Bill C-32

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022

Part 1 implements certain measures in respect of the Income Tax Act by
(a) providing that any gain on the disposition of a Canadian housing unit within a one-year period of its acquisition is treated as business income;
(b) introducing a Tax-Free First Home Savings Account;
(c) phasing out flow-through shares for oil, gas and coal activities;
(d) introducing a new 30% Critical Mineral Exploration Tax Credit for specified mineral exploration expenses incurred in Canada and renounced to flow-through share investors;
(e) introducing the Canada Recovery Dividend under which banks and life insurers’ groups pay a temporary one-time 15% tax on taxable income above $1 billion over five years;
(f) increasing the corporate income tax rate of banks and life insurers’ groups by 1.5% on taxable income above $100 million;
(g) providing additional reporting requirements for trusts;
(h) providing rules applicable to mutual fund trusts listed on a designated stock exchange in Canada with respect to amounts that are allocated to redeeming unitholders;
(i) providing the Minister of National Revenue with the discretion to decline to issue a certificate under section 116 of the Income Tax Act in certain circumstances relating to the administration and enforcement of the Underused Housing Tax Act ;
(j) doubling the First-Time Homebuyers’ Tax Credit;
(k) expanding the eligibility criteria for the Medical Expense Tax Credit in respect of medical expenses incurred in Canada related to surrogate mothers and donors and fees paid in Canada to fertility clinics and donor banks;
(l) introducing the Multigenerational Home Renovation Tax Credit;
(m) allowing access to the small business tax rate on a phased-out basis up to taxable capital of $50 million;
(n) modifying the computation of income as a result of the adoption of a new international accounting standard for insurance contracts;
(o) introducing a new graduated disbursement quota rate for charities;
(p) providing that the general anti-avoidance rules can apply to transactions that affect tax attributes that have not yet been used to reduce taxes;
(q) strengthening the rules on avoidance of tax debts;
(r) modifying the calculation of the taxes applicable to registered investments that hold property that is not a qualified investment;
(s) modifying the tax treatment of certain interest coupon stripping arrangements that might otherwise be used to avoid tax on cross-border interest payments;
(t) clarifying the applicable rules with respect to audits by Canada Revenue Agency officials, including requiring taxpayers to give reasonable assistance and to answer all proper questions for tax purposes; and
(u) extending the capital cost allowance for clean energy and the tax rate reduction for zero-emission technology manufacturers to include air-source heat pumps.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act , the Excise Tax Act , the Air Travellers Security Charge Act , the Excise Act, 2001 , Part 1 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and the Income Tax Regulations .
Part 2 amends the Excise Act, 2001 and other related texts in order to implement changes to
(a) the federal excise duty frameworks for cannabis and other products by, among other things,
(i) permitting excise duty remittances for certain cannabis licensees to be made on a quarterly rather than a monthly basis, starting from the quarter that began on April 1, 2022, and
(ii) allowing the transfer of packaged, but unstamped, cannabis products between licensed cannabis producers; and
(b) the federal excise duty framework for vaping products in relation to the markings, customs storage and excise duty liability of these products.
Part 3 amends the Underused Housing Tax Act to make amendments of a technical or housekeeping nature. It also makes regulations under that Act in order to, among other things, implement an exemption for certain vacation properties.
Division 1 of Part 4 authorizes the Minister of Finance to acquire and hold on behalf of His Majesty in right of Canada non-voting shares of a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Canada Development Investment Corporation that is responsible for administering the Canada Growth Fund and to requisition the amounts for the acquisition of those shares out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act to increase the maximum financial assistance that may be provided in respect of foreign states.
Subdivision A of Division 3 of Part 4 enacts the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management Act .
Subdivision B of Division 3 of Part 4 contains transitional provisions in respect of the enactment of the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management Act and makes consequential amendments to other Acts. It also repeals the First Nations Land Management Act .
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Government Employees Compensation Act in order to fulfil 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.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Canada Student Loans Act to eliminate the accrual of interest on guaranteed student loans beginning on April 1, 2023.
It also amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to eliminate the accrual of interest on student loans beginning on April 1, 2023.
Finally, it amends the Apprentice Loans Act to eliminate the accrual of interest on apprentice loans beginning on April 1, 2023 and to clarify when the repayment of apprentice loans begins during the interest suspension period from April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2023.

