating and gave us a stable outlook. This is in part thanks to the emergency support our government provided to rescue Canadians and the Canadian economy. It is thanks to the remarkable grit and determination that Canadians have shown over these past two years.

However, there are still challenges ahead. Inflation, a global phenomenon, is making things more expensive in Canada too. Snarled supply chains have driven prices higher at the checkout counter. Buying a house is out of reach for far too many Canadians.

Russia's illegal and barbaric invasion of Ukraine is directly contributing to higher food and energy prices, both here at home and around the world. We need to do better as a country at innovating and encouraging small businesses to grow.

We need to continue to address the existential threat of climate change, which is why, with the investments outlined in the budget and through Bill C-19, our government is focusing on growing our economy and making life more affordable for Canadians.

One of the pillars of our plan is investing in the backbone of a strong and growing country.

People need homes in which to live. The problem is that Canada does not have enough homes. Our budget contains the most ambitious plan ever put forward by a federal government to resolve this fundamental problem. Over the next 10 years, it will help us double the number of new homes built in Canada. To build the new homes Canadians need, we must make a great national effort that will demand collaboration from all levels of government.

That is why Bill C-19 contains measures aimed at investing in building more homes and bringing down the barriers that keep them from being built. For example, the bill provides for up to $750 million to help municipalities address public transit shortfalls caused by the pandemic. To increase the impact of this investment, the provinces and the territories will have to commit to match the federal contribution. This funding will also serve as a lever for the construction of new homes. The provinces and territories will have to accelerate their work with their municipalities to build more homes for Canadians.

We also need to make the housing market fairer, which is why Bill C-19 will legislate a two-year ban on allowing foreign investors to buy houses in Canada. We know that foreign money has been flowing into Canada to buy residential real estate. This has fuelled concerns about the impact on costs in cities such as Vancouver and Toronto, and across the country. Canadians are worried about being priced out of the housing market. By banning foreign purchases of Canadian housing for two years, we will make sure that houses in our country are being used as homes for Canadian families, not as a speculative financial asset class.

We will make all assignment sales of newly constructed or renovated housing taxable for GST and HST purposes. Bill C-19 will help seniors and people with disabilities live and age at home by doubling the home accessibility tax credit's annual limit to $20,000, which will help make upgrades such as wheelchair ramps more affordable.

A growing country and a growing economy also demand a growing workforce. With Bill C-19, we would make it easier for the skilled immigrants that our economy needs to make Canada their home by improving our government's ability to select applicants from the express entry system who match the needs of Canadian businesses.

We would also invest in the determined and talented workers who are already here by making it more affordable for people working in the skilled trades to travel to where the jobs are. This legislation would introduce a labour mobility deduction for tradespeople that would allow workers to deduct up to $4,000 per year for travel and temporary relocation expenses as part of an effort to reduce labour shortages in the skilled trades.

We would also introduce 10 days of paid sick leave for workers in the federally regulated private sector, which would support one million workers in industries like air, rail, road and marine transportation, banks, and postal and courier services.

The budget invests in the skills that Canadian workers need to fill the good-paying jobs of today and tomorrow, and it would help break down barriers and ensure that everyone is able to roll up their sleeves and get to work. Passing this bill is critical to that effort.

In addition, Bill C-19 will enable us to continue the work we are doing to maintain a sound tax system where everyone pays their fair share.

Our government knows that people who can buy expensive cars, planes and boats can also contribute a bit more. Canadians also know this. We were elected on this promise and we intend to keep it.

To this end, we are following through on our commitment to introduce a tax on the sale of new luxury cars and aircraft with a retail sale price of over $100,000. This tax will also apply to the sale of boats that cost more than $250,000.

Today, anonymous Canadian shell companies can be used to conceal the true ownership of assets including businesses and property. Through this legislation, our government would hasten the creation of a public and searchable registry of federally incorporated companies before the end of 2023, two years earlier than planned, to help counter illegal activities including money laundering and tax invasion. This would also help to prevent shell companies from being used to avoid sanctions, and would allow the tracing and freezing of financial assets. This effort is particularly pressing as Canada works hard with our allies through the new Russian Elites, Proxies and Oligarchs Task Force to target the global assets of Russia's elites and those who act on their behalf.

