Bill C-46

An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Income Tax Act

This enactment amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to authorize additional payments to the provinces and territories. It also amends the Income Tax Act to provide an additional payment of the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) credit equal to double the amount of the regular January 2023 payment.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House to speak about such an important democratic exercise, specifically the budget and its implementation. A budget provides a framework and a guide for the government's policy agenda. It is normally quite thick and takes a while to analyze. This bill is huge, I have to say. The government has thrown a lot in there. This type of bill is called an omnibus bill.

There are many items in the budget, but a lot of reading between the lines is still needed. The government announces things without really describing them, so we have to guess what its intentions are, what those things mean and when they will be implemented.

In this budget, I noticed that the government wants to differentiate between the investments that have already been announced and those that are forthcoming. To do that, it is putting different markers at the start of each line. Checkmarks are used for investments that have already been announced. That implies that it has been done. Arrows are used for upcoming investments. When I flip through the budget, I see a lot of checkmarks. That means that the government is announcing things a second time. That is a rather odd strategy. Announcing an investment twice does not double the amount. That is not how it works. The government needs to stop treating us like fools.

It is difficult to see what new announcements this government is making. For example, in the housing section, all we see are checkmarks. There is nothing more for the regions of Quebec, despite the fact that they too are experiencing a housing crisis. The housing crisis is not something that is only happening in big cities. There is a crisis in the largest regions of Quebec and in the smallest, and I am sure that the same is true elsewhere in Canada. Unfortunately, the funding is not reaching the smaller regions.

I do not like it when politicians criticize everything all the time. We see this every day, and I believe it does nothing to counter the cynicism people feel toward politics and toward elected members who find fault with everything.

I looked at the budget that was brought down in Quebec City shortly before the one in Ottawa. The opposition parties had some harsh criticisms. They ranted and raved, saying there was nothing good in the budget. I decided I would do my homework and acknowledge the good things when it was Ottawa's turn. It is nice for our constituents to see us commend things instead of always criticizing the government. It is nice to note the positive things, the aspects that are good, while pointing out what could have been done better.

When I received the federal budget, I realized that it would be hard to point out the good things because there are not that many, especially when I look at what Quebeckers were asking for. Often, what the Bloc Québécois suggests aligns with what Quebeckers are asking for. What Quebeckers want is what we are going to bring forward and ask for in the House of Commons.

As I was saying, the bill includes nothing for housing, nothing for seniors, nothing about the EI reform we have been asking for for years, and no long-term solution to health care underfunding. I am willing to recognize the good points, but is it that hard to meet the public's expectations?

Still, I did want to go through the process of trying to find good things in this budget. For example, the government seems to want to resolve, once and for all, the uncertainty around the calculation of the taxable capital gain on intergenerational transfers of small and medium-sized businesses, especially farms. That is good. At last, this is happening. Farmers have been talking to us about this issue for a long time. Will it be resolved soon? We hope so.

Another good thing in Bill C-47 is that the government is planning to establish a real employment insurance board of appeal by incorporating elements of Bill C-37, which was introduced before the holidays. Great, that is a good thing. That is progress.

However, in all honesty, what we would have liked to see is nothing less than EI reform. That is what we have been asking for for years. Every year, unemployed workers' advocacy groups in every region of Quebec are promised that EI reform is coming and that it will be in the budget. They have been hearing this since well before 2015. Every time a budget is tabled, these groups realize they have once again been taken for a ride.

Need I remind the House that about 60% of people who lose their jobs cannot get EI, even if they paid into it with every paycheque? Need I also remind the House that it is worse for women and youth because many of them work in non-standard jobs?

The only other EI measure in the budget is a one-year extension of the pilot projects to provide an extra five weeks of benefits in regions where seasonal work is particularly prevalent.

We can hope that this is good news for our ridings, but obviously there is a “but” because only unemployed workers who have access to EI can benefit from that. As I was saying, unfortunately, 60% of seasonal workers are excluded from the program. Yes, it is a good measure, but there is always a “but”.

The problem is that the measures are temporary and ill-conceived. That is what workers in my area have been complaining about for years. We wonder whether it would be possible for the government to have a more long-term vision, or any kind of vision at all, really. The government seems to think only about tomorrow, not about what might happen in the coming years. It cannot keep using one-time cheques and temporary measures, because that will never really solve the problems that have been going on for far too long.

It is a little disappointing, and it is kind of symptomatic of this government. I believe that it would not be that difficult to put in place a more well-thought-out measure, one that might perhaps take more than two weeks to create. I understand that EI reform cannot be done quickly, but people have been proposing solutions for years, and everyone has been weighing in and saying that there are solutions and they just need to be implemented.

I will quickly address another point that my colleagues have already brought up. This is the proof that this whole thing is half-baked. Bill C-47 contains items that were in Bill C-46. We thought this meant that the GST would be doubled once again and that there would be an extra $2‑billion top-up for the health transfer. It was a nice surprise for us, but it was actually just a little mistake. When Bill C‑46 was passed last week, the government forgot to remove those items from Bill C‑47. These are really rookie mistakes.

I will now talk a bit about the environment. I see that time is flying and I have a lot of things to say. The government is announcing significant sums of money for the transition to a low-carbon economy. We are talking about $80 billion over 10 years. That is a lot of cash.

To me, the energy transition means transforming our energy sources, our economic model, our consumption habits and our vision of production. That, in my opinion, is where we should be investing our money, but that is not all the government's vision. No, the government says it wants to continue to do everything the same way, but by polluting less. Obviously, we wonder how that could be done and how we can do the same thing and hope for a different result. How can we increase production while lowering greenhouse gas emissions? The government says it will be easy with carbon capture and storage technologies. Oh, that is interesting.