Carbon Pricing

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we are focused like a laser beam on affordability. I hope that in just a few short minutes, members opposite will vote for Bill C-32, which helps affordability.

Do members know what else helps affordability? It is the climate action rebate. It puts more money in people's pockets, and eight out of 10 families will benefit.

Do members know what they will not benefit from? The advice of the Leader of the Opposition to invest in cryptocurrency. There are a few days left in this session. I hope the hon. Leader of the Opposition has the opportunity to apologize. He should.

Taxation

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I still do not understand how the Conservatives from Quebec can be against the actions our government is taking to deal with climate change. I understand that the Conservatives want to ignore climate change, but in an hour, we will be voting on Bill C‑32, which will lower taxes for our SMEs and our entrepreneurs.

Why do the Conservatives systematically vote against tax cuts, including tax cuts for the middle class?

Financial Institutions

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have heard us explain why it was important that we were there for Canadians. If we had to do it again, we would, because Canadians needed us and we were there in their time of need.

What I do not understand is that in an hour's time, we will be voting on Bill C-32 and the Conservatives have consistently voted against the bill. The bill contains an important measure that will further lower the small business tax rate for our entrepreneurs in the country.

If the Conservatives wish to be consistent about their position, why are they voting against a tax cut for small businesses?

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member knows through the interventions I have shared in this place that if the governing party were serious about the climate crisis, it would start by taking the Canada recovery dividend that is already in Bill C-32 and apply it to oil and gas companies.

I will move to a different topic. One thing I think we agree on is addressing affordability, particularly for those who need it the most, and that is people with disabilities across the country who are disproportionately living in poverty today. They have been calling out for an emergency response benefit to address the rising cost of living, food and day-to-day life. If all parliamentarians were serious about addressing affordability in this place, they would be directing funding to those living with disabilities.

Could the member share his level of support for addressing poverty for those living with disabilities through an emergency response benefit?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Once again, and I want to emphasize this with regard to positive measures, Bill C-13 goes further than Bill C-32. In addition, non-governmental organizations, as you cited as an example, are mentioned in the new version of the act. That's new. We want to ensure that this bill is passed because we want to continue doing the necessary work.

We still have a lot of work ahead of us to develop the regulations and so on. We are all eager to continue that very important work.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Minister. We've heard that on numerous occasions. Thank you very much.

I want to know if it's you who withdrew the full power granted to the Treasury Board, which was recommended in Ms. Joly's white paper and as provided in Bill C-32.

Did you withdraw that power under Bill C-13?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

First of all, Mr. Godin, as regards my role at the cabinet table, my voice isn't a lesser voice; it carries just as much weight as those of all the other cabinet members.

Bill C-32 was indeed the first take on the modernization of the Official Languages Act. However, I have just introduced the final version of the bill, which contains improvements.

People often ask me if our bill is less rigorous. I was asked that today. However, it's quite the contrary: we've gone to great lengths to ensure that our bill has more teeth.

We've done that, Mr. Godin, because stakeholders across the country have asked us to make amendments to the bill. For example, they wanted us to give the Commissioner of Official Languages more powers and tools to do his job, to clarify the immigration policy and to provide a more precise definition of positive measures.

Since the bill hasn't yet been passed, I hope the committee will work together to pass it as soon as possible.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for being here today.

We all have the same objective: to work at strengthening bilingualism in Canada, both English and French.

You said in your statement that you had conducted many consultations. I believe that's true because we've seen your itinerary. You have a very busy schedule. So I'm satisfied that you met with the representatives of organizations.

However, I'd like to know something. We've had the white paper, BillC-32 and the consultation that you conducted this past year. Did you hear loud and clear what the representatives of the official language minority communities told you?

I'm going to talk to you right now about the first demand of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, the FCFA. It has requested that the Treasury Board be designated as the central agency responsible for implementing Bill C-13. Do you support that request, which I believe is unanimous among all the communities represented by the FCFA?