That brings me to the way that Bill C-19 would allow the Canadian government to cause the forfeiture and disposal of assets held by sanctioned people and entities, and to use the proceeds to help the people of Ukraine. Among our allies, Canada is leading the way on this work. We would be, with the passage of this bill, the first member of the G7 to take this important step. I can think of no better way to pay for the very expensive work of rebuilding Ukraine than with the seized assets of the Russian leadership that has waged this war.

In 2019, we introduced a national price on carbon pollution to make sure that it was no longer free to pollute anywhere in Canada. In provinces where the federal system applies, the proceeds are returned to Canadians and their communities.

For those living in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, Bill C-19 will change the delivery of climate action incentive payments from a refundable credit on tax returns to quarterly payments, starting in July of this year.

In Canada and around the world, climate action is now an economic necessity. Trillions of dollars can be invested in good jobs and the clean industries of today and tomorrow. Thanks to meaningful measures, the 2022 budget will enable Canada to benefit from the green transition.

One of these measures is the new Canada growth fund, which will help attract the billions of dollars in private capital we need to transform our economy at speed and at scale.

We will make zero-emission vehicles a more affordable choice for Canadians. We will build and expand the national network of charging stations for zero-emission vehicles. We will make new investments in clean energy. We will also help Canadians and Canadian companies benefit from the transition to a clean economy. One of the measures included in Bill C-19 consists in cutting tax rates in half for businesses that manufacture zero-emission technologies.

We recently introduced the 2030 emissions reduction plan, the 2022 budget and the bill we are debating today. The measures contained in these three documents represent a more sustainable economy for Canadians today as well as for future generations.

Bill C-19 will make a real difference in the lives of Canadians. It will help grow our economy, it will create good jobs and it will help us continue building a Canada where nobody is left behind. I hope all hon. members in the House will support the swift passage of this bill in the weeks to come.

[Gervais Coulombe]

The packaging requirement is in line with the rules that were put in place when the exemptions were introduced in 2006. The agreement was made public in July 2020, so the industry was aware, and there have been different discussions with the industry about the fact that the repeal of the exemption will come effective June 30, 2022. Basically, in terms of the technical amendments that are included in the budget implementation act, that's the most I can tell you today.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The minister answered this question during her presence. I understand that the opposition didn't like the answer, but she provided the answer. The officials are here to respond to technical questions related to Bill C-19.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the officials as well.

Yesterday I asked a question of the finance department. The question I asked was one that all Canadians need answered before any of us parliamentarians can objectively vote on this bill. The question was this: What in Bill C-19 addresses the inflation crisis Canadians are facing today?

Yesterday the department's response to the question was that the department is focusing on macroeconomics. They said that the bill is taking the edge off of inflation over the coming quarter, that the bill is trying to get back on target and that it will also normalize the fiscal and monetary policies.

With inflation in crisis mode throughout Canada, this causes something else for Canadians. It causes a cost of living and affordability crisis stemming directly from the inflation crisis. That's stemming from all the printed money that often wasn't necessary. I'm going to ask my question again today. I really have no preference for who answers it, but today I'm hopeful that I'm actually going to get a real answer.

Again, what in Bill C-19 addresses the inflation crisis that Canadians are facing today?

[Trevor McGowan]

Thank you for the question.

There are of course no amendments to the general anti-avoidance rule in Bill C-19. I just wanted to make that clear.

The government did announce a specific amendment to the general anti-avoidance rule in budget 2022 that would extend the definition of “tax benefit” to apply to tax attributes, which would allow the creation of tax attributes to be challenged closer to the time the initial transaction is put in place, which provides certainty earlier on in the process. That's a specific proposal and not the broader, general anti-avoidance rule consultation.

The government also announced in budget 2022 that there would be provided a timeline for the general anti-avoidance rule consultation and that consultations would run through the summer with a goal of releasing draft legislative proposals by the end of 2022. While there's no specific consultation document like the consultation paper out right now, the goal is to have a consultation through the summer, with the goal of releasing draft legislative proposals by the end of the year.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Today, I am speaking to you wearing pink. Before asking my question, I just wanted to underscore what is happening right now in terms of women's rights. I'm very worried. I will start by quoting Simone de Beauvoir: “Never forget that it only takes a political, economic or religious crisis for women's rights to be called into question. These rights can never be taken for granted. You must remain vigilant throughout your life.”