Now we are left to wonder whether it actually works. No one knows, because it is virtually non-existent in Canada. The Minister of Environment himself said in a Radio-Canada interview in 2021 that he wanted to lower expectations around this technology. He said that the government wanted to invest in these technologies, but added that it must be understood that nothing will happen overnight. He said that this is not the best way to reduce our emissions over the next few years. He also said we are going to need a lot of new technologies in the years to come, including things like carbon capture and storage. He said we are several years away, maybe a decade, from commercial use. That is what the minister said in 2021.

Between you and me, I would not count on it too much. This is the same government that announced in its 2015-19 policy agenda that it would ban single-use plastics by 2021. However, that ban was only put in place a few weeks ago, and it is 2023, so we will not put too much stock in that. Considering that Canada began developing this technology in 2021, perhaps we can hope that it will be ready for 2031.

The problem is that the government has set greenhouse gas reduction targets, and the next milestone year is 2030.

The government's plan for 2030 is to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 45%. The Minister of Environment often says that our emissions are going down, but everyone knows that was because of the pandemic. Even in 2020, emissions started to go up again due to transportation and oil and gas production.

I see my time is up, and I am ready to answer questions about the environment.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, today we are examining Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023. I wanted to read the full title because I am going to use it to back up what I am saying.

This is a huge bill, a mammoth bill. It is 430 pages long and seeks to amend 59 statutes and the Income Tax Regulations. However, since we have people who can read quickly, we noticed that King Charles III was hiding in this mammoth bill.

The government is trying to sneakily introduce a measure in this budget implementation bill that will force us to be loyal to His Majesty and will enshrine in law the fact that Charles III is indeed Canada's sovereign. That is quite appalling.

It is more than just appalling. I am convinced that, while there are those who are just a bit complacent about this matter, there are others who find this extremely offensive because of their roots. I am sure that those who have indigenous or Acadian roots may find it offensive to have to recognize this archaic institution. Clearly, the government put this in a mammoth bill because mammoths are another archaic part of history. In fact, they have disappeared, just as the monarchy should.

For someone with Acadian roots, swearing an oath and recognizing this monarch in 2023 hurts deeply. We know the harm that was caused to the Acadian people and to indigenous peoples.

I do not get it. How is there not a majority of members here who agree with what I just said? They could make sure we have an honest bill and submit the issue in all honesty to the House in a separate bill. No, this is hidden in a mammoth bill that amends 59 statutes. I get the impression that the government is a bit ashamed of its monarch.

I am not the first member to speak to this bill, but the Bloc Québécois is voting against Bill C‑47. First of all, there is nothing in there for seniors. For years we have been asking the government why there is a two-tiered system for seniors, but it stubbornly refuses to change this. It is as though people between 65 and 74 do not have needs and were not affected by inflation. It is as though every senior between 65 and 74 had enough income to live it up every day, when the opposite is true.

According to epidemiological studies, many illnesses emerge at this age. If we add to that financial insecurity, instead of a life without too many worries about living comfortably and deciding to buy this or that product or this or that medication, we would see that it is far more costly, in many ways, not to make the program fair.

The bill should have included tax measures to allow seniors who want to work to do so without being penalized. Something should be done about that. I cannot understand this stubbornness. Obviously, this is the budget implementation bill. These measures were not in the budget, which is not surprising, but it will come as no surprise that I am criticizing it.

The bill contains no long-term solutions for funding health care. My colleague spoke before about Bill C-46 and Bill C-47. Bill C‑46 included a $2-billion transfer, without conditions, to Quebec and the provinces. Suddenly, Bill C‑47 decides that would be redundant. We thought it was a generous gesture, given the government's previous power grab.

Now the government is preparing an amendment to walk it back. We are going to work hard to ensure it remains in Bill C‑47. I am appealing to the social conscience of all so-called Liberal members. A Liberal is supposed to be a progressive who is in touch with what is happening. At present, I would truly like to see one Liberal rise and show me that, in the medium and long term, the health transfers being provided are enough to meet the needs that the provinces and Quebec will have over the next ten years. That is an impossible task.

This does not mean that we do not appreciate the one-time investments made as a result of the pandemic. However, the structural problems of the health care system will not be fixed with one-time investments. The government made non-recurring investments when medium- and long-term structural investments were needed to rebuild the health care systems and to ensure that a pandemic will never again undermine and weaken these systems to the point that we have to lock down for a year, for example.

It is appalling, what is happening here. Taking away this $2 billion is shameful. That they would even consider taking it away is shameful, indecent even. They are offering crumbs. As I said before, the provinces were asking for $28 billion a year, from coast to coast to coast. The government offered them $4.6 billion with a gun to their heads. Take it or leave it; the budget was already written. The government thinks that that will be enough for the provinces to be able to take care of their aging population and cover all other needs, which ballooned and became more acute during the pandemic because of the delays and the waiting lists.

The Standing Committee on Health has done a study on the collateral effects of the pandemic. In the midst of the third wave, the experts came to us and said that even if we injected that $28 billion during that wave, it would still take 10 years for us to claw our way out of the pandemic. Imagine that. The government did not inject the money until after the eighth wave, and offered only $4.6 billion in new money, thinking that it would be enough for the provinces to take care of their people.

There is nothing in the bill for EI. Worse still, the government is about to pilfer $17 billion from the EI fund, because the only budget item it has decided not to absorb is EI. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have ever put back into the EI fund the $57 billion the federal government stole from it.

