Bill C-47

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023

Part 1 implements certain measures in respect of the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations by
(a) enabling the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to use electronic certification of tax and information returns and requiring taxpayers to file electronically in certain circumstances;
(b) doubling the maximum deduction for tradespeople’s tools from $500 to $1,000;
(c) providing that any gain on the disposition of a right to acquire Canadian housing property within a one-year period of its acquisition is treated as business income;
(d) excluding from a taxpayer’s income certain benefits for Canadian Forces members, veterans and their spouses or common-law partners;
(e) exempting from taxation any income earned by the Band Class Settlement Trust in accordance with section 24.05 of the Settlement Agreement entered into on January 18, 2023 relating to the attendance of day scholars at residential schools;
(f) providing 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;
(g) providing for automatic, quarterly advance payments of the Canada Workers Benefit;
(h) allowing divorced and separated spouses to open joint Registered Educational Savings Plans and increasing educational assistance amounts under those plans;
(i) extending, by ‚three years, the ability of a qualifying family member to be the plan holder of an individual’s Registered Disability Savings Plan and expanding the definition of “qualifying family member” to include a sister or a brother of the individual;
(j) allowing defined contribution registered pension plans to correct contribution errors and requiring that the contributions or refunds are reported to the CRA for the purpose of correcting the RRSP deduction limit;
(k) modifying reporting requirements in respect of reportable transactions, introducing reporting requirements for notifiable transactions and providing reporting requirements with respect to uncertain tax treatments, as well as extending the reassessment periods applicable to those transactions and creating or modifying penalties for non-compliance with those requirements;
(l) allowing the CRA to share taxpayer information for the purposes of the Canadian Dental Care Plan;
(m) expanding the definition of “dividend rental arrangement” to include “specified hedging transactions” carried out in whole or in part by registered securities dealers;
(n) implementing the Model Reporting Rules for Digital Platforms developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development;
(o) requiring annual reporting by financial institutions of the fair market value of registered retirement savings plans and registered retirement income funds;
(p) expanding the permissible borrowing by defined benefit pension plans; and
(q) implementing a number of technical amendments to correct mistakes or inconsistencies and to better align the law with its intended policy objectives.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to the Excise Tax Act , the Tax Rebate Discounting Act , the Air Travellers Security Charge Act , the Excise Act, 2001 , Part 1 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and the Electronic Filing and Provision of Information (GST/HST) Regulations .
Part 2 implements certain measures in respect of the Excise Tax Act and a related text by
(a) clarifying that the international transportation of money benefits from Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) relief and other special rules in the same manner as a service of internationally transporting other kinds of freight;
(b) permitting a pension entity, in specific circumstances, to claim the pension entity rebate or an input tax credit, or to make the pension entity rebate election, after the end of the two-year limitation period;
(c) specifying that cryptoasset mining is generally not considered a supply for GST/HST purposes; and
(d) ensuring that payment card clearing services are excluded from the definition “financial service” under the GST/HST legislation.
Part 3 amends the Excise Act , the Excise Act, 2001 and the Air Travellers Security Charge Act in order to implement two measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Excise Act and the Excise Act, 2001 in order to temporarily cap the inflation adjustment for excise duties on beer, spirits and wine at two per cent, for one year only, as of April 1, 2023.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Air Travellers Security Charge Act to increase the air travellers security charge that is applicable to air travel that includes a chargeable emplanement after April 2024 and for which any payment is made after April 2024.
Part 4 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Bank Act to strengthen the regime for dealing with complaints against banks and authorized foreign banks by, among other things, providing for the designation of a not-for-profit body corporate to be the sole external complaints body. It also makes consequential amendments to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act and related amendments to the Financial Consumer Protection Framework Regulations .
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 to, among other things, provide for variable life benefits under a defined contribution provision of a pension plan and amends the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act to, among other things, provide for variable life payments under pooled registered pension plans. It also makes a consequential amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act .
Division 3 of Part 4 contains measures that are related to money laundering and to digital assets and other measures.
Subdivision A of Division 3 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things,
(a) require persons or entities referred to in section 5 of that Act to report to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada information that is related to a disclosure made under the Special Economic Measures Act or the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) ;
(b) strengthen the registration framework for persons or entities referred in paragraphs 5(h) and (h.1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act , which are often referred to as money services businesses;
(c) create two new offences relating to persons or entities who engage in activities for which they are not registered under that Act and the structuring of financial transactions undertaken to avoid reporting obligations under that Act, as well as a new offence relating to reprisals by employers against employees who fulfill obligations under that Act;
(d) facilitate the sharing, between the Minister of Finance, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, of information that relates to their respective mandates; and
(e) authorize the Minister of Finance to issue directives to persons and entities referred in section 5 of that Act in respect of risks relating to the financing of threats to the security of Canada.
Subdivision A also amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1 in relation to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act .
Subdivision B of Division 3 amends the Criminal Code to provide for a new warrant authorizing a peace officer or other person named in the warrant to search for and seize digital assets, including virtual currency, as well as to expand the list of offences on the basis of which an examination of information obtained by the Minister of National Revenue under various tax statutes may be authorized. The subdivision also makes related amendments to other Acts.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Customs Tariff to extend the expiry date of the General Preferential Tariff and Least Developed Country Tariff to December 31, 2034 and to create a new General Preferential Tariff Plus tariff treatment that will expire on the same date. The Division also aligns direct shipment requirements for tariff treatments under that Act with those that apply to free trade agreements.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Customs Tariff to remove Belarus and Russia from the List of Countries entitled to Most-Favoured-Nation tariff treatment.
Division 6 of Part 4 allows the Bank of Canada to apply, despite sections 27 and 27.1 of the Bank of Canada Act , any of its ascertained surplus to its retained earnings until its retained earnings are equal to zero or the ascertained surplus applied to its retained earnings is equal to the losses it incurred from the purchase of securities as part of the Government of Canada Bond Purchase Program.
Division 7 of Part 4 enacts the Canada Innovation Corporation Act . That Act continues the Canada Innovation Corporation, which was established under another Act, as a parent Crown corporation, sets out the Corporation’s purpose to maximize business investment in research and development across all sectors of the economy and in all regions of Canada to promote innovation-driven economic growth and includes transitional provisions. The Division also makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to authorize additional payments to the provinces and territories.
Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to renew the authority to make Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing payments for another five-year period beginning on April 1, 2024 and makes a technical change to improve the accuracy of the programs. It also makes a technical change to the calculation of fiscal stabilization payments. Finally, it provides for the publication of the details of all amounts authorized to be paid under that Act.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Special Economic Measures Act , the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law) to strengthen Canada’s ability to take economic measures against certain persons.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the Privileges and Immunities (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) Act to, among other things, enable the Paris Protocol to be implemented in Canada.
Division 12 of Part 4 amends the Service Fees Act to, among other things, clarify the definition “fee”, exempt certain fees from the application of that Act, make certain exceptions in that Act applicable only with the approval of the President of the Treasury Board, make certain changes to the annual adjustment provisions and provide authority for the President of the Treasury Board to amend the regulations made under section 22 of that Act by taking into account the factors established by regulations.
It also amends section 25.1 of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act to provide for the application of sections 16 to 18 of the Service Fees Act to low-materiality fees, within the meaning of the Service Fees Act , that are fixed under section 24 or 25 of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act .
Division 13 of Part 4 amends the Canada Pension Plan to allow the Minister of National Revenue to make available information to the Minister of Employment and Social Development that is necessary for the purpose of policy analysis, research or evaluation related to the administration of that Act.
Division 14 of Part 4 amends the Department of Employment and Social Development Act to grant the Minister of Employment and Social Development the authority to collect and use Social Insurance Numbers for the purposes of administering or enforcing any Act, program or activity in respect of which the administration or enforcement is the responsibility of the Minister.
Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Canada Labour Code in respect of leave related to the death or disappearance of a child to, among other things, increase the maximum length of that leave from 104 weeks to 156 weeks and to repeal paragraph 206.5(4)(b) of that Act.
Division 16 of Part 4 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to provide that a claim for refugee protection made by a person inside Canada must be made in person and, with regard to a claim made by the person other than at a port of entry, that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration may specify the documents and information to be provided and the form and manner in which they are to be provided.
Division 17 of Part 4 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to clarify that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration may give instructions in respect of an application to sponsor a person who applies for a visa as a Convention refugee, within the meaning of that Act, or as a person in similar circumstances.
Division 18 of Part 4 amends the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants may seek an order authorizing it to administer the property of any licensee of the College who is not able to perform their activities as an immigration and citizenship consultant;
(b) extend immunity against proceedings for damages to directors, employees and agents and mandataries of the College, among others;
