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.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a huge privilege to rise in the House to debate Bill C‑47 and discuss the implementation of the budget. I thank my hon. colleague from Pontiac for sharing her time with me this afternoon. I want to present the views of my constituents in Kings—Hants on the budget and speak about certain initiatives that are very important to my riding.

The budget essentially has three major pillars. The first is a focus on affordability. The second is a focus on health care supports for the provinces and territories to help improve health care across the country. The third is the green economy, our clean energy future, and indeed Canada's future prosperity here at home.

Affordability has become a top priority for Canadians across the country as a result of higher inflation following the pandemic. The good news is that inflation declined again this month and is now 4.3%, compared to 8.1% last summer.

I think it is important to recognize the context that this government is faced with. Given the fact the Bank of Canada, through its monetary policy, has been helping to try to bring down the cost of inflation, the government has to be responsible with how it is addressing the question of consumption spending.

When we look at the budget, there is a one-time doubling of the GST rebate, which is being framed by the government as a grocery rebate, and that would be eligible to 11 million Canadians. It has been means tested, which means it is based on income. I certainly support it because it is a targeted measure. It would not necessarily support all Canadians, but those who have lower incomes and could really use support right now, given some of the challenges around affordability. Therefore, it is targeted, focused, and will not necessarily drive inflation higher, given the work the Bank of Canada is doing.

I also want to talk about something that could be framed as a health benefit, but is also an affordability benefit, which is the Canadian dental plan. The government has introduced this, and it is going to help support uninsured Canadians who have a household income below $90,000 with a program to help support their dental costs. We know that, if people do not have access to private insurance, sometimes the costs associated with surgery or fixing one's teeth can be quite expensive, particularly for those who are struggling to get by. This is a measure that is going to make a difference across the country. Indeed, in my riding of Kings—Hants, I have already had calls from families who are in receipt of the benefit that we put out, as a government, for those who are under 12. The government's program is to expand this to seniors next year, and indeed to all households with an income of below $90,000 by 2025.

My riding is still disproportionately older than the rest of the country. We have a lot of good things happening in the riding, but we have a lot of seniors, so for lower-income seniors who do not have dental insurance, this would really make a difference for them.

Let me talk about health care. As a federal member of Parliament, and I would suspect it is probably the same for many of my colleagues, I get calls quite often about health care and the state of health care in this country. I remind my constituents that I do not directly control that, nor does the Government of Canada, but it is our responsibility to make sure that there are proper resources on the table. That is exactly what this budget does. Of course, we knew this was something that had been announced prior to the budget, but there is going to be $198 billion of new spending over the next decade toward health care, above and beyond where we are right now, $46 billion of which was announced as new spending tabled by the government in this budget.

Spending alone will not solve health care, but it was something we were hearing from the provinces and territories. I am proud of the way this government has stepped up to make sure there is consistent funding over the next decade and of the fact that we know it is in place and that the provinces can take that measure and plan accordingly.

In my home province of Nova Scotia, the provincial government has staked a lot of its credibility on “fixing health care”. It will certainly have no excuses from this government because we are making sure that those resources are there. It is now its turn to get focused on the ground at being able to deliver that. That is something I am proud of.

We will continue to make sure the provinces are using the funds reasonably and make sure they are going toward health care. As we have heard before, sometimes the Government of Canada will provide transfers to the provinces and they will use them for other priorities. This government is making sure the money is going to be spent exactly where it should be, which is on health care.

I also want to highlight that the budget talks about loan forgiveness for doctors and nurses. Something the government had in place previously was loan forgiveness for doctors who practise in rural areas. We know the importance of doctors, but we also know the importance of allied health professionals. This government is extending this to nurses who practise in rural Canada. Certainly in my area of Kings—Hants in Nova Scotia, this is going to be very welcome news.

This government is addressing the clean energy economy, the third pillar. We have talked about health, we have talked about affordability and next is about matching what the United States has done. A lot of members have talked about the Inflation Reduction Act. This is a significant amount of money that the United States put on the table to help drive spending in the clean energy economy.

The Prime Minister has been very clear that this government has had a number of measures on the table for years, but the size of the American investment, nearly $400 billion U.S., is significant. Frankly, it would have been irresponsible for this government not to have some measures to make sure we responded in a way that draws capital and investment to this country and does not allow investment to simply go south of the border.

A number of measures are important, and I want to highlight a few that I think are particularly important to Atlantic Canada. One is the 15% refundable tax credit for clean electricity. This will matter across the country, and I want to give credit to the Minister of Finance. As opposed to putting these types of incentives in government programs that entities have to apply for, we are setting the criteria, saying what people can expect. The money will flow much quicker and will allow businesses to have certainty to make investments. This will matter for entities across the country but particularly in my province, which needs to keep driving its electricity future in a renewable way.