My father worked and paid into EI all his life. He was proud to pay into it for his colleagues who might need it and for workers who would probably need it. It made him proud to pay into it out of solidarity, but to never have personal need of it. He took pride in that.

What has this government done? It has pilfered $57 billion from the fund and has never returned it. Today, when it should be able to pay back $17 billion of that amount, it has decided to pay it by increasing workers' premiums. It is shameful, and it is why I will be voting against the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, we have been using Zoom for two or three years now. It is a shame that some people still have problems choosing the right interpretation channel.

I have a question for my colleague.

Bill C‑46 includes a $2-billion investment in health care. This measure appears again in Bill C‑47.

Today at the Standing Committee on Finance, senior officials confirmed that, if the bill is not amended, a total of $4 billion will be invested in health care.

The hon. member is saying that there is not enough money for health and mental health. This is our chance to ask his government to not remove that part of Bill C‑47, so that $4 billion will be invested in health care instead of $2 billion.

Will he commit to working to keep the $4 billion?

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

Madam Speaker, toward the end of his speech, my colleague said that there needs to be money for mental health. Then he went on to quote organizations that say there is not enough funding. Something interesting happened, however. Last Wednesday, Bill C‑46 was passed by the House at all stages. The next day, Thursday, the government introduced Bill C‑47.

Bill C‑46 included a $2-billion, unconditional health transfer to the provinces. This is included again in Bill C‑47. At the Standing Committee on Finance earlier today, senior officials confirmed to us that if Bill C‑47 is passed as is, an additional $2 billion would be transferred to the provinces.

The hon. member says there is not enough money for health and mental health. Now, there could be an extra $2 billion if his government does not make an amendment to take that part out.

Will the hon. member vote to keep the extra $2 billion?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, in a momentary fit of enthusiasm and sincere affection, I forgot myself.

As I was saying, the Prime Minister has come forward with the bare minimum. Let us go back to that bare minimum. According to the NDP, the minimum was $4.6 billion. The NDP therefore wants there to be more than $4.6 billion. In my opinion, the NDP surely wants the $2 billion dollars that was in Bill C‑46 to also be included in Bill C‑47. That is my interpretation.

I will continue to read the quote: “The Prime Minister has come forward with the bare minimum—a deal that won't do nearly enough to recruit, retain and respect frontline workers, does not address the conditions in long-term care”.

I think it is clear that the leader of the NDP has the same objectives as us and that he wants the health care system to be better funded.

I will read a third statement by the leader of the NDP, who said, “Increasing the Canada Health Transfer is a start—but this is not enough to rebuild our public health care system.” Again, the leader of the NDP finds that the government is a bit stingy when it comes to funding health care.

In my opinion, $2 billion is not enough, but $4 billion might be enough. I have a feeling that my colleagues in the NDP are thinking the same thing. The $2-billion question, therefore, is this: Will the representatives from the NDP support us for better health care funding?

Based on everything the leader of the NDP has said, I get the feeling they will. Will they instead support the government and deny us a more robust health care system?

I would like to quickly address something else. It is the issue of energy and the environment. In Bill C‑47, $21 billion will be used for greenwashing oil companies and for funding madness, namely small modular nuclear reactors that will allow the oil and gas industry to use less gas in its processes. Essentially, nuclear energy, energy that is anything but clean, will be used to produce more gas.

That is a total aberration that everyone is against. It is all the more a total aberration because there is no country, to my knowledge, that considers nuclear energy to be clean energy, except Canada. It is well known that nuclear energy costs 10 times more than solar or wind energy. It is also well known that research has shown that every country that has wanted to go the route of nuclear energy in their fight against climate change in the past 25 years has clearly failed. It is known that the federal government's strategy is doomed to fail, and there are funds for that in Bill C‑47. That is another aberration.

I will conclude my comments by reaching out to my colleagues in the NDP, because I am a man of good faith, so we can demand that the government adequately fund the health care system.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I fully understand, but sometimes when we get excited we forget the most basic parliamentary rules.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-47 today. At first, I thought that, as natural resources critic, I would focus my comments on energy but, as luck would have it, I will be able to speak on another one of my favourite issues, health transfers. Members will understand why.

I have risen many times in the House to speak about an issue that is plaguing Canadian federalism, and that is the fiscal imbalance. The fiscal imbalance could probably have been resolved in Bill C‑47. I will explain why. In fact, I hope that it will be resolved in Bill C-47 by a stroke of luck.

Before rising, I spoke with my favourite colleagues, the members for Drummond and Lac-Saint-Jean, to find out what they thought about health. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean, with his usual edgy wit, told us that, when it comes to health, the Leader of the Conservative Party makes Scrooge look like a spendthrift. Basically, we know that the Conservative Leader now wants to maintain health funding at $4.6 billion, as proposed by the Liberals, against the wishes of all the provinces, which want $28 million in funding. That is the silliness of the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, but I want to bring up something that happened on Wednesday, April 19.

At that time, the House had voted unanimously in favour of Bill C-46. That bill included $2 billion in health transfers to the provinces. For us, it was not enough. However, we later found that the $2 billion was in Bill C-47. That was very interesting, because a total of $4 billion would be going to the provinces instead of the initial $2 billion. I think that is very good news. It should be very good news for all government ministers, including the Minister of Revenue, but unfortunately, the member for Winnipeg-North put a damper on the good news. He can always be counted on to put a damper on good news. On April 21, he told us in a statement that he would be removing the most interesting part of Bill C-47, the part saying that there would be an additional $2 billion.

The Bloc Québécois will clearly oppose that amendment. Indeed, in our opinion, the fiscal imbalance must be resolved. We will talk more about that. Our recent experience with the pandemic showed us that our health care system is struggling. That $2 billion would be very useful.