(c) authorize the College to enter into information-sharing agreements or arrangements with any entity, including federal or provincial government institutions; and
(d) expand the areas in respect of which the Governor in Council may authorize the College to make by-laws.
The Division also makes related amendments to the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to clarify that any person who is the subject of a notice of violation issued under either of those Acts has the right to request a review of the notice or the administrative monetary penalty set out in the notice.
Division 19 of Part 4 amends the Citizenship Act to, among other things,
(a) grant the Minister responsible for the administration and enforcement of that Act the power to collect biometric information from persons who make an application under that Act — and to use, verify, retain and disclose that information — in accordance with the regulations;
(b) authorize that Minister to administer and enforce that Act using electronic means, including by using an automated system; and
(c) grant that Minister the power to make regulations requiring persons who make an application or who provide documents, information or evidence under that Act to do so using electronic means.
Division 20 of Part 4 amends the Yukon Act to authorize the Minister of Northern Affairs to take any measures on certain public real property that the Minister considers necessary to prevent, counteract, mitigate or remedy any adverse effect on persons, property or the environment.
Subdivision A of Division 21 of Part 4 amends the Marine Liability Act to, among other things,
(a) increase the maximum liability for certain claims involving a ship of less than 300 gross tonnage;
(b) establish the maximum liability for claims involving air cushion vehicles;
(c) remove all references to the Hamburg Rules;
(d) extend the application of the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001 to non-seagoing vessels;
(e) provide for public notice requirements relating to the constitution of limitation funds under that Act;
(f) clarify that the owner of a ship is liable for economic loss related to fishing, hunting, trapping or harvesting suffered by an Indigenous group, community or people or suffered by a member of such a group, community or people; and
(g) expand the compensation regime of the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund to include certain future losses.
Subdivision B of Division 21 amends the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 to, among other things,
(a) expand the application of Part 1 of that Act in relation to certain pleasure craft;
(b) expand the exemption powers of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans;
(c) allow the owner of a Canadian vessel to enter into an arrangement with a qualified person under which that person is the authorized representative of the vessel;
(d) give the Marine Technical Review Board jurisdiction to make decisions on applications for exemptions from interim orders;
(e) authorize the Governor in Council to incorporate by reference in certain regulations material that the Minister of Transport produces;
(f) broaden the Governor in Council’s power respecting fees, charges, costs or expenses to be paid in relation to the administration and enforcement of matters under that Act for which the Minister of Transport is responsible;
(g) increase the maximum amount of fines for certain offences;
(h) provide authority, in certain circumstances, for the Chief Registrar to refuse to issue a certificate of registry and for the Minister of Transport to refuse to issue a pleasure craft licence;
(i) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting emergency services;
(j) authorize the Minister of Transport to, among other things,
(i) direct a master or crew member to cease operations,
(ii) authorize the Deputy Minister of Transport to make interim orders in response to risks to marine safety or to the marine environment, and
(iii) direct a port authority or a person in charge of a port authority or place to authorize vessels to proceed to a place selected by the Minister; and
(k) permit designating as violations the contravention of certain provisions of Parts 5 and 10 of that Act and the regulations made under those Parts.
The Subdivision also makes a related amendment to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act .
Subdivision C of Division 21 amends the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act to, among other things, establish the Vessel Remediation Fund in the accounts of Canada and provide the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with certain powers in relation to the detention of vessels.
Division 22 of Part 4 amends the Canada Transportation Act to, among other things,
(a) allow the Governor in Council to require air carriers to publish information respecting their performance on their Internet site;
(b) permit the sharing of information to ensure the proper functioning of the national transportation system or to increase its efficiency, while ensuring the confidentiality of that information;
(c) allow the Minister of Transport to require certain persons to provide certain information to the Minister if the Minister is of the opinion that there exists an unusual and significant disruption to the effective continued operation of the national transportation system;
(d) establish a new zone in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, in which any interswitching that occurs is subject to the rate determined by the Canadian Transportation Agency, for a period of 18 months; and
(e) broaden the scope of the administrative monetary penalties scheme.
Division 23 of Part 4 amends the Canada Transportation Act to, among other things,
(a) broaden the authority of the Canadian Transportation Agency to set fees and charges to recover its costs;
(b) replace the current process for resolving air travel complaints with a more streamlined process designed to result in more timely decisions;
(c) impose a greater burden of proof on air carriers where it is presumed that compensation is payable to a complainant unless the air carrier proves the contrary;
(d) require air carriers to establish an internal process for dealing with air travel claims;
(e) modify the Agency’s regulation-making powers with respect to air carriers’ obligations towards passengers; and
(f) enhance the Agency’s enforcement powers with respect to the air transportation sector.
Division 24 of Part 4 amends the Customs Act to, among other things,
(a) allow a person arriving in Canada to present themselves to the Canada Border Services Agency by a means of telecommunication, if that manner of presenting is made available at the customs office at which they are presenting themselves; and
(b) subject to the regulations, require that the operator of a commercial aircraft arriving in Canada ensure that baggage on board the aircraft is transported without delay to the nearest international baggage area.
The Division also makes a related amendment to the Quarantine Act .
Division 25 of Part 4 amends the National Research Council Act to, among other things, provide that the National Research Council of Canada may procure goods and services, including goods and services relating to construction and to research-related digital and information technology. It also establishes a new Procurement Oversight Board.
Division 26 of Part 4 amends the Patent Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Commissioner of Patents to grant an additional term for a patent if certain conditions are met;
(b) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the number of days that is to be subtracted in determining the duration of an additional term; and
(c) authorize the Commissioner of Patents and the Federal Court to shorten the duration of an additional term if the duration as previously determined is longer than is authorized.
Division 27 of Part 4 amends the Food and Drugs Act to extend measures regarding therapeutic products to natural health products in order to, among other things,
(a) strengthen the safety oversight of natural health products throughout their life cycle; and
(b) promote greater confidence in the oversight of natural health products by increasing transparency.
Division 28 of Part 4 amends the Food and Drugs Act to, among other things, prohibit
(a) the sale of a cosmetic unless its safety can be established without relying on data derived from a test conducted on an animal that could cause pain, suffering or injury, whether physical or mental, to the animal, subject to certain exceptions;
(b) the conduct of a test on an animal that could cause pain, suffering or injury, whether physical or mental, to the animal if the purpose of the test is to meet a legislative requirement that relates to cosmetics; and
(c) deceptive or misleading claims, on the label of or in an advertisement for a cosmetic, with respect to testing on animals.
Division 29 of Part 4 enacts the Dental Care Measures Act .
Division 30 of Part 4 amends subsection 41(1) of the Canada Post Corporation Act , in response to the decision in R. v. Gorman , to limit the Canada Post Corporation’s authority to open mail other than letters.
Division 31 of Part 4 expresses the assent of the Parliament of Canada to the issuing by His Majesty of a Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the applicable Royal Style and Titles.
Division 32 of Part 4 amends the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act to provide that the Public Sector Pension Investment Board may incorporate a subsidiary for the purpose of providing investment management services to the Canada Growth Fund Inc. It also amends the Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022 to increase the amount that may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund on the requisition of the Minister of Finance for the acquisition of shares of the Canada Growth Fund Inc. and to provide that the Canada Growth Fund Inc. is not an agent of His Majesty in right of Canada.
Division 33 of Part 4 amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act , the Trust and Loan Companies Act , the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to, among other things,
(a) expand the mandate of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to include the supervision of federal financial institutions in order to determine whether they have adequate policies and procedures to protect themselves against threats to their integrity or security; and
(b) expand the Superintendent of Financial Institutions’ powers to issue directions to, and to take control of, a federal financial institution in certain circumstances.
It also makes a consequential amendment to the Winding-up and Restructuring Act .
Division 34 of Part 4 amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, lower the criminal rate of interest calculated in respect of an agreement or arrangement and to express that rate as an annual percentage rate. It also authorizes the Governor in Council, by regulation, to fix a limit on the total cost of borrowing under a payday loan agreement. Finally, it provides for transitional provisions.
Division 35 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to extend, until October 26, 2024, the increase in the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period to certain seasonal workers.
Division 36 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to, among other things,
(a) establish an account in the accounts of Canada to be called the Environmental Economic Instruments Fund, for the purpose of administering amounts received as contributions to certain funding programs under the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment; and
(b) replace references to “tradeable units” with references to “compliance units”.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Canada Emission Reduction Incentives Agency Act .
Division 37 of Part 4 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to clarify that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation may administer any contract related to deposit insurance entered into by the Minister of Finance and to allow the Minister to increase the deposit insurance coverage limit until April 30, 2024.
Division 38 of Part 4 amends the Department of Employment and Social Development Act to, among other things,
(a) establish the Employment Insurance Board of Appeal to hear appeals of decisions made under the Employment Insurance Act instead of the Employment Insurance Section of the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal; and
(b) eliminate the requirement for leave to appeal decisions relating to the Employment Insurance Act to the Appeal Division of the Tribunal.
It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 39 of Part 4 amends the Canada Elections Act to provide for a national, uniform, exclusive and complete regime applicable to registered parties and eligible parties respecting their collection, use, disclosure, retention and disposal of personal information.