We can see that there's some confusion. Earlier the Minister of Canadian Heritage didn't seem to be aware of the issue. He gave you all the responsibilities, but your position isn't mentioned in the bill. He has no powers.

Would you be inclined to amend the bill to implement the FCFA's first recommendation?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the ministers for being with us this morning.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor, I've often heard francophone columnists and commentators say that Bill C-13 wouldn't go as far as Bill C-32.

I don't get the impression that's true, but I want to give you a chance to state your view of the matter.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Minister of Official Languages]

Thank you, Ms. Kayabaga.

Those of you who know me, or who recognize my accent, know that I'm an Acadian from New Brunswick. I live in an official language minority community.

I have had the good fortune to live, work and study in French partly as a result of the Official Languages Act. Consequently, it is an important act for me, and I think it has genuinely improved the lives of many of us.

In the past year, I have had the privilege of meeting my counterparts from across the country. In June, for the first time, I attended a meeting of the federal government, the provinces and the territories where we had an opportunity to discuss challenges and priorities. I must say we're eager to continue working closely together with the provinces and territories.

I would like to remind everyone that the work involved in implementing Bill C-13 began four years ago. The earlier Bill C-32 and the present Bill C-13 share the same reform objective: to ensure that the new version of the bill enables us to move forward and to give it more teeth. We were able to introduce a good bill thanks to the conversations we had with our counterparts.

As the new Minister of Official Languages, I was fortunate to meet with stakeholders from across the country last year. I was thus able to get to know them, to forge ties and to learn what they wanted to see in the bill. Bill C-32 definitely contained some good elements, but stakeholders also told us they wanted improvements made to it. That's precisely what we've done with Bill C-13.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to speak after my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, who masterfully demonstrated how inadequate the government's measures are.

I am going to give three examples. We have talked a lot about the economic statement. It has been examined from every possible angle, so I have chosen three measures that I see as either insufficient or counterproductive. I chose these three examples because they demonstrate that the Government of Canada has lost its bearings. It can no longer steer the ship, which is slowly taking on water.

The first measure I want to talk about is the FHSA, the tax-free first home savings account. It would allow first-time home buyers to save $40,000 on a tax-free basis. This savings account is a hybrid between two existing vehicles. Like the tax-free savings account, or TFSA, it allows money to be saved without the gains being taxed. It shares some characteristics with the registered retirement savings plan, or RRSP. Like contributions to an RRSP, contributions to the FHSA reduce a taxpayer's taxable income, meaning they pay less taxes at the end of the year.

Few people know that the FHSA is nothing new. Few people remember, and I was not born when this measure was introduced, but the RHOSP, a plan similar to the FHSA, already existed in Canada. The RHOSP was announced in the 1974 federal budget and abolished in the 1985 federal budget. As with the FHSA, contributions were deductible, returns could accumulate tax-free, and withdrawals were also tax-free when used for the purchase of a house or even, initially, for the purchase of appliances and furniture. The RHOSP was introduced in an economic context similar to the one in which the FHSA was introduced, with high inflation and interest rates.

This has all been attempted before. The conclusion will probably be the same: There are better tools for improving access to home ownership. We have known this since the 1970s. Accounts like this are not effective measures for helping people access housing. The FHSA is an ineffective and, above all, unfair tool for helping people access home ownership.

I would like to cite an excerpt form a study by Larin and Tremblay on the issue in 1978. It is “individuals reporting the highest incomes that benefit most from the plan, with 6.1% of taxpayers earning between $50,000 and $100,000 [in the 1970s] and 6.4% of those over $100,000 using the plan, compared to less than 2% of those with incomes under $7,000 in 1974.”

The biggest shortcoming of this type of measure is that it is not adjusted based on taxpayers' incomes. It necessarily puts people with higher incomes at an advantage, so it is counterproductive. It is fine to be able to shelter $8,000 from taxes, but that money has to be available. Although the government's intentions are supposedly good, the measure allows people who already have money for a down payment to shelter it from taxes. That is fine, but it does not help people who are having difficulty accessing home ownership. It does not help the people whose stories were just told by my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. It does not help the people who really need it.