Now comes the million-dollar question, as the expression goes. Except it is even worse in this case, because it is the $2-billion question. What is the NDP leader going to do? Will he support the government in cutting $2 billion from health transfers? The government has a coalition with the NDP right now, so I think the NDP has the opportunity to make a difference by not supporting the government in its plans to cut those $2 billion.

As I said earlier, we know that the provinces were asking for $28 billion, and they got only $4.6 billion. We know that the government refuses to fund 35% of health care costs, but the NDP could make all the difference.

To put things into perspective, I will share what the leader of the NDP said very recently. On December 12, the leader of the NDP said that his party was prepared to withdraw from the supply and confidence agreement it had signed with the Liberals if there was no federal action to resolve the health care crisis affecting Canadian children. That is what the NDP leader said on December 12. He went on to say that this was a decision he was not taking lightly and that it was time to keep the pressure on, because the goal of the New Democrats was to save lives.

The NDP can always be counted on when it comes to saving lives.

Saving our health care system is about helping workers and helping children. I wonder if the NDP today still wants to save lives. Does it still want to save our health care system and children? It has the opportunity to do so. All it has to do is refuse to allow the removal of the much-touted $2 billion from Bill C-47.

In February of this year, the same situation arose when an NDP opposition day was specifically about health care. Its strategy was a bit questionable, in my view. They tried to put the onus on the provinces by saying that there could be funding for health care as long as the money was not used for private services, as long as the private sector was not involved. Health falls under provincial jurisdiction. I would describe myself as a progressive. I do not agree with allowing the private sector to play a bigger role in health care, but the crux of the problem remains the same. The crux of the problem is funding.

On February 7, 2023, the NDP leader said, “After spending the last two and a half years stalling any progress to improve health care, Justin Trudeau has come forward with the bare minimum”—

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join the debate on Bill C‑47 and highlight our government's efforts to support the middle class, build a strong and prosperous economy, and help Canadians cope with the rising cost of living.

The 2023 budget tabled last month by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance proposes, for one, targeted inflation relief for 11 million Canadians and families. That is what I would like to talk about today.

This targeted relief is both necessary and appropriate. Since 2015, the government has been committed to helping those who need it most, and that has not changed. On the one hand, Canada's recovery from the recession caused by COVID‑19 has been remarkable. There are 865,000 more Canadians in the workforce now than there were before the pandemic, and the unemployment rate is near its record low. Inflation also continues to drop.

On the other hand, there are challenges that remain. For example, inflation is still too high. Canadian families are feeling the effects every time they go grocery shopping. Rising prices for basic necessities are a concern for many Canadians.

In the 2023 budget, we propose new, targeted inflation relief for the Canadians hardest hit by rising food prices. Thanks to this grocery rebate, 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families will receive financial assistance. These 11 million Canadians include people in my riding of London West.

In concrete terms, this represents up to $467 for couples with children and up to $234 for single people without children. It represents an extra $225 on average for seniors. This assistance will be provided through goods and services tax credits. The reimbursement will be paid by the Canada Revenue Agency as a one-time payment shortly after Bill C‑47 passes.

I am therefore happy to see that our grocery rebate is advancing well at the legislative level, Bill C‑46 now being before the Senate after having been adopted by the House on April 19.

That represents a $2.5-billion investment for the treasury. It is indeed an investment that will strengthen Canada's social safety net and improve the quality of life of millions of Canadians, without boosting inflation. It would be unreasonable to send a cheque to every Canadian, since that would only make things more difficult for the Bank of Canada, and things would remain more expensive longer for all Canadians.

We need to understand that the worst appears to be behind us in terms of inflation, which has declined every month in the past nine months and is now holding stable at 4.3%. That being said, we know that some families are having a harder time than others, and they are the ones that need help.

Budget implementation Bill C‑47 also includes a series of measures to help Canadians face the rise in the cost of living. They include legislative amendments to crack down on predatory lending. The bill also includes several provisions to implement the new Canadian dental care plan. This will help up to nine million Canadians, and ensure that no one in Canada has to choose between dental care and paying their monthly bills.

This is in addition to other measures included in budget 2023. I am thinking in particular of collaboration with regulatory agencies, provinces and territories to reduce junk fees such as high roaming and telecommunications charges, excessive baggage fees and unfair shipping fees. I am also thinking of the implementation of a right to repair to make it easier and less costly to repair appliances and electronics than to replace them. The possibility of implementing a common charging port for telephones, tablets, cameras and laptops will also be explored.

There is also a reduction in credit card transaction fees for small businesses.

This is also in addition to measures already in place, such as the reduction of day care fees at regulated services across Canada. Six provinces and territories already provide regulated child care services at $10 per day or less, on average. The other provinces and territories are on track to do so by 2026. We have also strengthened the day care system in Quebec. In that province, we are providing more day care spaces.

These are responsible measures. All Canadians want right now is for inflation to keep declining. Canada is proud of its tradition of fiscal responsibility. It is a tradition that the government is determined to maintain. That is why budget 2023 will allow Canada to keep the lowest deficit and net debt-to-GDP ratio among the G7. Budget 2023 will slow the growth of public spending and bring it back to prepandemic levels.

In exercising fiscal restraint, we ensure that we will continue to make investments for Canadians. With targeted investments, we will help those who truly need it. There are investments in housing, because our economy is built by people and people need a roof. There are investments in labour so workers have the skills needed to find and keep good jobs. There are also investments to strengthen the immigration system so that we can welcome a record number of qualified workers and help growing businesses.