Bill C-47—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this place and add my voice and those of the constituents I represent in raising concerns with both the budget and Bill C-47, the budget implementation act.

This bill is the legislation by which certain provisions in the budget will be implemented. We have already voted against the budget, which includes over $40 billion in additional spending that will have to be paid for by taxpayers through taxes. It demonstrates the abject failure of the government to address the affordability crisis it has created.

Earlier this week, I stepped into an elevator with a Liberal member of Parliament who, in making small talk, asked me, “How are things in Saskatchewan?” If I had had more time, I would have told him about my spring tour, which I held during our recent riding weeks. While we cannot go everywhere in two weeks, we visited 19 communities and toured a number of businesses. It was great to visit with hundreds of residents from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek over a cup of coffee. If I had had more time, I would have shared with that MP the issues that were raised, over and over again, that relate to this budget discussion, but one floor up did not allow for all that, so I am going to share them now. I guess I could have given him the one-floor elevator speech, which is that the consensus in my riding is that everything is broken.

The first concern is the huge federal debt and the ever-present, ongoing Liberal deficits. People are absolutely blown away by the figure of $1.22 trillion in projected federal debt, a figure that has ballooned under the current Prime Minister, causing the highest inflation in 40 years by doubling the national debt. Additionally, people are gravely concerned by the $43.9 billion, which is the amount projected to be the cost of servicing Canada’s national debt this fiscal year, a figure that has almost doubled in one year. They understand that this amount is only likely to increase, as more of Canada’s low-interest debt matures and Canada is forced to renew those loans at higher interest rates.

Deficit spending, inflation and higher interest rates are a big deal to seniors living on fixed incomes, families struggling to make ends meet and young people desperately looking for an affordable place to live. Unlike the Prime Minister, who does not think about monetary policy, Canadians who do not have a trust fund are very engaged on the ramifications of the Liberal government’s poor management of Canada’s economy. The actions of the current government are having a direct negative impact on their quality of life, which brings us to the ever-present and ever-increasing carbon tax.

For residents of Saskatchewan, especially those living and working in rural Saskatchewan, this Liberal tax is a source of deep frustration. Besides increasing the cost of everything, the carbon tax is a symbol in the minds of rural Saskatchewanians of the incredible disconnect between the reality in which we live and the Liberal elites and their ideological policies.

They also understand that the carbon tax is a tax plan and not an environmental plan, which is why a commonly asked question I have heard is this: “With the Liberals having spent us into such a deep hole, will a future Conservative government be able to afford to cut the carbon tax?” While I do understand the question, I remind them that a Conservative government will absolutely axe the carbon tax.

I also had the opportunity to visit with mayors, reeves and councillors. They, too, noted the negative impacts of the Liberals' carbon tax and inflation-inducing policies on their budgets. They expressed concern over how federal infrastructure programs are designed with big cities in mind and with a win/lose lottery-style methodology. They confirmed that municipalities need stable, reliable funding programs enabling them to do their work rather than dictating the infrastructure priorities the federal government wants to fund.

We also discussed the housing crisis. CMHC data for January 2023 showed that new housing starts were at the lowest level since 2020, and while they are down in large urban centres like Toronto and Vancouver, we are feeling the housing shortage in smaller communities in Saskatchewan as well.

Constituents and elected representatives also brought up labour shortages, rural crime and the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies, as well as Bill C-11 and the government's unrelenting focus on controlling what Canadians watch and post online. I again want to thank the hundreds of residents for coming out to share their thoughts and concerns with me.

For the purposes of this evening's debate, I also want to address the mismanagement of our country’s finances, which has led to incredible waste at the expense of Canadians. Canadians are rightly asking what exactly the government has been spending their money on, and it is their money, as the leader of His Majesty’s loyal opposition pointed out. They are also asking what they are getting for the money the Liberals are spending, whether life is getting easier or getting better, and whether they are getting ahead. The resounding answer is no. Never before has a government spent so much to get so little.

Let us just take a look at a few examples. There were CERB cheques going to prisoners and organized crime, and $94 million was spent on hotel rooms for asylum seekers in the last eighteen months. There was a $237-million contract for ventilators given to a Liberal insider and $54 million for the “ArriveSCAM” app. There is the Phoenix pay system. It has been seven years since the Liberals launched the Phoenix pay system, and it has been a disaster.

In my role as the shadow minister for public services and procurement, it has become all too clear that the government has very little respect for Canadians and their tax dollars. While it is necessary for the issues with the Phoenix pay system to be fixed, there is an additional $1 billion dollars in the budget to continue to address the Phoenix pay system, and there is no end in sight. That is on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars paid out in damages for the government's mismanagement.

What was the Liberals' solution? It was to hire their friends at McKinsey, giving them a contract, which after three amendments, reached a value of almost $28 million. What was the result after McKinsey was contracted? The backlog increased.

The continually increasing outsourcing by the government while it rapidly expands the public service is incoherent. One would think that, if the public service is expanding, outsourcing would be needed less. Instead, it increased just as rapidly, and when we have asked for answers on the extent of the outsourcing in our efforts to ensure that Canadians are getting good value for money, we are stonewalled by Liberals on committee, ministers and their departments.

The Liberals have found great friends and partners in the NDP. At a time of record spending and 40-year highs in inflation, Canadians are struggling to pay their bills, while well-connected Liberal insiders have never had it so good. There are 1.5 million Canadians visiting food banks. One in five Canadians is skipping meals because food is too expensive. With mortgage payments and costs associated with buying a home doubling, home ownership is an elusive dream now for nine out of 10 young Canadians. Rent has doubled as well.