Thank you for allowing me to express my concerns here.

I would like to thank our colleagues from the Department of Finance for their excellent work in preparing the budget and indeed throughout the year. I see the supplementary estimates will bring changes to the general anti-avoidance rule, the GAAR, to eliminate one of the biggest loopholes.

We did, however, hear the testimony of Professor Brian Arnold at a previous meeting, and he spoke about many other loopholes. Actually, our committee made a prebudget recommendation that consultations on the general anti-avoidance rule be quickly held in order to update the GAAR.

I have two questions for the officials from the Department of Finance.

I see that the measures contained in the budget are not in the bill before us, i.e., Bill C‑19. Will the legislative measures be tabled this summer?

I understand that it is a complex issue and that we need to take the time to do things properly. Will we receive feedback from the consultations this summer?

Will it be possible to have a bill that contains an updated general anti-avoidance rule?

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

Thank you for your answer, which was most clear.

We will be able to check with the Canada Revenue Agency to see what its interpretation of the such an act would be.

During yesterday's meeting, an official from the Department of Finance told us that they were currently working to find a solution to the cashflow problem concerning aircraft aimed at the export market. I understand that it is the government that has to provide a solution, but I have a question for the officials here with us today.

Technically speaking, will the department be able to propose a solution before we vote on Bill C‑19?

[Trevor McGowan]

As I noted, the measure's not contained in Bill C-19. It will ultimately be a decision for the government as to what legislative vehicle the measure would be included in. As I said, it's fairly normal course for some of the more complicated measures to be announced in a budget. Quite often draft legislative proposals are released in the summer for further consultation, and then the measures can be included in a fall budget bill. Again, it's up to the government to decide what legislative vehicle any measure would be included in, but that is a fairly standard path that they can take.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Okay. Are they on the screen? Are they logged into Zoom? Good. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, my first question is going to be.... I've gone through much of Bill C‑19 here. My first question is from a natural resource perspective.

There's nothing in here for the natural resources sector, and there was a significant amount in the budget concerning the natural resources sector, particularly. I'll dwell on one first of all, which is a new carbon capture, utilization and storage regime. I know that it's been a long time coming. This government has taken a lot of time and it voted down a piece of legislation I put in front of Parliament over a year ago to start getting carbon sequestered in Canada. We're a year later, emissions have continued and we have no regime.

I was expecting something in this budget implementation act on carbon capture, utilization and storage. Can any official can walk me through that? We need certainty, and the industry is trying to work with the government to get a regime that works in making a better environmental outcome for Canadians.

If we can get some certainty and someone can explain to me why there's nothing in this budget implementation act to move this process forward on a tax regime to deal with carbon capture, utilization and storage, I would be very pleased.

That's for anybody.

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

Yes, the issue of it, because I think we flew past it.

I believe that we, as a committee, should have a clear picture of the scope of the study. There are some amounts that are in the budget, and I do not want.... I really want to get on to the show today, which is Bill C‑19.

I would ask if we can defer the approval of the budget to a date when we have some clarity as to how encompassing and which days we will be meeting.

I've had a number of members ask me specifically about that and I've been unable to give them any kind of specificity about our schedule.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to rise on a quick point of order regarding our study on Bill C‑19. I just want to remind everyone that, as is often sadly the case, this bill contains an enormous amount of information. In fact, it could have been separated into many bills.

While not standard practice, it has occurred quite frequently in the past that some parts of a bill are studied by other committees. This can be through an order from the House following the second reading vote on the bill, or the decision can be made by a committee. Oftentimes, it is the government that requests it.

I am not proposing anything here, I just wanted to make information known to committee members. I would like to remind them that the bill requires careful analysis. It needs to be scrutinized, whether it be by other committees or ours.

There is an entire part on employment and employment insurance, and if this part isn't studied by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, we will have to set aside some meetings to have a good look at the amendments contained in the bill.

The same goes for the amendments regarding the Competition Act and the Competition Bureau. Will these amendments really be conducive to a competition analysis? Will the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology study the bill? If it doesn't, our committee will have to set aside some time to do so.

