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.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

On the supplementary rules under therapeutic products, right now there's a bill in the House, Bill C-368, that seeks to undo the changes that were made in Bill C-47 in relation to therapeutic products.

As the voice of the Natural Health Product Protection Association, if Bill C-368 does pass in its current form, can you tell us what impact that could have for the natural health product industry in regard to changes in Bill C-47, and now in Bill C-69, should they pass in their current form?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

My assessment of the minister's arguments in using nicotine pouches and flavoured vaping products as a rationale for this power grab, both in Bill C-47 and in Bill C-69, is that they're a bit of a red herring.

Under the Food and Drugs Act as it existed even before Bill C-47, Health Canada has the ability to stop the sale of any product it deems unsafe. It has the ability to seize any product. It has the ability to stop any personal use imports across the border if it wants to. It could mandate a label change, adding any warnings that it wants to, and it can withdraw any natural product number. It actually approves a natural product number in the first place, and it has the power therein to withdraw a natural product number.

Is the issue actually the regulated use and sale of these nicotine pouches or is it actually the contraband sale of these nicotine pouches?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I will start my questions with Mr. Buckley.

Going back, Bill C-69 is a budget implementation act. It's not an actual act tabled by the health minister. It's an act tabled by the finance minister. These are substantive changes to the Food and Drugs Act. This follows on the heels of other substantive changes to the Food and Drugs Act passed last year in the budget implementation act bill, Bill C-47.

Do you and your organization have any comments for this committee about the appropriateness of having these discussions in a finance committee rather than tabling an individual piece of legislation that specifically deals with health and can be scrutinized and vetted through the appropriate channels here in our Parliament?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

My question is to the Health Food Association. Thank you for your presentation.

I just want to be clear about one part of your presentation. You said that Health Canada snuck these changes in Bill C-47 and Bill C-69. Actually, when officials from Health Canada appear at Parliament, they sit exactly where you're sitting right now. It would be the health minister advising the finance minister to put these changes into this piece of legislation. Health Canada wouldn't be able to table any legislation at all. It's MPs and ministers and the government that tables these things.

I want to talk a little bit about the health minister's defence of using Bill C-47 and now Bill C-69 and claiming that Health Canada needs powers to stop, I think, a particular example of a product that they're talking about. I want to go through the current set of powers that Health Canada has.

Does Health Canada currently have the power to issue a stop sale on any natural health product in Canada?

[Aaron Skelton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Health Food Association]

Good morning.

Thank you, Chair and members of this committee, for having me here today. My name is Aaron Skelton. I'm the president and CEO of the Canadian Health Food Association, a trade association representing natural health, organic and wellness products in Canada. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak before you today on behalf of not just our member companies but also the 82% of Canadians who use natural health products as part of their health and well-being.

The core concern I am bringing to you today is regarding Health Canada’s continued abuse of the parliamentary process. Health Canada introduced significant amendments to the laws governing natural health products through budget omnibus bills in 2023 and 2024 rather than following the parliamentary process. This has undone the hard work of prior legislative reviews conducted by previous Parliaments and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.

In budget 2024, current amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, as included under division 31 of Bill C-69, has yet again caught an entire industry completely off guard. For the second time in as many years, Health Canada has attempted to evade proper parliamentary process, including scrutiny by the Standing Committee on Health and consultations with industry, to achieve their desired outcome with zero checks or balances. The amendments they seek as part of division 31 are extremely powerful. However altruistically the intentions behind it are framed, the implications of such broad, sweeping changes demand proper study and regulatory rigour.

As mentioned, this same approach was taken in 2023, when division 27 in part 4 of Bill C-47 shockingly changed the definition of “therapeutic products” to include natural health products—with no scrutiny, public analysis or industry consultation. The lack of transparency and the unintended consequences that came from a blatant disregard of due process resulted in a private member’s bill, Bill C-368, that just this week passed second reading with support from all opposition parties to repeal this amendment. While a step in the right direction to course-correct a sneaky tactic, once an amendment has passed, it is no easy feat to undo what was inappropriately done.

The need for industry and consumers to voice their concerns on important regulatory and legislative matters is paramount, a requirement that is crucial to the development of fair and appropriate regulations. The potential impact of unchecked powers is not a hypothetical one. The current cost recovery proposal for NHPs, the outcome of such ministerial powers, has already created a staggering and untenable situation for companies across our sector.

Today we are back to ask this committee to not let history repeat itself. To be clear, we represent the natural health products industry. We do not represent any smoking cessation or tobacco products. We are here because over the course of the past two years, our trust in Health Canada has been eroded. We have faced multiple regulatory and legislative changes that have serious consequences on an industry and on Canadians.

If Bill C-69 passes and this amendment goes through, health products, natural or otherwise, will be left to face broad, sweeping powers from a minister who will have the ability to issue orders without following the Statutory Instruments Act. As it is a first of its kind, we have no visibility into the evidence required to support an order, and we will be left in the dark as to whether or not these powers can override department-issued licences, such as those granted by the natural and non-prescription health products directorate.

As an industry, we continue to support regulation and legislation that protects Canadians and is developed in a transparent, responsible and appropriate manner. Regulatory amendments pushed through omnibus bills do not reflect this value.

Today we ask this committee to consider removing division 31 from this act. This committee amended the budget in 2017, and we urge you to consider this precedent here. The restrictions placed by division 31 on health products, including natural health products, have consequences beyond what the current Minister of Health has communicated. With the power of this and no due process, Health Canada has made itself the judge, the jury and potentially the executioner. We cannot overstate the need to approach regulatory changes of this nature and this magnitude in the proper way—with study, analysis and consultation.

I thank you again for your time and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I'll cut in here, because I want to hear from Mr. Bleskie before my time is up.

Mr. Bleskie, you may have noted that Yukon Territory was the first jurisdiction in 2020 to cover CGM. Other provinces have now come on board with that. When you look at the piecemeal approach versus a coordinated national approach, how do you feel about doing better with a coordinated national approach, incorporating Bill C-47 into this?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

If I can, I'll quickly squeeze in a third question.

You talked about your previous role with the Heart and Stroke Foundation, and you did I think some really excellent work there. The Heart and Stroke Foundation, in their briefing note, pointed out that almost one in 10 people in Canada are visiting an emergency room due to a worsening health issue because they are not able to afford their prescriptions.

Bill C-47, I think, is going to try to help address this gap. Can you comment very quickly on that?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thanks.

On your latter point, you and I actually just had a discussion with one of the family doctors from Yukon who is an expert in reproductive health care and also a passionate advocate for access to reproductive health care. You said in your opening remarks that Bill C-47 really provides an opportunity for us to talk more about sexual health, about access to sexual health and reproductive health care. Maybe I'll give you a little more space to talk about how important this topic is.

Food and Drugs Act

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all my colleagues for their support and for speaking to Bill C-368, but I want to remind people how we arrived here.

There seem to be some forgetful folks. Even though I am thanking the NDP for its position, I would like to remind people how we arrived at this place. We are at this point with natural health products because of a budget implementation act, Bill C-47, which was passed for budget 2023. The authority for that came from a promise made by the leader of the NDP in March 2022 to form a coalition, a supply and confidence agreement, with the Liberal government, which meant carte blanche. It was going to support every budget and every budget implementation act that it had not even seen, discussed nor been party to. It gave that power to the Liberal government, and that is why we are here today.

While I appreciate the NDP's revisionist history on this, it is the reason this change happened in the first place. I am glad it is supporting this bill, which would take the legislative framework back where it was with the previous Conservative government under Stephen Harper and where we had the best natural health product regulations, framework and industry in the world. There is no need to tamper any further with the natural health product industry.

I want to talk about freedom of choice in health care, as this is a huge issue. Over 80% of Canadians, and I suspect it is even more, are using natural health products. This is about that freedom of choice and losing that choice. I believe the Canadian Health Food Association, the Natural Health Product Protection Association, the Direct Sellers Association of Canada and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business when they say that the changes being proposed by the Liberal government, through Health Canada's changes to the definition of therapeutic products to include natural health products, is going to kill and stifle business. I believe them when they say that because we have a nine-year track record of the government doing nothing but harm to the economy of this country. The government is going to continue to do it to this beautiful, wonderful industry that gives Canadians the choice they need to look after their own personal health.

Finally, I want to thank all the Canadians who have reached out to members of Parliament in a very active campaign to let MPs know how important this is to them. I want to thank the mothers out there who look after their families. I know my wife is the same way. She had a full-time job on top of her full-time job of raising the family while I was here in Ottawa. She wanted to help our kids, to help our family and to keep us healthy. She wanted to make sure we had the best possible health outcomes that we could have. I want to thank all the women who make up the largest part of the workforce and the entrepreneurship in this beautiful industry. The fact that there was not a gender-based analysis on this is striking.

I want to thank the seniors and those with chronic conditions who are scared about losing their access to these health products. When these organizations I mentioned before said that they are going to lose these products, I believe them. These seniors believe them, and these people with chronic conditions believe them. This is how they manage. This is how they cope with their ailments, and we should be enabling and empowering that, not scaring away investments, businesses and opportunities.

I want to thank the wonderful people in the industry. I want to thank the beautiful people I have met from coast to coast who are part of this industry. I have never met a group of people who are more conscientious, more thoughtful, and more creative and innovative. I want them to know that I am very thankful for the work they do.

For those who are going to be voting in favour of this, we are going to be voting on this next Wednesday night in a recorded division. I want to thank my colleagues for sending this to committee so that we can hear from the experts and from Canadians about this because this was snuck through in Bill C-47. The Liberal government is doing it again, right now, with Bill C-69 in this place. It is making even more changes to Health Canada and giving it more powers. Why are we not talking about this in a separate piece of legislation so that we can actually have a proper debate about it? Now we are, with Bill C-368.

It is time to pass Bill C-368. It is time to get back to basics. It is time to get back to making sure that Canadians have access to the health products they deserve. I want to thank my colleagues who are brave enough and who have the courage to do what their constituents want them to do, and vote for Bill C-368.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-368. I would like to thank the member for Red Deer—Lacombe for bringing it forward for the House's consideration.

The reason I am very pleased is that the issue of natural health products has garnered a lot of attention in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I have had a lot of constituents and local businesses approach me concerning this issue in particular. I am pleased to be able to stand here, as their elected representative, and let my constituents know that I will be supporting the bill at second reading.

I was also very pleased to be able to add my name as a joint seconder to the bill. To fulfill the wishes of my constituents, I will be voting to send it to committee for further study.

What are we talking about when we say “natural health products”? I have always thought it a weird thing that they are regulated under a statute such as the Food and Drugs Act. They are not really a food, nor are they a drug. They occupy a special place for many people. We must face that humans have had relationships with natural health products dating back thousands of years. Many of these products have a very special place in human history, and a lot of cultures have very long relationships with them.

Today, in the modern world, natural health products often come in a variety of forms, such as tablets, capsules, tinctures, solutions, creams, ointments and drops. There is quite a large variety for people to pick and choose from. They are often made from plants, but they can also come from animals, from micro-organisms and from marine sources. They include vitamins and minerals, herbal remedies, homeopathic medicines, traditional medicines, probiotics and other products, such as amino acids and essential fatty acids. They are found in many everyday consumer products.

Let us come to the bill in question, Bill C-368. As shown in the summary, it would amend the Food and Drugs Act to provide that natural health products are not therapeutic products within the meaning of that act and, therefore, are not subject to the same monitoring regime as other drugs.

Before we get into the substance, we need to take a little history lesson on how we arrived here. I want to say that both Conservatives and Liberals have run into trouble when trying to regulate natural health products. In fact, the previous government, under Harper, learned this lesson very quickly back in 2008 when it introduced Bill C-51. That was also an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. Under Bill C-51, the term “therapeutic products” encompassed a range of products sold for therapeutic purposes, including drugs, medical devices, biologics and natural health products. In the end, because of an election, that bill was never adopted. However, I believe the Harper government at that time learned its lesson because of the uproar that came in response to Bill C-51, and it did not attempt to change Canada's regulations for natural health products again while in government.

What the Harper government did do, in 2014, was introduce Bill C-17 to amend the Food and Drugs Act. It was also known as Vanessa's Law. This introduced a definition for the term “therapeutic product”, but what was different this time was that the definition was worded in such a way that it did not include natural health products, within the meaning of the natural health products regulations.

We then fast-forward to the present Liberal government and Bill C-47. That bill, in a clause buried deep within a budget implementation act, again amended the term “therapeutic product” to make sure that the exemption from the natural health products regulations was actually removed. This has caused much of the uproar we see today.

I want to point out, as I said in my intro, that natural health products have a long history of use in Canada as low-risk, affordable methods of promoting well-being. It is very important that I stand here today and say unequivocally that they must remain accessible to all Canadians. I am proud to be a member of a caucus, the NDP caucus, that has long supported an appropriate regulatory category for natural health products to certify their safety and efficacy based on sound evidence, as well as to ensure that they are widely available for those who use and value them.

It is unacceptable that the changes to the regulatory regime under the Food and Drugs Act was snuck into a budget omnibus bill, because it did not allow for proper study. I am glad to see that, because Bill C-368 is a stand-alone, quite simple and easy-to-read piece of legislation, from reading the room, it should have enough votes to send it to committee. We can then have the proper study; hear from Canadians and businesses that sell natural health products, the practitioners involved in this every day; and, finally, get the proper scrutiny that this issue so richly deserves.

I do not want to spend too much longer speaking to the bill, but I want to talk a bit about the people in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford who took the time to write to my office, phone me personally and come into my office. In particular, I want to recognize a few of the local businesses. Essential Remedies, Benoit and Associates Health Education, some holistic health practitioners, the Community Farm Store, Botanical Bliss, a certified homeopathic practitioner, a naturopathic physician and Lynn's Vitamin Gallery all took the time in the summer of 2023 to come into my office. We had a great round table discussion. It lasted well over an hour. It was really enlightening for me, as their member of Parliament, to hear their views on this subject and learn a little more about why it is so important.

Yes, my immediate family definitely uses natural health products, and I know that many friends and relatives in my immediate vicinity also use them. However, to hear from professionals who work with clients every day about why this issue is so important was particularly enlightening for me. It is also important to note that 71% of Canadians, which is a very big number, have used natural health products, such as vitamins and minerals, herbal products and homeopathic medicines. Therefore, it is important that, when the NHP community speaks to their elected representatives, it represents a very clear majority of Canadians. Based on a proper cross-sampling of the correspondence that I, like many other members, have received, I know that they want their elected representatives to treat this issue with the seriousness that it deserves and give the bill full scrutiny.

Finally, I want to congratulate the NHP community and industry, which have been very actively engaged on this issue through their work. I really want to single out the local businesses in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and the constituents who live on Vancouver Island. I congratulate them for their advocacy, for stepping up to the plate and for engaging me as their elected representative, because it has worked. I am proud to say that, in this place, as their elected representative, I will be pleased to vote to send Bill C-368 to committee.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, this bill amends the Food and Drugs Act to provide that natural health products are not therapeutic products within the meaning of the act and are therefore not subject to the same monitoring regime as other drugs.

First of all, I would like to announce that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill at second reading, essentially to hear from experts in committee on the best way to regulate natural health products.

This bill follows what the government surreptitiously introduced in a schedule to the 2023 budget, through Bill C‑47. There has always been a distinction between drugs and natural health products, and that was a good thing. It seems obvious that natural health products, commonly abbreviated as NHPs, differ from drugs in many ways. We are not saying that they are all harmless; people should ask their pharmacist before consuming any such products. We also acknowledge that NHPs could interact with other medications. However, these are precisely the reasons why we need to examine these products and determine the best way to regulate them.

What the Bloc Québécois wants is to be able to verify whether the decision to subject NHPs to the Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act, or Vanessa's Law, is definitely the best way to regulate them, or whether it places an excessive administrative burden on these products. Relatively speaking, these products present lower risks and have a different impact on health than traditional pharmaceuticals.

As the saying goes, sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. Regulations could have the opposite effect to what we are trying to achieve, which is the well-being of Quebeckers and Canadians. The fact is that there are some 91,000 NHPs, 75 of which have been specifically analyzed. After checking certain sampled products, it was concluded that, since 2014, Health Canada has not been doing its job in terms of guaranteeing safe products. The government tried to gain credibility by using a bazooka to kill a fly. That is a reasonable conclusion.

The decision to subject NHPs to Vanessa's Law follows a series of recommendations set out in a report by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. In that report to the Parliament of Canada, the commissioner notes that the government does not have the legislative authority to compel NHP companies to identify unlicensed products and take appropriate measures to prevent them from being sold in Canada; identify unauthorized activities and take appropriate action to ensure that product labels and advertisements meet product-licence conditions; obtain the information it needs to verify and ensure that these products are no longer for sale in Canada; and force a recall or impose terms and conditions to mitigate the safety risks associated with these products.

Canada's natural health products regulations allow for licences to be cancelled to prohibit the sale of a product or to have it seized. However, there is no provision allowing the minister to force a product recall. Prior to Bill C‑47, recalls were therefore voluntary. Moreover, the environmental risks are not included, so there is some data missing.

As legislators, have we done everything we can to ensure that there is a balance in terms of access to NHPs to guarantee free choice for consumers? Have we done everything we can to ensure that when Health Canada approves products, it does its job and does the necessary inspections?

One of my colleagues, the member for Montcalm and Bloc Québécois health critic, asked whether an impact study had been done on the industry and on small and medium-sized businesses, concerning the recovery costs required. He was told that it was based on Treasury Board guidelines.

I imagine that the Treasury Board's main interest is getting its money's worth. What kind of service is it going to provide when, after all this time, and with all the taxes generated by the industry, it has not even been able to ensure products are tested or inspected throughout its mandate? These are questions that need to be asked. Where are the numbers on how many adverse reactions there have been to natural health products in 17 years? What are the numbers for adverse reactions to pharmaceutical products? We did not get an answer on that either. We know that even though they are approved by Health Canada, pharmaceuticals can sometimes have very serious side effects. However, that is no reason to disqualify them or discredit an entire industry.

It is just a matter of doing the work, carrying out tasks and responsibilities and making sure that things are done well. That seems obvious to me.

What we see here looks like a government uninterested in working to ensure the well-being of its people. Instead, it wants to pass on a hot potato before it gets burned. For a long time now, the government's inaction on many issues has been on full display. It does not know how to work the machinery of government, so a one-size-fits-all solution often seems like the easiest way around the problem. In reality, it is a very poor option.

We have to respect people's intelligence. To properly protect them, they need to be adequately informed. They do not need to have decisions constantly made for them. No one is forced to use an NHP. Consumers who buy these products have already looked into their effects. The role of legislation and regulations is to provide them with a proper framework.

My grandfather used balsam fir gum. He used it for a good part of his life and died at the age of 103. Was this natural health product approved? Probably not. Was it dangerous? Obviously not. He lived for over 100 years. It was not a dangerous drug either. To some extent, if we let the government have its way, balsam fir gum will probably fall out of use, and my grandfather would have been deprived of his traditional remedy, which had supposedly cured him of consumption. One day, after years of searching, he found it again on the shelves at his pharmacy, in capsule form. The midwife who had supplied it to him back in the day had died. This is why NHPs deserve a legal, responsible, credible and rigorous approach. People should be able to opt for a safe, natural solution with components that are recognized and identified, and whose effects are known and accessible to all doctors and practitioners.

Here, we vote on laws. We are not experts, but we need to act responsibly and with humility to put in place the proper legislative provisions. That is what must guide our decisions. That is why Bill C‑368 is now necessary. It must be sent to committee so that the parliamentary work can be done. If the government had been a bit more transparent, if it had held the necessary consultations, if we had all worked together to find a way to move forward without harming an industry that Quebeckers and Canadians have the right to access, then we would not be here today discussing this issue.

Unfortunately, the government has not held any consultations to date. The federal government has rather cavalierly dodged many debates on this topic, when the purpose of debate is to turn ambiguous questions into clearer, more appropriate directives. That is exactly why we are going to vote in favour of Bill C‑368.

The information I shared in my speech provides ample justification for Parliament to refer this bill to committee. A genuine assessment of the situation is needed given the government's claim that 88% of the 91,000 natural health products are substandard or use misleading labelling. Such a claim requires verification, since the methodology used is flawed. Indeed, the products were verified after problems were reported, and were then identified as substandard. However, this approach grossly inflates the data and raises reasonable questions concerning the methodology used. In our opinion, a randomized approach would be preferable.

Need I remind the House that we have the right to do substantive work to ensure that we are making the right decisions, voting for the right things and passing legislation in the public interest? Need I remind the House that we cannot be sloppy or try to get rid of things or hide the flaws that we did not bother to tackle, things that were swept under the rug because it is easier that way and makes us look good? It is a fairly common technique used by the current government to jump to hasty and ill-considered conclusions, only to impose drastic, rigid rules, where there are often more losers than winners in the end. The Liberals just want to be able to say that they did this, that and the other thing, that they passed this bill and that bill, and they are great. They want to say that they delivered. There was a problem with NHPs, and they passed legislation. It is not enough, but that does not matter. Fisheries are being closed. The government is not listening to those who work in fisheries. Entire villages are facing a socio-economic dead end. It does not matter, as long as the Liberals look good. They say they are going to save the biomass, but they are not saving anything. It does not matter, because announcements have been made. They pass laws and set up legislative procedures to interfere in provincial jurisdictions. It is full steam ahead. Are their solutions correct? Are they being applied consistently? No, but that does not matter.

What matters is that they passed legislation, that they spread their tentacles where they did not belong. That is the way to gain control of everything. They announce funding that is appealing to the provinces that have become so strapped for cash over the years—

Second reading

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is a joke going around that says, “It's not knowing that a politician can be bought; it's knowing how little they'll let themselves go for.” For a member of the NDP caucus right now thinking that this is the misery they are suffering in the polls, the misery they are suffering nationwide, which is the same misery Canadians are suffering, this is all they managed to get out of the supply and confidence arrangement with the government today.