I have talked a lot about nuclear in this House. Really important measures for nuclear are being included in these measures. This is something we have heard from all sides of the House, largely, and I want to compliment those who have raised these issues in the House, because this government, in this budget, is doing exactly that and making sure we have homegrown solutions that can make a difference.

On clean hydrogen, we have a world of opportunity in Atlantic Canada. Members should come visit us sometime. We would love to showcase the investments and that we have the ability to help fuel the world right from Atlantic Canada. It is going to be through clean hydrogen. This government is putting incentives on the table to make sure it happens in Atlantic Canada and not another part of the country.

I have talked at great length in this House over the last year about the importance of the Atlantic loop. There is again a mention of that in the budget. I know there is ongoing co-operation between the Government of Canada and various provincial entities. We need to keep driving that project forward.

In Kings—Hants, agriculture and forestry are predominant industries at the primary level. I was very pleased to see investments of $368 million to the Department of Natural Resources for forestry initiatives. We need to see at least some of that go toward mass timber. There is an opportunity in Atlantic Canada, and indeed in Kings—Hants, for a mass timber facility. The Atlantic region is the only region of the country that does not yet have that. This matters, and I really hope we can see those projects move in the days ahead.

On the agriculture side, the advance payments program, with the continuation of interest-free loans, is going to make a difference for my farmers. I was pleased to see the Minister of Agriculture help ensure that foot-and-mouth disease vaccines will be available in this country. We have available stock. There is also the dairy innovation and investment fund. Given that I have the largest number of supply-managed farms east of Quebec, this is going to matter to my farmers in the days ahead.

One thing that I think this government needs to address would simply be the importance of continuing to drive a mechanism around non-cost measures. It is important that we invest. The government is doing so, but it is also important that we look at regulatory reform measures that do not cost money and that can help drive industry success. I hope to see a formal mechanism as we head into the fall.

I see my time has unfortunately come to a close, but I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kings—Hants.

I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C‑47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, which will help build a clean economy.

Today, the world's largest economies are making incredible strides not only in fighting the climate crisis, but also in restructuring, seizing the opportunities that this industrial shift represents for them and building clean industries. For that reason, budget 2023 includes innovative and substantial investments in building that economy right here in Canada.

Fighting the climate crisis is clearly the main objective of all major economies. However, by building a strong and inclusive economy by seizing these opportunities and using Canada's incredible resources to achieve great success in the economy of tomorrow, we are also investing in Canadian businesses, Canadian talent and Canadian workers.

Our Canadian plan uses a variety of useful measures to invest in this new clean economy. We have already spoken at length about certain clear and predictable investment tax credits. We are also providing strategic financing in sectors such as critical minerals and clean energy. By investing in these sectors, Canada will truly build its economy and increase opportunities for all Canadian workers. We are also investing in some more targeted sectors and projects of national and international significance, as we saw with the wonderful announcements about Volkswagen.

By making such significant investments for Canada, we are ensuring that we are not left behind. Currently, while all the other major global economies are investing massively in these sectors, the worst thing that could happen would be for Canada not to seize these opportunities and never have the chance to re-enter the race ever again. We must invest in transforming our economy, but also in these opportunities.

Budget 2023 truly ensures that a green Canadian economy is also a source of prosperity and jobs for the middle class, but also for more dynamic communities across the country. We cannot do it alone, however. This is going to require investment at the government level and beyond. I would like to take this discussion to the Canada growth fund. We know there are trillions of dollars in private capital waiting for these opportunities, waiting to be spent on building the clean global economy. Canada does have some rivals. We are all trying to attract the best capital from the private sector.

The recent enactment of the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act posed a major challenge for our budget. To be competitive within the North American economy, we really have to invest in our industries, since they will drive the clean economy. To succeed, we had to meet two challenges. The first was to encourage companies to take risks and invest in clean technologies, advanced technologies, here in Canada. The second was to keep up with the growing list of nations that are also using public funds to attract private capital, including the United States and the European Union. As we saw, the list does not stop there. Australia was also in the race, along with many other countries.

In budget 2022, we announced the government's plans to create the Canada growth fund, a $15‑billion arm's-length public investment vehicle that will help attract private capital to build Canada's clean economy.

The thought behind that was to use investment instruments that absorb certain risks. This is all about attracting and encouraging private investment in some of the riskier projects, in new technologies, in companies, but also in low-carbon supply chains.