The bill also deals with the Special Import Measures Act. Will the amendments made to the act have unintended consequences for our manufacturers in Quebec and in all of Canada? Will our committee or the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology undertake an analysis? If it falls upon our committee, we will need enough time to do so.

The bill also has a section on immigration, amongst other subjects. I just want us to keep this in mind. We can study these aspects after the second reading vote in the House. Otherwise, it will be up to us to make decisions. I don't necessarily have a preference, but if we, the members of the Standing Committee on Finance, are the ones who will scrutinize the whole bill, let us take the time to do an in-depth analysis of each part, because each part could be an act in itself. That way, our committee will have done its work properly.

That was my point of order.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 41 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting on the subject matter of Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. Per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members who are at their place during proceedings.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike. Please mute your mike when you're not speaking.

For interpretation, those on Zoom have the choice at the bottom of their screen of floor, English or French. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order the best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

I request that members and witnesses mutually treat each other with respect and decorum.

I'd now like to welcome today's witnesses from the Department of Finance. Please note that today's witnesses are here to speak about parts 1 to 4 of the bill. On Thursday, the committee will hear from senior officials for part 5 of the Bill.

Members, this is just a quick reminder that witness lists are due tomorrow, Wednesday, by 4 p.m.

Members should have received the budget. I'm just seeing if I can have members' nod of approval for our budget for Bill C-19.

Okay, great.

With that, I understand we are going to go to officials, although I do see a hand up.

Mr. Ste‑Marie, over to you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I have a comment I want to make. I was really moved by the exchange we just witnessed between the Deputy Prime Minister and Mr. Baker. We obviously support the Ukrainian people too. I can't imagine, even today, that this conflict can last. I'm obviously talking about the Russian invasion of Ukraine and its impact on those millions of people. Our hearts go out to them.

Getting back to the luxury tax on aircraft, the 90% business use criterion is a problem. I briefly mentioned that. There's also the fact that, even if the tax doesn't apply to aircraft that are exported, it's first paid by the manufacturer before being reimbursed on a quarterly basis. The industry reminds us that the delays are often longer. For example, an aircraft must often be modified to the client's satisfaction and must therefore remain in Canada for six more months before being exported. Since most products are exported, the manufacturers wind up with very significant cash flow and liquidity problems.

Does the minister think she can provide the industry and us with specific and satisfactory answers before the vote on Bill C‑19?

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member indeed reminds me that Conservatives, whether inside or outside the House, seem to have fallen in love with blocking and blockades.

We are here because we have many other pieces of legislation, including a budget. There is not just Bill C-8, which, as we have mentioned, has had 12 days of debate and obstruction and concurrence motions and everything else that the Conservatives can throw up in order to delay it, but also Bill C-7, which we have not debated yet, and Bill C-9, which we have not debated yet. There is Bill C-18 and there is Bill C-19.

There are all kinds of things that we have yet to debate, as well as the budget, and that is because the official opposition simply wants to run out the clock; delay, delay, delay; and use every tactic at its disposal to throw this government off its agenda. Canadians do not want that. They want us to work together.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Thank you very much. My clock says it's 12:08 and I am coming to a conclusion.

It will put money back in the pockets of Canadians even more often by changing the frequency of the climate action incentive payment. The payment will now be paid every three months instead of once a year at tax time.

Lastly, the bill will help the provinces and territories clear their surgery backlogs by providing an additional $2 billion to the Canada Health Transfer.

Mr. Chair, Bill C-19 will make a real difference in the lives of Canadians. It will help to grow our economy, it will create good jobs, and it will help us to continue building a Canada where nobody is left behind.

I hope that all honourable members here will support its swift passage through the House in the weeks to come.

Thank you very much.

Let me just thank the finance officials who are with you there. They have worked so hard on this budget, on supporting Canadians, and I'm grateful to them for their presence today.

I'm happy to answer your questions.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you very much for inviting me to speak to Bill C‑19, Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1.

I apologize for joining you virtually. I was supposed to be with you in person, but my flight was cancelled this morning as a result of fog in Toronto.

The budget I tabled last month was published during Canada's quick and remarkable recovery from the recession caused by COVID‑19. Canada has experienced one of the fastest employment recoveries in the G7. We've recovered 115% of the jobs we lost during those terrible first months. By comparison, the United States has recovered only 93% of lost jobs.