The government ought to rely on the scientific literature. A fairer way of offering this type of tax benefit would have been to draw on the example of registered education savings plans. The government could have offered to “pay a grant proportional to the amount contributed regardless of income or even a grant that decreases as income increases”. The FHSA is the first of many examples of the government's outdated and inadequate policies. A savings account is one thing, but the real problem is the industrial and macroeconomic policies that I will discuss in a moment.

That brings me to my second measure. The government is aware of its shortcomings in terms of industrial policy, but it fails to propose any solutions in Bill C-32. Here is what the economic statement says: “Canadian workers need a robust industrial policy that will deliver good-paying jobs by seizing the opportunities of the netzero economy, by attracting new private investment, and by providing key resources to the world”.

Basically, what the government did was create an expert panel in 2020 called the Industry Strategy Council. The council made four main recommendations, but none of them seem to have made their way into current federal government policies.

The government may not want to admit it, but the pandemic significantly changed the global economy. The rules of the globalization game altered drastically with the pandemic. Supply chain resilience is now a key economic issue. Supply problems are one of the main causes of the inflation we are seeing today.

Before the pandemic, supply chains were designed to minimize the cost of each input, so the final product would be as cheap as possible. Value chains were based on minimal transportation costs, so something like a cellphone might be made from parts manufactured around the world.

However, those supply chains are fragile. A delay in the production of one part can hold up the production of several goods. For example, we are still feeling the consequences of the closure of plants manufacturing semi-conductors, which are an essential input for many electronic items. That is why some vehicles are in short supply.

Advanced economies around the world are now investing heavily in acquiring and developing new industries. One sign of that global change is the widespread creation of backup inventories. Many countries and businesses now maintain inventories purely as a safeguard against possible disruptions in their supply chains. Efficiency at all costs is now giving way to a resilience model. The economy is changing. Resilience is the goal now, not efficiency.

Fully 81% of supply chain leaders surveyed by McKinsey are now sourcing materials from two suppliers, rather than depending on one. This is another example of change in the global economy, where globalization as we knew it no longer exists.

The smart way to invest in industrial policy would be to invest in key or strategic industries. Key industries, such as semiconductors, are vital to supply chains. Without semiconductors, there can be no finished product. There is no way to finish them. Strategic industries involve essential goods that we are better off producing ourselves because we need to make sure they are always in stock. In some cases, major shortages could cost people their lives. Medical equipment is one example.

Instead of adopting a clear industrial policy like the U.S., Canada copied another measure, share repurchasing. Companies do this to give money back to their shareholders. Dividend payouts are another such measure. A company can buy back its shares on the market. It can also make a public buyback offer to its shareholders.

In August, the Biden administration implemented a 1% tax on stock buybacks under its Inflation Reduction Act. The Biden administration's measure seeks to encourage companies to invest their capital to grow their business, rather than return it to their shareholders. The tax does not seem large enough to act as a real deterrent to stock buybacks. The connection between stock buybacks and the underinvestment of companies is not all that clear. A company's optimal level of investment is not just determined by its cash flow. It is not advantageous for all companies to grow, even if they have a healthy level of capital.

The Fed studied the phenomenon in 2017 and did not find a causal link between stock buybacks and underinvestment. The measure is a surtax because capital gains on stock are taxable.

Furthermore, this measure was implemented in the U.S. in August, while Canada only talked about potentially implementing such a measure in 2023 or 2024 in the budget statement. Once again, this is very vague. The government is saying that it is going to quickly copy a measure, but ultimately it is not even capable of implementing it.

What the United States is doing, but we are not, is proposing an ambitious industrial policy. Canada is quickly being overtaken. The public purse is a powerful tool. When properly used, it can attract foreign investments to develop a local manufacturing sector. For example, as part of its semi-conductor plan, the United States will be bringing in just over $39 billion in tax incentives to encourage the construction of new semi-conductor plants on American soil.

According to the concept of the fiscal multiplier, one dollar well invested can generate a much larger return. Semi-conductors are the foundation of a digital economy. All the great economic powers are developing semi-conductor procurement and control policies. What policy is Canada proposing for semi-conductors? None at all, unfortunately.