It is not a pharmacare program. Health care is actually a provincial jurisdiction. It should be delivered by the provinces. The bill would simply be adding contraceptives and some diabetes measures into it. I guess, on the surface of it, that is a good thing, but to the tune of $1.5 billion. If viewers watching at home actually believe this is all it is going to cost them, I will remind them that the government bought a $7 billion pipeline and built it for about $40 billion. Therefore, if history is any predictor of the future when it comes to what things cost under a Liberal-NDP coalition, then they should be looking at least to that example if not more.

To us, as Conservatives, the issue is one of provincial jurisdiction. I come from Alberta, and this is a very important issue to our province and to our premier. This is just another intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. We think that, during these financial times, when Canadians are struggling to make ends meet, pouring more fuel on the inflationary fire is certainly not going to help. It is another financial albatross in the making, which Canadians cannot afford and are not willing to pay for.

It is not just me saying this, and it is not just Conservatives saying this. John Ivison eloquently stated in a piece that he published back on February 29, when the bill or this notion first came out, that this is “the woebegone child of a loveless Liberal-NDP marriage.” This is basically what we are dealing with.

It has become clear to me that the bill before us is basically the cost of keeping the NDP support for this Parliament under supply and confidence, and the coalition partners can take this until October 2025. It was supposed to be October 20, but it is going to be extended by another week to make sure that certain people here get the financial benefits they think they are entitled to. However, it just goes to show that there is only one serious opposition in the House, and that is the Conservative Party.

The NDP is not an opposition party but a willing accomplice to everything that the Liberal government has in its agenda. Its members have been witting partners in creating a massive inflationary deficit; setting restrictive policies towards, for example, lawful gun owners and natural health products, which they signed up for two years ago without even knowing they were going to vote in favour of that in Bill C-47 last year; impeding upon provincial jurisdiction time and time again, which is, of course, front and centre with this piece of legislation; continuing to cover up for the government's scandals, covering for it at committee and also here in the House of Commons; introducing soft-on-crime legislation or supporting that soft-on-crime legislation, which has turned our justice system into a revolving door; sending Canadians to food banks en masse, at a couple of million visitors, which is up over 300%; allowing housing prices to skyrocket; and neglecting our military to the point where our soldiers are basically relying on food donations while they are in Ottawa for training. I could continue, but I think members get the gist of what I am trying to say.

It is bad enough that NDP members backed budget after budget and shut down our work to hold the government to account at committee, but they are telling Canadians that they are doing their actual work as an opposition party. Well, they cannot have it both ways. They cannot be in opposition while they support everything that the government does. I do not buy it, and neither do Canadians.

A December 2023 Leger poll indicated that only 18% of Canadians listed the establishment of a national pharmacare program as a health care priority, and the promise was not included in the 2021 Liberal platform. Canadians did not vote for a party promising pharmacare, yet here we are, thanks to an NDP party that is keeping this weak and basically lame-duck government in office. It is no wonder that some provinces are already saying publicly that they are choosing to opt out.

Let it be known that the absence of the NDP as an opposition is also keenly felt in other areas. Just last year, as I was mentioning, the NDP-Liberal coalition passed Bill C-47.

I do not suppose anybody in the NDP was told, when they signed on to this supply and confidence agreement back in March 2022, that they would be asked to regulate natural health products in the same way as therapeutics, but they did it anyway. As a matter of fact, they made that commitment a year before the bill was passed, and it is going to basically shut down our supplements and natural health product industry when they are classified and rebranded as pharmaceutical drugs.

What did the New Democrats do when this came up for debate? They backed the budget instead of forcing the government to remove those four little clauses from Bill C-47, the budget implementation act. They had a chance. They could have flexed their muscles and said they were not going to support the budget implementation act unless the government removed them, but no such request was forthcoming, and the bill passed. It has caused unforeseen chaos in the natural health products and supplements industry across this country; consumers, of course, are rightly worried. In response, I had to table my own private member's bill, Bill C-368, to reverse these changes. This is just part and parcel.

New Democrats say one thing to Canadians but actually do another. Could anyone imagine such a thing as being the House leader of the NDP, for example, standing up and saying time and time again how much one does not like omnibus legislation, and yet gleefully passing Bill C-47. The NDP House leader has said this for the 18 years that he and I have been in the House together. However, he told the government that New Democrats would continue to pass every budget and every budget implementation act henceforth after March 2022. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot stand up and say New Democrats are going to hold the government to account while continuing to give it the keys to the house to do whatever it wants.

In the case of natural health product governance and regulations, New Democrats tell Canadians they are against omnibus legislation and that they are keeping the government accountable. However, as I said, they voted for Bill C-47, threw that industry into turmoil and then criticized me for giving them an off-ramp on the Bill C-368 debate last week. I was giving them a pathway to redemption, and all they could do was basically blame Stephen Harper for the mess that the country is in. I cannot even make this stuff up.

The most common questions I get from Canadians are these: When are we going to have an election? Who believes anything anybody in the NDP has to say anymore, when their actions are completely 180° opposite from what they say with their words?

It should also be highlighted that the bill was introduced with no public consultations whatsoever, which comes as no surprise to Conservatives. This piece of legislation has been pushed from a government with a terrible record on transparency. It is a government that regularly rushes massive changes with little regard for those people the changes may impact. It talks about the intended consequences, but it never fully understands the unintended consequences of the things it does, which is why we are in the mess we are in today.

The Conservative position on Bill C-64 is that the Liberals know this project is an expensive boondoggle. That is why they abandoned it in their 2019 election promise. Even former finance minister Bill Morneau noted in his book that a single-user system would cost an additional $15 billion a year. We cannot believe the $1.5 billion number, and that is why my colleagues here on the Conservative side and I will respect provincial jurisdiction and vote against this piece of legislation. We encourage New Democrats to change their ways before their party actually fades into oblivion forever.

Food and Drugs Act

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-368, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, natural health products.

In a time when we are seeing more businesses close than open each month and when business insolvencies are skyrocketing, the last thing we need to be doing as Parliamentarians is putting higher costs and more red tape onto the backs of small business owners in the natural health sector.

I have heard from small business owners across Canada that the government has turned its back on them. They simply cannot keep up with the higher costs and burdensome red tape that the Liberals, with the support of the NDP, keep piling on them. According to Statistics Canada, more businesses closed than opened in December, and this is the fifth time in six months that this was the case.

On January 1, the government increased payroll taxes. In February, insolvencies rose 58.1% year over year, according to the superintendent of bankruptcy. In March, the senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada called the lack of productivity in Canada's economy an emergency. On April 1, the government hiked the carbon tax by 23% and, just last week, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business reported a drastic decline in both short-term and long-term business competence, with both dropping by 5.4 points in their monthly business barometer.

What does all of that have to do with natural health products? Last spring, the NDP-Liberal government passed Bill C-47, which allowed Health Canada to regulate natural health products in the same way as therapeutic synthetic drugs.

Canadians depend on natural health products, which include vitamins, protein powders, probiotics and even fluoride-free toothpastes. Members can think of the young guy in the gym taking a supplement or the mom who uses eastern medicine and frequents the local Chinese herbal medicine shop. Those are the people Health Canada is going after.

As a British Columbian, I would be remiss if I did not mention that, at the same time the government is trying to prevent our teenagers from getting the supplement powder they want, it has legalized possession of fentanyl, which led to record deaths from illicit substances the very same year, over an argument about stigmatization in British Columbia.

After nine years, Canadians can see clearly that there is no common sense in the approach that the government is taking for natural health products. The changes made will reduce choice, increase costs for consumers and drive businesses, investment and product development out of Canada.

What is exactly changing for natural health products? First, Health Canada is implementing new regulations that treat natural health products the same as over-the-counter synthetic drugs, placing significant red tape on the small- and medium-sized businesses that produce and sell these products. This will result in fewer options for Canadians, pushing consumers to foreign online retailers, where consumers may have no idea where the product came from or what, in fact, is in it. Second, Health Canada is introducing new fees on licensing, manufacturing, labelling, importing and packaging that could cost a business more than $100,000. I looked up cost of those fees before my speech tonight. There is a licensing fee of over $20,000, a site amendment fee of close to $5,000, a class III product license application of up to $58,000 and a product license amendment of up to $23,000.

I have spoken to owners of health food and supplement stores in my riding and across Canada. They are terrified about what these changes will mean for their businesses and their customers. These new fees and regulations will mean fewer products at higher prices on their store shelves, potentially depriving consumers of the benefits they rely on for their health and well-being. For many stores, these changes could mean they close entirely.

Mike Bjørndal is a buddy of mine. We went to high school together. He left a stable job. He started a small business with a few other partners in the natural health food supplement industry. Mike told me directly that if these changes go through, they are moving their shop to America, reducing their taxes paid in Canada and shutting their doors. That is the consequence of what Health Canada is doing right now.

Then, there is the Vanderwall family. Mrs. Vanderwall runs a side business of supplements, which adds a little to her husband's income, just to get by with their seven kids. They rely on the current regulatory framework to pay their monthly bills.

The natural health product industry continues to introduce new ideas and improve products. However, higher licensing fees would discourage companies from investing in research and development, meaning fewer new products being developed or manufactured here in Canada. Natural health products play a crucial role in addressing unique health concerns that conventional medicine may not adequately address. Higher fees would invariably lead to fewer options, and consumers would be forced to turn to pharmaceutical alternatives or products that are not made in Canada.

I referenced the alarming statistics on business insolvencies earlier, and these changes are only going to make things worse in an industry that generates billions of dollars in economic growth in Canada. Given all that, I am very proud to stand and support the member for Red Deer—Lacombe's bill, Bill C-368, to repeal specifically sections 500 to 504 of Bill C-47 and to restore the status quo on natural health product regulations. As he mentioned in his speech, under the current rules, the government can already have a stop-sale order provision. It has seizure provisions and inspection provisions, and it already pre-authorizes the products on Canadian store shelves.

Health Canada's 2019 summary report, “Adverse reactions, medical device incidents and health product recalls in Canada”, highlighted that of the 96,000-plus adverse reactions filed, only 3.8% were related to the natural health sector. We know that these products are safe and that existing regulations are sufficient.

Since last spring, my office, like the member for Richmond Hill's, has heard from literally thousands of people who are concerned about what the government is doing and about the increase in red tape it is suggesting through these regulations. Instead of saying that we need these regulations because of the growth in the industry, I would point out that his constituents, like mine, are simply scared of more government overreach that is going to impact their economic well-being and the viability of their businesses.

No matter where one goes in Canada, on every main street, in practically every single shopping mall in our country, we are going to have a natural health or supplement-style store. These stores provide valuable products that keep Canadians healthy and that improve our mental and physical well-being. The last thing we should be doing right now is attacking those very businesses that millions of Canadians rely upon.

With that, I implore everyone in this chamber to support this legislation and to stand behind our small businesses and our wealth creators who provide real and adequate services for Canadians under the existing regulations.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I said earlier, in thanking the member of Parliament for Red Deer—Lacombe, that we support this legislation. We support Bill C-368 for a number of reasons.

I want to start by saying that, as are over 70% of Canadians, I am a consumer of natural health products. I use those products, as 70% of the population does. This includes vitamins and minerals, herbal remedies, homeopathic medicines and probiotics. Many Canadians use traditional medicines, such as traditional Chinese medicines or indigenous medicines, as well. There are a wide variety of products on the market.

As has already been stated, the reality is that we have a very robust natural health product sector that is carefully regulated in a way that ensures that the products are of good quality. That is why, when we look at the natural health product sector, we see so many Canadians consuming them and, at the same time, we see no side effects or downsides to the consumption of those products.

It is because the products are effective. If they are not, we stop using them. I have tried a number of products over the years. Some work really well; others, not so much. As consumers, we have that ability to distinguish and make sure we are choosing products that are appropriate for us.

This is not the pharmaceutical sector. These are not prescriptions that are given out. I have a family doctor who is very good at sometimes suggesting products that are not part of a prescription, but simply a suggestion. He has turned out to be right every single time about the kind of products we can take.

As an example, there is magnesium, which is a vitamin product. My friend from Red Deer—Lacombe mentioned it earlier as well. Some of us are on flights back and forth across the country, travelling 5,000 kilometres twice a week, every month. My colleague from North Island—Powell River is in the same situation. We are going around this planet every month in terms of the amount of time we spend on airplanes, getting back to our constituency to ensure that we are serving our constituents and then coming to Ottawa to do the important work we do here.

The reality is that, when we are doing this, we are in a cramped space. We need to ensure we take magnesium if we want to avoid leg cramps. My doctor was the one who suggested it, and ever since then, I have made sure that I take the appropriate product. It makes sense. I know you agree, Madam Speaker, even though you do not have as far to go when you go back to your constituents.

There is a wide range of products that are available and that make a difference. For consumers who find that their products just are not up to speed, they can change, try another product or simply decide they are not going to use something anymore.

What is already a flourishing and effective sector was diminished by the government incorporating into Bill C-47, an omnibus legislation, these clauses that simply put natural health products in a completely different situation. They are heavily regulated with costs, which a number of speakers have already indicated were absolutely inappropriate. Ever since I have been here, and certainly for years before that, the NDP caucus has decried omnibus legislation.

We saw this under the former Harper Conservative government. We see this under the current Liberal government. There are massive budget implementation acts that are 700 or 800 pages. Incorporated within them are really what I call poison pills. Certain clauses are put in there that ultimately serve as changes in legislation. However, then we can see they have regulations that are not part of Parliament's purview or the government's purview, and they can actually have detrimental impacts.

This was the case with Bill C-47. This was tried before with Bill C-51 under the Harper Conservative government.

The government tried to, very heavily and inappropriately, apply additional regulations to natural health products. That was pushed back on, but with Bill C-47, as omnibus legislation that led to the regulatory changes, we are in the situation that we find ourselves in now, and that has to change. That is why we are supportive of Bill C-368.

What it would do is provide for the kinds of hearings at the committee stage that would allow us to really determine the full extent of how the existing sector is regulated effectively and how detrimental these changes are, both those suggested in Bill C-51 a few years ago and those currently in Bill C-47, to the industry itself, which is a Canadian success story, as well as the impact on consumers who are using these vitamins, probiotics and homeopathic medicines effectively and potentially finding it more difficult to access these natural health products because of the actions of Health Canada and the actions of the government.

As such, it makes good sense to take Bill C-368, to put it in place, to have those hearings, and then to determine what is appropriate. It is very clear that those regulatory changes were absolutely excessive and have had a profound negative impact.

What we are saying is that the government, through Bill C‑47, is taking action with Health Canada without holding consultations and without conducting an impact study or a management fee study. As my colleague mentioned, this means that small businesses that market natural health products are now subject to a regulatory framework that is far better suited to the pharmaceutical industry.

The pharmaceutical industry is the most profitable industry in North America. It makes huge profits, which is why the NDP is pushing for pharmacare. In countries with pharmacare, pharmaceutical companies have been forced to lower their prices. The case of New Zealand, where the price of some pharmaceuticals has dropped by 90%, is often cited.

These pharmaceutical companies are extremely powerful. It makes no sense to establish a regulatory framework that puts small businesses, which are safely selling a whole line of products to smaller markets, on the same footing as big transnational pharmaceutical companies that are raking in huge profits. That is why the government's approach was inappropriate. It was inappropriate to include this small provision in omnibus legislation that is several hundred pages long. The consequences of this regulatory change are unclear, which has led to the outcome before us today.

It is clear to the NDP that this bill is important, because it was unacceptable for that provision to be included in an omnibus bill. It was unacceptable for the former Harper government to do that, and it is unacceptable for today's Liberal government to do the same.

Thanks to the bill introduced by my colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe, we have the opportunity to correct the mistake that was made and to really look at this provision's impact on the natural health product industry. We have the opportunity to determine the financial impact and the impact on consumers. We have the opportunity to see the full impact of the decision that was made last year to include this provision in an omnibus bill. The NDP has been very clear in this regard: We support the bill and we look forward to the important discussions that will take place in committee.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will begin my speech this evening with two images. The first is that the cure is worse than the disease. The second is that we should not use a bazooka to kill a fly, but rather the appropriate tool, in other words, a fly swatter.

The government is being sneaky about it; that is the worst part. That is the story behind Bill C‑368. The government introduced this provision under the radar, in an annex to budget 2023, in Bill C‑47. From day one we have always made a distinction between natural health products and drugs, and rightly so. In the drug industry, in the pharmaceutical industry, people may have to bear the recovery costs, but they have 20-year patents. They are able to break even. What is more, there are no taxes on drugs.

The government makes a lot of money in taxes on natural health products so it can afford to pay for an inspection service that will guarantee the effectiveness and safety of natural health products. When we met in September, everyone agreed that consumers deserve to have effective products that are safe. Health Canada has to do its job in that respect.

What did the Auditor General's report reveal? First, in my opinion, there was a minor methodological problem. Rather than proceeding randomly, products, places and companies were targeted where problems were known to exist. Obviously, if problems are already known to exist, the audit will reveal a high percentage of problems.

There are approximately 91,000 natural health products. Of that number, 75 were analyzed in a targeted way, leading to the conclusion that Health Canada has not been doing its job to ensure product safety since 2014. That is what was found after checking the sampled products. Health Canada was caught with its pants down, so to speak. It played tough, tried to assert its credibility and brought out the big guns.

As legislators, we have always wanted to ensure that there is a balance when it comes to natural health products and access to those products, in order to guarantee free choice for consumers while also ensuring that when Health Canada approves products, it does its job after the fact and inspects those products. From 2004 to 2014, 53 recommendations were made. In September, when we heard from Health Canada representatives and the chief scientist, we realized that the answers were not credible.

I asked whether an impact study had been done on the industry, on small and medium-sized businesses, concerning the recovery costs required. I was told that it was based on Treasury Board guidelines. I imagine that the Treasury Board's main interest is getting its money's worth. What kind of service is it going to provide when, after all this time, and with all the taxes generated by the industry, it has not even been able to ensure an audit or any inspections throughout its mandate?

There are a few problems today. I asked the chief scientist how many adverse reactions there had been to natural health products in 17 years. I asked her to provide the numbers. We have yet to get an answer to that question. I also asked her what the numbers were for adverse reactions to pharmaceutical products. She replied that she had some numbers, but she still has not provided those either.

We know very well that, even though they are approved by Health Canada, pharmaceuticals can still sometimes have very serious side effects. However, that is no reason to discredit the entire industry. We are just doing our job and making sure that we do it properly. Contrary to what people might think and what the government tried to have us believe, the shell game that I am talking about, the one in Bill C‑47, happened in June, when we were voting on the March 2023 budget. Now we are getting letters and the public is starting to find out about this.

As legislators, we do not have any say over the regulations. We vote on laws. Regulations are then drafted on how the legislation should be applied. The problem is that we need Bill C‑368 to be sent to committee so that we can do our job as parliamentarians and look into the regulation that was brought in under which natural health products are now considered therapeutic products under Vanessa's Law.

It is very clear that we would not be where we are today if the government had been a little more transparent, if it had carried out the consultations it needed to and if it had worked with everyone to find some common ground to ensure that no harm would come to an industry that Quebeckers and Canadians have the right to have access to by choice. Natural health products are not forced on anyone through a prescription. No one is forced to buy them. When people choose to buy them, it is because, in a way, they have educated themselves.

It is true that they can pose risks, and it is also true that people have to follow their pharmacist's instructions. There are interactions, true. However, these interactions are between drugs prescribed by a doctor versus a pharmaceutical product that I am going to buy. We are not trying to trivialize anything, but just because there are a few bad apples in one industry does not mean that the entire industry should be discredited. That would undermine small and medium-sized businesses, which want to sell safe products. Their main motivation is people's health.

We would not be here if there had been a bit more transparency and if the people who came to testify in September had the courage to point this out to us. When they were told that their cost-recovery model was modelled on the pharmaceutical industry, they did not say one word, as if we would not figure out Bill C‑47's sleight of hand at some point. They took the entire model from the pharmaceutical industry and transposed it to the natural health products industry without allowing us to debate it. That is why there were two meetings on this. It was to get information about the problem.

There have been no more consultations so far. That is why we are going to vote in favour of Bill C‑368. We want to ensure that the legislator, who never has access to the regulations and can never review them through legislation, brings this to committee. There we will be able to work on it and find a balance regarding the government's claims that 88% of the 91,000 natural health products are deficient and have misleading labelling. This is a serious methodological bias that does not reflect reality, because in 2015, a randomized study showed that more than 90% of products were fully compliant. What happened in the meantime, then?

Maybe if the people at Health Canada did their job and carried out inspections, and maybe if they sent people their criteria, guidelines and information about where they want people to focus so that, during production, they can be certain that the product is okay, we would not be here today. The Bloc Québécois will indeed vote in favour of the bill.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to speak before the House today to discuss an issue of paramount importance to the health and safety of Canadians, which is the safety and the availability of natural health products, also known as NHPs.

In order to make the natural health products market safer for consumers and support Canadians in making informed choices, last year our government expanded Vanessa's Law to include NHPs. Doing this allows the government to act when serious health and safety risks are identified, such as the ability to require a recall if products are unsafe. Our number one priority is to keep Canadians healthy and safe. Bill C-368 would remove the government's ability to ensure the safety and the efficacy of these crucial health products. Passing this bill would mean that the government could mandate the recall of a tube of lipstick or a head of lettuce, but not a contaminated supplement. That is why the government will be opposing this bill.

I am aware that some members of the opposition may be supporting this bill. We look forward to it going to committee, if that is the case, to further cover the points I am about to cover. My remarks today will delve into the vital role that NHPs play in the lives of Canadians, the current landscape of NHPs and the need for greater oversight of NHPs to guarantee public safety.

Before proceeding further, I must highlight the exceptional engagement from the community of Richmond Hill on this matter. Our office has received over 1,200 communications, including emails, petitions, phone calls and pamphlets from constituents who are deeply concerned about the regulation and the safety of NHPs.