The 2022 economic statement announced more details on how the Canada growth fund would work, and this new investment vehicle was created in December.

The legislation introduced last week introduces amendments to the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act to allow the board, also known as PSP Investments, to provide investment management services for the Canada growth fund. As a significant part of the government's plan to decarbonize the economy, the Canada growth fund requires an experienced, professional, independent investment team to make important investments. That is why we are pooling those services.

PSP Investments is already established as a federal Crown corporation, and it already has $225 billion in assets under management. It will be able to add assets for investments in the clean economy of tomorrow. Canada growth fund assets will be managed by PSP Investments, a separate and independent corporation. We like it that way.

The Canada growth fund will make investments that will catalyze substantial private sector investment in businesses and projects in Canada to help bring about that transformation I was talking about earlier, to grow the economy and to compete in the global net-zero energy market. Canada growth fund investments will help Canada achieve its national economic and climate strategy goals.

I see that time is running out. I talked about the Canada growth fund, which will be very important and strategic for both meeting our targets and capitalizing on these opportunities. However, I also wanted to talk about a problem we have in Canada. Canadian companies are not investing enough in R and D, and not at the same level as their peers. To meet this challenge, the budget proposes a new approach and creates the Canada innovation corporation. This was announced in budget 2022, but now several sectors are being brought together and the Canada innovation corporation's mandate is being expanded.

I do not have time to talk about it in detail, but the modernization of the National Research Council is very important too. It is another tool in the tool box that will help us achieve those objectives, which are to seize those opportunities and to join the global march toward a greener economy and a healthier planet.

Clearly, we have made smart investments that are good for Canadian workers, for businesses, for the Canadian economy and for our planet. I hope that all members in the House will join me in supporting the passage of this crucial piece of legislation.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-47, which is part of the government's 2023 budget implementation. I am honoured today to follow my colleague, the member for Calgary Forest Lawn, who is our party's official finance critic.

After much anticipation and hope that the expensive coalition would exercise some fiscal prudence, Canadians were once again presented with a budget that will spend more and deliver less.

My colleague went over numerous statistics in his speech about this legislation, but I think the most alarming one is the fact that this expensive coalition will tack on nearly $4,200 in additional costs to every household across Canada with its lackluster budget.

Canadians are tired of being bought by this Liberal government with one-time cheques and slogans every time a budget is presented. This is the case with the grocery rebate, for example.

Let us be honest with Canadians: This one-time cheque will do nothing to reduce the price of groceries for families. It is simply a doubling of the GST credit, presented as something it is not. We need to tackle the real source of the problem.

Take, for example, the way the government is increasing grocery prices with policies like the carbon tax, the tariff on fertilizer and other harmful policies. These policies are driving up the cost of food production and transportation across the country.

Bill C-47 also includes the health care transfers to the provinces, which are well below what the provinces and territories requested to provide the care that our fellow citizens and their families need.

My Liberal and NDP colleagues will say that I am not helping my constituents get dental care because I will not support this budget. However, that could not be further from the truth. I would like to remind my colleagues opposite that Quebec has not only had a day care program for many years, but it also already has a dental care program for our young children. It seems as though the current government is always lagging behind on these programs. It has been clear from the start that this government does not trust the provincial and territorial governments to implement the programs themselves and that the “Ottawa knows best” approach is the only way to manage these projects. If only the government had more faith in the provinces and, especially, more respect for their jurisdictions, it might be surprised to see what can be done without Ottawa getting involved.

I will now take a moment to talk about what I would have liked to see in this budget. First, there is nothing in the budget to help SMEs attract labour. The word “labour” is hardly used at all in this budget, which is hundreds of pages long.

In my riding of Beauce, the unemployment rate is currently below 1.9%. Our businesses are struggling to attract and retain workers. It is one of the biggest issues in my riding. A vast majority of businesses in my riding rely heavily on temporary foreign workers to fill gaps in their workforce. However, there was nothing in the budget to improve the program. The government must reduce the paperwork and red tape associated with all these programs.

What is worse, the government has allowed more than 150,000 public servants to go on strike, which means that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada will have an even larger backlog and businesses will continue to close their doors because of the Prime Minister's inaction. It is as though this government does not understand just how time sensitive these jobs are. Many farmers and landscape companies in my riding, for example, will not have workers at the most important time of the year.

These businesses spend thousands of dollars recruiting foreign workers months before they are to arrive, but the government does not care. It has done nothing to reduce immigration delays.

That leads me to my next point. Where is the funding for Canadian agriculture in this budget?