In conclusion, Bill C‑47 will help the most vulnerable Canadians cope with price increases. It will ensure that no one is left behind. This bill will make it possible to consider everyone and manage the public finances effectively.

I encourage hon. members to support this bill and help create a stronger and more prosperous future for Canada.

Seniors

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for North Island—Powell River raises the very important issue of dignity and I wholeheartedly agree with much of what she said. Seniors do deserve a dignified retirement after a lifetime of hard work. They deserve to live knowing that they have the means to pay for their housing, food and medications, to name a few. With food costs and rental costs soaring, it is hard for people to put their financial cares aside.

This is the reason why our government increased the old age security pension by 10% for seniors over the age of 75. As seniors age, they tend to have lower income and are often facing higher health-related expenses because of the onset of illness or disability. Now, thanks to the increase to the OAS, we are strengthening the financial security of 3.3 million Canadian seniors.

Because higher prices on essential goods are causing undue stress, we passed Bill C-46, the one-time grocery rebate, which will deliver targeted inflation relief for 11 million Canadians who need it the most, providing eligible seniors with an extra $234, on average.

Our new dental benefit, as the member mentioned, will help seniors get the dental care they need. That is why, in budget 2023, we proposed to provide $13 billion over five years and $4.4 billion ongoing to help nine million Canadians, including seniors, receive the dental care they need.

These new measures build on the supports that our government has already provided to seniors in the form of program changes, tax breaks and top-ups. Since 2015, we have made significant progress for seniors. To begin, we increased the GIS for nearly a million low-income single seniors. We then restored the age of eligibility from 67 to 65 for GIS and OAS pensions, which the Conservatives had planned to increase this year, if they were still in power.

We enhanced the Canada pension plan, and we reduced income taxes through increases to the basic personal amount. Finally, budget 2022 committed a top-up of $500 to the Canada housing benefit to help low-income renters, including seniors, with the cost of renting, and a one-time doubling of the GST credit for six months.

We are committed to making life more affordable for Canadians, and our government has the record to prove it.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise today and speak about the budget implementation bill.

Today is a very special day in Parliament. Parliament is actually celebrating Vaisakhi on the Hill, so I would like to wish everyone a very happy Vaisakhi.

Vaisakhi is a very important part of the month of April, and here in Canada we celebrate Sikh heritage in the month of April. It does not matter where one goes in Canada; it is important to take a look at the importance of Canada's diversity and Sikh heritage and the contributions they have made to our communities over the years.

Last summer, I had the opportunity to travel to Abbotsford, where we have the first gurdwara, which is still standing. It is a Canadian heritage site. Whether it is in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal or out on the east coast, Sikh Heritage Month is a very important month of the year for people of Sikh faith and others who get engaged in recognizing and celebrating Sikh Heritage Month.

Earlier this month, the city hall of Winnipeg recognized Sikh heritage. Just last week, the Manitoba legislature had Turban Day inside the Manitoba legislature, and today here on Parliament Hill, as I indicated, we are celebrating Sikh Heritage Month and requesting people to put on a turban. It is with great pleasure that I put on a turban today.

I think of the importance of the khalsa and the minister providing the service. He posed a question: “What is Vaisakhi to you?”. Vaisakhi to me is very meaningful. It is about equality. It is about the khalsa. Back in 1999, I had the honour and privilege to introduce into the Manitoba legislature a recognition of the khalsa to recognize the importance of it, and just in February, I had the opportunity to travel to India. It is a beautiful country. I went to a few places, like Anandpur Sahib, where the khalsa was born, and the Golden Temple in Amritsar. I must say that at 1:30 in the morning, it is very surreal. When I was there, I could feel a spiritual presence.

The point is that, for me personally, it is all about faith and it is all about equality. It speaks volumes about Canada's diversity. When I think of Canada's diversity, I would suggest it is our diversity that is one of the greatest assets we have in society.

When we talk about the budget and think in terms of where the growth is within our budgetary measures, I believe we will find that Canada, as a trading nation, is very much dependent on world trade. When I think of world trade, I cannot help but think of some of our partners from the past and today, such as the United States, and the amount of trade that goes between our borders. I also think of the number of trade agreements we have been able to accomplish over the last seven years. I believe that as a government, we have signed off on more trade agreements with other countries than any government before us.

India is a vast, beautiful country. Many, including me, would argue it will be an economic superpower in the future. The greatest asset we have here in Canada is indeed our diversity and people, in this case of Indian heritage, being able to look at ways we can enhance trade opportunities. That applies to many other communities. When we talk about diversity, today is Sikh Heritage Month, but we have Portuguese Heritage Month and Filipino Heritage Month, which is coming up in June.

We recognize Canada's diversity, and that diversity shines through in many different ways. It is more than just heritage clothing, if I can put it that way, or traditional wares. It is very much about opportunities, and Canada is laden with opportunities, going into the future, based on trade.

Now here we are with the budget implementation bill, and one would think I would be talking a lot about the grocery rebate. I know the grocery rebate is very important. It is actually incorporated into this legislation. It is one of the ways the Government of Canada is going to be assisting Canadians through a very difficult time.

We talk about inflation, and I have made the comparison in that past when we have talked about inflation in Canada that we are doing relatively well compared to other countries in the world, whether it is the U.S.A., many of the European Union countries or those in the G20. We are actually doing quite well. However, the government recognizes that we could do better to assist the population. One of the ways we would be able to accomplish that is the grocery rebate. That would put money in pockets. The budget implementation bill is there to ensure that we are able to administer the grocery rebate.