The reality is that the country is worse off after all the government's reckless and wasteful spending. Seniors, families, young people, farmers, business owners and workers all know this is true, and the NDP just keeps supplying the Liberal government with more shovels to dig a deeper hole for Canadians, all while claiming it is holding government to account.

As I said, Canadians are struggling, and they need hope. They can count on Conservatives to turn the hurt that the Prime Minister has caused into hope. It is time for a change, and we are ready.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure and honour to rise in this House. Of course, today we are speaking about the budget implementation act, Bill C-47.

Before discussing the substance of this act and why I, and I believe most Canadians, must oppose it, I have to explain the broader economic context in which it falls. I will endeavour to explain the challenges that our country is facing. Those challenges are significant and numerous. From there, I will discuss why the BIA is flawed and why it should be defeated, and finally, I will discuss a new path, a better path, one that leads to prosperity.

I hope that with this speech, I will not only engage Conservatives but engage members and supporters of independent parties, of the Liberal Party, of the New Democratic Party, of the Green Party and of the Bloc Québécois, because Canada's problems are really quite serious. I am not exaggerating. We have significant challenges. Quite frankly, we are going to need everyone, Liberals, New Democrats, Green Party members and members of the Bloc Québécois, to pull together to fix this country.

It starts with acceptance. We have to face the facts. All is not well in our great country. In fact, it is far from it. Over the past eight years, we have seen a Liberal government that is perhaps not bereft of good intentions and in fact may well be full of good intentions. However, what it has failed to deliver is results for Canadians.

Announcements have been frequent. They have been grand. Many a fine word has come from the Prime Minister's mouth and from members of the Liberal Party. However, the reality is that Canada is in economic decline, and that is not just me saying that. It is world economists, the OECD, the World Bank, the IMF and economists from coast to coast. The failed leadership and policies of the Liberal government have risen to such a level that they have put its very competence in question.

Let us go through some of those issues and describe the picture.

Our country has been ravaged by the impacts of high inflation. Not all inflation is equal. Things like energy prices are sometimes beyond the control of a particular country, but there are key core elements that are basic and national in nature. One of them is food, which is a critical element, and we have seen 10 months of double-digit food inflation. That has translated into a real impact on Canadians. Quite frankly, it is shameful that 1.5 million Canadians have visited food banks, and it is a sign of a country that is unfortunately in economic decline.

The high price of houses has had a significant impact on Canadians. There are far too many 30-year-olds still in their parents' basements desperately dreaming of the day they can own a home. Mortgage payments have doubled to over $3,000 a month. Rent has increased to over $2,000 a month, doubling over the past eight years. What is even more sad than the 30-year-olds dreaming of moving out of the basement is that nine out of 10 young people have given up the dream of home ownership, which once again is a sign of the failed policies that are putting our country on a path of economic decline.

We have more structural problems that the government has exacerbated over the past eight years. We have among the lowest capital investment rates. In fact, the OECD predicts that over the next 20 years, we will be last with respect to capital investments out of the entire OECD. We also have low innovation scores, and our number of patents is below that of most of our peer countries.

Our productivity numbers are once again near the bottom of the OECD. The productivity of a nation, or, in other words, what a country makes in terms of goods or delivers in services, is the very engine that drives the economy. When productivity is not right, the economy cannot be right, and that puts the whole economy in decline.

We can print as much money as we want, and the government certainly printed enough during COVID and post-COVID, but ultimately it is about the production of goods and what dollars buy. We can have as many dollars as we want; it does not increase the prosperity of a nation. What increases the prosperity of a nation is the ability to produce goods more effectively and efficiently than its peer countries, and we are falling behind.

We have tremendous challenges when it comes to productivity. It is amazing to me that this can happen, because we have what I believe is the best workforce in the world here in Canada. We have great post-secondary education, and we have a highly educated, highly motivated, hard-working population. However, somehow the government is squandering that opportunity and having us produce lower and lower results. This is not the fault of the Canadian people; it is the fault of the Liberal government.

Our inability to produce not only affects us but affects our allies as well. We left our allies literally out in the cold this winter, even though we have the energy not only to make ourselves independent but to supply other countries. We force countries such as Germany, Poland and France to depend on dictator oil, on Vladimir Putin's natural gas, when we have the ability to export liquefied natural gas from our very own coast. Our allies were literally begging us for our resources, but we could not get out of our own way. Once again, the fault does not lie with the great Canadian people; it falls to the Liberal government and its failure to get out of the way of the great people of Canada.

There can be no doubt that we in Canada are facing perilous economic times, and the Liberal government is responsible for many of those challenges. One might expect this after eight years of failed policies and continued poor results. Once again, this is not me saying this and it is not the Conservatives saying it. It is the OECD saying that we are one of the lower-ranked countries among our peers with respect to productivity, with respect to innovation and with respect to capital investment, over and over again. The government is too boxed in by its own ideology to acknowledge the realities going on out there in the world.

Ultimately, the driver of an economy is not the government. The government does not create value. It can certainly share value, and there is an important role for government to do that. It can also protect value through the military and through the police. However, it does not create or generate value; that is for the private sector. However, when we burden the private sector with overtaxation and over-regulation, we limit and inhibit the ability of that engine to drive the type of prosperity we need.

This is not a case of multi-billionaires getting away. The Liberals have let enough of their multi-billionaires get away through the Panama papers. However, who are they taxing? Do members know that many Canadians who earn less than $50,000 a year pay a marginal tax rate of over 50%? That means for every dollar people who earn less than $50,000 earn, between clawbacks and income tax they will be paying back to the government 50¢. Do members think it might be a barrier to having someone work when they know they will only be able to keep 50¢ of every dollar? Let us keep in mind that rent is now $24,000 a year on average or more, maybe $30,000 a year, and that food prices have increased. Then the government thanks them very much for going to work, and they have an annual salary of $50,000. I do not think anyone in this place is going to call that rich, and they are paying over 50¢ per dollar.

The challenge is clear, and this budget is not even close to getting it done. However, I believe we can change things, that Canada has a tremendous opportunity and that together we can build a Canada where opportunity abounds, where freedom is ever-present, where achievement is celebrated and where prosperity and not poverty is the norm. Canadians want to leave these eight years of despair, of stigmatization and of division behind. They want to start a new chapter filled with unity, prosperity and achievement. That is why I must vote against this budget, and that is why the voters of Canada will decide to go in a different direction in the next election.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and make my own contribution to the debate on Bill C-47 tonight.

Elsewhere, I have spoken more at length about some of the things I think are commendable in the budget, including another doubling of the GST rebate, which is an important way to help Canadians who are struggling the most with the cost of inflation without returning more money to the pockets of Canadians for whom extra spending might be inflationary. A lot of private sector economists have recognized the virtue of this approach the NDP pioneered and has managed to extend in the budget here.

I have talked about the importance of dental care and the good it will do for millions of Canadians to be able to finally access dental care when they have not had that privilege before. It is something that should not be a privilege, but should be a right for every Canadian wherever they are in the country.

I have talked also about an important step, not a step that meets the need in any way for indigenous people, who are struggling, like other Canadians, with the housing crisis, but in an even more acute way with more challenges for how to deliver housing properly. Over $4 billion was invested in the last 12 months to an indigenous-led strategy where indigenous people themselves will be making decisions about how better to house their people in urban, rural and northern areas.

There are some important labour conditions on federal funding for the new energy economy, ensuring that public dollars that are invested in that new energy economy do not just go to large corporations and get siphoned out of the country, but actually go to Canadian workers, by requiring those companies to pay prevailing wages, not just the hourly wage but the wage package, which includes benefits and pension amounts, to their workers in order to qualify for that federal funding. There will be two seats for labour on the board of the growth fund that the Liberal government is establishing to ensure that workers and their interests are represented in the investment decisions of that fund.