The economic statement contains 34 references to the supply chain problems contributing to inflation, but it does not propose anything to counter them.

In conclusion, the government is clearly short on inspiration. The economic statement contains nothing in the way of impactful, innovative measures. At best, it rehashes things we have seen before, such as the FHSA. Worse still, the Government of Quebec has to make up for Canada's lack of vision, because this economic statement is just like the government that issued it: weak and ill adapted to the changing economic reality.

If Canada does nothing—

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise here today to speak to the government's economic update. On weekends, I spend time in my riding to talk to the folks who I represent. The topic front of mind for all is the state of the economy.

As the Deputy Prime Minister gave her update in the House, I, like many others, listened intently. I heard her warn Canadians that things are going to be tough this winter, and that inflation is high and likely to get higher. Boy, how her tone has changed from the message of sunny days and sunny ways.

A few months ago, we heard that very same minister stand in the House and tell us that we are not so bad off and that we should be happy because the rest of the world is worse. In March, she accused us Conservatives of talking down the Canadian economy. Perhaps the minister could now admit that it was not talking down the economy, but rather it was, and continues to be, a warning to this Liberal-NDP coalition of the harmful consequences on real Canadians that their failed economic policies are producing.

The minister acknowledges that tough times are here, sunny days are behind us, and it is time to pay for Liberal overspending. The Liberals have run up the government's credit card to the limit, and it is now up to the taxpayers to pay the bill. The truth of the matter is, the ones who feel their mismanagement the most are the ones they claim to be standing up for.

We all know that socialists raise their fists in the air exclaiming, “Power for the people”, but what is the result? It is power over the people.

I have heard the minister say numerous times in the House that the government's plan is a compassionate plan. I beg to differ. Is it compassionate to triple the carbon tax on home heating? Is it compassionate to triple the tax on gas? Is it compassionate to triple the carbon tax on food production and delivery? I can answer that with a resounding “no”.

The people of Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame are not feeling any compassion from this government. They are contemplating how to stay warm and keep food on the table this winter. It is looking more like doing both may not be an option. People in my riding are facing a home heating bill that has nearly doubled since this time last year. Is that compassion?

Charlie from Gander, for example, is a hard-working family man who considers himself to be part of the middle class. He told me that he is scared that he will not be able to afford oil to heat his home this winter.

Food banks across the country are experiencing record high usage, yet what did this minister say to that? Well, she did not say, “Let them eat cake”, but she might as well have. She tried to relate to hard-working Canadians by telling of the hardship that her family is experiencing in making the huge sacrifice of cutting their Disney+ subscription. It would be funny if it were not so serious. This government is so out of touch with Canadians that it is completely tone deaf to their plight.

Last week, my colleague told the minister of a senior who is living in her car in Halifax, Nova Scotia, because, even though she has employment and CPP benefits, she is unable to afford housing. The minister's response was to advise the woman against spending her savings on cryptocurrency. Really? How tone deaf can she be to believe that a woman who is forced to live in her car because she cannot afford a house has $10,000 to invest in anything for that matter?

Maybe the minister is just as tone deaf in reading the situation as the Prime Minister is. He thought it would be a good idea to hold a concert in the lobby of a hotel where he had the taxpayers spend $6,000 a night for five nights for his room, which is almost double the average Canadians' earnings in a month. To justify his extravagant spending when questioned in the House, the Prime Minister thought he could distract taxpayers by reminding them of the extremely generous one-time $500 payment to low-income renters. Do the members of this government not see how disingenuous their words are?

The Conservative Party asked the government for a little relief on home heating this winter by removing the carbon tax from heating fuel. In Atlantic Canada, this would be a big relief and offer some peace of mind. What was this government's response? Well, the Liberal government decided to ignore their pleas, and the request of the Liberal premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, by forcing the carbon tax on three Atlantic provinces.

The MPs from our own province should be sympathetic, but no. The senior minister from Newfoundland and Labrador is sick and tired of people complaining about the cold winter. The Liberal-NDP coalition government is tone deaf and out of touch. The government's excuses for the rising inflation rate are anything and everyone other than its mismanagement and reckless overspending. It would like us all to believe that it is because of COVID, but as my colleagues have pointed out on several occasions and I feel is worth repeating, the Prime Minister added $100 billion of debt prior to the first case of COVID in Canada. That bears repeating so we can absorb the figure: $100 billion that is not COVID-related.