Since 2020, I have also met with the Canadian Health Food Association, which represents many NHP small business owners in my riding. One of those businesses is Platinum Naturals, whose team I met with this past February to hear their important feedback and their concern with respect to the impacts of the NHP regulations on their business. This overwhelming response from my constituents underscores a national discourse on the necessity of a regulatory framework that ensures the safety of NHPs and that supports small businesses operating in the industry, as well as respects the autonomy of Canadians in their health management practices.

As I delve into the implications of Bill C-368, I want to first focus on the vital role NHPs play in the lives of Canadians, followed by the current landscape of NHPs and, lastly, the need for greater oversight to guarantee public safety.

NHPs, which include vitamins, minerals, herbal remedies and daily-use products like toothpaste and sunscreen, are part of our integral health care practices. Their popularity is undeniable, with the number of authorized products in Canada skyrocketing from around 50,000 in 2004 to over 200,000 today. This demand underscores the critical importance of ensuring these products are not only effective, but also safe for Canadian families.

It is fundamental to understand that although NHPs are lower risk, they are not without risk, especially if products are contaminated, advertised in a misleading manner or used improperly. As much as NHPs offer potential health benefits, the risks associated with substandard or improperly labelled NHPs underscore the need for appropriate oversight.

I will now highlight the previous and the current legislative landscape of NHPs.

In Canada, NHPs are regulated under the Food and Drug Act, and specifically under the natural health products regulations established in 2004. A pivotal moment in Canadian legislative history was the enactment of the Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act, also known as Vanessa's Law, in 2014. This introduced improvements in Health Canada's ability to collect post-market safety information on drugs and medical devices and to take appropriate actions, such as issuing a mandatory recall when a serious risk to health care is identified. However, NHPs were not yet incorporated under the scope of this law. As a result, for close to a decade, Health Canada's ability to take action on NHPs when health and safety issues occur has been limited.

This lack of equivalent safety power for NHPs has compelled Health Canada to depend on voluntary intervention by industry, which has not consistently worked in the past, to protect Canadians against real health and safety risks.

A significant shift in NHP regulations was marked by the adoption of Bill C-47 in 2023, which incorporated NHPs under the scope of Vanessa's Law. This empowered Health Canada with enhanced authorities to better protect consumer safety, such as by recalling unsafe products from the market and mandating label changes where serious harm to health is identified. This goes into my third point, which is the pertinent need for greater oversight of NHPs.

Between 2021 and 2022, Health Canada conducted inspections to assess the regulatory compliance of 36 NHP manufacturers and importers. All of the inspections identified compliance issues ranging in severity, with 15 of the 36 sites reporting issues serious enough to be considered non-compliance. Between 2021 and 2023 alone, there were also 100 voluntary recalls of licensed NHPs due to safety concerns, including contamination risks and the presence of harmful substances. These figures are not mere statistics. They represent potential harm to Canadian families and highlight the need to have stronger tools available to protect consumers from serious health and safety risks.

With all that said, it is important to consider the crucial need for oversight of NHPs as we consider the implications of Bill C-368, which could significantly alter the government's ability to regulate the safety and efficacy of these important products. As the NHP market has grown significantly over the years in Canada and continues to grow, we continue to support access to a safe NHP marketplace for Canadians to maintain and improve their health. The extension of Vanessa's Law to NHPs underscores this commitment.

As we navigate this conversation, let us prioritize the safety and trust of Canadians in their health product choices and ensure that the regulatory mechanisms in place are equipped to address the complexity of the NHP industry.

I am thankful for the opportunity to voice these considerations on behalf of my constituents in Richmond Hill and Canadians everywhere who rely on NHPs for their health and well-being.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate both the member who is presenting this legislation and also his speech, which was well-informed and provided good information for Canadians.

The member is right to point out that this provision was included in Bill C-47, omnibus legislation, which is something that the NDP has always opposed, both under the former Harper Conservative government and under the current government. The idea that the government would put, in the budget implementation bill, a whole range of other measures simply does not allow for the legislative scrutiny that is so important. The member is right to point out that Bill C-47 did that. It made those changes, just as Bill C-51, under the former Harper Conservative government, purported to do the same thing.

I thought he was very eloquent about the fact that we need to move forward with this legislation. The NDP will be supporting this legislation at second reading. We want to send this to committee. We want to have the committee do the fulsome work of finally consulting the industry and natural health practitioners, so that we finally get something that has not happened under either Bill C-51 or Bill C-47, which is the scrutiny that is so important.

I consume a lot of natural health products—

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

moved that Bill C-368, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (natural health products), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today and talk about the changes that have been made to Canada's natural health product regime by the Liberals, with the support of the NDP and the Greens, in the budget implementation act, Bill C-47. For Canadians watching at home, what is Bill C-47 and what happened? Last year at about this time, Bill C-47 was passed in the House of Commons. This is a budget implementation act. It is supposed to only change the law insofar as what the budget policy of the day is talking about. However, somebody snuck a few clauses into the bill that changed the definition of “natural health products” to be the same as that of therapeutic products, such as drugs that require a prescription and have a drug identification number. That is the problem.

The underlying problem with all that, for folks watching at home, is that the industry was not consulted at all about these particular changes. As a matter of fact, I do not remember a single member of Parliament debating that during the budget implementation act debates. I do not remember it coming up at committee. Nobody from the industry was called to the committee to testify about these issues. It was only several months after the bill had passed that people began to wake up and realize that Health Canada was proceeding with its self-care framework, because it had these new-found powers under Bill C-47.

That basically goes back to Health Canada now trying to get care and control of natural health products to the same effect that it has with therapeutics. However, if we go back to 1998, the health committee in the House of Commons issued a report with 53 recommendations. It basically said, in no uncertain terms, that natural health products are not therapeutic drugs. I will remind everybody in this House that this happened under a majority Chrétien government, so there would have been a majority of Liberals on that committee at the time. That is the conclusion they drew, and that was the template going forward.

If we fast-forward to 2014, when Vanessa's Law was passed, there was a lot of debate and discussion at that particular point in time. Again it was reaffirmed that natural health products are not therapeutic products and are exempted from Vanessa's Law. Then, if we fast-forward to 2021, the Auditor General's report came out. The Auditor General was very critical of Health Canada's ability to properly manage certain aspects of the natural health product regime, particularly when it came to looking at post-market monitoring, testing samples of the products that were on the shelves and so on.

Most importantly, in that report, the Auditor General took the strange step of actually taking 75 products. These were not random products off the shelf in Canada; these were 75 products that were deemed problematic from the beginning. The Auditor General used that for a false narrative that somehow natural health products in Canada are unsafe. I can assure everyone that this is simply not true, but Health Canada, nonetheless, is using this information to claim that it needs the powers under Vanessa's Law. What would that entail? Health Canada would now have a self-funding methodology, so it could apply massive amounts of licensing fees and product registration fees to a very small industry, when we compare it to the size of the pharmaceutical industry. According to everybody in the industry, this would likely cause a massive loss of products and a lot of chaos. The primary impact, for Canadians watching at home, is cost.

For those who do not already know, people should know that Canada is already the most regulated natural health product industry in the world. As a matter of fact, Canada's brand on natural health products is better than that of the United States, Mexico and virtually anywhere in the world. Our products, manufacturers and exporters already had in place, prior to Bill C-47, the best regulatory reputation out there. We are a growing industry in this country. The industry is growing so fast, in leaps and bounds, because of the proper regulation that existed prior to Bill C-47, whether in terms of our producers, manufacturers or distributors, as I said.

However, under the new self-care framework, Health Canada started out with these new site licences. People might not know this, but manufacturers, packagers and distributors have to have something called a site licence from Health Canada. They cannot conduct business without a site licence. This was free up until Bill C-47; with the new proposed regulations coming into force, the initial site licence fee was going to be $40,000 per year. I think it has been negotiated with the industry down to $20,000 a year.

Just imagine if someone has a traditional Chinese medicine establishment, or is doing Ayurvedic medicine or homeopathy, and has to get a site licence fee of $20,000 every year. Everybody, basically, in those three parts of the natural health product industry has already said that this is going to shut them down. It is a very onerous fee. There would then be a new product fee. For any new natural health product that one wanted to bring to the market, it would be upward of $4,000 to get one's natural product number. If someone buys their vitamin C, they go to the store and there is a little natural product number on it. There are about 50,000 natural products registered in Canada right now. If someone is going to bring a new product to the market, it will cost them an additional $4,000 per product. In that particular year, if one has a site licence and a new product, one is looking at $24,000 before one even gets anything coming in for revenues.

If a person is practising traditional Chinese medicine, and if somebody needs a new remedy and the practitioner needs to import some of the ingredients from China or someplace else in the world, they are going to bring those products in and be paying thousands of dollars to get a product registered in Canada. One might be in the market to sell only 10 bottles to a client that has a need for a very specific thing. This is going to basically kill traditional Chinese medicine practice in Canada. Of course, the right-to-sell licence that Health Canada is bringing in for each product will be over $300 per product, so now one is dealing with thousands of dollars every year for this industry. It is going to kill innovation. It is going to stifle growth. It is going to basically drive the innovation and product development out of Canada.

What is the impact? The industry experts are saying that up to 70% of products that are currently on our shelves in Canada with a natural product number on them, and it is very important that they have that natural product number, will be likely disappearing in the years to come when Health Canada implements the self-care framework. Three out of five manufacturers, retailers, practitioners and distributors say that they will actually have to close their doors. We are basically losing approximately 60% of the industry if Health Canada goes ahead with implementing the cost recovery fee program for the natural product industry. The job losses are direct and indirect. People may be interested to know that right now about 54,000 people in Canada are directly employed in the natural health product industry. They figure that about 66% of those jobs will be negatively impacted once the self-care framework is brought in.

One would think that the Prime Minister, being the self-professed feminist that he is, would have actually done a gender analysis on the impact of Bill C-47 when it comes to natural health products, but there was no gender-based analysis. One might be surprised to know that over 80% of the consumers of natural health products in Canada are women, as well as 90% of practitioners, such as homeopathic doctors and so on. Well over 50% of the micro-businesses are female-owned in this particular industry, and 84% of direct-to-customer sellers are women. This is very important. It is a very important industry to women in Canada, and we are going to lose these businesses.

It is too bad, because we are already, like I said, one of the safest and most well-regulated environments around the globe when it comes to natural health products. Over 80% of Canadians, according to the most recent information that we have, are users of natural health products. Of those 80%, when one asks them how satisfied they are with their natural health products, over 99% say they are very confident that the natural health products that they acquire from the shelves in Canadian stores are safe and healthy and work for them. That is true. One will find that across the country. I have been travelling across the country and can say without any hesitation whatsoever that Canadians are very concerned about losing access to the only part of their health care system that they have care and control over, which is natural health products.

For those who are interested, Deloitte has done an audit on some of the findings that Health Canada has been using. It has claimed that over 700 people over a two-year period were adversely affected by natural health products, but if someone actually digs down into the data, and it is Government of Canada data, they will find that only 32 people over three years were actually affected. Unfortunately there were three deaths, but if one takes a look at the other factors associated with those deaths, all of those people were also taking prescription drugs at the same time. There is a lot more misinformation out there right now that is attacking the industry unnecessarily.

We certainly should not be making a hasty decision in this place by bringing legislative changes in the back door like we did with Bill C-47.

I want to talk a little about consumer protection because I think this will be the argument the government will use. Members may also not know this, but if one buys products online from outside of the country, those are not necessarily regulated in the same way. In fact, I can guarantee they are not regulated in the same way they are in the Canadian marketplace. They will not have that natural product number on them.

One can buy a 90-day supply. Right now, Health Canada allows one to buy a 90-day supply. It can be shipped in with Amazon, or any number of these direct-to-customer purchasing apps or opportunities out there, and it will all be unregulated by Health Canada. They very likely will not have a natural product number on them.

These are marketed to Canadians on social media, such as Facebook, and through other types of marketing methods, and Canadians are buying them. Umary is an example. It is made in Mexico and marketed as a natural health product to seniors. Seniors are buying this product up, but it contains diclofenac, which is a prescription drug. This is the problem, not the industry within the borders of Canada.

Health Canada, in its attempt, would do the opposite of what its intended results. It is going to drive the businesses through regulatory burden costs and overhead. Businesses are going to say they can go operate in Mexico or the United States far cheaper than they can operate in Canada. They are going to be down there in the same environment selling direct-to-customer over the border with 90-day supplies. Health Canada is going to lose care and control over the quality assurance Canadians have come to depend on. It is not good for consumers at all.

I should let people know who are watching Health Canada already has incredible powers. We are going to hear some members of Parliament stand up in this place to debate this bill and say that Health Canada has no mandatory recall when it comes to natural health products. However, I will list some of the powers one might not know Health Canada already has. It already has the ability to issue a stop sale, and it does that from time to time. A stop sale order will go out, and that means that all that product on all the shelves in all the stores in Canada has to immediately stop being sold.

Health Canada does have the power, if it chose to implement it, for personal use import at the border. If it wanted to take a look at what was coming across the border, it would be a great place for Health Canada to start looking for opportunities to keep Canadians safer. It has the ability to seize. It has seizure provisions already in the legislation and regulations, which means it can seize any product from any of the points along the line, from manufacturing through packaging through distributing at the retail stores. It already has seizure capabilities in the law and regulations.

Health Canada can revoke the site licence for any manufacturer, any packager, any labeller or any importer. It already has the power to revoke that site licence. It has the ability to mandate a label change. If there is a health concern brought up from the Canadian public, it can investigate and then can tell the manufacturer or the labeller they need to change the label to reflect some health concern or some other information. It can do that.

Health Canada can inspect any site that has a site licence. It can go automatically into a manufacturer. It can go into a producer anywhere where a site licence is required. It can go in and conduct an audit anytime it wants. It can inspect any product off the shelf. It can take it, send it to the lab and do a verification check. It approves every natural product number being sold on the shelf right now. Nothing is sold without its pre-authorized consent. As well, it can revoke a natural product number anytime it wants.

That is already an immense amount of power. It does not need more. When we hear about the mandatory recall, that is simply a red herring. Health Canada already has an immense amount of power.

When something is defined as a therapeutic drug, that also subjects them to $5-million-a-day fines. There is nobody in the natural product industry who can afford a $5-million-a-day administrative penalty fine. Health Canada would unilaterally, without an ombudsman, without any process to appeal, have the ability to basically shut this industry down at its earliest whim or convenience. It is already causing a chill in the industry. It is driving businesses away from Canada.

We need to stop this. Canadians need to call their Liberal MP, their NDP MP or their Green Party MP and tell them to change how they voted on Bill C-47. They need to get them to vote in favour of Bill C-368. Let us get this bill to committee. Let us have an actual proper consultation with the industry. If there is something that needs to be changed, we can at least have an honest conversation and Canadians can be involved in a transparent way.

Passing this bill through the back door, tucking it into a budget implementation act, is shoddy law-making and shoddy policy-making. It flies in the face of everything we have done to this point. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C-368.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to come back to Ms. Pégeot, from the Canadian Transportation Agency, about the “one person, one fare” principle for people with disabilities. Since the previous round of questions, I've been informed that, in the Air Transport Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America, Article 6, point 1.a. clearly states that aeronautical authorities may intervene for the “prevention of unreasonably discriminatory pricing or practices.”

In my opinion, when you decide to charge someone two plane tickets because they're a bit heavier than someone of average weight, or because they have reduced mobility, or because they need someone to accompany them, that seems pretty discriminatory to me. To my mind, it's clearly a question of political will. This agreement clearly states that the government could act.

I'll turn to another subject straightaway, as I don't have much speaking time.

I'm going to talk about the famous Air Passenger Protection Regulations, which were due for reform. On April 20, the Minister of Transport at the time, Mr. Omar Alghabra, announced that there would be major changes to Bill C‑47, which received royal assent on June 22.

These changes were to include, for example, reversing the burden of proof, requiring airlines to process complaints within 30 days, and empowering the Transportation Agency to charge airlines for complaints. This would include compensation for all flight disruptions.

The government also mentioned in that same release in April that the new complaints resolution process would be implemented on September 30, 2023. We are now approaching March 2024. That's a long time. What's going on? Why is it not in place yet?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-368, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (natural health products).

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce my private member's bill, which would amend the Food and Drugs Act. This bill would reverse the changes made by the NDP-Liberal government in its omnibus budget bill, Bill C-47, earlier this year. It would return natural health products to the status quo, ensuring these products are not classified as therapeutic products, like synthetic drugs, and are therefore not subject to the same regulatory regime as other drugs.

Previously, natural health products were classified separately from pharmaceuticals due to the minimal risk they pose to their users. However, after the NDP-Liberal coalition passed Bill C-47, bureaucrats in Health Canada can now implement their self-care scheme, which, according to the Natural Health Products Protection Association, will reduce choice, increase costs for consumers and drive businesses, investment and product development out of Canada.

The existing regulations already keep Canadians safe. As such, I urge all members in this House to listen to their constituents and the overwhelming amount of correspondence they receive and vote for this bill.

After eight years, enough is enough. It is time to undo the damage done by Bill C-47, kick out the gatekeepers and save our supplements and vitamins.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you. I appreciate that. It leads perfectly into my next question.

The government is hiring 22 people to do this inspection. Ultimately, as you indicated, that's not enough. We need to have steps, and the industry, as well, needs to put in places to do that. Part of what Mr. Skelton talked about was the lack of stakeholder engagement. This whole issue is not only one of engagement. It's also an issue of inspection. That's where I see that engagement.

Mr. Skelton, take health food products. Most Canadians wouldn't have had a clue what went on when Bill C-47 went down. All of a sudden, if you hadn't gone through that issue with a fine-tooth comb.... What that bill did is.... I love to use a word that I put through in the House, which I made up: “thispocketnesia”. It's what this government does. It takes money from this pocket and puts it into that pocket. This pocket is the public's pocket. It's putting it into its pocket, and then forgetting to do it. Ultimately, when you take words and create them.... Here we have the issue of a government that doesn't engage with you.

Mr. Skelton, as part of the industry, when did you first hear about these steps, and how often has the government come to you and said, “Hey, we need to talk to you about this”?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank my colleague for educating a lot of us on some of the inconsistencies and possible misinformation that was provided by Dr. Sharma on this very issue of the unfortunate demise of this young child.

It's interesting, as my colleague presented to us today, the stacks of information we've received from all across this country. He's on the east coast. I'm in the Prairies, and my colleague is on the west coast. It's going all across.... We've all received this. As he has indicated, I know that our colleagues across the way have received it as well.

In pointing out so many issues here, when we look at this motion that's being put forward to us, it's very clear and very straightforward, because the reality is that what we're seeing here is a discussion on regulatory changes that were presented in Bill C-47, dealing in particular with sections 500 to 504, I believe. The changes are being imposed upon small businesses in Canada, which provide, as my colleague has pointed out, tremendous economic benefit to this country, and that's going to have a huge impact on consumers and the rights of those consumers to choose what they would like to use, whether it's vitamins.... I take vitamin D and vitamin C. I use the Jamieson brand. That's what I use. It's a product that I've used for many years. It's very clear on that exactly what I'm taking, but there are so many other ones out there.

Ultimately, the process is that there's a regulatory step that's in place. Could it be improved? Yes, it could be, and maybe the industry.... In my conversations on this with people, they've indicated that they are prepared to make those changes to adjust that so that we can have that avenue.

On the issue of dealing with it such that people can actually read what's put out there, they've also indicated the great value of maybe adding more into it. However, that said, the packaging part now becomes a huge aspect of it, because if we're dealing with a hundred tablets of vitamin C in a small tube, the amount of paper that has to be produced to be able to put on there in a print that people can read.... I have to put my glasses on, and if I don't have them with me when I do it, that's on me to know what I'm reading and what I'm not. Ultimately that cost to the industry is going to be in the millions and hundreds of millions of dollars, which in turn is going to have a huge impact and result in Canadians all across this country.... I like to use the term “trickle-down effect”. It is a huge trickle-down effect.

I talk about it from the petroleum industry point of view and how shutting down the petroleum industry, the coal industry and the energy industry trickles down to those small communities. The same thing happens here with natural products. You start impacting that, and that trickle-down effect is going to affect small businesses. A small community that has a small business person in there who maybe employs one or two people lays off one person. That person has a family of five. Where do they go? They move somewhere else. That community is impacted and so on. It trickles down. The schools get impacted because they don't have the kids in the schools. These are huge impacts, and we need to be aware of that.

This motion is basically saying, “Enough of all of this.” Let's support this and go back to the government to say, “Enough. We don't see this as acceptable. These changes are a huge impact on the economy and on the industry.”

Our witnesses today talked a bit about adverse effects. One of the things I wrote down when she made the comment about it was, how many? How many adverse effects do you...? Dr. Sharma has said 700. That's 700 out of a population of.... What's the population of Canada? It's 30 million-plus people—

[Bonnie Gee, President, Chamber of Shipping]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to appear before the committee once again.

The Chamber of Shipping represents ocean carriers, shippers and service providers that move Canada's trade to and from international markets.

Since the introduction of Bill C-33 in November 2022, there have been some developments that should be taken into consideration with respect to the initial intent of the bill. These include the passage of Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, the introduction of Bill C-52, and the establishment of the supply chain office that will facilitate the development of a national supply chain strategy as recommended by the national supply chain task force.

Bill C-47 amends the Canada Transportation Act, which enables the collection of information from any users of the national transportation system to ensure the efficiency and proper functioning of the national transportation system. Bill C-52, introduced in June this year, seeks to further amend the Canada Transportation Act, as well as the Canada Marine Act, to enhance transparency and accountability in the setting of port fees. These bills, together with the national supply chain office, should take precedence and are foundational to strengthening ports in Canada by supporting a cohesive and transparent data strategy that will improve supply chain responsiveness and agility.