Those are just some of the things the NDP has pushed for in the budget, which we think are going to make a positive difference in the lives of Canadians.

I have also talked about many of the things that are not in the budget that ought to have been, including urgent reform to the employment insurance system, which the Liberal government has promised now for close to eight years and has not done. In the meantime, it has actually revolutionized the EI system and completely changed it, and then it came back full circle to the EI system that the Harper government left in 2015. We have made no progress, despite years of promises and a demonstration that the government can do it.

The Liberals did do it. They had a minimum benefit. They had one universal qualifying threshold with low hours. They had a higher income replacement rate for many people on the program. They had a lot of the things EI needs in order to be a successful program that is there for Canadians when they most need it, which incidentally is in a period of recession, which the budget says is coming.

When will the employment insurance reform come? The Liberals know where the account is, because they took $25 billion of CERB debt that does not belong there and plunked it right in there, ensuring the premiums for workers and employers will go up consistently for the next seven years, trying to pay down a $25-billion debt that does not belong there in the first place, so it is certainly not because they do not know about EI or they do not know where to find the account.

Up to now, over $60 billion has been taken out of the EI operating account by successive Liberal and Conservative governments. As far as I am concerned, adding $25 billion of debt is another expenditure that does not belong on the EI account, and we are now in the territory of about $85 billion the Liberal and Conservative governments have taken from EI ratepayers they never had any right to in the first place. The EI account would be in very good shape and perfectly capable of sustaining the kinds of reforms we need to have for the sake of Canadian workers if that money had not been taken out of there in the first place.

That is a perfect example of what is not in this budget that ought to be, and Canadians can count on New Democrats to continue to press the government to get the job done, just as it should get the job done on housing. I talked a bit about a modest plan, when it comes to indigenous housing, in terms of allocating some funding in the budget. It is nowhere enough, and that is just for the needs in indigenous communities, never mind the amount of non-market housing we need to build in order to meet the needs of people right across the country from coast to coast to coast.

It is not just about spending money. It is also about taking regulatory action in order to constrain the investment activity that is happening from private actors with deep pockets all over the country that is driving up the cost of housing, whether it is driving up the cost of rental housing for Canadians who need affordable rental housing or whether it is driving up the cost of a home that Canadians would aspire to own. In either case, it is a problem. We need to see a government that is willing to take action. I have talked elsewhere about the kinds of things New Democrats believe can be done by the government that would not cost a dime to taxpayers, in order to relieve some of that investment pressure that is driving up houses in the real estate market.

There has been a fair bit of debate tonight about the budget, rightly so. We have heard a lot about the carbon tax and inflation. These are important debates and I respect how people are being affected by inflation, certainly. I see it in my own community.

We are not in any way immune to the rise in the use of food banks and people having to make tough choices, but I do want to talk a little bit about the nature of inflation, because when we listen to Liberals and Conservatives debate inflation, there is something that never comes up.

Again, this is what they share in common with housing. They do not want to talk about the role that deep-pocketed investors are playing in driving up the cost of housing for Canadians. When we talk about inflation more generally, they do not want to talk about the role that corporate Canada has been playing in jacking up prices for Canadians.

There have been reports out, more than one, that say that up to 25% of the inflation that Canadians have experienced is related precisely to excessive profits by corporations.

What do we mean by excessive profits? We mean profits over the prepandemic baseline, an increase in the rate of profit for these companies. The oil and gas sector is a good example. It has seen outsized increases in its profits over the last couple of years. It has seen a 1000% increase in its profits. That is a lot of money.

What do we mean when we say excess profits? We mean expanding one's profits by a 1000% over two years, because who pays for that?

Conservatives are quick to talk about how every penny that is raised in taxes comes out of Canadian pockets. Well, guess what? Every penny that is raised at the pump comes out of Canadians' pockets too. I am not just talking about the pennies that go to the government and the carbon tax or the gas tax or whatever else. I am talking about the pennies that go to provide that 1000% increase over two years in corporate profits for oil and gas.

That is why New Democrats have been advocating for an excess profits tax. We forced the Liberals to do this when it comes to banks and insurance companies. We have also said that this should also apply to oil and gas companies.

What do we hear from the Conservatives when we talk about that? They say, oh, well, they will charge it to the consumer. They will just pass that on to the consumer. There is probably some truth in that. That is why the member for Windsor West has done an excellent job talking about how we should have a formal body that regulates price increases so that Canadians can be sure that they are getting a fair shake at the pumps. We have done this for decades in Manitoba with the public utilities board, in respect of auto insurance rates and Manitoba hydro rates and gas prices for heating one's home.

This is not something out in left field. This is something that provinces do with respect to important price controls, something that the member for Windsor West has done a lot of great work on.

The other thing that they neglect to mention is what happens if one removes the carbon tax. For some reason, they think that if there is additional tax, they will just pass that on to the consumer, but if by lowering a tax, we create more disposable income, they somehow think that oil and gas companies are not going to raise their prices to gobble that up too. We have a problem. Yes, the oil and gas companies win, it seems, no matter what one does.

That is why the member for Windsor West is bang on in talking about a real way to control oil and gas prices, but they best believe that by reducing those kinds of taxes in a period where the oil and gas companies have been jacking up their prices and making a 1000% increases in their profits over two years, they are going to gobble that up too.

That is why targeted tax relief, like doubling the GST rebate, has been praised by private sector economists as a good way to provide relief to Canadians who need it the most without contributing to inflation and that broad-based tax relief, of the kind that the Conservatives advocate for, is seen as something that would contribute to inflation. B.C., Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador and the Northwest Territories all have their own carbon pricing system imposed provincially. Getting rid of the carbon tax is not going to make a whit of difference for people who live in those provinces.

We have a broad-based tax measure proposed that economists say will be inflationary and only provides relief to people in about half the country. That is not a plan. That is just a talking point.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to join my friend from Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan virtually.

We are debating the budget tonight. I do not want to be too finicky about it. It is really weird, of course, that we have already voted on the budget. Like him, I voted against the budget. I could not support this budget after reading the 429 pages of Bill C-47.

I do not blame him as everyone is doing this. They are treating this debate as if it is about the budget, but the budget implementation act does not do anything about carbon pricing. It does not do anything about fossil fuel subsidies. Those were in the budget.

One thing I found in Bill C-47 that I really want to vote for is taking Russia and Belarus off the most favoured nation tariff treatment. I would have thought we would have done that a year ago, but I wonder how my hon. colleague feels about this. If he votes against Bill C-47, he will be voting against taking Russia off the most favoured nation list for our trade relations. It is peculiar, but I just wonder what his thoughts are on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that Bill C-241 would have fit very neatly in Bill C-47, the budget implementation act. There are many sections in the over 429 pages of Bill C-47, but there is one that goes directly to the issue that the hon. member has put forward in his private member's bill, which is a tax discount on tradespeople's tools. I wonder if the member saw that section and if he sees it as encouragement that perhaps the Senate, like the House, will pass Bill C-241.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to stand in this place to represent the great folks of Essex.

We are here this evening to speak to Bill C-47, the budget implementation act. We have heard a lot of discussion, and I have been listening keenly to both sides of the aisle, as to what truly is the direction for Canada and the path forward to sustainability and success. While I was drafting out my talking points today, I got thinking about local examples.

The first one I am going to start with is a young woman from Essex County who goes to school at St. Clair College. She has a part-time job and lives at home with her parents. She drives back and forth about 30 minutes to school. Her part-time job is at a veterinary clinic, and she wants to be a veterinarian. Her parents have paid into RESPs along the way.

I found out this morning from this young lady that she has to pay $942 this year in income tax. She makes under $15,000 in her part-time job to pay for some of her schooling. I guess the question is this: How is that even possible in Canada? We talk about affordable housing. We continue to talk about making things easier for Canadian families. How can a young woman who is 20 years old, who goes to school full time and has a part-time job, have to pay $942 in taxes and be expected to save any money at all for a home going forward?