More than three million jobs have been created or recovered, and our unemployment rate has fallen to 5.3%, its lowest point since we began collecting comparable data nearly 5 decades ago. Our real GDP is 1.5% higher than it was before the pandemic. According to the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, Canada will have the strongest economic growth of all the G7 countries this year and in 2023.

I have some good news: last Thursday, S&P once again confirmed Canada's AAA credit rating. We owe that in part to the emergency support measures we put in place to keep Canadians and the Canadian economy afloat. We also owe it to the remarkable courage and determination Canadians have shown in the past two years.

But we still do have challenges ahead.

Inflation, a global phenomenon, is making things more expensive in Canada too. Snarled supply chains have driven prices higher at the checkout counter. Buying a house is out of reach for far too many Canadians. Russia's illegal and barbaric invasion of Ukraine is directly contributing to higher food and energy prices both here at home and around the world. This impact is hitting the most vulnerable the hardest.

We need to do better as a country at innovating and encouraging small businesses to grow. We need to continue to address the existential threat of climate change, which is why, with the investments outlined in this budget and through Bill C-19, our government is focused on growing our economy and making life more affordable for Canadians.

One of the pillars of our plan is investing in the backbone of a strong and growing country, our people. People need homes in which to live, but Canada simply does not have enough of them.

This budget represents the most ambitious plan that a federal government has ever put forward to tackle that fundamental issue, and it will put Canada on a path to double the number of new homes we will build over the next 10 years.

We also need to make the housing market fairer, which is why, for example, Bill C-19 will legislate a two-year ban on foreign investors. Homes need to be for Canadian families to live in. They cannot be a speculative asset class.

We will also make all assignment sales of newly constructed or renovated housing taxable for GST and HST purposes.

As well—and this is something that I know members of this committee care about deeply—Bill C-19 will help seniors and people with disabilities live and age at home by doubling the home accessibility tax credit's annual limit to $20,000, which will make upgrades such as wheelchair ramps more affordable.

A country and a growing economy also require an expanding labour force. Thanks to Bill C‑19, we'll be making it easier for skilled immigrants, whom our economy needs, to settle in Canada. This will help increase the government's ability to select candidates from the express entry system pool who meet the needs of Canadian businesses.

We will also be investing in the talented and determined workers who are already here and making it more affordable for specialized tradespersons to move here and find jobs.

Under the bill, we propose to establish a labour mobility deduction to enable tradespersons to relocate temporarily to a work location.This measure will grant tax deductions of up to $4,000 per year for transportation and temporary relocation expenses in an effort to reduce labour shortages in the specialized trades.

Bill C-19 will also continue our government's work to ensure that we have a robust tax system in which everyone pays their fair share. Through this legislation, our government will speed up the creation of a public registry of federally incorporated corporations to happen before the end of 2023, two years earlier than planned, to help counter illegal activity, including money laundering, corruption and tax evasion. Let me point out that this is only a first step.

This work is particularly pressing as Canada works hard with our allies through the new Russian Elites, Proxies, and Oligarchs Task Force to target the global assets of Russia's elites and those who act on their behalf.

This brings me to how Bill C-19 will allow the government to cause the forfeiture and disposal of assets held by sanctioned people and entities and to use the proceeds to help the people of Ukraine. Canada is leading the way on this effort as part of a group of allies. We would be the first member of the G7 to take this important step, and I can think of few better ways to pay for the very expensive rebuilding of Ukraine than with the seized assets of Russia's leaders.

To save time, I will quickly state some of the other measures set forth in Bill C‑19. I'm certain these measures will be supported by the members of this committee and my colleagues in the House.

Bill C‑19 provides for the introduction of a tax on luxury motor vehicles, aircraft and boats.

It proposes a tax cut for businesses engaged in zero-emission manufacturing activities.

It will also entitle employees to 10 days of medical leave in certain sectors such as air, rail, road and marine transportation, as well as banking, postal and delivery services.

It will put money back into the pockets of Canadians even more—

[Miodrag Jovanovic]

Bill C‑19 would repeal the current exemption, and that's the result of an agreement reached in 2018 in response to a complaint that Australia filed with the World Trade Organization. The agreement stipulated that the exemption would be repealed by the end of June of that year. The proposal was to repeal it for products made and packaged as of that date. In return, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada introduced a two-year $101 million program.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the officials for being here today.