While we recognize the intent of Bill C-33 is to improve how the Government of Canada manages disruptions, we would caution that taking a piecemeal approach to legislative amendments, without a national supply chain strategy, may result in some unintended consequences and create even more of an administrative burden for our members.

My comments will focus on the proposed amendments to the Customs Act, Marine Transportation Security Act and the Canada Marine Act.

The Chamber of Shipping supports the proposed amendments to the Customs Act, as we understand the need to expedite the movement of containers identified for secondary exams to immediately address potential health, safety and security risks. We strongly urge the Canada Border Services Agency to move forward with the adoption of less intrusive technologies to expedite the examination process and reduce the costs of the exams. CBSA, as the lead agency for public safety, must be adequately resourced to support the expansion of container facilities across Canada in a timely manner.

A report recently released by the City of Delta last month associates increased container traffic to the proliferation of drugs and elements of crime in communities. The report highlights concerns with the Marine Transportation Security Act, MTSA, and the fragmented approach to port security responsibilities. Amendments to the MTSA in Bill C-33 fail to strengthen the security framework and rather focus on expanding the mandate of the act to include direct and indirect risks to the health of persons involved in the marine transportation system and provide additional authorities to direct vessels.

Expanding the MTSA to regulate health risks that are already regulated under the maritime occupational health and safety regulations appears unnecessary. Furthermore, if there is a need to issue an emergency direction to a vessel of concern for health safety reasons, authorities exist within the Public Health Agency of Canada under the Quarantine Act. The intention and desired outcome of the expanded mandate of the MTSA require further explanation and clarification on how a health risk would be assessed and determined under the act.

We continue to raise concerns about the overlapping and duplicative regulations and authorities, particularly in the marine transportation sector. Canada takes a multi-agency approach that involves a network of departments, which often, from an industry perspective, results in confusion and inefficiencies in decision-making and direction. A country surrounded by three oceans requires a clear maritime authority that can eliminate gaps and confusion in marine safety, security and environmental protection, and strengthen Canada's global position as a trading nation.

The expanded purpose of the Canada Marine Act in the proposed amendments is supported. It will enable port authorities to maintain security and enhance the resiliency of supply chains in a manner that safeguards national security and promotes healthy competition dynamics.

With reference to the added purpose that enables port authorities to “manage traffic, including mooring and anchorage, in order to promote the efficiency of supply chains”, this is only relevant to vessels with import cargoes. It should be clear that vessels typically seen at an anchorage are waiting for Canadian export cargoes to arrive and are a symptom of an inefficient supply chain. The direct management of export vessels has no direct influence on improving the efficiency of the supply chain, but they are often used to improve the fluidity of supply chains by taking partial loads.

Other amendments to the Canada Marine Act appear to address governance concerns that are only specific to Canada's largest port, and, therefore, proposed amendments in Bill C-33 may be rather onerous for smaller ports. The bill does not address the variability in the size, operations and resource capacity of port authorities, nor does it assess each authority's capability to meet their legislated mandate. These recommendations, together with the suggestion to consider the complementarities of regional ports, were also documented in the “what we heard” report during the ports modernization review and were not captured in Bill C-33.

In western Canada, the 2022 revenues for the four port authorities range from $4.8 million to $305 million. The status of the existing 17 port authorities and possible new port authorities should be reviewed.

Thank you. That concludes my remarks. I look forward to the questions.

Air Transportation

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after years of inaction under the Conservative government, our government became the first to adopt a regime to protect passenger rights, establishing a common set of obligations that all airlines must respect. To strengthen this regime, additional measures were introduced in Bill C‑47, creating even stricter regulations for airlines and ensuring that passengers are always protected.

Can the minister provide an update on this work?

Natural Health Products

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time I have had the opportunity to address you, allow me to congratulate you on your election as Speaker.

I present a petition on behalf of Canadians across the country who are very concerned with the loss of the freedom of choice in health care, and who are becoming increasingly alarmed by the legislation and statutory changes that were embedded, and buried, quite frankly, in Bill C-47, the Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1.

Canadians are competent and able to make their own health decisions without state interference. Therefore, the petitioners are calling upon this Parliament to guarantee the right of every Canadian to health freedom by enacting the charter of health freedom, which was drafted for the Natural Health Products Protection Association on September 4, 2008.

Opposition Motion—Balanced Budget

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my colleague who spoke before me, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona. I do not share his political opinions and values, but I must point out the effort he made to speak French. I am very pleased to hear more French in the House of Commons. I tip my hat to him.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

Just over three months ago, on March 28, the Liberal government tabled an irresponsible budget that increases debt and inflation. A few weeks ago, I rose in the House to give a speech on Bill C‑47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023. I began my speech on this bill on June 6 by criticizing the government, which, in my opinion, is choosing to throw money at everyone and waste money. It is making decisions in its own self-interest to hold on to power, using taxpayer dollars to buy a little bit of support from the NDP. The NDP will probably never have as much power in the future as it has in this Parliament—

Bill S-8—Time Allocation Motion

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has included a number of aspects in his question. I will do my best to address them in the time provided for in this particular instance.

I think it is important to recognize that, in any given instance, reasonable people can disagree on the appropriateness of a procedural measure used in the House of Commons. In this particular instance, where there is widespread agreement and where there has been sufficient debate, I think it is entirely appropriate.

The member cited Bill C-47, the budget implementation act. With enormous respect to all members of this House, I did not hear a novel argument put forward in that debate. We had an opportunity to debate the measures that were included in the budget. We had an opportunity to further debate some of the measures that were being implemented in Bill C-47.

My view is that with the supports that were going to be delivered to Canadians, including tax breaks for skilled tradespeople, advancing child care, other pieces of law that were dealt with previously and getting grocery rebates to people, there was an opportunity for us to deliver the supports that people had counted upon expeditiously. In my view, having not heard novel arguments being presented in the House of Commons, and needing to get supports to people in a timely manner at a time when those supports were most needed, it was also appropriate.

The wonderful thing about our democracy is that this decision is not made by any one individual, even by the cabinet. It is made by a majority of members who are elected to the House of Commons by the communities who sent them here. In each instance, time allocation has been supported by a majority of members.

I think that is the appropriate way to deal with the present issue, particularly given the widespread agreement and significant debate that have already taken place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to share my opinion on the gag orders, because judging by what the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the minister are saying, one would have to wonder whether gag orders are not the best thing since sliced bread. I consider gag orders to be a technique used to systematically muzzle the elected members of the House, which is unacceptable.

I believe that when the government invokes closure, it is because the government House leader has mismanaged the time spent on House business. All parties support Bill S‑8. We are now at third reading, the committee did a good job, everything is going well, and I do not think that there were many members who wanted to speak at this stage.

I will give an example. Last night, until midnight, we discussed Bill C‑9. We have discussed this several times before, even before the last election. Why has the government House leader not been able to say that this is important, that it enjoys a fairly broad consensus and that it will be implemented quickly? Instead, it takes years to be adopted and implemented.

I have two other examples. Closure was also invoked for Bill C‑47 , the budget implementation bill. It is hundreds of pages long and all the organizations that wanted to delve into it would have needed time to do so. Imposing closure on such a bill limits the amount of time available to go through it and the ability to correct the flaws in committee.

One last and extreme example dates back to the pandemic, when the government was not taking action. At one point, it came up with a bill that was to go through all stages immediately. We asked for a few weeks to study it. We wanted it to be introduced so that people could go through it and improve it. However, the government did not want to do that and said that everything had to be passed as soon as possible, without any study or review. Well, it then had to present other bills to fix the first one. That is an unacceptable and absolutely amateurish way of doing things.

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

Thanks, Chair.

Since this motion is about me, I thought it would be fair for me to get my own thoughts on the record as well. We talk about things not being personal, but I don't see anyone else's name on the motion. I'd just like to say my piece.

I'll start off by saying first that there are no hard feelings after this whole thing. I think we all understand the business. We understand that we can move forward after this. There will be no hard feelings, especially on my end, after this whole ordeal comes to an end.

I did want to touch on a few points that Mr. Blaikie brought up. Maybe I'll start off with some of the points that Mr. Baker brought up first about why I'm here.

Someone with my past should, honestly, not even be in this position today. I didn't come here to this country knowing that I would be here in this position today. With the way that I grew up, this is not something that I even would have had a chance to do, especially in my riding. I get to represent a lot of people who are low income, a lot of new immigrants who try to live that Canadian dream, which is what my parents came here to do—a better future for me—but it wasn't easy.

I look around the room, and I don't see anyone who looks like me. This position that I was given the responsibility of is not an opportunity many people get. For me that's a big deal. When I'm travelling the country, which obviously I'm doing a lot—we're doing a lot of outreach—I do hear from different ethnic communities that there's a sense of pride to see someone who doesn't normally fit the description of a politician in this role. People take that as a sense of pride.

I recently was in Brampton, talking to those international students, trying to stop their deportations. I put myself in their shoes. We were successful in helping to stop those deportations. That is another part of my role. I represent not just my own community. I represent many different communities. There are almost 108 languages spoken in my riding alone. When I come to this job, when I wake up, I remember who I represent every single day, whether I'm here or travelling the country.

One thing I did learn growing up was the importance of a team and leadership. What I want to address to Mr. Blaikie straight, looking at you right now, is that what I learned was that the best form of leadership is to empower people. We work as a team on this side. I didn't give up my obligations. Rather, I split them up because I love to see other people in a leadership role. Those are the values I learned growing up.

I was very fortunate. I grew up as an at-risk youth myself. Growing up, I was fortunate enough with the opportunities this country gave me and my family, and with the blessings of God, to be able to help other at-risk youth.

We opened up an after-school program for at-risk youth. There, especially for the young women who came to us, we would hold sports tournaments every month, whether it was basketball, dodge ball, volleyball, whatever the sport. The whole point of running those wasn't to raise money. It's not hard for a couple of us to get together and raise $5,000 for a charity. That wasn't the point. The whole point of those tournaments was to put those young women, who may not have had the opportunity otherwise, into leadership roles, to put encouragement inside of them and to build the confidence inside of them that it's not just us who can do this job. They can do it too.

I carry that same principle when I come to this Parliament and outside. I want others to know that, if I can do this, anyone can do this. Your background doesn't matter. The thing that really bothers me—and this is something that I don't think Conservatives would ever do—is to equate someone's work ethic with how much they're being paid. I don't find that particularly....

Putting politics aside, to accuse someone of not being able to earn their paycheque, we wouldn't do that normally outside. It's not something we do in business. It's none of our business, actually, because there are other roles we play and other responsibilities.

I'll give you an example of what happens on my end. I do casework and not just in my own community of Calgary Forest Lawn. Eighty per cent of my casework is from outside of my community. It's from outside of my riding. I do it with a smile on my face.

I want to thank my team, which steps up every single day and never asks, “Where are you from? You should go to that MP.” We say, “Okay, we'll do it.” When the whole process started with the BIA, we had a huge lineup of people from our team who said, “We want to get on the record and represent our constituents.” I was the first one to say, “You can take my spot.” That was the whole point.

I think we're setting a really bad precedent in here. You want to get rid of me, and I'm sure there are a lot of people in Parliament who want to get rid of me, and I'm fine with that. I'm not here to make friends. I'm not here to be that nice guy.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just weigh in to say that I appreciate folks sounding off about the filibuster and the nature of it. As I say, during that process, I commented on what I thought about the objectives of the filibuster and in fact agreed with some of them.

That's not what this is about. What this is about is the role of vice-chair on committee and the fact that we went through a long process, and the person who is paid $6,600 every year to be here to relieve the chair—and I think also performs some other important informal duties—left it to somebody else to do those informal duties and wasn't present during those proceedings. That's really what is at issue. I shared some information about that.

I do think that, when we talk about larger context, we have an official opposition right now whose leader has held a number of press conferences to say that he wants to make how much MPs show up to work an issue, that he wants Parliament to sit through the summer and that he wants committees to sit through the summer, yet his right-hand man on the finance committee isn't showing up in the regular season. It's the leader of the official opposition who has made this such a relevant issue by insisting on the idea that MPs, instead of doing the work that we all have to do during the summer in our ridings, should be showing up here in Ottawa to do more kinds of work here, although we've seen that sometimes that work can end up actually just meaning listening to Conservatives sound off.

If the relevant political issue of the day, as per the leader of the official opposition, is MPs showing up to work, and we just went through an over 40-hour study of the budget implementation act, where his main person on the file, despite having a paid obligation to the committee, wasn't coming, how serious should we really take those things? I'm hearing from the committee that there's a lot of goodwill around the table and a willingness to put this debate aside, I think, but I want Conservatives to know that, if they want to continue to make issues like this an issue, a number of us are going to have a lot to say and they're not going to like everything that they have to hear, or, rather, they're not going to like to hear everything that I have to say, certainly, and that others may.

There are different ways of going about our business here, but if the Conservatives want to have their cake and eat it too—to accuse folks of not showing up to work while they themselves are not doing that and accepting a paycheque for it—then we're going to have words about it. If we want to conduct our business otherwise, in a more understanding way, with parties trying to figure that out and not playing the politics of calling out, so be it, but I'm tired of being the reasonable person in the room and having that be taken advantage of for people to try to score political points against me as I watch them do the very thing that they themselves criticize.

I'm not prepared to tolerate that kind of hypocrisy anymore. That's a warning for folks who want to continue to carry on in that way themselves: If we want to have a race to the bottom, we will get there. That's not the way I prefer to do politics. I think I've demonstrated that many times around this table, but I think that if that's the way it's going to go, then that's where I'll end up along with everybody else.

Why don't we find a different way of doing things? In order to do that, we need some leadership, and that should come from the people who are paid to do that job of leadership on this committee.

Thank you.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to start off by saying I agree with the comments of my colleagues, Sophie, Terry and Yvan. I also want to say thanks to Mr. Blaikie for putting forward this motion, because I, too, feel that I largely agree with many of the points he mentioned, but I also think it's important for us to discuss what's happened over the last few weeks in the hopes that we can get to a better place. I, too, found that what happened was unacceptable. It was a waste of time for you. It was a waste of time for me, for us, and it was a waste of money for Canadians.

We have made a mockery of the work that this committee is meant to do. We've made a mockery of what the House of Commons stands for and the work it's supposed to do, and we did not honour what Canadians have elected us to do, which is to work together, to address the issues of the day and to create a better country.

To be honest, I asked my colleagues how many hours the filibuster was. We have no clue. It's anywhere between 40 and 60 hours. In any case, it was a colossal waste of time.

The main crux of the initial part of the filibuster was about having the Minister of Finance come. Even after she had agreed to come, even after she was on record to come and she was scheduled to come, the filibuster still continued.

There was incorrect information that kept on being portrayed that she had not come before no matter how many times we had invited her. She had already come three times before, and her coming that time for this BIA made it a fourth time. There is no minister who comes every single time a committee asks. It doesn't matter whether it's the finance minister or any minister.

Then the filibuster continued in order to have witnesses come, but the filibuster took so long that it literally eliminated all opportunities for witnesses to actually come before us to talk to us about the BIA—what was good, what was bad and what could be improved—so that did not make it possible.

I would also like to suggest that we have to stop with the performance politics, which we see is very prevalent and, I would say, most specifically from our Conservative colleagues. We saw it two minutes ago.

There is a lot of invention that goes on. There is a mortgage time bomb apparently, which is not the case. We heard very clearly today that the delinquency rate for mortgages remains very low. It's below what we saw prepandemic. It's at 0.12%.

We heard that household finances are relatively healthy. We heard that all the tools are in place that protect Canadians, including the mortgage stress test that was put into place in February 2020. We've heard that a big portion of the high level of debt that Canadians have is mortgage debt, so it is a complete invention that there is a mortgage time bomb.

It is also complete invention that we are in the worst economy. There is literally no economist in the world who would agree with that. We consistently are among the top in terms of growth rates. We are consistently in the top in terms of debt-to-GDP ratio, in terms of employment rates, in terms of outlook and in terms of projections moving forward, so it's complete nonsense.

I'm going to end by saying let's do better. Let's find a way to work together to do what it is that Canadians have asked us to do.

With that, Mr. Chair, I move that the debate be now adjourned.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to say a few things and if I get to the end of this, perhaps we can retest Sophie's idea, but I do want to say just a few things first. I do acknowledge that there is a planning meeting on Tuesday. I want us to get to a place where everyone is in a good situation so we can go into that hoping to improve that situation.

Let me just say a few things. I've had various conversations with our own members and with opposition members from all parties. The default filibuster obstruction stance of the Pierre Poilievre version of the Conservatives is actively and obviously hurting the work of this committee. This motion is a direct result of that.

Even members of the Conservative Party, I think, admit that we've seen an escalation of obstruction under the new Leader of the Opposition. It's plain to see. It's evidenced by—and I'm not going to go into all of it, because I already gave a 20-minute speech on that—the unwillingness, on multiple occasions, to negotiate in good faith, the desire to obstruct the work of the committee and the will of the majority of the committee, as well as the actions that have played out over the last number of months.

Negotiations with the Bloc and NDP always go reasonably well. They never go perfectly. There's miscommunication. There's back and forth, but it would be exceptionally rare that, once those discussions have happened and there was an agreement, the positions would change. It took less than an hour to find a consensus between government members and the opposition members outside of the Conservatives once everyone put all their concerns on the table, whereas the Conservatives spent weeks specifically making sure we would never agree on terms.

Jas himself has stated multiple times that it's been only one filibuster and we shouldn't set this precedent. I can already think of three times there have been filibusters since Jas has been the critic. There might be more that I'm not thinking of off the top of my head. There's no doubt it's been worse under this leadership. That evidence could be gathered and would be indisputable by any objective measure.

The fact that the vice-chair has caused some of these issues or has contributed to them and isn't necessarily aware of all the impacts of them or of how many times this has happened is kind of the point of Mr. Blaikie's motion. While I was initially surprised by the motion, I, upon reflection, do understand where it's coming from.

I would also suggest to my colleague Mr. Hallan, who, I believe, is actually a reasonable person and who, I believe, wants to work hard for his constituents, that there are a number of ways in which he could demonstrate and that the Conservative Party could demonstrate they are willing to engage this committee in a professional way that would allow the committee to do its work while not giving up the ability to play a strong role as the critic for the official opposition.

I think finding a way to get dates scheduled for meetings on the pre-budget consultations would be a good step. I think assuring that travel actually happens, even though it's been cancelled for the last two years, would be a good step. I think providing real terms for working on the fall economic statement and the budget—important fiscal documents—would be a good step. I think all of us could agree. The start of this meeting is proof that we need to spend less time debating the work we're going to do and how we're going to do it and instead spend more time actually doing the work.

Daniel said that a few times, and I think that sentiment is shared by all of us at some level. Listen, I know that there are things that are outside of our members' control. There are discussions and decisions that happen outside of this committee, whether they be based in the Standing Orders, in the chamber itself or in whips' offices or the House leaders' offices, but certainly the Conservative leader's office shouldn't have to be consulted for every single decision on every single negotiation. We should be able to have a responsible discussion because, after all, this is an independent committee of MPs or it's supposed to be.

As members of Parliament—and I truly believe this—we have a duty to work together on legislation to make it better.

There is good work that could be done here. Some of that good work was actually already happening today with regard to the mortgage study. By continuously filibustering legislation for no purpose other than to obstruct it, you actually hurt constituents. You hurt the legislation. You hurt the country, and you hurt our ability to do more studies like the one we're discussing today.

The BIA would have been better if you had contributed your ideas. If you choose not to participate, that's fine, but you should allow the other opposition parties to contribute and debate their ideas as well. The quality of the decisions made at this table and in Parliament is directly correlated to the quality of the debate, and you do everyone a disservice by choosing not to engage in that debate. You do damage to our democracy by taking that right away from other members around this table.

I've served on many committees before the finance committee, and I've been happy to work with members to incorporate amendments from all parties, including the Conservatives, the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party, and I was happy to incorporate those amendments into legislation drafted by the government, because they were good amendments and they were good ideas.

Last I will say that I think there is a path forward, a positive path that can lead to a better place for all members of this committee, no matter which side of the House they sit on, but I also note that I'm not certain at this point that this motion will have a constructive impact on improving our working relationship, especially given the fact that I'm not sure how blame should be distributed among individual members of the committee versus being assigned to the actual leader of the Conservative Party.

I would also note that we have witnesses here for a study we all agreed to spend the day working on. I was not willing to support unanimous consent for them to be removed, because I still feel as though we could get back to that work today.

I know there are members around the table. I was hoping to adjourn debate on this and go back to the witness study, to be honest, with everybody here. I still support doing that, but I do not want to take away the right of my colleagues to say what they want to say about this motion.

I'll put on the record that I'm in favour of adjourning debate on this and going back to the mortgage study today, but I want to make sure everybody has the time to say their piece, as I've had my time to say my piece.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

With the time I have presently, I would like to move a motion that I gave notice of last day, the second part of which reads:

That Vice-Chair Hallan no longer has the confidence of the Standing Committee on Finance and, as a result, that we proceed immediately to the election of a new Vice-Chair from the Official Opposition.

I just want to give a little bit of context for this.

Members may not know and Canadians watching may not know that vice-chairs of committees receive an extra $6,600 a year for the work they're meant to do for the sake of a committee. Members around this table will know that the finance committee has been meeting a lot over the last number of weeks. We had over 40 hours of filibuster on the budget implementation act.

What I found remarkable about that process, among other things—and I have given my thoughts on the record before about the nature and the reasons for the filibuster—was the absence of the vice-chair during those proceedings. Of course he was here for some of the time but not for all of the time.

The principal formal duty of a vice-chair is to be available in the event that the chair can't chair. Sometimes that's when a chair can't come to the meeting. Sometimes it's because the chair has to excuse him or herself at various times for various reasons. The principal duty that a vice-chair performs for the committee is to be present and to be available in order to relieve the chair in case that's required.