This week, the Auditor General confirmed that the members on this side of the House have been warning since 2020 that wasteful spending was resulting due to a lack of controls. With respect to Employment and Social Development Canada, the Auditor General identified at least $32 billion in overpayments and suspicious payments that require further investigation. In the Prime Minister's eyes, that is insignificant and he would like us to believe the rest of the spending was to support Canadians through the pandemic. That too is not completely correct. The Parliamentary Budget Officer discovered that 40% of all new spending measures had nothing to do with COVID. That is $200 billion in spending that is unrelated to COVID. That boggles my mind.

The spending that was done in the name of COVID was poorly managed, to say the least. We saw CERB cheques going to prisoners and there was a $44-million arrive scam app which did nothing and could have been developed for approximately $24,000 in someone's basement over a weekend. The list goes on and on. I am sure members are tired of me saying all this stuff.

What the Liberals do not seem to understand is that this money that they keep spending and giving away to their friends is not their money to give away. Hard-working, taxpaying Canadians deserve respect and real compassion. The Conservative Party is here to do just that. We will fight for those who leave their homes every day to work in the energy industry to provide heat for our homes and gas for our vehicles, for those who fish our waters and farm our land to provide food security for Canadians, and for those who look after our children in day care and who tend to our sick and our elderly. Conservatives have a plan that would work and not just pay lip service.

A Conservative government would impose conditions so that if cities want more federal infrastructure money, they would have to remove the gatekeepers. We would connect their infrastructure dollars to the number of homes that actually get built so that young people could find a place to live. We would also sell off 15% of the 37,000 federal buildings we have so they could be converted into housing and our young people could have affordable homes. We would bring in a pay-as-you-go law so that every time we spent a new dollar, we would have a new dollar of savings to pay for it. Conservatives would fund our programs with real money rather than printed cash, because we know there are no freebies in this world and we know that ultimately, taxpayers and consumers pay for everything.

We would reinstate the Bank of Canada's core mandate to make sure inflation stays at 2% as brought about by the Mulroney government, the last great government, or the second-last great government, after Prime Minister Harper's. We would audit the Bank of Canada through the Auditor General to show her that never again is there such a horrendous abuse of our money as we have seen over the last couple of years.

I cannot support this bill because it has $14 billion of spending that is ready to go, but we do not know what it is for. Is it tucked away to be wasted on another gun buyback? Will that $14 billion be wasted to confiscate the hunting tools that are used to harvest the 20,000 moose per year that are taken to put protein on the tables in my province? Will it be wasted to buy back the Plinkster rifles that young girls use to shoot targets with their daddies, as they learn the safety aspects of handling firearms?

Bill C-32 leaves me with more questions than answers. Therefore, my vote will be nay.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Before I begin, I want to give a brief shout-out to a business that is a Kamloops beacon and a beautiful, thriving small business in Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. It is Riversong Guitars, which recently won a prestigious award. I want to read from a story from the CBC. Here is a quote:

Riversong's P2P River Pacific was announced on Sunday as the acoustic category winner in the prestigious Musical Merchandise Review...Dealers' Choice Awards. In the 30-year history of the international awards, Riversong owner and P2P guitar inventor Mike Miltimore said this is the first time a Canadian company has won acoustic guitar of the year.

That is quite an accomplishment for a relatively small company, and especially a Canadian company. I am equally proud that the people come from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I want to thank Mr. Miltimore and his staff for all they have done for the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo and for the industry.

We do not get to share enough of these stories in the House of Commons. While that is somewhat positive, sometimes we have to dwell on, or not dwell on but point out the negative. Here we are, speaking to Bill C-32, the fall economic statement.

This is a confidence matter. We are talking about over $1 billion of spending. When I asked myself about supporting a confidence measure, as a parliamentarian and as a Canadian, I asked myself, “Do I have trust in the government?”