Saturday morning I had breakfast with the mayor of Kingsville in a local greasy spoon that serves one of the greatest breakfasts in Essex County. We met the owners of the restaurant. The amazing woman told me that they have lost about 85% of their senior customers because they can no longer afford to eat out. Then she went on to cry as she told me that she was in a local Zehrs, which is a grocery store, and ran into a senior who was trying to figure out what she was going to eat that night because she was looking at Kraft Dinner.

Then we look at this budget, and we are supposed to celebrate a $234 one-time payment per person. Last night I went to the local grocery store here in Ottawa and bought half a bag of groceries for $36, that was just for myself, so this one-time payment might be great for one month, yet the government wants to celebrate it.

I want to speak about the 2023 federal budget submission of the Windsor-Essex Chamber of Commerce. I will go through it quickly.

The first point it makes is with respect to the employment insurance rate freeze. It stated:

the bill for these emergency programs is being unfairly placed on businesses. Businesses have for years been concerned with the fact that employers pay an additional 40% on-top of matching the employee contributions. The $0.05 increase per $100 of earned income means that employers are paying even more. The additional $0.05 increase to take effect in 2024 and 2025 means that employers are going to be bearing the burden over years for programs not beneficiary to them.

It speaks about the capital cost allowance for vehicles, stating:

The current amount of $30,000 is well short of the current average vehicle price in Canada, which is approximately $54,000 for a new vehicle and $36,000 for a used vehicle. This low limit prevents businesses from properly being able to account for the depreciation of the asset, which is the primary goal of the CCA.

They talk about allowing international students to participate in the Canada summer jobs program. In my riding of Essex, we got about $720,000 less this year for the Canada summer jobs program. There are a lot of folks have benefited from that program who are not too sure if they are going to be able to keep their doors open, such as those at the Kiwanis camp down in my area.

They talk about the delay of the CEBA loan repayment over one year.

They talk about bringing in a new workforce and increasing the pace of immigration, which is something that Conservatives have been calling for and talking about for a very long time.

There are the non-Canadian housing purchasing ban, immigration with accreditation and covering transition costs. We hear an awful lot about housing in this House, ironically. For that young woman I was talking about, or perhaps a young man who is working full-time who cannot find a home, and if he can find a home, he cannot afford it, the government loves to pound the drum that it is doing so much for housing. The problem is that the government cannot even plant a tree, so maybe the problem is the lumber to not build the homes. Nine in 10 young people do not believe they will be able to afford a home, and that is unacceptable.

When I ran for this place in 2019, I said that I would do my darndest to ensure that I leave the world a better place than I found it. I am the eternal optimist, and today I stand here to say that I am a bit of a pessimist. Because of the failures of the government, it is certainly not in a better place in 2023 than it was in 2019.

With respect to skilled labour, the government has been, again, pounding the drum. With respect to the Volkswagen plant, it is fantastic. In housing, this is excellent and, quite frankly, a great investment. It is wonderful, as are the five and a half billion-dollar battery plant in Windsor and the Gordie Howe International Bridge.

However, there is something really interesting about this when we talk about all these investments. By the way, regarding the Volkswagen plant, they talk about 3,000 workers. The truth of the matter is, that it is probably closer to 1,000, but in the event that it is 3,000, that would be great.

Here is what is really ironic. Where are the skilled trades people going to come from? If the government truly cared about skilled trades, why did it not take my private member's bill, Bill C-241, and put it into this budget? It would have been done overnight, and then we would have people who are mobilized across Canada.

I want to talk really quickly about the doctor in Michigan. Dr. Amster lives in Michigan, and he has 1,200 patients at his family practice in Amherstburg, which is in my riding. His current C10 work permit expired on March 28, and nobody will give him a renewed work permit.

Tomorrow morning, I am very excited to host grade 11 and grade 12 students of Cardinal Carter, where I went to high school. What do I tell them? How do I explain to them that what we are doing here is fighting for their future when the budget, quite frankly, falls so short for them?

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before budget 2023 was presented, our Conservative leader made three demands of it: one, that it end the war on work and lower taxes for workers; two, that it end inflationary deficits that are driving up the cost of goods; and three, that it remove gatekeepers to increase the building of homes in Canada. Sadly, none of these three Conservative demands were met, and for that reason I will not be supporting Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, 2023.

Simply put, all the budget will do is drive up the cost of the goods and interest and taxes paid by the fine residents in my riding, in the communities of Fort Erie, Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake. Canadians are struggling because of this incompetent Liberal government, which has become addicted to overspending.

Here are just a few quick statistics that will surprise those Canadians watching. Those who are watching should please make sure they are seated. I am not making this up.

After eight years, this Liberal Prime Minister has added more debt than all other prime ministers combined. Yes, that is since Confederation in 1867. Canada's federal debt for the 2023-24 fiscal year is projected to reach $1.22 trillion. If that is not jaw dropping, get this: That federal Liberal debt counts for nearly $81,000 per household in Canada. Budget 2023 simply provides no path to balancing Canada's budget projections.

The deficit for 2022-23 is up to $43 billion. That is only $6 billion less than what we will spend on health care this fiscal year. Even the government's own projections have changed since last November. In her fall economic statement, the Minister of Finance projected a $4.5-billion surplus for 2027-28, yet here we are six months later and this surplus has been completely erased. In its place, budget 2023 now projects a $14-billion deficit in 2027-28, with interest payments on our national debt reaching $50 billion.

These depressing figures make it hard to be hopeful for future generations of Canadians. They also highlight the degree of fiscal mismanagement by this Liberal Prime Minister and his government. For millions of Canadians, it is even more challenging to live through.

Many residents and families in my communities, especially seniors and new Canadians, are struggling mightily with the high cost of inflation on their shelter and groceries, and even higher federal taxes are being implemented. In fact, “Canada's Food Price Report 2023” predicts that a family of four will spend up to $1,065 more on food this year, which is $598 more than the $467 from the so-called grocery rebate they will receive. Members should not be fooled by the Liberal spin. This overhyped rebate is not actually a relief measure at all. It simply gives money back to Canadians that this government already clawed from them through its big tax hikes. This rebate will do nothing to solve the cost of living crisis.

On top of that, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has recently shown that the carbon tax will cost the average family between $402 and $847 in 2023, even after the rebates. Further, it is only going to get worse in the near future. By 2030, carbon taxes could add 50¢ per litre to the price of gasoline.

In addition to these fiscal troubles, I am also concerned about what is missing in budget 2023.

There is zero mention of the critically important wine sector support program. This program was designed by Wine Growers Canada and adopted by Agriculture Canada as a trade legal program to protect Canadian wineries from having to pay the expensive excise tax. This program expired last summer, and Canadian wineries, including those in the Niagara region and in my communities of Niagara-on-the-Lake and Niagara Falls, badly need this program, or they risk potential job losses and closures.

In last year's budget, the government showed that it would be receiving $390 million by now taxing our wine sector. Where are those funds going? Our grape growers and wineries deserve answers from the government which created this mess through its introduction of the escalator clause on alcohol in 2017. Do not even get me going on the negative impact the escalator clause is causing to our sector.

However, this Liberal sleight of hand does not just apply to Canadian grapes and wine. It also touches upon the 2,800 tourism-related businesses and the 40,000 workers in the tourism sector in Niagara. In 2019, Niagara welcomed more than 13 million visitors and generated $2.4 billion in receipts as Canada's top leisure tourism destination.

As many members of this place will know, this week is National Tourism Week and the theme is “Canada: Powered by Tourism”. If members were to examine this budget and the government's commitment to tourism, they would be hard pressed to see its recognition for a sector that at one time reached $105 billion nationwide and was responsible for one in every 11 jobs created in Canada.