There are also informal roles that vice-chairs play in terms of talking to other members of the committee and talking to other recognized parties on the committee to try to find a way forward, particularly when there is an impasse, as there most definitely was in the case of the study of the budget implementation act. Not all of the minutes of those meetings and all of the blues for those meetings are currently available because there were a lot of meetings, and House staff need time, even as they continue to support our committee and others, to be able to put that information up online, so not all the time stamps are there.

I think, Mr. Chair, that you'll get an idea of the extent of Mr. Hallan's participation in that study just by comparing, first of all, the substitution list and the number of interventions. When you look at comparable members like the other vice-chair for this committee, Monsieur Ste-Marie, you'll see that, during the course of the study, he had two substitutions. Monsieur Mario Simard and Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné subbed at various times for Monsieur Ste-Marie, who nevertheless had about 115 interventions during the course of the study.

I had two substitutions during the course of the study because it is the case that MPs from time to time have other legitimate parliamentary commitments that don't allow them to be at the table. Mr. Taylor Bachrach and Mr. Brian Masse substituted for me. I still managed to have about 169 interventions in the course of the budget implementation act study.

Mr. Lawrence, did a lot of work for the Conservatives during the course of the study, including—I would say—the informal role of vice-chair that he played. He talked to other committee members. He was part and parcel of negotiating those moments where we were able to make some happy progress in the study of the budget implementation act.

Mr. Lawrence had four substitutions. Kelly McCauley, Ben Lobb, Damien Kurek and Ed Fast all substituted for Mr. Lawrence at some point. He managed to have 290 interventions in the budget implementation act study, which gives you a sense of just how present Mr. Lawrence was and the work he was doing in trying to provide some leadership to the Conservative side.

In the case of Mr. Hallan, we saw that he had 10 different substitutions. These were Karen Vecchio, Damien Kurek, Marc Dalton, Michelle Ferreri, Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Cheryl Gallant, Garnett Genuis, Larry Maguire, Rick Perkins and Arnold Viersen. Anyone who was listening to the proceedings will know that, while I listed Rick Perkins as one name in a list of 10, it was a very outsized contribution that Mr. Perkins made, at least in respect of time devoted to the proceedings of the committee.

Throughout the entire budget implementation act study, Mr. Hallan had about 29 interventions. That's almost exactly 10% of the interventions that Mr. Lawrence had.

Again, I respect that MPs have a lot of things to do. I respect that MPs can't always be at the committee table, and I myself have sometimes not been at the committee table, but I don't get paid $6,600 extra dollars a year to be here at the committee table to be able to relieve the chair. I haven't undertaken that responsibility.

Conservatives themselves have recognized, in the context of this Parliament, that sometimes their finance critic can't meet the obligations of a vice-chair and, therefore, does not deserve the pay. For instance, when Mr. Poilievre was finance critic for the Conservative Party and sat at this committee table, the vice-chair was Greg McLean, and when Ed Fast was finance critic for the Conservative Party, the vice-chair was Dan Albas because at that time it was recognized that the person who's going to do the job of vice-chair should be, in the main, here.

If they had a finance critic who was too busy doing other things, like trying to improve upon a lackluster question period performance, undermining the sitting leader or whatever it is that they're doing when they're not at this table—different ones have committed that time to different things—they didn't accept the $6,600 for being the vice-chair of the committee.

That's fair enough. I'm not here to dispute that MPs are busy people. I'm not here to dispute that we're all trying to juggle a lot of different jobs. However, I notice that in the past, when their finance critic was too busy to do the job at this table, Conservatives have asked somebody else to be vice-chair. I think that is actually the right and proper way of doing that. I think that, when you look at the statistics of interventions and substitutions over the course of the budget implementation act, it's clear that Mr. Hallan is too busy to be doing the job of vice-chair with other things. I don't begrudge him those other things. It takes time to prepare a hagiographic podcast, for instance. I know that he needs hours in the day. That's fine.

However, when I look at Mr. Lawrence and the amount he invests around this committee table—even though it's not recognized by his leader—in trying to talk to other people and have a sense of a path forward for the committee, I think it's more befitting that Mr. Lawrence be the vice-chair of this committee and receive the $6,600 because he's putting in the time and work. I think it's important that when people accept additional salary they do the additional work.

By and large, that is the work of presence, particularly if you're going to do that job for a party that is going to cause a lot of extra meetings and time. We spent a lot of time listening to the interventions of Conservative members, including on the east coast fishery. So be it. I respect the right of members to filibuster, but I find it passing strange that Mr. Hallan would be part and parcel of triggering some long non sequiturs here at this committee and then decide that those aren't worth his time but make the decision for the rest of us at this table that those interventions were worth our time. I think it would have been an important act of leadership on his part to be here for the speeches that he argued were an important part of the budget implementation act study.

I may very well argue differently. In fact I have, on the record, in other places.

It's his contention that those were important speeches for us to listen to. He ought to have been here to listen along with us. I think the fact base clearly shows that he did not provide that leadership but that Mr. Lawrence was here for those things, and that Mr. Lawrence was accomplishing the role that Mr. Hallan ought to have been accomplishing.

I think that we're not here as a committee to judge Mr. Hallan's role as finance critic. We're not here to judge his role as an MP. We're not here to judge how he spends his time, but we are in a position to judge whether he's doing us a proper service as a vice-chair in fulfilling those roles. I think we would be better served by the situation that Conservatives have put in place before, where their finance critic is not the vice-chair.

There is someone here who's doing the work of the vice-chair. That person has made it a priority to be here. I don't doubt that Mr. Lawrence is busy with other things and that he has obligations to his riding and to his party that he has to fulfill outside of the context of this table, but he's nevertheless made it a priority at least to be here, if nothing else. I think that is an important component of being the vice-chair. It's why I think this is an important item of committee business.

I recognize that we're getting ready to rise for the summer. I think it's important that we deal with this before we do. That's why I'm bringing it forward at this time before there is no more time, in order to address this question before rising for the summer.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to start by begging the indulgence of our witnesses as I deal with a little item of committee business.

As did Mr. Chambers, I'm going to give notice of motion, but I'll read it, because other members of the committee have not seen it so far. In my estimation, it's business that arises out of our study of Bill C-47. I've sat at the table for many filibusters and indeed participated in some, but there was something nagging at me about this one that I couldn't quite put my finger on, and after some time for reflection, I think I've kind of figured out what it was that bothered me about it. I hope this motion may help to solve the problem.

It reads as follows:

That: (a) the Committee recognize that (i) Mr. Hallan played a central role in initiating the filibusters of Bill C-47 at committee but had a poor attendance record over the course of the proceedings, (ii) Mr. Lawrence performed the functions one would expect a committee Vice-Chair for the Official Opposition to perform, including (A) attending most of the proceedings, (B) providing leadership for members of his party on the committee floor, (C) hearing proposals from representatives of other parties to conclude the filibuster and (D) negotiating with those representatives to that end, and; (b) that Vice-Chair Hallan no longer has the confidence of the Standing Committee on Finance and, as a result, that we proceed immediately to the election of a new Vice-Chair from the Official Opposition.

I consider notice of that motion to now have been given. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss it at length when I move it. That's not an item for today. Obviously there's a 48-hour notice provision, but I will be following up in writing to the clerk. We should be able to disseminate that in both official languages by the end of the day, Mr. Clerk.

Thank you to our witnesses for enduring that brief bit of committee business.

Do I have a bit of time left, Mr. Chair?

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:19 p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-47.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from June 7 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 third time and passed.

Housing

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to be clear about what the government has spent money on. When the Conservatives talk about those deficits, those deficits were spent on such things as CERB, the Canada emergency response benefit, or the Canada emergency wage subsidy, which quite literally kept households afloat during the pandemic.

When it comes to what we are spending on right now, we are spending on such things as the Canada workers benefit. That is in the current budget, which the Conservatives are delaying, and it will help the lowest-income Canadians have more access to more money.

If the Conservatives truly cared about helping low-income Canadians, they would support Bill C-47. They would vote with us, and they would—

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 third time and passed.

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 third time and passed.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to participate in this evening's debate on Bill C‑47, which implements our government's 2023 budget.

The budget sets out a host of measures for supporting Canadians and growing the Canadian economy of the future. That is our government's priority.

This week, the Conservative leader let us know what his priority is. On Monday, he said his priority is to use all procedural tools at his disposal to block the budget from passing. This morning, he doubled down by saying that he intended to speak all night to filibuster this debate. After witnessing the cheap tricks that the Conservatives have been pulling since last week to sabotage the work of this House, it is obvious that all of our Conservative colleagues are following their leader's example.

Of course, this is not a serious attempt to prevent the budget from passing. If it were, they would be trying to rally support from a majority of House members. The Conservatives are not trying to persuade anyone. They just want to block the bill. Not only is this approach an insult to our democratic institution and to the spirit of co-operation that we must strive to maintain, it is slowing the delivery of vital programs and benefits to Canadians.

We are finally at third reading of the budget implementation act, a critical piece of legislation. It is a bill that would enact our economic plan for Canadians. It is about creating more good-paying jobs. It is about growing our GDP, and it is about Canada staying competitive in the global market. This is important to me. It is important to every single member of the government. When I am asked in my riding what my priority is, or when a journalist wants to know what our government’s priority is, the answer is clear: It is the economy.

The Conservative leader, however, has made no secret of what his priority is. He stated it so very clearly. His priority is to “use all procedural tools at our disposal to block the budget from passing including 900 amendments, lengthy speeches, and other procedural tools”. This, I must emphasize, is not how Parliament is supposed to function. These 904 amendments are fake amendments. They are 904 motions calling on the government to delete the 904 clauses of the budget implementation act. It took hours of the Speaker's time just to read out those amendments and four hours to vote on them earlier today. This was after 40 hours of Conservative filibusters on the budget implementation act.

This is not even a serious attempt at preventing the passage of the budget. If that were the case, the Conservative leader would be trying to rally a majority of MPs in the House, but that is not what the Conservatives are doing; they are not trying to convince other parties or other members. These are simply stunts, ones that serve only to undermine the work of Parliament and to obstruct the democratic will of the House. Similar to those stunts, more of the same can be expected tonight. The leader of the Conservative Party said earlier today that he will keep speaking and keep blocking.

While the Conservatives are clapping, they perhaps would like to explain to Canadians why they want to block important benefits and programs: benefits for low-income workers and benefits for families, consumers and homebuyers. The Conservatives are blocking assistance for Ukraine, which is included in this bill before the House. The Conservatives are blocking an anti-flipping tax, when we know that speculation in the housing market is causing pain for Canadians. The Conservatives are stalling the next steps in our dental care plan, when we know that seniors would like to access this important support. The Conservatives are preventing low-income workers in this country from getting the support they need. The list goes on and on. Why are the Conservatives doing this? Why has this minority of members in the House of Commons decided to delay important benefits and programs for Canadians who need them?

It is simply because Conservatives do not believe that climate change exists or that we should take climate action in this country. That is the only logical conclusion, given the debates in the House. They do not believe the 99.9% of climate scientists when they tell us we need to substantially cut emissions if we hope to safeguard our environment for our children and our grandchildren.

As we all know, major economies around the world are moving at an unprecedented pace to fight climate change and build the net-zero industries the world needs now. As a country, we must seize this opportunity. The International Energy Agency estimates that the global market for clean-tech manufacturing alone will triple by 2030, to $650 billion U.S. per year. We cannot let that opportunity pass us by. Budget 2023 is the government's plan to seize that opportunity today and to lead the way in rapidly expanding global industries that will ensure that Canada can and will be a leader in that global economy.

I have to say that, in that race, the recent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act represents a major challenge to our ability to compete in industries that will drive the economy of tomorrow. If we do not act quickly, the magnitude of U.S. incentives will compromise Canada's ability to attract the investments necessary to make our country a leader in the clean global economy.

If Canada does not keep pace, it will fall behind. If we fall behind, that will mean fewer investments in our communities and fewer jobs for a whole generation of Canadians.

As we can see, economic imperatives are leading us toward the development of the green economy. However, that is not all.

It is also critical that we consider the devastating impacts that climate change is having on Canadians. Earlier this year, we witnessed this when an ice storm swept across much of Canada, including my community in Montreal, elsewhere in Quebec, and in Ontario. The damage was significant. Unfortunately, we know these storms will become more frequent due to climate change. Sadly, lives were lost. Now, as we all know, wildfires are ravaging communities across the country, leaving a path of destruction behind and literally making it difficult to breathe.

Today is actually Clean Air Day in Canada, a day meant to recognize how important good air quality is to our health, to our environment and, yes, to our economy. Today, in Ottawa, the air quality is rated at 10 plus, on a scale of 10, which means maxing out the scale entirely. This is the worst level on Environment Canada's Air Quality Health Index, and it indicates a very high risk to human health. If this does not serve to finally wake up the climate deniers in the House, I genuinely do not know what will. These natural disasters serve as yet another reminder of the urgent need to take action against climate change, to get our economy to make the green transition we all need, and to turn this into a real economic opportunity for Canadians as we create the economy of tomorrow. The time for action is now.

The transition to the clean economy will require massive investments, both public and private. For Canada to remain competitive, we must continue to build a framework that supports these types of investments in Canada, and that is what we are doing with this budget.

By making significant investments so that Canada does not fall behind in this period of tremendous change and opportunity, budget 2023 ensures that our clean Canadian economy will create prosperity, jobs for the middle class and stronger communities across the country.

The measures set out in Bill C-47 give us the means to match our ambitions, the means to chart a path to net zero and to good jobs for years to come.

Growing a clean economy, both here in Canada and around the world, will depend on our supply of clean electricity.

The good news is that Canada already has one of the cleanest electricity grids in the world. In fact, roughly 83% of our electricity comes from non-emitting sources, such as hydroelectricity, wind, solar and nuclear.

In budget 2023, the federal government is proposing significant investments to accelerate the supply and transmission of clean electricity. We will expand Canada's electricity grid, connect it from coast-to-coast-to-coast, and ensure that Canadians and Canadian businesses have access to cleaner and cheaper energy into the next century.

By way of example, budget 2023 proposes to introduce a 15% refundable tax credit for eligible investments in non-emitting electricity generation systems such as wind and solar; abated natural gas-fired electricity generation; stationary electricity storage systems that do not use fossil fuels in their operation, such as batteries, pumped hydroelectric storage and compressed air storage; and equipment for the transmission of electricity between provinces and territories. Both new projects and the refurbishment of existing facilities will be eligible.

This made-in-Canada plan follows the federal tiered structure to incent the development of Canada’s clean economy and provide additional support for projects that need it. With this plan we are introducing the necessary tools to put Canada’s electricity sector on the path to reducing its emissions to net-zero from the 56-megatonne CO2 equivalent in 2020, and to meeting our commitment to achieve a net-zero electricity grid by 2035.

We know that as we look to seize the opportunities presented to us in growing the clean economy of the future and building the opportunities of tomorrow, we must continue to support Canadians today. Since our election in 2015, our government's main focus has been on investing in the middle class, growing the economy, strengthening Canada’s social safety net and making life more affordable.

We have introduced the Canada child benefit, which has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, including more than 15,000 in my riding alone. We have been giving millions of families a head start in giving their children the best start in life possible. We have increased the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors, increased old aged security and enhanced the Canada pension plan with our provincial partners, because we know that those who have contributed and given to this country for their entire working lives deserve to enjoy a secure and dignified retirement.

We know that without the involvement of women in our workforce, we will never succeed in building the economy we want. Because of that, in 2021 we made a historic investment in a Canada-wide system of affordable early learning and child care. That investment has already delivered a 50% average reduction in fees for regulated child care in this country. It has also brought down fees to just $10 a day in six provinces and territories in this country, with the rest on track to meeting this milestone in just a few years' time.

The statistics speak for themselves.

We have increased our employment by over 900,000 jobs since prepandemic levels. Our unemployment rate sits at just 5%, which is lower than prepandemic levels. Our labour force participation rate is at 65.6%, well above that of the United States, and our labour force participation rate for women in their prime working years is at a record high of 85.2 %. We have also had the fastest year-over-year growth of any country in the G7. That is right. It is right here in Canada.

We have made a lot of progress over the years in supporting Canadians, but we also know that millions still find it difficult to make ends meet. Budget 2023 was developed with a dual purpose in mind: supporting Canadians who need the help and need the government to step in to help them make ends meet today, while laying the foundations to build the economy that Canadians need tomorrow, with good-paying jobs. We cannot have one without the other. We cannot build an economy for the future without supporting the most vulnerable in our society today, and that is a challenge our government is ready to meet.

Predatory lenders often take advantage of some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, including many low-income Canadians, newcomers and seniors, often by extending very high interest rate loans. That is why in our budget implementation bill, we proposed that the federal government lower the criminal rate of interest under the Criminal Code from 47% to just 35% and launch consultations on whether that rate should be further reduced. Today’s legislation also proposes to adjust the Criminal Code's payday lending exemption to impose a cap on the cost of borrowing charged by payday lenders.

Another topic is supporting our young people. Supporting post-secondary education not only is one of the best ways to continue to make life more affordable, but also prepares the next generation of Canadians with the skills they need to succeed. The cost of getting a post-secondary education has risen in recent years for many Canadians. RESPs are an important part of saving for that education. In a typical year, about 500,000 students withdraw funds from their RESPs to support their education. However, the withdrawal limits have not increased in 25 years.

That is why, in the legislation before this House today, we are proposing to increase limits on those withdrawals from $5,000 to $8,000 for full-time students and from $2,500 to $4,000 for part-time students. We are also proposing to allow divorced or separated parents to open a joint RESP for their children, which would ensure more young Canadians have the opportunities they wish.

I would also like to quickly address another aspect of the bill before us this evening. The changes that this bill makes to the Canada Elections Act confirm that Parliament has always intended that the Canada Elections Act should regulate uniformly, exclusively and comprehensively the federal political parties with respect to privacy.

Parliament has already established a set of exclusive, comprehensive and uniform rules for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by federal political parties, requiring political parties to establish and comply with privacy policies governed by the Canada Elections Act.

Some provincial privacy commissioners have questioned this interpretation, and this piece of legislation before us confirms that the intention of the Canada Elections Act has always been that voters across Canada benefit from that same set of privacy rules during federal elections.

Communication with voters is at the very heart of politics, and the collection, use and disclosure of information is essential to that communication. This legislative measure will provide important certainty. MPs, federal political parties, candidates, campaigns, party officials and volunteers will be subject to a single, comprehensive and uniform set of federal rules for the collection, use and disclosure of information, and no province will be able to separately regulate or restrict the ability of MPs, federal political parties, candidates, campaigns, party officials and volunteers to communicate with voters or to collect and use their information.

I would like to conclude by saying that, thanks to the measures in Bill C-47 and others in budget 2023, we have the opportunity to build a clean, prosperous and sustainable economy right here in Canada. This will benefit not just ourselves and our children, but also our grandchildren in every part of this magnificent country. The time has come to seize this opportunity and to move forward.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

moved that Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C‑47.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 2.

The House resumed from June 6 consideration of Bill C‑47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, this evening.

Canadians are facing a cost of living crisis; there is no doubt about that. Food, housing and fuel are all costing more these days. The more the Prime Minister spends, the more everything costs. Of course, even his finance minister has pronounced that the spending has driven inflation up. At a time when Canadians are already feeling the pressure of inflation on their personal finances, the Liberals' budget is adding $67 billion in new inflationary spending. These inflationary deficits are contributing to record-high food, housing and fuel costs, and I will briefly touch on the situation of each of these items.

The cost of food is at record levels. “Canada's Food Price Report 2023” predicts that a family of four will spend up to $1,065 more on food this year. That puts food-price inflation at a 40-year high, with costs pushing 20% of Canadians to skip meals because they cannot afford to eat. This is why the use of food banks has increased so dramatically. One in five Canadians says that they will likely need to get meals from a food bank this year; in fact, perhaps it will be longer than that in the future.

Some of the federal spending that has contributed to this inflation was the spending that took place during COVID. There was $500 billion that was spent or budgeted by the government and put into the hands of Canadians and out into the economy. Much of that was needed for things like housing, putting food on the table and keeping warm in our cold climate, but the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer came out and said that 40% of that, or $200 billion of the $500 billion, had nothing to do with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Therefore, 1.5 million Canadians are eating at food banks and one in five is skipping breakfast, lunch or dinner, because they cannot afford the cost of food. High home prices have left nine out of 10 young people who do not own a home believing that they will never own a home, and it is not just teens or people in their early twenties but many who are much older than that. The down payment needed to buy a house has doubled from $22,000 to $45,000. Mortgage payments for a new house doubled from $1,400 a month to over $3,100. If high interest rates and inflation continue, by 2026, Canadians may end up paying an additional $30,000 to $40,000 in interest per year on their mortgages.

Then there are the high fuel costs, which are made worse by the Liberal carbon taxes. There is not just one carbon tax; now, there are two. With the Prime Minister bringing in a second, hidden carbon tax, the cost of gas, groceries and home heating will only continue to climb. The first carbon tax did not succeed in reducing emissions. The second one will not either, but it will still make life more expensive. The independent Parliamentary Budget Officer has indicated that the second carbon tax will cost the average Canadian household an extra $573 a year without any rebate. Families in some provinces will face costs as high as $1,517. Combined, these two carbon taxes will cost some Canadian families up to $4,000 each year. This is an extra 61¢ for every litre of gasoline, with 37¢ a litre from the first carbon tax, 17¢ per litre from the second and another 7¢ accounting for the sales tax applied to the carbon tax.

In Manitoba, the second Liberal carbon tax will cost the average household an additional $611 a year, bringing the full cost of the two carbon taxes to $2,101 by 2030. That is asking a lot from Manitoba families at a time when costs are already skyrocketing. It should not come as a surprise that the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that this tax will shrink our economy. Families should not be left to struggle under the weight of the reckless Liberal approach, particularly after the pandemic that they have just been faced with.