The good news is that, as we did not know how long it would take to get through the budget debate, we were able to build a consensus to pass Bill C-46, which would ultimately put in place the grocery rebate. Canadians can look forward to seeing not only that particular piece of legislation pass but the money being sent out.

On Friday, when I talked about one of the more recent announcements, the VW announcement, I talked about a difference, a contrast, between what the Conservatives in opposition believe and what the Government of Canada believes. Over the last number of years, we have put a great deal of effort into building the Canadian economy and supporting Canada's middle class. We have done that in a number of different monetary measures, through budgets, and legislative measures.

Let me give a good example of this that I started to talk about just last Friday. We had the announcement of what will be Canada's single largest factory, where we will be producing and manufacturing electric batteries. It is very much a thing of the future that will provide literally thousands and thousands of jobs. It will provide the opportunity for Canada to become a significant player in the manufacturing of electric batteries for automobiles.

When we look at how the Conservatives here in Ottawa are responding, we see it has not been very positive, even though Premier Doug Ford has also contributed to the plant, not only from a financial point of view but also by building part of the infrastructure that will be necessary. This factory, land-wise, will be hundreds of times the size of a football field. It is going to be gigantic in terms of its footprint in St. Thomas, Ontario. All of us will benefit from it.

The leader of the Conservative Party tweeted not that long ago and said that we do not have lithium mines and do not have batteries being developed. That seems to be the attitude of the Conservative Party, and it does not have to be the reality. The reality is changing because we have a government that has recognized the potential of the industry and the important role that the Province of Ontario in particular has played in the automobile industry. That was no doubt a huge attraction for Volkswagen. We will now see more lithium mining taking place in Canada. We now have an industry that will be able to grow, expand and provide both direct and indirect jobs in the future.

On the other hand, the contrast is that we do nothing. Had we done nothing, we would never have been able to land the Volkswagen deal, and that industry would continue to be dominated by countries like the U.S.A. and China. However, as a result of the Government of Canada recognizing that we can and should be a player, we are now going to see and reap the benefits.

Sure, there is a cost to this. However, that cost will be paid back tenfold in the next 10 years. It is worth the cost. This is an industry that will do exceptionally well, much like the aerospace industry, which we talked about last week. As I made reference to last Friday, all of us, like those in Quebec and my home province of Manitoba, benefit when a province is able to do well.

I am excited about the future because this budget implementation bill is there to support workers, to support our environment and to support consumers. It is there in a very real and tangible way. I would encourage all members to rethink their positioning and look at it as a way forward for Canada that will create middle-class jobs, the good jobs we want in our economy, and that will create opportunities and entrepreneurs well into the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you and the members of the House that Bill C-46 passed all stages on Wednesday and that Bill C-47 was introduced in the House on Thursday. Therefore, there is no need to introduce amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to address the Bloc member's concern regarding the issue of Bill C-47 versus Bill C-46. The member is quite right. We need to recognize that it has been a priority of this government to provide inflation relief in the form of a grocery rebate. That is why it was incorporated into Bill C-46. It is also the government's priority to try to get hundreds of millions of dollars to the provinces with respect to health care. That was also incorporated into Bill C-46.

As the member pointed out, it is also in the budget implementation bill. This is because we could not get agreement for the quick passage of Bill C-46 through the House. We only recently got the agreement to pass it. Following this logic, the member will recall how long it can take to get a budget implementation bill through the House from the last time we had one.

As a good example of that, today, there has already been an amendment to the budget implementation bill moved by the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party is going to hold up the budget implementation bill. Recognizing the importance of getting that grocery rebate to Canadians and getting the transfers of hundreds of millions of dollars to the provinces for our health care system, the government had to come up with Bill C-46 after we got agreement that we could get it passed in the House. That is the reason for this.

I know the member appreciates the explanation. I would even encourage the member to move the amendment so we can rectify the situation once we get to the committee stage. If I could, I would be the seconder.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for New Westminster—Burnaby for his interesting speech and for all the work he does in the House.

On Wednesday, the House unanimously passed Bill C-46, which does two things. First, it doubles the GST credit cheque next July and, second, it transfers $2 billion to the provinces for health care with no strings attached.

I was extremely surprised and pleased to see that these two measures also appear in Bill C-47, which is before the House today. The government did not take them out of the omnibus bill, despite the passage of Bill C‑46 earlier this week. This means $4 billion instead of $2 billion to the provinces for health care, and a second grocery rebate cheque for people with low incomes.

Can the leader of the NDP assure the House that if the government ever realized its mistake and sought to remove that from Bill C‑47, the NDP would oppose that amendment, so the government could not make cuts to health care funding and the grocery rebate cheques?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his moving speech on what are certainly very important topics.

Obviously, the issue in question is not covered in Bill C‑47 and I am not really familiar with it, even though I think it is of the utmost importance.

The Bloc Québécois wants Ottawa to ensure that health care services, including mental health services, will be fully funded. Ottawa's plan for supporting the health care plans of the provinces is inadequate and unacceptable, despite the extra $2 billion provided through Bill C‑46, which was passed on Wednesday. We are far from a done deal.

Ottawa offers direct services, including in health, for veterans and certain sectors. What is being done seems plainly insufficient. Of course, anything Ottawa does costs two and a half times more than the same service provided by Quebec.

If the federal government were responsible for delivering health care services, a public health care system would be completely out of reach.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C‑47, the 2023 budget implementation bill.

This Wednesday, the House unanimously passed Bill C‑46, which does two things. It doubles the amount of the July GST cheque, called the grocery rebate, even if there is no GST on groceries, and it unconditionally transfers $2 billion to the provinces for health.