Throughout National Tourism Week, I have been meeting with many tourism stakeholders and receiving their feedback and reaction to budget 2023. In short, the Indigenous Tourism Association of Canada is disappointed in the 2023 budget and the empty promises, the lack of funding and the money it has cost to build the federal growth strategy. In fact, it has told me its members are still waiting for the millions of dollars in funding that was promised to them and identified by the government in last year's budget.

I have also met with representatives of the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, who expressed their concerns that despite improvements over the last 12 months, tourism businesses continue to struggle financially and are carrying significant debt loads. There is also an increasing sense of impatience and concern from the industry by the lack of commitment from the government to provide a firm timeline to introduce the highly anticipated, long-awaited and overdue federal tourism growth strategy.

I also want to note two concerns that I have flagged after reading budget 2023.

My first concern is on the commitment of spending $50 million on Destination Canada over three years, starting in 2023-24, and yet there is no detail on how these funds are to be allocated. If members were to look at the government estimates, they would see the Liberals have committed $111 million to Destination Canada this fiscal year. Are any of the $50 million pledged by the government included in that budget? If so, it is a bit disappointing, considering that $156 million was spent last year to attract major international conventions, conferences and events to Canada.

As well, what of the $108 million committed to the regional development agencies over three years starting in 2023-24 to support communities, small businesses and non-profit organizations in developing local tourism projects and events? Again the Liberals' sleight of hand is at work here. When we look at the line items provided in the budget for the three years, we see that the government only shows a total of $93 million being allocated. Where is the remaining $15 million? Is this money not being spent from last year's budget from the regional relief fund, or are some of those funds dedicated to indigenous tourism from last year now actually going to be counted for this year?

It is not good enough for the Minister of Tourism to tell the people of Canada's travel and tourism industry that they should simply be happy they were included in this year's budget. The bar needs to be set higher, especially when it comes to discussing an industry that was disadvantaged for nearly three years by the COVID-19 pandemic and the federal restrictions such as ArriveCAN that were implemented.

After eight years of this Liberal Prime Minister, the future of Canada's travel and tourism industry is at risk because of higher costs and taxes imposed by this reckless and expensive Liberal government. It is for those reasons and more that I will be voting against this legislation.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate my colleague's interventions. I think he and I share very similar thinking on how our taxation system ultimately needs to be reformed.

I do want to say that, in Bill C-47, there are some initial good steps. It is nice to see that the alternative minimum rate is being increased from 15% to 20.5%. That is a step in the right direction, but there is so much more that needs to be done. The member is right. Let us imagine the world we would be in right now if we properly took into account those revenues and applied them to the people who need them.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will just allow members to finish their conversations.

As I was saying, it is a great honour to stand in this place to speak on behalf of the residents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. Today, of course, we are continuing the debate on Bill C-47, which is the implementation act for the government's recent budget.

I first of all want to acknowledge many of the challenges my constituents and many Canadians from coast to coast to coast are going through. I understand the challenges that are going on with my residents, whose incomes are not keeping pace with the general rate of inflation. I know the pain they are experiencing every time they go to the grocery store, and that is why I, as the agriculture critic for the NDP, along with my caucus colleagues, have been leading the way, not only in getting a unanimous motion passed in the House of Commons to recognize corporate greed in the grocery sector, but also in leading an investigation at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food to study food price inflation.

I also want to acknowledge that a lot of the anger we see in Canadians when they look at the challenges they are facing has to be juxtaposed with the insane corporate profits we are seeing in so many sectors. The most galling fact of all corporate profits we can see, especially when we compare them to 2019, is in the oil and gas sector. The oil and gas sector, since 2019, has seen a 1,000% increase in its profits. In this place, I continually hear from my Conservative colleagues that Canadians should be jumping up, down and all around about the carbon tax, yet Conservatives make absolutely zero mention of how corporate profits are being raked in off the backs of Canadian families.

During our study on food price inflation, of course a lot of our focus was on grocery profits. We know Loblaws, Empire and Metro and their role. I also had the chance to ask some economists who appeared as witnesses to talk about the role corporate oil and gas profits are playing in driving up food prices, because we know that everything that arrives on grocery store shelves depends on a truck and other modes of transportation.

For a party that likes to single itself out as standing up for working people to completely ignore the elephant in the room is absolutely quite shameful, and I think it is further indication that the oil and gas companies in Canada do not need a lobby group, because they have a political party that is actively working on their behalf and not tackling the massive profits they are making.

We also know interest rates are affecting people's abilities. They are increasing the amount people have to pay on their mortgages, their credit cards and any kind of bank or car loan. These are putting real strains, and I think that with all the economic indicators that are present, our country very much is staring down the barrel of an incoming recession.

Many of these challenges existed when I was re-elected to this place in 2021, and they got worse over the 2022 year. One of the things we have to do as members of Parliament is decide how we are going to use our time and dedicate our efforts to make life better for our constituents, and one of the things that confronted New Democrats after the 2021 election, which was almost a carbon copy of the 2019 results, was how we, as a caucus of 25, could use our percentage of the seats in this place to deliver concrete results.

We can go and criticize the government, and we can keep on stoking the fires of rage that exist. I want to acknowledge that the anger out there is palpable. It is real and it needs to be acknowledged, but the way we respond to the fear, anger and concern of our constituents is not to keep on feeding it and feeding it without any tangible fixes. What we try to do is use our time here to present concrete solutions to the problems people are facing.

I am proud that our caucus of 25 MPs, over the last year and a half, has been able to do just that. We have been able to use our power and our influence in this place to course correct the Liberals on a number of fronts. I want to particularly single out the win that we had in creating Canada's first-ever national dental care program. I understand that the program is not in place. What we have right now are interim payments, but these are in place as we get the program developed.

Last year, it was for children under the age of 12. According to the most recent statistics that we have, the Canada dental benefit has already helped more than 240,000 children, right across the country, receive the oral health care that they need. That program is being expanded this year. It is now going to include children under the age of 18. It is going to include seniors, and it is going to include persons with disabilities.

Again, these are benefits going to people who often find themselves on the margins of our society. They do not have the luxury of finding extra money to go to the dentist. They are the ones who are struggling with the mortgage payments, car payments and putting groceries on the table. For them, just going to a simple check-up is a luxury they cannot afford.

Our philosophy in the NDP has always been that oral care is health care, and it has never made sense to me that one's health care coverage stops at one's tonsils. It is a significant investment because we know that, when one does not get regular check-ups, there can be serious health issues that might be missed. They might be indicators of future cardiovascular disease. They might be indicators that one has diabetes or other very serious health outcomes. If they are not intervened with in an early period, they can result in excessive costs to our health care system.

This is an example of us using our time in this place to really make a significant investment that will make people's lives better. I also want to recognize the fact that we are talking about a budget bill, and it is impossible to cover every last detail in a 10-minute speech, but for the small businesses in my riding, we have managed to get commitments from some of the major credit card companies. Merchant fees for small businesses will be lowered.

I know that for the member for Courtenay—Alberni, my neighbour on Vancouver Island, this has been an issue that he has been raising since the 42nd Parliament, when we were first elected in 2015. It is awesome to see that this is a win that we can bring back to our constituents. It is nice, also, to see that, in recognition of the extra costs many Canadians are facing at the grocery aisle, we now have the GST rebate being doubled.

It is nice to see investments being made in housing. Again, I would have to point out some of the things that we would have done differently because there is a huge deficit in the stock of available, affordable housing in Canada.

I look at my community of Langford. There are no gatekeepers in Langford. We have building projects going on everywhere. In fact, the city skyline in Langford is dotted by construction cranes. Despite all of that private-led investment and the market-driven building that is going on, we still have too many families who cannot afford a place to live. We need to make those serious investments, to make sure that people can have a safe place to put their head at night, to have safe and secure shelter.