With all due respect, the conclusion I have come to, based especially on what I have seen in the last couple of months, is a resounding no. I ask myself what it means to have confidence in the government, such that a parliamentarian can support a piece of confidence legislation like the fall economic statement.

Confidence is predicated on trust. Why do I not trust what the government is doing and what the government is putting forward? Why do my constituents generally not trust what the government is doing and what the government is putting forward, based on their communications to me? Last, why do a number of Canadians not trust what the government is doing, communicating and saying?

First, and likely most notably, is when it comes to finances. Here we are, debating a bill based on finances. Let us turn back the clock a bit and remember that this was the Prime Minister who promised modest deficits of $10 billion. He also promised that the budget would be balanced by 2019. What we saw were much larger deficits than the promised $10 billion. We also saw no intention to balance that same budget.

The Prime Minister said the budget would balance itself. It has not. The Prime Minister has doubled all debt and has added more debt to Canada's financial rolls than all other prime ministers combined. I have young children, which is obviously no secret, and I wonder about the care for future generations. Who will pay for this?

I recently read a statistic, and I am going to paraphrase it here. My understanding is that we are paying so much just in interest on the debt that we could nearly fund our whole health care system. The Liberals will extol how much money they put into health care. We Conservatives will say that the money is not being spent appropriately or efficiently and is not getting things done. It is one thing to spend money, generally, but Conservatives believe in spending money prudently. There is a very key distinction.

Who will fundamentally pay for this? I am wondering. The government pays the debt off; there is no doubt about it, but we, the people, must pay the government, and that has to happen in one of two ways. It happens through taxation, or it happens through borrowing.

I will often hear in question period when Conservatives, seemingly the only opposition party in the House at times, or so it feels, will point out the spending or the difficulties, and the Liberals will say in response that they have done this and they have lowered that, or, as I just heard, they have doubled the GST credit.

I am going to give a personal anecdote. Not long ago, I looked at the after-tax pay on a T4 slip of somebody I know well. When I was working in federal corrections, I made a good salary, and this person makes tens of thousands of dollars more than I did, yet the individual's take-home pay is just $200, $300, $400 a month more than what I took home 20 years ago, working for the federal government. That is not because of deductions that those employees are choosing. These are incremental things at the source. There are—

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, through Bill C-32 and our fall economic statement, we are trying to provide targeted support to Canadians who need it the most, by doubling the GST tax credit, by eliminating the student debt loan and by providing a one-time $500 top-up allowance for renters who cannot afford it.

I talk to constituents in my riding every day, and they bring up these issues. Affordability is becoming a concern for many. These are measures, like the measures the members on the opposite side voted against, such as providing dental support for families with kids under the age of 12. We are lucky to have insurance, but there are many families in my community who have no insurance to take their kids to the dentist.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today during the third reading debate to support Bill C-32. I am one of the final speakers on this important legislation that would implement some of the key measures from our government’s fall economic statement and bring needed help to Canadians who need it the most, including in my riding of Scarborough Centre.

I have spoken several times in the House about inflation and the impact it is having on families in my riding. It seems like everything is more expensive. For families in Scarborough, which is one of those communities where people are working hard to join the middle class, it is not like it was easy for many families to make ends meet already.

The lack of affordable and suitable housing is a long-standing issue. Rising interest rates are not helping. Add in the higher cost of groceries and seemingly everything else, and it leaves many families having to make very difficult choices every month. With housing, transportation, groceries, school outings and clothes for children, paycheques never seem to go far enough. For too many families, it is harder than ever to get ahead.

In the spring, we were all focused on the high price of gas. It is still not cheap, but it is down substantially from its peak of over two dollars per litre. Groceries and other necessities remain more expensive than usual, and this trend is forecast to continue into the coming year.

While my friends across the way may say otherwise, inflation is not a made-in-Canada phenomenon. Groceries are not more expensive because our government stepped up during the pandemic to stop people from losing their homes and businesses from declaring bankruptcy.

In fact, our pandemic supports for Canadians, which I recall all members in the House working on together to deliver them to Canadians expeditiously, saw Canada emerge stronger from the pandemic. We were there for Canadians and we always will be.