When the government introduced Bill C‑46, my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I wondered why the government was doing that. The GST credit is issued in July. Introducing the bill on Wednesday and quickly passing it will not speed anything up. The same is true for the health transfers. We know that Ottawa is not providing sufficient funding for health care. The bill included $2 billion, and it was fast-tracked. That is fine, but we did not understand why the government did that. We figured that it was probably trying to set a trap for the Conservative Party.

However, on seeing Bill C‑47, I was thrilled. We were thrilled. We understood why the government presented Bill C‑46 on Wednesday, with its $2 billion for health and $2 billion for the special GST credit payment. Essentially, Bill C‑47 duplicated this. The government tabled Bill C‑46 and we passed it, thinking that the government would delete the corresponding amounts from Bill C‑47, the budget implementation act, but it did not.

This approach is unprecedented and historic. When it tabled the bill, the government announced it had good news. It told us it wanted to do a little extra for health. It announced $2 billion on Wednesday, and then $2 billion in Bill C‑47, given that it did not remove the clause that had been passed in Bill C‑46. The same thing goes for the GST credit, a payment totalling $2.5 billion. Bill C‑47 contains another payment totalling $2.5 billion.

I was therefore extremely surprised and pleased to see that those measures are back in Bill C-47, which is before us today. The government did not remove them from the omnibus bill, despite the fact that Bill C-46 was passed earlier this week. With Bill C-47, the provinces will therefore receive $4 billion rather than the announced $2 billion and the less fortunate will receive a second cheque, ostensibly for groceries.

We are taking this on good faith. We are assuming that the government did not make a mistake here, that it is really saying that the less fortunate should receive a second cheque to help them deal with inflation and that the $2 billion for health care is to be doubled because so little funding has been provided for that. I commend the government's approach on that. I cannot presume that this is a mistake, even if it is completely unprecedented. There was no press release or communication from the government to announce this good news. It was really after we had passed Bill C-46 that we saw the text of Bill C-47 and realized that the government had doubled these two support measures. We are really delighted about that.

Of course, given the needs in health care, the government is not doing enough. The $2 billion is not enough. The agreements reached with the provinces do not meet the needs. In early 2015, the federal government was funding 24% of health care spending even though it should have been funding 50%. We have learned that the government will still be funding 24% of health care spending 10 years from now. That is not enough.

This speaks to the question of the fiscal imbalance. While the federal government continues failing to carry out its role, despite the additional $2 billion, it is buying up jurisdictions. I would remind members that dental care is a health care issue, which is a provincial jurisdiction. As I was saying, this speaks to the fiscal imbalance. Why is the government not adequately funding provincial health care systems and buying up areas of jurisdiction by creating a new health care program?

That is unacceptable, and we will continue to demand that the government carry out its role in health care and that it respect jurisdictions.

As everyone here knows, the political system that was adopted in 1867 was a federation. Although Sir John A. McDonald wanted a legislative union with an all-powerful Ottawa, the compromise was a federation where each level of government would be equally sovereign, with its own areas of jurisdiction. With this government, which is underfunding health care and always trying to buy jurisdictions, we are left with a legislative union. This is not the spirit of the federation. Instead, it is predatory federalism, as a former Liberal health minister in the Quebec government once said.

Let us talk about the dental care program. We expected to see the new dental care program that had been announced in the budget in Bill C-47. Instead, the program that was announced last fall is being retained, but union members are being told that they will not have access to it. Bill C-47, which is before us today, issues directives concerning dental care. People who have group insurance are being told that, because they are unionized, they will never have access to this coverage, that they are not eligible for the program. This sends a clear message to unions and union members. That is what is new about dental insurance in Bill C-47.

This is a mammoth bill of over 400 pages, and it amends 59 statutes in addition to the Income Tax Regulations. It is huge and affects so many different sectors. I will come back to that shortly.

Normally, a budget implementation bill is supposed to implement the budget so as to put in place measures that were announced. However, something quite surprising was hidden near the end of the bill, and it is not a budgetary measure. I am referring to division 31, on royal titles. I will read an excerpt. Here is what it is written in the budget implementation bill:

The Parliament of Canada assents to the issue by His Majesty of His Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the following Royal Styles and Titles:

Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.

What does that have to do with the budget? This is not the right place to do that. What does that kind of language have to do with democracy in 2023? I wonder. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois does not share that approach. Why hide it at the end of a budget implementation bill?

The Speaker often reminds us never to disrespect His Royal Majesty, by the grace of God. Is slipping this clause in at the end of the budget implementation bill not tantamount to disrespecting His Royal Majesty, Charles III? I am just wondering. Obviously, in light of past decisions and the procedures of the House, I understand that I cannot ask the Speaker to remove this clause. The request would have to come from the government, and obviously, I implore the government to make it.

I have more to say about the monarchy. Right now, as soon as the government makes an appointment by order in council, which it certainly seems to be doing here, parliamentarians can call the appointee to appear before a parliamentary committee in order to examine that person's qualifications. Given that Bill C‑47 proclaims “Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth”, what could be more appropriate than to call him to appear so we can examine his qualifications before finalizing his appointment?

That is a question that needs to be asked, and I am asking it here. In my opinion, division 31 on the monarchy does not belong in this budget implementation bill.

In the budget, there is an important division on the allocation of $80 billion in funding over 10 years for the green economy. We expected to see details on how the tax credits, the refundable credits, would work, but there is nothing in there about that. It is our understanding that this should involve negotiations with the interested parties. However, Bill C-47 gives us an idea of how the government intends to manage those amounts, and it is very worrisome. Through a legislative amendment, the government is creating two institutions that will be responsible for administering the amounts it plans to invest. This money will be removed from parliamentary oversight. Unelected officials will be responsible for selecting the projects that receive support but will not be accountable to anyone. There are no clear criteria.