That is nowhere more apparent than in Canada's indigenous communities. My riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has a significant indigenous population. I am thinking of Cowichan tribes. Their needs are great when it comes to the housing file. I am proud that we were able to achieve a small win on behalf of indigenous people, but it is obvious that far more is needed.

This is a budget bill where we would have done a lot of things differently. However, with what is in there and what we, as a caucus of 25, were able to achieve and put in there, I am proud to send this off to the finance committee. I will be lending my support, and I am looking forward to going back to my constituents to tell them about the amazing benefits that are going to be offered through the dental care program, which we have been able to achieve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for his speech.

On the topic of health, the primary role of the federal government is to properly fund health care. In Bill C‑47, there is $2 billion in unconditional transfers to the provinces. The member for Winnipeg North said that the government would try to remove that money from the bill because it is already in Bill C‑46, which was passed by the House.

First, the government is not doing its job properly. It is forgetting to harmonize its own bills. That is not very professional. Second, we believe we need a lot more in health transfers from the federal government. We want this $2 billion to stay in Bill C‑47.

What does my hon. colleague think about that?

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this House to speak to Bill C-47, the budget implementation act.

This is also my first opportunity to address a developing situation in my riding, which is the closure of the emergency room of the Minden hospital. This emergency room serves the community. The population changes in the winter and summer months, and we are approaching the busy tourist season in just a few weeks. That is unfortunately when this emergency room is scheduled to close. Colleagues can imagine the impact this has had on the community itself.

As someone who grew up in Bobcaygeon, I unfortunately have been a client of the Minden hospital on more than one occasion and was always impressed with the service they provided. I do understand the impact this is having on the community. It is not necessarily a decision I support. I do not agree with the closure of the emergency room in Minden, especially the unfortunate timing of it.

The board of directors, I am sure, did not make this decision lightly. The administration, I am sure, did not make this decision lightly. I do not think it is something anybody signs up for, to close an emergency room in a small community when, in recent times, during the pandemic specifically, health care is really valued, not only in rural communities but in this country as a whole. This closure could potentially put pressure on other facilities. Of course, the closest hospital for many would be in Haliburton. Facilities in Peterborough and Lindsay are already stretched, not to mention that at the same time we are seeing growth rates that we have not seen before, many attributed to the fact that people are moving after the pandemic to start a life in what was once cottage country, or what I call paradise. I do not blame them. The area around Minden Hills is scheduled to grow at, I believe, the fastest rate in Haliburton County, so this decision is very emotional for a lot of people, and rightly so.

Immediately after this decision was made public, I was contacted by the media. I offered a few suggestions, which I am going to tie into the debate we are having on the budget today. I have also written to the ministers. That was one of the first things I did after hearing about the closure of the emergency room in Minden. The fact is that there are areas the government could be helping with and could have taken action on many years ago to help mitigate this blow.

The administration is telling us that the closure is due to staffing constraints. I think we can all acknowledge in this place that there is a global shortage in health care professionals. I hear stories all across the country oftentimes that there are shortages of nurses, doctors and PSWs. The list goes on. I think this is a very real concern and a very real challenge that the administration and the volunteer board of directors were having in Minden and that, of course, as I said, hospitals and health care facilities are having across the country.

There were many suggestions I offered about the recruitment of doctors and nurses. There are an estimated 19,000 doctors and 34,000 nurses in Canada who cannot work in their trade because they were trained abroad. There are tens of thousands of health care professionals who want to work, who want to help address this health care crisis and who could be helping communities like Minden, but they are held up by bureaucratic gatekeepers because they cannot get an answer on whether they can practise in their specific field, the field they are trained for.

I asked the minister of immigration to adopt our leader's stance on addressing this and to create a blue seal program, sort of like the red seal program where trades are recognized for their skills. We can do this in the health care field. I do not think the government has taken a leadership role in getting the provinces together to agree on a standardized test where health care professionals can travel. Not only that, but those who are coming to Canada and who have been trained abroad should be able to take a standardized test and within a decent amount of time get a yes-or-no answer on whether they can practise in that field.

If the answer is no, they need to know what to do to get up to that standard. If the answer is yes, that obviously speaks for itself and they can then start to practise in that field. This is a tangible way the government could have taken action. The government could have looked into this many years ago, because this is not a surprise.

In Ontario, we had hallway health care before the pandemic. We had issues with long-term care long before. Had the government kept its eye on the ball, we might have been able to address this before the crisis and before decisions like that made in Minden. We could have potentially had these bodies, and that is a lot when we are looking at 19,000 doctors and 34,000 nurses.

The blue seal program is one solution we brought to the table, and I spoke to the media about this. Let us start addressing this and getting our health care professionals who want to work and are trained into their field.

The other issue is housing. Many of the speeches that I have been listening to today in this debate have focused on housing, and rightly so. In fact, just a few weeks before this announcement about Minden was made in Haliburton County, the town of Minden had a summit. It was a volunteer group, Places for People, that arranged a housing summit.

Haliburton County is beautiful. It is paradise, and it is probably one of the best places in this country to live, to be, to work and to play. However, in my speech, I actually mentioned the fact that health care professionals who wanted to come to the area could not find housing. Not only was it hard for the hospital to recruit, but the municipality was also having trouble recruiting executives in its leadership circle. We also heard from many tourism operators who were not able to find bodies. Housing was a real issue. The fact is that we, as a country, are not building the amount of housing we need in order to address what is in front of us today, which is a housing crisis.

According to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canada needs 3.5 million more homes than projected to restore affordability. That is 3.5 million homes just to address the affordability problem that we have.

Many communities say they do not have housing, and that is true. In Haliburton County, it is absolutely true. Housing has been a massive problem. It actually hurt the economy. There was opportunity to grow, but because there was nowhere to house people for businesses that they wanted to start up, to maintain or to expand, it was hard to attract people because they could not find a suitable and affordable house to live in.

That is something the government has failed at. It keeps touting its housing strategy, but the affordability has not gone up. The affordability problem has actually worsened. The average mortgage and rent payment has nearly doubled since the government came into power. When the Prime Minister took office, the average monthly payment on a new house was $1,400. Today it has gone up to over $3,100. In 2015, the average rent in Canada for a one-bedroom apartment was $973. Today it is $1,760. That is for a one-bedroom apartment. The average rent for a two-bedroom apartment here in Canada was $1,172; today, it is $2,153.

In fact, when the Prime Minister took office, someone needed only 39% of the average paycheque to make those monthly payments on that average house. That number has now risen to 62%. By every objective measurement, things are now more expensive and Canadians are taking home less.

The affordability crisis and the housing crisis are two of the biggest problems we have. This is not to mention that when we are talking about building homes and building the economy, we also need to include labour in this conversation. We have a massive labour shortage, especially in the skilled trades, which are the trades we need to build houses.

Something else the government has failed to take into account is the fact that we should be providing more incentives for those who want to get into the skilled trades. I will give the government credit. It did include some incentives for those in the skilled trades in the budget, and I thank it for that. This could have been done long before.

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

Madam Speaker, currently, when big emitters pay the carbon tax, the money is put aside and is used to finance green projects in the province where the tax was collected. If oil companies do not propose any green projects, they lose that money at the end of the year. This approach encourages them to move quickly.

With Bill C-47, the money would not be lost at the end of the year. Oil companies would keep the money for future projects, which would give them no incentive to hurry to implement green projects that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I always appreciate because she speaks so eloquently. She touched on several topics in her speech on this very important bill.

Bill C-47 is important because I believe we will achieve our government's goal of helping Canadians while being very fiscally responsible.

One of the concerns that my colleague talked about is housing, and that speaks to me because I represent Orléans. Our government has implemented a number of measures, and if we look at the history of Canada, we are probably the first federal government to put forward a national housing strategy. We know we need partners, and we respect all jurisdictions. I would like to know if my colleague supports—