I want to paint a little picture of where I live—Miramichi-Grand Lake in New Brunswick—and how this budget affects it.

Miramichi-Grand Lake, my riding, is the size of Prince Edward Island. There are probably about two places to plug in an electric car. Most people who order them are waiting a year—and sometimes two—because they can't get them and, of course, the government has basically stood by and watched China grow its ability to produce lithium.

The people where I live drive SUVs, trucks and muscle cars. They have boats. We have a marina. We live on one of the greatest salmon-fishing rivers in the world.

We're not seeing the million jobs referred to here today. It's nice to hear. We don't see them in Miramichi-Grand Lake. In Miramichi, we were a port facility, dating back to the mid-1800s and right up until the early 1990s, and then it slowed, so in recent years, the river hasn't been dredged. A company from Quebec wanted to dump $12 million on their own dime into the port. The were called “Groupe Gagné”. The government's role was to fix the navigational aids for $1.5 million. They said no, which stifled a minimum of 15 to 20 companies that would have been producing wood pellets, lobster, wood products, steel, fabrication products.... Basically, the current government has stifled every economic opportunity we had locally.

Now, with respect to this budget, inflation is currently at 6.7%, but it's 7.4% in New Brunswick, so it's much worse in my home province—as I've said—with no sign of it slowing down.

I don't see immediate relief for Canadians inside of this budget, but I'm going to ask the officials today, what in Bill C-19 is going to address the inflation crisis that Canadians and Miramichi-Grand Lakers are facing today?

Thank you.

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

Would you be able to supply the committee with a list of things that were in the ways and means motion that are also in Bill C-19, as well as other measures in Bill C-19 that were not in the ways and means motion, and under what category they would be captured?

I think the committee would be much better suited to understand how large this bill is, because it's my understanding that it's one of the largest the government has put forward. The government always says that better is always possible, so I would hope that the officials would agree that explaining that to parliamentarians, point by point, would be better.

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

I'm just going to ask that members of the committee bear in mind that, when I ask the same question of every single group to come forward, it is just to make sure that what we were given a technical briefing on is, in form and substance, exactly the same as what is in Bill C-19. If there are differences, I'd like to hear a rationale from the officials. That is a warning just to you and your colleagues.

You did mention earlier in your first response to me, which I had a little difficulty hearing, something about measures in this BIA that were in previous budgets. Could you recite that a little more clearly, please?

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

I do appreciate that you're going to try to answer as best you can. I do, by the way, appreciate everyone's work for our great country.

Sir, I have to say that you were little bit quiet, so I put my earpiece on. I'm going to ask a variation of the same question, and hopefully we can get through this.

Can you please start by saying what is in Bill C-19 that was not in the previously tabled ways and means motion, on which a technical briefing was given over the course of two nights last week by the parliamentary secretary? If you could just itemize those, please, we will then get into which budget they fell under before.

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

I would like first like talk about the form and substance of this BIA, Bill C-19. I haven't seen before where we received a technical briefing. Props to my colleague Terry Beech for offering those to our parliamentarians, but usually that's done on the BIA.

Would you, sir, be able to tell me whether or not everything that is in C-19 is what was discussed in the ways and means motion, or are there extra measures in this budget implementation act?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 40 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting on the subject matter of Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely, using the Zoom application. Per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members who are at their place during proceedings.

I'd like to take a few moments to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of the floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I would remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room who wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

I request that members and witnesses treat each other with mutual respect and decorum.

I would now like to welcome today's witnesses. We have a contingent of officials with us today from 12 agencies and departments. They are the Canada Border Services Agency; Canada Revenue Agency; Correctional Service of Canada; Department of Citizenship and Immigration; Department of Employment and Social Development; Department of Finance; Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development; Department of Industry; Department of Indigenous Services; Department of Justice; Privy Council Office and Treasury Board Secretariat.

Members, with so many agencies and departments, if your question is being directed to a particular agency or department, please make sure that you inform that agency or department how you're directing your question.

Before we move to members' questions, we'll have a formal introduction of our officials by Mr. Nicholas Leswick.

Mr. Leswick, the floor is yours.

Ways and Means

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

moved that Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, be read the first time and printed.

(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)