That is why Conservatives are fighting to make life more affordable for families and pressing for two key things. First, the Prime Minister must give us a plan to end the inflationary deficits and spending and to bring down inflation and interest rates. Second, the Prime Minister must cancel his carbon tax hikes. Canadians are struggling, and acting on these proposals could help bring real relief to those struggling to make ends meet.

I have a parallel that I just want to refer to. When I was in the Manitoba legislature, we went through the years of Mr. Doer from 2000 to 2009, when he left. They were probably the best economic years in Manitoba's history. Mr. Selinger took over as premier from then until 2015, and those were very high-spending years. The province increased the provincial sales tax again. It increased the tax by 1%, but the province was debating whether it should be 2%.

Today, the Prime Minister's spending provides a great parallel to what happened in Manitoba, with the most high-spending NDP premier we ever had. This means that, today, we have the most high-spending Prime Minister we have ever had. Therefore, I would say we have already elected the first New Democratic prime minister in Canadian history, and he is the member for Papineau; it is ironic that he is in a coalition with the NDP to do it.

In order to deliver results for Canadians, Conservatives are bringing forward many amendments to the budget bill, and I hope all parties will recognize the importance of supporting these amendments to support all of our fellow Canadians who are struggling right now. The reality is that Canada's federal debt for the 2023-24 fiscal year is predicted to reach $1.22 trillion, as some of my colleagues have already said today. That is almost $81,000 for every household in Canada. The Prime Minister has added more debt than all the other prime ministers combined and has no plan to balance the budget or to control his inflationary deficits, which are driving up the cost of the goods we buy and the interest we pay.

There are consequences to the government's actions, and we are seeing them now, as inflation erodes the spending power of our families, friends and neighbours. Conservatives have advocated for a plan to make Canada work for the people who work. Their paycheques should not be diminished because of their government's inflationary spending. Nobody wants to spend more and get less, but that is what inflation does. Instead, people's hard work should pay off. Every dollar they earn should be able to cover the costs of their everyday needs and, as often as possible, the extra things they enjoy, such as a weekend away, a night with friends or just something special for the kids.

One's ability to buy a home should not be diminished because of the government's inflationary spending. The Liberals' one-size-fits-all plan for mortgage development does not work in every area of Canada. Home ownership should not be only for the wealthy, but the way prices are going under the current government, it is hard for many who want to enter the housing market to make their dream a reality. By removing the government gatekeepers to free up land and speed up building permits, the government could have made a real difference in the lives of those who are looking to own a home.

I want to switch gears for a moment to talk about another important theme, and that is public safety. Again, in the budget, the Liberal government has failed to lay out a meaningful plan to respond to public safety issues in Canada. We are facing a 32% rise in violent crime since 2015. As my colleague, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, has appropriately noted, 32% is not just a number. It represents 124,000 more very serious violent crime incidents that have impacted innocent Canadians across the country.

We want to bring home a nation that works for the people who do the work, bring home lower prices and powerful paycheques, and bring homes that people can afford. That is what we stand for on this side of the House, and we will keep fighting for that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak to Bill C-47 at report stage.

I want to share some reflections, particularly about the process the bill has undergone in its journey in the House of Commons and some of the debate that has arisen today on the subject of the bill. I apologize that the thoughts are not in any particular order, but there are some things that are nevertheless worth noting about the bill.

If you were to listen to the debate today and you were a Canadian who had not studied the bill, you might be under the impression that the recent increase in the carbon tax is somehow in this bill. It is important to say that it is not. There has been a fair bit of confusion around that, given the focus of the debate.

You might also think that a lot of the major spending items the government committed to in its budget are in this bill, or you might even think that this bill is the budget itself, given the nature of some of the conversation that has been had around the bill.

It is important to distinguish between the budget itself, which was already debated and voted on in this House some time ago, and budget implementation bills, which do not always legislate commitments from the most recent budget. In fact, sometimes they go back to previous budgets, but effectively, when the government is ready to move on some previous budget commitments and there is legislative work that needs doing, this is what we see in the budget implementation bills. There are some items from the most recent budget in this bill. There are some items from previous budgets in this bill.

One of the things that is important to emphasize is that as far as spending authority goes—that is, this bill giving permission to government to spend taxpayer money—there is not anywhere near the level of spending in this bill that some have said there is. For instance, even in respect of the dental program, this bill does not authorize the money for the dental program. It does have some legislative measures to facilitate the program, ultimately, once it is ready to be operationalized, like better sharing of information between government departments so that they can that ensure people who are making claims under the program are properly eligible.

In other words, there are some provisions designed to ensure eligibility up front and to move away from the attestation system, which is something Conservatives have said they do not like, and that there should be upfront checks of eligibility so people do not mistakenly receive benefits that then need to be clawed back. That is something this legislation seeks to do.

This legislation would reduce the excise tax increase that was going to be 6.3%, because it was tied to inflation through an automatic escalator, down to 2%. That is not a spending item. It is a reduction of government revenue, because it reduces a tax. It reduces a tax that Conservatives said they wanted to see reduced and takes on a tax increase that they thought was inappropriate in the circumstances. We agreed with that as New Democrats and we are glad to see that small brewers and small vineyards across Canada that are facing difficult times are not going to be hit with an outsized increase in the excise tax. However, that is only true if this legislation passes.

This legislation would also close a lot of loopholes in tax law and other law that is used by money launderers in order to avoid paying taxes and to mask their criminal activity. This bill would crack down on predatory lenders or payday loan places that are charging really inordinate amounts of interest. Canadians do not typically choose a payday loan centre as their first choice for banking. It is usually because they do not have a lot of options, and that is how they get there.

Somebody shared with me a statistic, and it was something like Canadians are 40% more likely to end up declaring bankruptcy if they just walk in the door of a payday loan place. There is clearly a close connection between payday lending and people on the financial margins. This bill seeks to do something about that by lowering the criminal rate of interest.

It also improves the Canada workers benefit, something that a colleague of mine on the finance committee likes to talk a lot about, which is the marginal effective tax rate for working-class Canadians and how it disincentivizes people to leave social assistance for work. That is his claim. He likes to reference the C.D. Howe Institute report to that effect. In fact, the changes to the Canada workers benefit would help reduce that marginal effective tax rate and make the transition from social assistance to employment easier.

The legislation also removes Russia and Belarus from a list of countries that get preferential tariffs for trading in Canada. In other words, it extends and strengthens sanctions that Canada has put in place since Russia's illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine. These are the things that are being held up. They are not being held up because there is another huge spend that goes along with them.

In fact, the biggest spending items in this bill were the doubling of the GST tax credit and $2 billion in health transfers to the provinces that was negotiated between the federal government and the provinces. That was by far the biggest direct spend in this legislation. With the consent and participation of the Conservatives, all parties in this House expedited another bill, Bill C-46, that had those spending items in it. There are now some coordinating amendments in this legislation to make sure we do not do the same thing twice.

The fact of the matter is that the biggest spending items, with the full participation and knowledge of the Conservatives, have already passed through the House of Commons. What is left are a number of administrative changes to set up the administrative infrastructure for the growth fund and some legal changes to facilitate the administration of a dental care program. This is not actually where the money is being authorized.

We would think that a former finance critic, which the leader of the Conservative Party is, would know that. We would think that the current finance critic might know that. Perhaps the finance critic for the Conservatives might have known that if he had bothered to show up much at committee during the Bill C-47 process, but apparently he had other things to do. He left it to other members of his caucus to hold down the fort while the finance committee was studying Bill C-47 to the extent that it did.

Of course, we did not do as much extensive study of that bill as I would have liked, because Conservatives chose to talk out the time we had. First they talked out the time we had for hearing witnesses. They did that in the lead-up to the Minister of Finance's appearance.

Was it on a grand principle? I am not sure. Did they have an important point? I think so. It is one that I supported on the record many times. I thought the minister should have committed to come for two hours. As it was, she came for an hour and 40 minutes, but she told us she would only come for an hour. I do not think that was helpful to the process. I think more forewarning by the minister about how long she was actually prepared to appear would have been more helpful.

In the end, it meant that the Conservatives chose to talk over all of the time that we would have had to hear from Canadians who are concerned and from stakeholders who represent various concerns.

Then there was an agreement at the committee to have a process to move to clause-by-clause study. It would have allowed us some time to debate the clauses and various amendments and subamendments. Instead, Conservatives chose to talk through that time as well. Then they said that they wanted to hear from witnesses after talking through all the time we had for witnesses. They say the agreement they signed on to with the Liberals to do clause-by-clause study provided for another 10 hours of witness testimony that they never got.

Did they raise it when we still had three or four days to hear from more witnesses and come to an understanding? No, they raised it afterward. All the time to hear from witnesses had elapsed, so they knew when they raised the issue that there was not going to be a positive outcome and that they were not going to get what they wanted, and then they repeated this kind of behaviour in the House.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time getting a clear picture. We are currently looking at Bill C‑47 and the member is talking about clause 510. His party seems to want to delete it as an anti-monarchy gesture, but he seems to be in favour of this clause. I am having a hard time wrapping my head around the proposal being made on this monarchy issue.

Again, I see that there is a divide and a disconnect between the Liberal and Conservative members, who talk about the monarchy, and us, who simply want to abolish it. When we talk about the monarchy it is to say that it is archaic and costs the government money. To us, the issue of seniors calling for an increase in old age security is a priority. Also, we are short on housing and we need EI reform to take care of people who lose their job in a period of economic uncertainty. Again, I am feeling the difference between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member who just inquired about the inclusion of the Royal Style and Titles Act in the bill will find my speech, which is on that very subject, to be helpful.

I thought I would start my remarks today by explaining, for the benefit of anyone who does not already know this, what an omnibus bill is and where such bills got their name. In the 19th century, the ancestors of today's diesel and electric municipal buses were horse-drawn coaches, typically with benches along both sides of the interior and sometimes with an exterior staircase to a further set of seats on the roof. They were typically crowded, uncomfortable and hot, and people with nothing in common were forced to sit or stand side by side and sometimes on each other's laps.

As a result of the endless comedic possibilities afforded by the numerous random and uncomfortably close encounters across otherwise impenetrable barriers of age, gender and social class that were created every day in the crowded interiors of rush-hour omnibuses, and even more on the overstuffed rooftop seats, omnibuses became a favourite subject for contemporary painters and cartoonists. Anyone who does a Google search for “omnibus” and “painting” will see what I mean.

It should come as no surprise, then, that when Victorians were searching for a word to describe enormous pieces of legislation that crammed many unrelated subjects into a single bill, the jostling and smelly omnibuses of their cities came to their minds. Today, more than a century has passed since the term “omnibus” has been replaced, at least when referring to means of transport, with the contraction “bus”, but the word “omnibus” survives, robust as ever, as a term for describing vast, multiheaded bills.

To say that Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, is an omnibus bill is to make an understatement. The bill is 681 clauses long, and if printed it runs to hundreds of pages. It is a bill that would make Marcel Proust green with envy. It is to legislation what Wagner's Ring cycle is to opera and what Gormenghast castle is to domestic architecture. It is what the SS Great Eastern was to shipping when it was launched in 1858: six times larger than any other vessel then afloat, and propelled forward by a bizarre combination of propeller, sails and two colossal paddle wheels.

Lost in the middle of this vast, ramshackle legislative edifice is clause 510, which would enact the royal style and titles act, 2023. It reads as follows:

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.

This provision really ought to have been enacted on its own as a stand-alone bill, as it involves no expenditure of public funds and therefore truly has no relationship whatsoever to the budget. If it had been enacted in such a manner, the debates in this place would have provided a record of the government's rationale for the royal style and titles act, 2023. The responses of the various opposition parties would have provided some useful feedback as to how the rest of us feel. However, since that is not to be, I thought I would make a few comments outlining my own observations on this matter.

The first thing to note is His Majesty's current title, which would be changed by this enactment. Currently, the king is titled “Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith”. The new, shorter title would eliminate the reference to the United Kingdom and would remove the title “Defender of the Faith”.

I note that the current title was adopted in 1953 by the Parliament of Canada shortly after the accession to the throne of Her late Majesty, our much-loved Queen Elizabeth II. At the time, the goal was to have a title as close as possible to the one in use in the U.K. With that goal in mind, titles similar to the one that is still in use in Canada were adopted by parliaments throughout the Commonwealth. However, since that time, most Commonwealth realms have chosen to drop the reference to the United Kingdom and to eliminate the title “Defender of the Faith”.

In Australia, for example, the King is “King Charles the Third, by Grace of God King of Australia and his other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth”. To take another country whose name starts with “A”, in Antigua and Barbuda he is “Charles the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Antigua and Barbuda and of His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth”. In Australia, this style dates to 1973. In Antigua and Barbuda, the title dates to 1982. In the Solomon Islands, the title was altered to something similar in 2013, and so on. Similar titles are used in over a dozen other independent Commonwealth countries.

Canada is merely bringing its title into conformity with the ones used in most of the other Commonwealth realms. In doing so, I think we keep with the spirit of the 1952 Commonwealth heads of government conference, at which assembled prime ministers agreed that there should be a non-binding but sincere effort to maintain a relatively uniform style for the monarch's titles in each of the different realms.

In Australia in 1973, the goal of removing the reference to the United Kingdom was to make it clear that the Queen's role as monarch was no longer simply a historical artifact of that country's colonial past and was most certainly not due to Australia retaining a subordinate relationship to Britain. Rather, her constitutional role was a consequence of her direct relationship with the Australian people, a relationship that was confirmed in a referendum 26 years later, when a majority of Australians in every one of the country's six states voted against becoming a republic.

This seems like a reasonable goal for Canada as well. Constitutionally speaking, we would remain a monarchy even if Britain chose to become a republic, and it is odd that our head of state does not have a title that reflects this reality. As a historical side note, it is worth observing that in the 1650s, when England did briefly become a republic under Oliver Cromwell, Newfoundland, which was then the only part of Canada under British rule, refused to abandon the Crown. David Kirke, Newfoundland's proprietary governor, was captured by a force sent from the American colonies and was forcibly repatriated to England, where he died in prison for his monarchist sentiments.

Now let me turn to the subject of the title “Defender of the Faith”.

Famously, this title was given to King Henry VIII by Pope Leo X in 1521 in honour of the king's defence of the seven sacraments against the challenge that had been made four years earlier, when Martin Luther had published his 95 theses. A few years later, Henry too broke with the pope when he was unable to obtain a divorce, but he kept the title.

“Defender of the Faith” is a title that might be viewed by some people as being appropriate for the U.K., where the King is the nominal head of the established church, but there is no established church in Canada. Thanks to the efforts of two generations of pre-Confederation reformers, the last traces of an established church in this country were abolished by an act of the Parliament of the Province of Canada in 1854. From 1854 onward, even though our successive kings and queens have retained the title “Defender of the Faith”, it is solely because we were using the same titles used in the United Kingdom.

Ninety-nine years after the abolition of the established church, in 1953, the title was then adopted by statute for reasons I have already discussed. However, “Defender of the Faith” was by then an anachronism, and it was already controversial. Its departure from the King's title is welcome.

I note that the King himself is not enamoured of this title. The title "Defender of the Faith" implies a kind of religious uniformity that is out of step with our times. Frankly, state-sponsored religious uniformity was pretty undesirable in King Henry VIII's time too when viewed from our vantage point. In the 1500s, dissenting Christians were persecuted across Europe, the Inquisition was burning heretics at the stake in Spain and Jews were banned from living in England. In today's world, where the U.K., just as much as Canada, is home to robust communities of Muslims, Jews, Sikhs and Buddhists, there is no such thing as “the faith”. It is worth noting that the current British Prime Minister is a Hindu.

It is for this reason that when he was still Prince of Wales, His Majesty speculated that a better title would be “Defender of Faith”, and I can also see merit in the title “Defender of all Faiths”. However, newfangled and novel titles would be inappropriate to include in a statute that is stuffed into a vast omnibus bill, with little opportunity for the kind of public discussion that would be needed to establish their legitimacy. Simply dropping the title seems the best solution of all.

My conclusion, therefore, is this: I will be voting against Bill C-47, but I do support the Royal Style and Titles Act, in clause 510.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not often agree with my colleague. However, she raises an important point, which is the budget's inadequacies when it comes to housing.

The NDP sees that there is a housing crisis. We want social and affordable housing. We want co-operative housing.

The budget is far from perfect, and we would have done things differently. However, there is something in there that the NDP is very proud of, and that is the fact that we forced the Liberals to provide accessible dental care for the most disadvantaged and the middle class. This year, the program is going to be expanded to cover teenagers and people 65 and over who may never have been able to access dental care.

If the member votes against Bill C-47, is she prepared to abandon the idea of dental care that is paid for by Canadian taxpayers with insurance from Parliament?

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, today we are debating an omnibus bill. That, of course, is Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023. This bill, which is sponsored by the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and the member for University—Rosedale, is at report stage.

First, this bill is problematic because of its size. We are talking about 430 pages, the amendment of 59 laws and the Income Tax Regulations, on top of that. Even though this government promised to never again introduce such mammoth bills, that is exactly what Bill C-47 is. That is regrettable because it becomes impossible, or at least very difficult, to discuss certain important measures in detail.

I find that they are trying to muddy the waters. In any case, true to form, the Liberal government is ignoring almost all the demands and suggestions of the Bloc Québécois. Like the 2023 budget, Bill C‑47 contains absolutely nothing for seniors, practically nothing for housing and no long-term solutions to the underfunding of health care. There is also nothing about EI reform.

To my detractors, however, I admit that this bill seems to contain some good elements. Let me name two. First, it clarifies the calculation of taxable capital gains on the intergenerational transfer of SMEs, particularly farm businesses, something we in the Bloc fought hard to get. Second, it creates an employment insurance board of appeal. I will stop at just the two positive aspects of the budget.

I just said that this bill muddies the waters. I would like to reiterate that Bill C-47 is indeed clear as mud. Hidden in the piles of measures—the bill is roughly 400 pages long, after all—in division 31 of part 4, on page 325, the government introduces 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.

Yes, that is what it says. This monarchist measure has absolutely no place in a budget implementation act. At the very least, it should be the subject of a separate, full-fledged legislative initiative. We would be delighted to debate it. The Liberal government has tried to pull a fast one on us. It is taking people for fools. I am not mincing words—that is how much this shocks me.

The Liberals have told us that this merely confirms a fact, that Charles III is Canada's new sovereign. I am going to tell the Chair a little something: The Bloc Québécois does not want this new king. What is more, the majority of Quebeckers and Canadians do not want him. An Angus Reid poll conducted last April, as members will recall, showed that 71% of Quebeckers want the monarchy to disappear and 51% of Canadians feel the same.

The poll shows that there is not a single province in Canada where the percentage of people who support constitutional monarchy exceeds the percentage of those who oppose it. It seems to me that these figures speak for themselves. It also shows that 92% of those opposed to the monarchy would like to see an attempt to change the Constitution in order to sever ties with the monarchy. That is a big deal. Charles III is being disowned by the majority of the people over whom he rules while we, as elected parliamentarians, must agree to a bill that recognizes his authority.

No, I am opposed. All Bloc Québécois members are opposed because we do not want to see Charles III on our coins. We do not want to swear an oath to him. I do not want this hidden in a budget implementation bill.

Furthermore, it is expensive for us to remain British subjects. It costs a little more than $67 million per year on average for honours and awards, ceremonial events and travel. In March 2022, in support of the magnificent sand castle that upholds the monarchy, the Governor General handed taxpayers a $100,000 catering bill for herself and 29 invited guests during an eight-day tour of the Middle East while our streets are filling up with homeless people. Between 2019 and 2022, the Governor General's salary increased by $40,000, or 13%. That is more than the 12% over four years obtained with great difficulty by 120,000 federal public servants a few weeks ago.

Not that long ago, we were dismayed to learn that governor generals Julie Payette and Mary Simon purchased more than $100,000 of clothing since 2017 at the expense of Quebeckers and Canadians. That is sad because it happened and continues to happen. The money keeps flying out the door. We want nothing to do with this system.

I stress this because the Liberal government had the gall to introduce this notion within the budget. In Canada, we do not have many institutions that are as expensive and at the same time as useless. For a government that wanted to make Canada a so-called postnational state, we might find this attachment to the monarchy rather unusual. It is one of the most archaic and moribund institutions in existence. It is utterly absurd. The monarchy does not improve Canada's image, it covers it in dust. Faced with the government's stubbornness in maintaining this absurdity, there remains only one option for the people of Quebec, a well-deserved option, which is sovereignty.

Among those who best grasp the importance and historical weight of Quebec sovereignty, there was Frédéric Bastien. This historian, professor and columnist left us far too soon at the age of 53, on May 16. Not 48 hours ago, I attended Frédéric's funeral with my leader and some of my colleagues. I was very moved to see thousands of people gather to celebrate the life and work of this great separatist. Also, every sovereignist mind from the cultural, political and journalism worlds was there. Everyone of importance in this magnificent nation was there to pay tribute to Frédéric Bastien. In a way, Frédéric Bastien spent his life fighting against the British monarchy and for Quebec's sovereignty. It is a great loss for the people of Quebec.

In short, Bill C‑47 has a few good things, but that is all. This monarchist measure that has nothing to do with the budget is hidden in there. Semiology expert Roland Barthes called this type of details that spoil everything “a tear in the smooth envelope of the image”. The image of Bill C‑47 has been badly tarnished by the fact that the requests of the Bloc Québécois have been completely ignored and that the needs of Quebeckers have been completely ignored.

People can guess how the Bloc Québécois will be voting in good conscience.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, in the budget implementation bill, there is something very near and dear to the hearts of NDP members and to all progressives in this country: access to dental care for the poorest, the disadvantaged and middle-class families.

For the first time, people who have previously been unable to afford it will have access to dental care.

I want to ask the member this: If he votes against Bill C-47, will he commit to refusing his dental care, which is paid for by his parliamentary insurance?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, the cost of everything is going up. Why? It is because the Prime Minister is directly responsible for creating the cost of living crisis. The Prime Minister has created a cost of living crisis through his out-of-control spending and through his inflationary policies.