Is that a good approach? Is it a good idea to give billions of dollars in taxpayers' money to people who are not accountable to anyone? Does that not just open the door to the arbitrary granting of subsidies based on ties with these anonymous decision-makers and the political stripes of the proponent?

Those are questions that I have.

Parliament wants accountability. Members are here to represent the people. When the government decides to use the resources it collects from the people, even if it is to invest in the transition, there needs to be accountability. That accountability is owed to the House and to the committees that report to the House. The approach set out in Bill C-47 will not provide for that accountability. There will be no accountability, and we find that very concerning.

For years, we have been asking that the government stop subsidizing oil companies. Will this money make that happen? That worries us. Think of all the subsidies that go to the nuclear industry. Is Canada's nuclear industry an example of green energy? I think not. Is that what the small modular nuclear reactors are going to do? There is also carbon capture, and so on. These are the questions we have, and we have not gotten any answers. In committee, I questioned the Department of Finance and they said they would tell us how the money would be spent. After two or three reminders, we are still waiting for answers. It is very worrisome.

Today is Earth Day. Bill C‑47 contains very little on environmental protection. It includes an amendment to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that will encourage oil companies to take their time tackling climate change. At present, the carbon tax paid by major emitters is available to fund green projects in the province where it was collected. If oil companies do not propose any green projects, they lose this money at the end of the year. This approach encourages them to move quickly.

However, Bill C‑47 encourages them to take their time. If the bill passes, the money will be set aside for future use. The government is ensuring that oil companies will not lose any money if they do nothing to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. We know that municipalities lose their infrastructure funds if they do not complete their projects by the end of the year. However, oil companies lose nothing if they do nothing. Is this double standard acceptable? I obviously believe it is not. The answer here is clear.

Still on the subject of transition funding, today we learned that Volkswagen is going to get $13 billion to build a plant in Ontario. The Conservatives were right to ask how much each job created would cost. We know that a transition is needed, but we are wondering why the green economy and batteries are going to Ontario. We thought Quebec was at the forefront given the subsidies and the entire ecosystem we have in place. Why did this project not go to Quebec? Why is Quebec not getting its share? We have questions for this government.

The infrastructure put in place does not allow for accountability, and that is unacceptable. Another unacceptable aspect has to do with EI. As we know, the Employment Insurance Act requires that the EI fund not run a surplus or deficit on average over seven years. Since it ran a huge deficit during the pandemic, it must run a huge surplus every year in the years to come.

Last year, the government grabbed nearly $2 billion that belonged to employers and workers. We are talking about unionized workers. The same thing happened again this year, and the budget calls for another $13 billion to be taken away by 2030. Barring an amendment to the Employment Insurance Act to shift the pandemic deficit to the consolidated fund, we are talking about $17 billion that the government intends to take from the pockets of EI fund contributors. This means that it will be impossible to reform the system to make it more accessible. There is nothing in Bill C-47 to prevent this tragedy. It is unacceptable.

The government has been announcing employment insurance reform since 2015. The announcement is understandable. Six out of 10 workers who lose their job do not have access to EI. The system is broken. Bill Morneau told us, at the beginning of the pandemic, that EI would not help people to keep buying groceries, that the system was no longer working and that it needed to be replaced. They brought in CERB, which was flawed and more expensive. They are still trying to recover some the money owed to them and so on. This story is not over. We need a new system and fast. The government has been talking about this since 2015, but there is still nothing. There is nothing for eliminating the pandemic deficit, either. Increases are going to keep climbing and the system will continue to work poorly.

Let us talk about other aspects of employment insurance. EI should be able to rely on a real appeal mechanism. What we understand from Bill C‑47 is that the appeal board is the same as the one in Bill C‑37. We will look at the details, but we want to reiterate that we need a real appeal mechanism. This extends by one year the measures for the targeted areas during the spring gap, but 60% of people who lose their job still do not have access to it.

We are talking about a 400-page document that amends 59 statutes and the Income Tax Regulations. It has 39 divisions. The Prime Minister promised not to do that anymore. When we get this, we are given a tight deadline in which we have to go through it all, try to understand the legislative language, which is really difficult, consult with all of the stakeholders in Quebec who might be affected to see what they think, and analyze it all. That is a lot. It is very difficult. The government promised in 2015 not do to this anymore. Once again, it is going back to its old ways. We are going to continue looking into this further to see what else might be hidden in there.

Let us look at some examples. The bill enables the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to increase the deposit insurance coverage limit by $100,000, an amount decreed by regulation by this government, but only for one year. In April 2024, he will no longer have that power. Why? Do the Liberals want to introduce another bill? What is this about? We need to look into it. Is the paper version that was given to us as parliamentarians the right version?

Last year, I worked with the paper version only to realize in the end that several dozen pages were missing. I asked the Speaker about it and he told me that the digital version takes precedence over any other. Why bother printing it then, if it is not the right version? That is worrisome.

We are obviously concerned about regional flights, which are very expensive. The increase in fuel prices has pushed the price of flights even higher in the past few years. Instead of proposing measures to make regional flights more affordable, Bill C‑47 would considerably increase the airport security tax. The cost of both international and regional flights will increase. We think this is wrong.

Despite all the pages, measures and laws, there is nothing for seniors or for housing even though the current situation requires that we provide support for seniors and housing. There are many things missing in this bill.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and I would like to ask for unanimous consent to adopt the following motion.

I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order, or usual practice of the House, Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Income Tax Act, be deemed read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at the report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.