After I took a close look at the budget with my staff, I discovered that our agriculture and agri-food sector was getting approximately 0.1% of the funds allocated in the budget. What a sad situation in which our country finds itself, when our government forgets where the food feeding our families and others around the whole world comes from.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food was pleased to speak in the House to tell us that she had increased the limit for loans available to farmers. Does she not understand that farmers are already in debt up to their necks? They need programs that reflect the current reality so they can remain solvent and competitive on the international market.

Two weeks ago, in my riding, we heard the sad news that Olymel will permanently close its Vallée‑Jonction pork processing plant in December. In a municipality of approximately 2,000 people, Olymel employs 1,000 workers. This is devastating, and the entire region will be hit hard. The closure is the result of, among other things, a labour shortage that began several years ago. It will have a serious impact on the pork industry in Ontario and Quebec, as well as on a number of other industries.

A growing number of farmers and farms are struggling to survive in Canada. This government has abandoned this sector for far too long. Our country needs to take measures to support the agriculture and agri-food industry before it is too late. A Conservative government will be there for farmers and plant workers. We are prepared to make this sector the economic driver it should have been in this country a long time ago.

Finally, I would like to touch on something that was not mentioned whatsoever in the budget. The words “cellular connectivity” are not mentioned at all in this budget when we search the words. Since first being elected, I have been rising in the House to speak out about this problem. In the 40 municipalities in my riding alone, at least one sector in each town is poorly served by the cellular networks.

I would remind the government that people in the regions are not second class citizens. They pay just as many taxes as anyone else. These people who live in the regions, who contribute to the economy, are held back by the inability to get 21st century technology. How are we supposed to automate industries to make up for the labour shortage when a business owner has to go to the top of a hill to get one bar of service on his phone?

I therefore invite the government to have a look at the reporting done on this subject in March by many local journalists, including Éric Gourde at L'Éclaireur Progrès and Philippe Grenier at Radio-Canada.

It is unbelievable that people come close to dying because they cannot call 911. When people do manage to get into an ambulance, sometimes the paramedics cannot connect to the nearest local hospital because there is no cell signal.

Having an adequate cellular network in the regions is not a matter of equity; it is a matter of public safety. The government needs to make investments to address this issue and force the CRTC to compel the big telecom companies to develop their cellular networks throughout the regions—unless the government is still waiting for the provincial governments to get involved.

In closing, it is time for change in Canada. It is time to put Canadians first, not only in major urban centres, but also in the rural heartlands. That is why I will continue to rise in the House and be the voice of the residents of Beauce, to convey their message. A Conservative government will put Canadians first and prioritize common sense.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question from our hon. colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. It is no surprise that housing is barely mentioned in Bill C-47. It was barely mentioned in the budget also. In fact, it was the opposite. The federal housing advocate said, “The newly unveiled Federal Budget is a sorry disappointment. It completely misses the mark on addressing the most pressing housing crisis this country has ever seen.”

In this bill, the federal government could have gotten serious about, for example, addressing the loophole for real estate investment trusts. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has now estimated we could direct $285 million over the next five years to build the affordable housing we need if we were simply to eliminate the tax breaks for REITs.

Can the member for Winnipeg North speak about whether he is going to put pressure on the government to bring about this change?

(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

The House resumed from April 21 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.

[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, we spent one day in camera studying the budget. We wondered whether there really was an inflationary crisis, a housing crisis and a seniors' purchasing power crisis. It seemed to be a budget created in a vacuum, without any context. One could almost believe that it was generated by ChatGPT based on the last 30 or 40 years. This budget came out of nowhere.

We see that in Bill C‑47, too. What is there for social housing or housing? There are 430 pages, and 59 statutes are affected, but there is nothing at all for housing. That is unacceptable.

[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.

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.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to hearing the intervention of the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

My comments today lead off the comments of His Majesty's loyal opposition on Bill C-47. That is the Liberals' budget implementation bill. The question before us is whether anything in this budget bill will actually be true when we look at the promises of the Liberals compared with the results.

I want to put the record spending in this budget plan into some historical context. I know the Liberals are a little challenged on math sometimes, so please bear with me. I hope they can follow it.

In the federal election of 1968, Pierre Trudeau reassured Canadians that a Liberal government would not raise taxes or increase spending. During the election, he said that the government was not Santa Claus. How did that work out? When Pierre Trudeau became prime minister, real government spending increased from 17% of the GDP to 24.3%. In other words, the federal government's share of the economy rose 42% under Pierre Trudeau. Every single area of federal government spending increased, except defence spending, where Pierre Trudeau cut spending in half as a percentage of the budget. When Pierre Trudeau took office, we spent more on national defence than we did on servicing the country's debt. When he left office in 1984, for every dollar the government spent on defence, we spent $3 on paying the interest on his national debt.