There is $67 billion in new spending. That is how much the Prime Minister is trying to ram through Parliament before he takes off for the summer. We would think there would be a plan to return to a balanced budget, but there is not one. We would think there would be a detailed plan on how the $67 billion in new spending would be used, but there is not one.

We just have to look at the Liberal government's record when it comes to connecting Canadians with high-speed Internet. The Liberals have announced billions and billions of dollars, paid for by taxpayers, in an attempt to connect Canadians. There are at least eight bureaucratic programs under the government's connectivity plan. There are eight bureaucratic programs chasing the same goal. What is there to show for it? Over one million Canadian households still do not have access to high-speed Internet.

Over 50% of first nation communities still do not have access to high-speed Internet, despite billions of dollars' worth in taxpayer-funded announcements over eight years. This is not a record to be proud of. It is a record of failure. I wish the government would realize that announcing money is not the same as getting things done.

It is the same pattern displayed by the government when it comes to the economy. We have a record amount of new debt added by the Prime Minister, and now we have $60 billion in new spending. What are the results? According to The Globe and Mail, Canada will have the weakest per capita growth among its member countries from 2020 to 2060. That is not an economic record to be proud of.

As members know, I represent a rural region. It is a region that is proudly home to thousands of farmers who work their land to feed the world. The longer the Prime Minister remains in power, the more difficult it becomes to farm in Canada. Not only is the Liberal government's costly carbon tax preventing Canadian farmers from feeding the world, but the Prime Minister's inflationary policies are too.

I recently read a report that stated the cost to purchase farm equipment rose 11.7% in 2021 alone. Farmers cannot afford to keep up with the ever-increasing cost of farming. The cost of everything is going up, but the value of one's hard-earned dollars is going down. The rising rate of interest is now preventing farmers from borrowing the money needed to do their job. I challenge anyone to find a farmer who believes the government is working for farmers.

I will remind Canadians that it was the Liberal government that voted against a Conservative bill to remove the carbon tax from grain drying and barn heating. Thankfully, the bill passed the House of Commons, and it is now waiting to be passed in the Senate. Any Liberal who thinks it is okay to punish farmers for producing food is failing to stand up for Canadian agriculture.

The Canadians I represent oppose the Liberal government's out-of-control spending. They oppose the billions in dollars in new spending without a plan. They oppose inflationary policies that drive up interest rates. They oppose the government's carbon tax hikes.

Canadians cannot afford the Prime Minister and his policies. Inflationary policies and constant tax hikes are not sustainable. That is why Conservatives are blocking the Prime Minister's inflationary budget. I will be voting against Bill C-47 and will continue to work with my Conservative colleagues to fight for Canadians.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-47, the government's budget implementation bill.

The cost of everything is going up. Why? Because the Prime Minister is directly responsible for creating the cost of living crisis. The Prime Minister has created that cost of living crisis through his out-of-control spending and through his inflationary policies.

The Prime Minister is trying to ram $67 billion of new spending through Parliament before he takes the summer off. We would think that there would be a plan to return to a balanced budget, but there is not. We would think that there would be a detailed plan for how the $67 billion in new spending would be used, but there is not. We would think that the government's finance minister would answer questions about her spending, thoroughly, in Parliament, but she has not. We would think that the Prime Minister would stop raising taxes on Canadians during a cost of living crisis, but he has not.

That is why the Conservatives are blocking the Prime Minister's inflationary budget until he changes course. The Conservatives have asked for two things.

First, the Prime Minister must present a plan to end his inflationary deficits and spending. The Prime Minister has added more debt to our country than all other prime ministers combined. Let that sink in for a minute. It is staggering. Now Canadians are paying the price. Food price inflation is at a 40-year high, and 1.5 million Canadians are eating at food banks.

With higher inflation comes higher interest rates. Recent reports predict that the Bank of Canada will continue to raise interest rates on Canadians. Canadians cannot afford more interest rate hikes to keep up with the Prime Minister's inflation. The down payment needed to buy a house has doubled under the Prime Minister. Mortgage payments for a new house have doubled under the Prime Minister. The cost to rent in Canada has doubled under the Prime Minister.

According to the CMHC chief economist, Canadian households are more in debt than those in any other G7 country, and the amount they owe is now more than the value of the country's entire economy. Even Statistics Canada has proved that Canadian households are paying 72.25% more in interest payments since the Prime Minister took office. It is just staggering.

At what point does the Prime Minister look in the mirror to understand where the problem lies?

The second thing Conservatives are demanding is an end to the Prime Minister's carbon tax hikes. Canadians know that the Prime Minister's carbon tax is not an environmental plan; it is a tax plan. That is why the government's own budget watchdog proved that the Liberals' first carbon tax would cost Canadians $1,500 more than they would get back in rebates.

However, one carbon tax is not enough for the Prime Minister. That is why he introduced a second carbon tax that would drive up gas prices 61¢ a litre, further hiking the price of gas, heat and groceries.

The Canadians I talk to, especially those who live in rural Canada, cannot afford the Prime Minister's carbon tax. Rural Canadians have no other choice but to drive. There are no subway stations in rural Canada. They cannot rely on bikes for transportation. Rural Canadians rely on gas-powered vehicles to live their lives. The Prime Minister wants to change the behaviour of Canadians but, in doing so, he is making it impossible to live the rural way of life.

One of the most troubling aspects of the Prime Minister's spending is that he is spending billions of taxpayer dollars with little to show for it. Do members notice how the government always talks about how much it is spending instead of how much Canadians are getting in return?

Let us just look at the Liberal government's record when it comes to connecting Canadians with high-speed Internet. The Liberals have announced billions of dollars, paid for by taxpayers, in an attempt to connect Canadians. There are at least—

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a genuine pleasure for me to be able to be here to speak to the substance of Bill C-47, the budget implementation act. I say this because so much time has been spent dealing with whether we should now adjourn the House or adjourn debate, or whether one member or another of the Conservatives should now be heard. We have spent time sitting mute during a lengthy filibuster at the finance committee, where there was a detailed elocution on the fishing of eels, or seeing members insist that the bells ring for 15 minutes at the end of question period before a vote. These are not the reasons why the good people of Charlottetown sent me to Parliament. They sent me to be the voice of Charlottetown here in Ottawa and to speak to substantive issues such as those presented in the legislation, Bill C-47, so I am particularly pleased to be here and have the opportunity to carry out that role.

Before we can look forward, it is important to know where we are at currently. I would like to, of course, bring a Prince Edward Island perspective to this debate. I will start by highlighting a recent report from the Public Policy Forum entitled “The Atlantic Canada Momentum Index”. This report outlines the progress made across the Atlantic region over the last decade.

Members may also be interested to know that just today there was an op-ed in the local newspaper, penned by former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney, talking about the remarkable progress that has been made in our region since he was prime minister and was overseeing the establishment of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

Going back to the “Atlantic Canada Momentum Index”, the report outlines the progress made across the region over the last decade, looking at 20 key indicators. In particular, I want to highlight the great work that has been done in Prince Edward Island. In the 2015 to 2022 period, 17 of the 20 indicators experienced an improvement in P.E.I. These are things such as housing, immigration, business investment, and R and D spending. Prince Edward Island had the highest and best performance of all of the Atlantic provinces. This is fantastic news for Islanders. It demonstrates that real progress is taking place.

The Conservatives do not like when we trumpet positive economic news about the region. The common critique we hear is that we are saying that things have never been so good. There is no denying that there are significant challenges. We have made positive growth, but Canadians and Islanders face significant challenges. When I talk to people in Charlottetown, whether while door knocking or when at the farmers' market on the weekend, the three challenges they want to talk about are the cost of living, health care and climate change. Undoubtedly, as a government, there is much more to do. We cannot sit on the sidelines. That is why the budget implementation act and budget 2023 have been brought forward, specifically to make sustainable steps to address these challenges.

I want to talk for a minute about the grocery rebate and its importance. It is undoubtedly more expensive to put food on the table. Islanders have had to carry the burden of some of the highest inflation rates in the country. Aside from one month, Prince Edward Island had the highest inflation rate in Canada every month for two years, from March 2021 to March 2023. This is in large measure because of the disproportionate dependence on home heating oil and the increase in price in that regard.

In Charlottetown, the median after-tax household income is $58,000, so in general, Islanders have to pay more but earn less. We know that the burden of inflation is impacting the pockets of many people across the country. That is why the government has responded in this budget, and in this budget implementation act, with the grocery rebate to support those most in need.

For 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians, the grocery rebate will provide eligible couples with two children an extra $467, single Canadians without kids an extra $234, and seniors an extra $225 on average. It is absolutely unfathomable that with all of the stories of hardship I hear, especially from seniors, we have these procedural, partisan games blocking those payments. It is my sincere hope that people will come to their senses and accept the reasons they have been sent here, that debate in a substantive way will proceed on Bill C-47 and that it will get to a vote and get to implementation so that people who need that money in these inflationary times will be able to get it. I hope other priorities will not stand in the way of that progress.

We know that many Canadians have had to choose between putting food on the table and other necessities. One thing that is often on the back burner is dental care. In 2018, more than one in five Canadians reported avoiding dental care because of the cost. With the recent increased cost of living, we can assume even more Canadians cannot access dental services due to cost.

That is why in the fall of 2022 we introduced the Canada dental benefit. Since December, over 300,000 Canadian children have accessed dental care services. To build on this, in budget 2023, our government will invest $13 billion over five years in the Canadian dental care plan. The plan will provide dental coverage for uninsured Canadians with annual family incomes of less than $90,000, with no copays for those with family incomes under $70,000. This includes seniors, children and people with disabilities.

I have heard seniors in my riding, after hearing coverage of the budget, asking when the dental care plan will start and when they can start to access it. The news is out there and people are looking forward to it. There is absolutely a need, especially for seniors who are struggling, and quite frankly we need to get on with it.

In addition to budget 2023, the budget implementation act demonstrates a clear effort to address the cost of living by supporting those in need. I mentioned earlier how often I hear from seniors who are having a hard time and how very frustrated they will be if the grocery rebate is further delayed.

One other measure that has been taken, not for seniors on the lower end but for those in receipt of federally regulated pensions, is adding some flexibility to the payments under those pensions. That will help those in the middle class among retired people. That is important in my area, because Prince Edward Island is the only place in Canada outside the national capital region that has a national headquarters of a federal government department, that being the Department of Veterans Affairs. We have a disproportionate number of retired federal servants. This matters to them and it needs to go forward.

The last thing I will touch on before wrapping up is the tools deduction. In P.E.I. we have among the lowest vacancy rates in the country. For apartments it is 0.9% and for bachelor apartments it is 0%. For love or money, one cannot find a bachelor apartment in Prince Edward Island. One of the measures in the budget implementation act is to give a break to tradespeople. We need to show as much love to tradespeople as possible, because with 1,500 vacant construction jobs in Prince Edward Island, there is a major bottleneck in getting the houses built that we need.

In conclusion, I would like to highlight that Prince Edward Island has experienced positive growth and momentum in recent years. While we have made progress, the cost of living, health care and climate change continue to be major concerns of Islanders and Canadians. I encourage all of my colleagues to help address these shared challenges and to focus efforts on the things that matter to our constituents, not partisanship and not procedural games. Let us support Bill C-47, the budget implementation act.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my regards to you and to all our valiant colleagues who are here with us.

This is a debate at report stage on the budget, specifically Bill C‑47. It is the month of June. The Stanley Cup finals are going on. It is hot out, we still do not have a budget and we have a minority government. As we have seen all this week and today, there is a blockage in Parliament. Everything is delayed, everything is moving slowly. These blockages clearly have an impact on government policies, Quebeckers and Canadians.

In a minority government, we would expect the government to use methods that foster a consensus and the advancement of the work of Parliament. We would expect the government to propose a budget that we could agree on, one that could achieve a consensus, especially since there is great potential for blockage here on the part of the official opposition.

The Conservatives have many faults, including being against women's right to control their own bodies, being against environmental policies and being pro-oil, but they do have one good quality, and that is that they are predictable. We know that they will block everything.

We expected the government to have the foresight to propose a budget that we could work on. Instead, the government did exactly what it had promised it would never do. It is something the Harper government did time after time, namely present an omnibus bill, a colossal bill that is basically impossible to rework and that is almost designed to be delayed.

It almost seems like the government has no respect for the House and is looking for trouble. This bill amends 59 acts, in addition to the Income Tax Regulations. Anything and everything is in there. There is even a royal provision in the budget to recognize Charles III as sovereign. After all that, the government members are surprised that it is being blocked. They are surprised to see the Conservatives propose 900 amendments. They will say that everyone else is being unreasonable, when they are the ones who tabled an omnibus bill. They will ultimately invoke closure. The NDP will get into bed with the Liberals and support closure as usual. After that, they will accuse the other parties of picking fights.

As a responsible opposition party, all we ask is to debate and be able to do our work on each element of the budget bill.

For example, we wanted to be responsible and work intelligently on the royal provision. There is an appointment in the bill. Charles III is to be appointed head of state in a sovereign country. We thought we would do what we do for all appointments of all commissioners and officers of Parliament. We thought we would call His Majesty and have him come to committee. We wanted to give him a chance and see if he is competent to be head of state. There is no one more sporting than us. We are square dealers.

We therefore asked the clerk of the Standing Committee on Finance to contact Rideau Hall and ask them invite His Majesty. This is, after all, part of his kingdom. We were told that they do not have his phone number. We were surprised to see that the Governor General did not serve much purpose. Honestly, I was surprised. I did not expect that. Then we went back to the clerk to see if he could contact Buckingham Palace and ask them to have His Majesty come testify. An email was sent to Buckingham Palace. The response we received from Buckingham Palace was that His Majesty is a bit old-fashioned and only opens snail mail, so the invitation would have to be mailed to him. I do not know if mail addressed to His Majesty can be sent postage free. That should be checked. Nevertheless, he was supposed to be invited by mail.

How should we interpret that? First, we have a head of state who cannot open emails. Do we really need to invite him to committee to know that he cannot deliver results? Would we hire an ethics commissioner or a privacy commissioner who could not open emails? Maybe we should have sent him a homing pigeon. Government do not work that way.

We have to wonder. Does a refusal to come pay a short visit to parliamentarians not show contempt for Canada, its institutions and its Parliament? I see that as contempt.

I cannot believe that, in order to send an invitation to His Majesty, we have to send him a letter on papyrus and wait for the letter and his response to travel across the Atlantic Ocean. I thought it seemed obvious. Even His Majesty is embarrassed about the budget and ashamed to be associated with it. I think members can understand why. The reason is that the things that are most important to Quebeckers and Canadians have been left out of the budget. Even the King is embarrassed.

Take, for example, employment insurance. The government was supposed to have learned from the crisis. During the COVID-19 crisis, the government went from one temporary measure to another. That is because we have an EI system where 60% of people who lose their jobs are not eligible. It is not right that six out of 10 people are not eligible. What is more, women and young people are particularly affected because many of them hold non-standard jobs. They have a hard time qualifying. It also has more of an impact on those who are vulnerable because of the new realities of work, or what is referred to as the sharing economy, which is a way of artificially turning a salaried employee into a non-salaried employee so that they do not have access to all the benefits that a social safety net could provide.

The Liberals have been promising to reform EI since 2015. They promised not once, not twice, but three times. It was supposed to happen in August. Then we saw the actuarial forecasts in the budget. We realized that not only was a reform off the table, but they were going to pick $25 billion from the pockets of SMEs and workers through a payroll tax to pay off the EI fund deficit that built up during COVID‑19, even though all the other pandemic measures implemented were funded by the entire population.

That is why His Majesty is embarrassed to come. He no longer wants to have anything to do with the Liberals. It could be that His Majesty is embarrassed over the environmental policies. We are giving away $20 billion to $30 billion in dirty oil subsidies, allegedly for carbon capture, even though the problem is immediate.

The government tells us that the environment is important. On May 31, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change boasted to the New Economy Canada conference that there was a plan for transitioning to the green economy.

That same day, the Minister of Labour told an audience of business people, “Don't tell me a green energy future doesn't include oil and gas.”

What colour is oil? It is not the colour of the chairs here in the House of Commons. It is definitely not green. The environment is being completely neglected.

Here we have the government creating its much-touted green fund, the $16‑billion Canada growth fund. This fund will be managed by PSP Investments, a company that does not report to Parliament and will not be accountable. The only mandate it has ever had is financial performance. Through no fault of its own, this company has absolutely no expertise in this area. At the moment, it sees carbon capture as the green development model. That technology is not yet up and running, but we are being promised that it will exist in 30 years' time. However, the problem is here now. There is even talk of using small modular nuclear reactors to extract more oil by using less oil to export more. That is what PSP Investments is all about.

In the budget, there is nothing for seniors who dealt with the crisis and were hit hard by it. Even before the crisis, their purchasing power had declined.

There is nothing for our regions either, nor for discount regional flights. I am thinking about Abitibi, the Gaspé and the north shore. We know that for regional development, for economic development, we need regional flights. It is very important. There is absolutely nothing in the budget. It is always promises, promises.

The budget includes changes to the equalization system that deny Quebec of $400 million in short order. Let us talk about equalization. We are still in this mode where the Liberals are not meeting their commitments. That being said, they are doing some things. It is not all bad, but they are not getting results where it counts.

They will tell us that we should support this because the best is yet to come, but we know all about Liberal promises. We knew about them in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022. We still know about those Liberal promises, but we no longer believe them. That is why we are going to do what King Charles III would do if we were in our shoes: We are going to vote against the budget.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

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

Madam Speaker, first allow me to spare a thought for the people affected by forest fires across Canada. I am thinking of them and channelling my energy toward helping them get through this extremely difficult and tragic situation. I thank the firefighters, members of the military and all volunteers contributing to their well-being.

Today, I am rising in the House to speak to Bill C-47. On March 28, the Liberal government tabled an irresponsible budget that increases both the debt and inflation. The government chose to throw money at everything. It is an obvious ploy. The government is making self-serving decisions to stay in power by using public money to buy the support of the New Democratic Party.

In the highlights of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report of April 13, Yves Giroux stated:

Budget 2023 does not provide an assessment of program effectiveness that the Government launched in last year's budget under its comprehensive Strategic Policy Review, nor in my view does it identify opportunities to save and reallocate resources to adapt government programs and operations to a new post-pandemic reality.

Take the Canada dental benefit, for example. I support this benefit. It is a very exciting social program, but it has to be considered within the current context. The truth is that this government is throwing so much money around that it is going to trigger a recession. Before offering people the chance to invest in their teeth, how about ensuring that they have food to eat first?

The government is free to rebut this comment with the grocery rebate proposed in its budget, but let us be realistic. A one-time payment will only help some people, and not for long.

In a column entitled “A doubled-edged rebate”, published on March 30 in La Presse, Sylvain Charlebois reminded us that this budget, like last year's, contained no section on agriculture or food. I would point out that Dr. Charlebois is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University. He has credibility. I encourage the Liberals to consult him for ideas. Dr. Charlebois says this:

For Canadians, the grocery rebate will be limited in scope and duration, an offshoot of the politicization of food inflation. The PR spin is real, whereas tax changes that could have a substantial impact are not. However, the prospect of injecting $2.5 billion more into the economy is causing a lot of concern. Such an action could worsen the food inflation problem.

Yes, it is a double-edged rebate indeed.

The government gives with one hand, but it claws back double or more from the pockets of honest Canadian citizens through the excise tax, the carbon tax and the carbon tax 2.0. It is injecting money into the economy, which is causing inflation. In our capitalist system, businesses aim to make a profit. That aim is perfectly legitimate. It is a matter of survival for them. If they cannot turn a profit, they will close their doors and thousands of Canadians will lose their jobs.

In that context, the responsible thing for the government to do would have been to reduce federal spending and collaborate with the Bank of Canada.

That is the way to stop inflation and give some breathing room to Canadians who are increasingly struggling.

There is a major lack of vision here. Maybe the government's vision is restricted by its blinders, leading it to focus exclusively on what is really important to it: the Liberal-NDP coalition keeping it in power.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has shown that the carbon tax will cost the average family between $400 and $847 in 2023, even after the rebate. I urge everyone to take a look at the Canadian Debt Clock created by the MEI, the Montreal Economic Institute. It shows that the federal debt in Canada now exceeds $1.299 trillion and will soon reach $1.3 trillion. That is huge. It breaks down to $44,000 of debt per taxpayer. Based on data provided by the Department of Finance in its March 28, 2023, budget, the MEI estimates that, by March 31, 2024, the Canadian debt will have increased by $42.6 billion, the equivalent of $116 million per day, $81,000 per minute or $1,350 per second.

I have heard members of the government, I think including the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, when he was minister of foreign affairs, say that now is the time to borrow, that interest rates are low and will stay low. What a peculiar basis for managing a government's public funds.

To illustrate the government's incompetence, just last fall, in the economic statement, it forecast a deficit of $36.4 billion for 2022-23, and deficits of $30 billion in 2023-24 and $25 billion in 2024-25. The fact is that, in this budget, the government now forecasts a deficit of $40.1 billion for 2023-24. That is almost $10 billion more but, for the Liberals, $1 billion, $10 billion or $100 billion is nothing because they can just print more money.

As I noted earlier, the national debt will soon reach $1.3 trillion. Do my colleagues know that the debt ceiling is set at $1.8 trillion? Is the government racing to reach that target? I hope not.

The Conservative Party, to which I am proud to belong, had some very specific asks for the government concerning budget 2023: end the war on work by reducing taxes for workers; end the inflationary deficits that are driving up the cost of goods; and eliminate barriers to building housing for Canadians. The simple truth is that none of the Conservative Party's three demands have been met. None of them have been included in the bill.