Inflation is a global phenomenon driven by the zero-COVID policy in China, ongoing supply chain disruptions, climate change impacting the harvest of vital crops and the war in Ukraine. Canada is not immune to these global pressures.

We have done better than many of our peers. According to a report last month from CTV, Canada had the third-lowest inflation rate in the G7 at 6.9%, which is higher than only France and Japan, and faring much better than the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and even the United States.

That said, the challenges being faced by many Canadians are very real, and Canadians expect their government to be there to help those who need it the most. You and I do not need help, Mr. Speaker. We can tighten our belts and weather the storm until it passes.

However, those families already on the edge, the seniors on a fixed income and the single mother trying to support her kids on a minimum-wage job are the people who need targeted assistance. It is those Canadians we are seeking to help with Bill C-32.

I would like to focus on a few of the ways we are already helping constituents in my riding who need help the most.

By doubling the GST tax credit for six months, we are directly helping lower-income seniors and families. Everyone below a certain income threshold is eligible for the GST tax credit, and this increased rebate is already putting money back into the pockets of Canadians who need help the most.

A single person with no dependent children can receive up to $234, and a couple with no children can receive up to $306. This goes all the way up to $628 for a couple with four children.

We are also topping up the Canada housing benefit with a $500, one-time payment. Everyone, from young people living on their own for the first time to families and seniors on a fixed income, is eligible based on their income and how much of their income they pay toward rent.

In short, whether it is a family with a net income under $35,000 or it is a single person earning under $20,000 and paying 30% or more of their income on rent, then they can qualify for this payment, but they need to apply for it. Applications open December 12, and if someone is eligible, I strongly encourage them to go online to apply.

We have also launched the Canada dental benefit for low-income families with children under the age of 12. It can provide up to $1,300 over two years to help with dental costs for eligible families. We expect this program to expand to lower-income seniors next year. I know it will make a difference for many seniors on a fixed income.

If people take care of their teeth, their teeth will take care of them. This program means that lower-income families without employer coverage do not need to neglect their oral health needs. We are also working toward a national dental care plan for all Canadians.

These are all targeted programs that are putting more money back into the pockets of lower-income families and seniors. We are building on these initiatives with Bill C-32.

To address housing affordability, we are taking a number of steps, including an anti-flipping rule to discourage people from rapidly flipping homes for profit in a short time, which is driving up housing prices. Houses should be a home, not a business. We would make it easier to save for a down payment with the new tax-free first home savings account.

We would change the rules around the tax on the value of non-resident, non-Canadian owned residential real estate that is considered to be vacant or underused. Also, we would double the first-time homebuyer's tax credit amount from $5,000 to $10,000.

I also have a lot of multi-generational households in my riding, and the multi-generational home renovation tax credit would help families make their homes more suitable to their needs.

I am particularly excited about the elimination of interest on federal Canada student loans and Canada apprentice loans, combined with no requirement for repayment at all until a graduate is making at least $40,000 per year. This would be a significant benefit for our young Canadians.

I meet with student groups every year and with individual students all the time in my community. They have long told me about the burden of graduating with major student debt that weighs them down for years. In real dollars, tuition and other expenses are so much more than when we were in school. Even working full time, it can be hard to keep up.

The elimination of federal student loan interest has been welcomed by many stakeholders. For example, the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, which I met with last week, said:

Big news for students across Canada!

Starting on April 1, 2023, the Government of Canada will remove the interest on Canada Student Loans. This investment is welcomed by past, current, and future student loan borrowers.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada said:

We're pleased to see help to Canada's most vulnerable in today's economic update, including eliminating student loan interest payments for thousands of our members and increased funding for the services our members deliver to Canadians every day.

By eliminating interest and delaying repayments, we would make it easier for young graduates just entering the workforce to begin a family, to begin saving and to enter the housing market. Without the burden of crushing debt payments and compounding interest, they could more easily realize their career goals and contribute to society, which would enrich us all. This measure would save the average graduate more than $400 every year, and that would be a real benefit for young families saving for their first homes.

I could go on, but the sooner we pass this legislation, the sooner more help will begin to flow to Canadians who need help the most. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Canadians, and let us pass this bill.