Let us look at this another way. The deficit Pierre Trudeau ran in his last year of office was 8.3% of the GDP. Based on Canada's GDP in 2022, Pierre Trudeau's 8.3% of GDP deficit would be like an annual deficit of $157 billion today. His record was to drive Canada's debt from $262 billion when he became prime minister to $700 billion when he left office. Pierre Trudeau added $438 billion to Canada's debt, almost tripling it. This was from a Liberal leader who said he would not run deficits when he was first elected in 1968 and that the government was no Santa Claus.

I raise this because, as the adage goes, like father like son. By the time Pierre Trudeau left office in 1984, 38¢ of every dollar that the federal government spent was to pay interest on the debt that he had built up. His policies of massive spending led to a rapid rise in interest rates to try to reduce inflation. All that government spending simply made it worse. Interest rates rose to 21%.

Like his father, the current Liberal leader promised Canadians in his first election in 2015 that, even though Canada was running a robust growing economy and had a balanced budget left by the Harper government, he would run modest stimulus deficits. However, in 2019, it would be balanced. The platform that the Liberals all stood on in 2015 said: “We will run modest deficits for three years so that we can invest in growth for the middle class and credibly offer a plan to balance the budget in 2019” and “we will...reduce the federal debt-to-GDP ratio to 27 percent”.

Did he have a balanced budget in 2019, as he promised and as his father also promised in his first term? No, he did not: like father like son. The Liberals produced a $20-billion deficit in 2019. Promises were made, and promises were broken.

Did the Liberals reduce their first fiscal anchor of 27% of the GDP? No, they did not. It was 31% in 2019, so another promise was made and broken.

In the new Liberal budget after 2019, there was no longer talk of a balanced budget. The debt-to-GDP ratio was the new fiscal anchor. It would remain the same during the four years of that fiscal plan, even though that meant they would be spending more. We know that at least the promise to spend more and not to balance the budget was true.

We then had an early and unnecessary election in 2021. What did the Liberal platform say then about promises for the country's finances? There was no talk of balanced budgets until perhaps 2050, but the Liberals did promise to drop the debt-to-GDP ratio from 48.5% in 2021-22. We should remember that in 2019, their campaign promise said that, in 2022, the debt-to-GDP ratio would be 31%, not 48%.

What does the bill project for this year? The budget set the cumulative spending for the next five years at a record $3.1 trillion. We should remember that, in the fall, they promised that the budget would be balanced. However, if these numbers are to be believed, and if they did not add more spending in the rest of their term, they would add another $130 billion to the national debt. The national debt would rise to a record $1.3 trillion. The Liberals project that interest on the national debt would rise from $44 billion a year to $50 billion a year in five years. This is if we can believe the interest rate projections in this budget. That $50 billion in interest is $10 billion more than we spend on national defence.

The budget includes $84 billion in new tax credits for businesses over the next five years. The Liberals project that inflation will be 3.5% in 2023 and roughly 2.1% thereafter. For this to happen, inflation would need to drop from 5.5% now to 2% in July and stay there for the next five years. This is not likely. The $3.1 trillion in spending, with massive deficits, would pour gasoline on the inflation fire. Therefore, these projected inflation rates are ridiculous.

In the last year of the Conservative government, federal government spending was $280 billion, with a $1.9-billion surplus. This year, the budget projects $456 billion in spending. That is up $176 billion, or 63%, since the Liberals took office. The fiscal framework projects the government spending to be $543 billion. This is if there is no further spending in the rest of their term. That is $263 billion more than in 2015, representing a 94% increase in spending. The increase alone is almost as much as the entire 2015 budget. Taxes have risen by $282 billion since 2015. We know it is not a revenue problem, because revenue has gone up by 92%.

At the end of the bill's plan, Pierre Trudeau and the son, the current Liberal leader, will have contributed $1.1 trillion to Canada's national debt. Pierre Trudeau always spent more than he promised. After eight years of the Liberals, the son has done the same. Promises were made, and promises were broken. Canadians simply cannot afford any more Trudeaus.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing the budget implementation bill. The fiscal measures announced in the budget are implemented in part in this massive bill, Bill C-47.

Towards the end of this budget bill, they go completely off topic and decide to refer to Charles III as the King of Canada. Division 31 states the following:

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

Does my colleague think it makes sense to include this in a budget implementation bill? Should we not vote on it separately instead?

For that matter, do we even need this kind of thing in 2023?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

moved 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.