That is why the Conservatives will not be supporting this anti-worker, pro-inflation budget that raises taxes. At least, we will not supporting it unless and until our demands are met. This way of doing things is unacceptable. It is irresponsible, and I hope that, thanks to the actions of the opposition, the government will listen to reason and change course.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, allow me to begin my comments by talking a little about the situation in Quebec and Canada. My thoughts are with everyone affected by the fires, whether in Halifax, northern Ontario, or in Quebec in Abitibi, Témiscamingue or the north shore, where I have family and friends who are either out of their homes as a preventive measure, or unable to leave their village because the road is blocked by the fire. I send my love to my sister, my cousin and my niece.

We are here today to discuss Bill C‑47. It includes some interesting elements, including the creation of a real EI board of appeal. People who feel cheated will be able to assert their rights. That is a good thing. The air passenger protection system is also being improved. I attended a meeting on the topic in January, and most of the proposals we put forward were accepted, which better protects users. That is also a good thing.

However, several elements are missing. There is no increase for seniors aged 65 to 74. An increase of the tax credit from $5,000 to $6,500 is good. However, people who paid taxes for their entire lives still find themselves with rates that are similar to people who are single, without being able to put money into RRSPs or other forms of tax credits. Seniors' pensions are essentially a social program and, constitutionally, are the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. The way things are going, seniors have a better chance of seeing Quebec repatriate all its pension powers for seniors than seeing Canada improve their situation based on current economic realities.

There is little in this budget related to housing. The supplementary estimates (A) include $973 million, but this one includes almost nothing. In terms of health, the population of Quebec and the Canadian provinces is aging, but is also growing across all age groups. That means that health care costs are higher. The government, with its wires crossed somewhat, had left $2 billion in health transfers in Bill C‑47, which were already voted in Bill C‑46. We thought the government had reconsidered its position, that it was acknowledging that the needs are actually greater, that it would increase health transfers and that that would help everyone. In the end, in a dramatic twist, the Liberals joined with the NDP to remove that $2 billion in health transfers, although the needs are still there.

Now let us now talk about employment insurance. This government has been promising EI reform since 2015. The only thing that has been done so far is a pilot project for seasonal workers, which is a good thing. Their benefits are being extended. Apart from extending the pilot projects, though, nothing else in this budget is new, as I said. The pandemic left a huge hole in the employment insurance fund. The act states that the fund may not run either a deficit or a surplus over an average period of seven years. This means that workers and employers will have to make up for the pandemic-related deficit through their EI contributions. It is important to note that the government does not contribute a penny to the EI fund. Only workers and employers contribute to it.

Over the next few years, there will be surpluses in the EI fund, as was the case before the pandemic, and those surpluses will be used to get rid of the debt brought about by the pandemic. The government could have solved the problem by using the consolidated revenue fund to keep a surplus in the EI fund. It chose not to do so and to make workers and employers pay down the deficit.

The surpluses generated over the next seven years will be used to cover the deficit created by the pandemic. That means that the government has no real intention of reforming the program for the next seven years, in other words, as long as the pandemic deficit is not eliminated.

Employment insurance is also a social program. Just like seniors' pensions, constitutionally, it is a program that should belong to the Canadian provinces and Quebec. At this time, Quebec repatriating its powers and putting in place a modern program is more likely than Canada even beginning to think about maybe continuing to reflect.

There are also surprises in this budget. Among other things, we learn that $80 billion will be allocated over 10 years to a fund for the green transition. That is good news, except that the fund will be distributed to organizations that are not required to report to Parliament. The eligibility criteria for obtaining funds include investments in the oil industry to create green energy, so oil and gas will be burned to create green energy.

By the way, the energy transition does not mean shifting from fossil fuels that produce a lot of greenhouse gases to fossil fuels that produce just a bit less greenhouse gases. The energy transition means shifting to renewable energy. The last I heard, there was no shortage of wind in Quebec and Canada. That is just one renewable energy that can be used. The technology is increasingly reliable.

There is another little surprise in the budget. While 56% of Canadians and 70% of Quebeckers say they are opposed to the monarchy, something was included at the very end of the bill, in clause 510, which is under division 31 of part 4, on page 325. It is recognition of the appointment of Charles III as Canada's monarch, the official head of state of Canada. It is an attempt to slip this by the 56% of Canadians and 70% of Quebeckers who are opposed to the monarchy. Some would say that Bloc members are sovereigntists who no longer want the monarchy. That would mean that 56% of Canadians and 70% of Quebeckers are also sovereigntists. The will of the people—a majority of them in this case, as I said—ought to be respected.

I will quickly end my speech. To answer the Leader of the Opposition's question, a sovereign and independent Quebec will not need health transfers, equalization payments, housing transfers or infrastructure transfers. That is because Quebec will get to keep all the taxes it collects. It will also keep the revenues from customs duties. It will be the sole manager of monies paid by workers and employers into the employment insurance fund and the pension fund for seniors. It will be the sole manager of monies generated by this new country that Quebec could and must become. Quebec's independence will allow us to manage our own future so we can fully represent Quebeckers' aspirations for future generations, unlike this budget, which does not do so.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑47 included $2 billion in health transfers that were already voted on in Bill C‑46, to be sure, but that were still there.

The NDP joined forces with the Liberals to remove that $2 billion even though the needs are growing not only because of the current fires, but also because of the growing and aging population.

Does my colleague regret having removed that $2 billion from Bill C‑47?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a great joy for me to rise today in support of Bill C-47 for a couple of reasons. One reason is that this is a budget that is focused on Canadians. It is a budget that is focused on increasing affordability and improving the quality of life for Canadians. However, it is also important for us to use this occasion to understand and articulate to Canadians what the opposition is standing against and what the Conservatives are choosing to stop Canadians from accessing.

This is a budget about making life more affordable. It is about making investments in health care and making sure that Canadians receive the care they expect and deserve. In budget 2023, we outlined how our government is going to provide targeted inflation relief to Canadians.

This includes a one-time grocery rebate. Conservatives are standing against a grocery rebate, which would be provided for the many individuals and families who are struggling to put food on the table due to the rising cost of groceries. By targeting this grocery rebate to the Canadians who need it most, we would be providing important relief to 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families, all without fuelling inflation. That is what the opposition is voting against. This is supposed to be delivered to eligible Canadians on July 5 by direct deposit or cheques through the CRA. This is what the Conservatives have said they are going to stall.

Bill C-47 would implement additional key measures to make life more affordable for lower-income Canadians who are working hard to get ahead and join the middle class. That includes taking action to crack down on predatory lending, so now the Conservatives are standing up against taking on predatory lenders, which I cannot understand. Predatory lenders take advantage of some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, including low-income Canadians, newcomers and seniors, often by offering very high interest rate loans. Bill C-47 would allow the government to make changes to the Criminal Code to lower the criminal rate of interest from the equivalent of 47% to 35%, in line with the lowest cap among provinces, which is in Quebec. Bill C-47 would also adjust the Criminal Code's payday lending exemption to impose a cap on the cost of borrowing charged by payday lenders. This is something that affects Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I cannot understand why Conservatives would stand to oppose that.

We have also chosen to work hard to eliminate interest on Canada student loans and apprentice loans, which is support that would help students and new graduates finish their studies, keep more money in their pockets and successfully transition to the workforce. Over 750,000 post-secondary students rely on federal assistance each year to help them afford the cost of tuition, housing and everyday essentials. Our government chooses to invest in the future by investing in our children. That is again what the opposition has opposed. That is what the opposition is standing against.

We are supporting Canada's skilled tradespeople, who are essential to building our clean economy and who are the people who are going to help double the number of new homes that were built in Canada by 2032. That is, again, something the Conservatives seem to think is not in the interest of Canadians.

With Bill C-47, we would help tradespeople invest in the equipment they need by doubling the maximum employment deduction for tradespeople's tool expenses from $500 to $1,000. Conservatives are choosing to oppose that.

This bill would implement automatic advance payments for the Canada workers benefit. This benefit has already helped thousands of Canadians out of poverty, and these improvements would ensure that low-wage workers have timely access to the funds they need to support themselves and their families. Apparently that is not important to the Conservatives either. Starting in July, this would provide $714 for single workers, and $1,231 for a family, in three advance payments.

The Conservatives are also standing against stronger public health care. We all know that health care in this country and the workers who support that system are under tremendous strain. To ensure that Canadians receive the care that they need, budget 2023 would deliver an urgent and needed investment to strengthen our public health care system. Whether it is helping Canadians find a family doctor or combatting the opioid crisis that has devastated too many families and communities, we are committed to ensuring that every Canadian can rely on a world-class, publicly funded health care system. The Conservatives do not support that either.

First, our government is committed to supporting provinces and territories in delivering better health care results for Canadians, no matter where they live, so the budget would deliver on our plan to provide an additional $198.3 billion over 10 years to support better health care, including $46.2 billion in new funding to provinces and territories. This would include additional Canada health transfer measures, tailored bilateral agreements to meet the needs of each province and territory, personal support worker wage support and the renewal of the territorial health investment fund. In return for all of this new funding, for the first time, provinces and territories would have to commit to not diverting away health care funding of their own and to improve how health care information is collected, shared, used and reported to Canadians to help manage public health emergencies and deliver better health outcomes. Conservatives, incomprehensibly, oppose this as well. This is supposed to be about working together to improve health care for all Canadians, and somehow it has turned into a partisan issue.

In recognition of the pressures on our health care system, especially in pediatric hospitals and emergency rooms, and to reduce wait times, we are providing an additional $2 billion CHT, or Canada health transfer, top-up for all provinces and territories to address this immediate pressure. The funding is supposed to be used to improve and enhance the health care Canadians receive. It is not to be used by provinces and territories in place of their planned health care spending.

In addition, the federal government is going to work with indigenous partners to improve and provide additional support for indigenous health priorities by providing $2 billion over the next 10 years, which would be distributed on a distinctions basis through the indigenous health equity fund. Inexplicably, Conservatives seem to oppose this as well.

As we all know, dental care is an important component of our health, but seeing a dentist is expensive. The Canada dental benefit, which is providing eligible parents or guardians with direct, upfront and tax-free benefits to cover the cost of dental care for children under 12, has supported more than 290,000 children to date, many of whom are in Conservative ridings. In my own riding, we have seen this benefit, and I know many Canadians from across the country, from coast to coast to coast, continue to benefit from this. However, it is not just children; it is also seniors. The government is committed to fully implementing a permanent Canadian dental care plan for uninsured Canadians with annual family incomes of less than $90,000, with no co-pays for those with family incomes under $70,000, by 2025. The Conservatives seem to think that making sure those Canadians who need dental care most should not get it is perfectly reasonable. In the House, we must stand against this type of nonsense, because those Canadians deserve and need it, and it should be up to us to ensure that they get it.

By amending several tax statutes, beginning this year, Bill C-47 would be an important step in rolling out this plan. It would facilitate information sharing between departments as part of the implementation of the dental plan, and it would streamline the application and enrolment process to allow Canadians to access dental care sooner. My constituents have been asking for this; they write about this and they call about this. This should be something we make a priority and we get done. The House has a responsibility, to all those Canadians who need dental care, to make sure we deliver it.

Budget 2023 makes targeted and responsible investments that would help to build a stronger future for all Canadians. Our government is moving forward with these measures to address the cost of living in a way that sets Canadians up for greater success without having an impact on inflation. We are making fiscally responsible investments for the future, and we are going to ensure that Canadians receive the health care they deserve. Every member of the House has an obligation to make sure we are doing right by Canadians. We hear a lot of talk about gatekeepers, but what we are doing right now is that the Conservatives are gate keeping Canadians from the benefits they need, the benefits they deserve and the benefits the House has an obligation to provide for them.

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

Madame Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to exchange and share my views as an elected member on Bill C‑47.

Before I begin my speech, I would like to offer my warmest thoughts to all residents who are currently facing unprecedented fires in Quebec, but also elsewhere in Canada. I do not know if there are still climate deniers, but I think we must all resolve once and for all to take action to counter and prevent these phenomena.

I would also like to acknowledge everyone on the front lines who is supporting Quebec and ensuring that our natural resources and our citizens are protected, now and in the future.

As a member who is called upon to play the important role of legislator in the House, I find it difficult to have to once again debate a 430-page omnibus bill that amends 59 acts, in addition to the income tax regulations. I find it difficult to have to take a position on such a bill.

The government had promised not to do that anymore, and yet here we are faced with an omnibus bill once again. I would like to acknowledge my colleague from Joliette, who sits on the Standing Committee on Finance and who has done an amazing job at trying to find the best and ensure the best. However, we know that this situation becomes almost impossible. I do not think it is worthy of the work we do here.

I will touch on another point. As elected members, we have a duty to properly represent the people in our ridings, particularly during budget periods. I am certain that I am not the only one to do so. We know that the budget tabled in Parliament will affect many aspects of their daily lives. It is sad to see that the main issues are not being addressed. In my riding, I did a prebudget tour to understand the priorities and realities, to hear ideas from our fellow residents about priorities to be considered to improve their daily lives.

Recently, I even went on a tour of seniors' residences. Health is always the first issue people raise. We hear about everything that is happening, at least in Quebec. We hear about the burnout and the conditions for workers who have been on the front lines for a long time. Unfortunately, this budget does not in any way address the reality of health and social services in Quebec.

As we know, Quebec and the other provinces were calling for a substantial increase in the Canada health transfers they receive. They did that for a reason. This increase would enable them to fulfill one of their main responsibilities. Once again, however, the government decided to use its spending power to slash these health transfers. In addition, it decided to put money into a dental care program that will be difficult to implement because dental care does not fall under federal jurisdiction at all. The federal government is interfering in the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces instead of investing its fair share to strengthen our universal public health care systems. That is one of the priorities, but there is nothing in the budget about that.

The same goes for seniors. There are no measures for them. I already know what the government will say in response. It will say that it is here for seniors and that it increased old age security by 10% for seniors aged 75 and over.

At the federal level, however, OAS is almost universal as of age 65. The government has decided to leave seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 out in the cold. When I meet with seniors in that age range, they say that they are concerned about their financial well-being. They are also concerned about housing.

In Quebec, a number of seniors' residences are closing down for budgetary reasons. There are seniors who say that if they had to move out by tomorrow, they would be unable to find safe, adequate housing they could afford. These are concerns that affect the entire population. In Canada, OAS is not a gold mine. Among OECD countries, we have one of the weakest systems.

However, the government has decided that seniors aged 65 to 74 must wait. We will see. Once they have emptied out their savings, the government may change its mind. That is so ridiculous.

A real vision to support the most vulnerable would require that this budget include robust measures for seniors and for affordable and social housing, not for housing at market prices. The government is investing over $80 billion in programs under the national housing strategy. That is public money, yet we are struggling to get answers about the role it will play in affordable and social housing.

Fortunately, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is currently conducting a study of the financialization of housing. I believe there are things that will need to be resolved once and for all. Investing in off-market properties is the best way we can help seniors and young people, to ensure that affordable housing becomes a priority. It is a shared responsibility. The federal government has a role to play in this respect. In this budget, it is doing nothing. That is astounding to me.

There is another issue that affects both businesses and workers, and that is the labour shortage. It is not imaginary, it is a reality. I do not know about my colleagues' ridings, but the labour shortage is apparent everywhere we look. For instance, I have seen employers offering to hire seniors.

I have met with retirees and self-employed workers who might actually be interested in returning to the labour market, putting their expertise to use and being part of the workforce. However, in the current context, they are totally penalized. They already have low retirement incomes. If, in addition, the tax rules are not revised to ensure that their retirement income is not reduced, why would they go back to work?

These are people who are very involved as volunteers. They are prepared to help out in the workforce but, again, they must not be penalized for that. There is nothing in the budget in this respect.

Workers are making almost historic demands. They are asking the government to reform the only social program that exists in Canada, the employment insurance system, once and for all. In 2015, the Liberals made a solemn promise to reform the system. In 2019, the Liberals made another solemn promise to reform the system. In 2021, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion and the Prime Minister committed to implementing reform. In the wake of the crisis that we have experienced, they said the system needed to be reformed and adapted to the current labour market.

Workplaces have changed. There are non-standard workers and seasonal workers. The government is turning its back on all of these people.

All that to say, this budget does not target—

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Nepean for addressing Bill C-47, the budget implementation act.

I will point out, for those who are observing this debate, that the budget implementation act covers the variety of measures the hon. member for Nepean mentioned, changes the most favourable nation status for Russia and creates a vessel remediation act and a vessel remediation fund, which are going to be very important for areas in my constituency. Does he have any comments on that?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to the continuing debate on Bill C-47, the budget 2023 implementation act, which proposes measures that will help Canadians and build a stronger economy.

Budget 2023, “a Made-in-Canada Plan: Strong Middle Class, Affordable Economy, Healthy Future”, arrived at an important time for our country and the world.

It delivers targeted inflation relief for 11 million Canadians and families who need it most, strengthens Canada’s universal public health care system with an investment of $198.3 billion and introduces a new Canadian dental care plan to benefit up to nine million Canadians.

Budget 2023 also makes transformative investments to build Canada’s clean economy, fight climate change and create new opportunities for Canadian businesses and Canadian workers. This includes significant measures that will deliver cleaner and more affordable energy, support investment in our communities and create good-paying jobs as part of a responsible fiscal plan that will see Canada maintain the lowest deficit and the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.

One aspect of Bill C-47 I would like to address today is how it proposes to enact measures to help build Canada’s clean economy, and specifically, two important proposals that were first announced in budget 2022.

The first is the Canada growth fund, which would help attract private capital to build Canada's clean economy. The other is the establishment of the Canada innovation corporation as a new Crown corporation, with a mandate to increase Canadian business expenditures on research and development.

I will start with the Canada growth fund. It was incorporated in December 2022 as a subsidiary of the Canada Development Investment Corporation. As a significant part of Canada’s plan to decarbonize and build Canada’s clean economy, the Canada growth fund requires an experienced, professional and independent investment team ready to make important investments in support of Canada’s climate and economic goals.

Therefore, budget 2023 announced the intention to have the growth fund partner with the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, or PSP Investments, to deliver on the growth fund’s mandate of attracting private capital to invest in Canada’s clean economy. Bill C-47 contains the necessary legislative amendments to enable PSP Investments to manage the assets of the Canada growth fund as a $15-billion arm's-length public investment vehicle.

PSP Investments is one of Canada’s largest pension investment managers, with more than $225 billion in assets under management, and operates at arm’s length from the government. It will provide the Canada growth fund with an independent team that has extensive experience across the range of investment tools that the growth fund will use to deliver on its mandate and attract new private investment to Canada.

By partnering with PSP Investments, the Canada growth fund would be able to move quickly and begin making investments in the near term to support the growth of Canada’s clean economy. One of the investment tools the Canada growth fund will use to support clean growth projects is contracts for difference. These contracts can backstop the future price of, for example, carbon or hydrogen, providing predictability that helps to de-risk major projects that cut Canada’s emissions. Contracts for difference allow companies to plan ahead, supporting the growth of Canada’s clean economy by making clean projects more cost-effective than more polluting projects.

Relatedly, budget 2023 announced that the government will consult on the development of a broad-based approach to carbon contracts for difference that aims to make carbon pricing even more predictable, while supporting the investments needed to build a competitive, clean economy and help meet Canada’s climate goals. This would complement contracts for difference offered by the Canada growth fund. Notably, the Canada growth fund assets will be separate and managed independently of the pension assets of PSP Investments. However, it will maintain the market-leading reporting framework for public transparency and accountability that the government committed to in the 2022 fall economic statement.

I also mentioned earlier that Bill C-47 proposes to establish the Canada innovation corporation as a new Crown corporation with a mandate to increase Canadian business expenditure on research and development across all sectors and regions of Canada. Currently, Canada ranks last in the G7 in R and D spending by businesses. I think we can all agree that this has to change.

Solving Canada’s main innovation challenges, including a low rate of private business investment in research, development and the uptake of new technologies, is key to growing our economy and creating good jobs. Canadian companies need to take their new ideas and new technologies and turn them into new products, services and thriving businesses, and they need support to do that.

The mandate of the Canada innovation corporation will be to promote the improved productivity and growth of Canadian firms, which would contribute to a strong and innovative Canadian economy. It would work proactively with new and established Canadian industries and businesses to help them make the investments they need in order to innovate, grow, create jobs and be competitive in the changing global economy.

It would do this by offering needed support to transform new ideas into new and improved products and processes. It would also support them in developing and protecting intellectual property and in capturing important segments of global supply chains that will help drive Canada’s economic growth and create good jobs.

I would like to stress that the CIC will not be just another funding agency. It is intended to be a market-oriented innovation agency with private sector leadership and expertise. The CIC would operate with an initial budget of $2.6 billion over four years, and with the passage of Bill C-47, it is expected to begin its operations in 2023.

Overall, these measures from Bill C-47 are just part of the government’s plan to build a stronger, more sustainable 21st-century economy. They build on budget 2023's transformative investments to build Canada's clean economy, fight climate change and create new opportunities for Canadian businesses and Canadian workers.

With our made-in-Canada plan, our budget would ensure that Canadians have more money in their pockets and are meeting the challenges of today and tomorrow, while building a Canada that is more secure, more sustainable and more affordable for people from coast to coast to coast. Key measures in the budget implementation bill include, one, an automatic advance for the Canada workers benefit; two, the doubling of the deduction for tradespeople's tools; three, improved registered education savings plans; four, banning cosmetic testing on animals; five, strengthening Canada's supply chains and trade corridors; and six, continuing our efforts in supporting Ukraine by taking action against Russia.

I encourage all hon. members to support Bill C-47 and to contribute to this effort.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, in the initial Bill C‑47, a $2-billion transfer for health care was included twice. It did not take very long for the Liberals and the NDP—

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting when time constraints require us to split our speaking time between two different days, but I was okay with stopping my intervention halfway through last evening in order to accommodate the emergency debate on the wildfire situation.

I would like to express my hopes that everyone remains safe as the fires rage. I helped friends back home in Salmon Arm evacuate in 1998 just before the flames took their home, and I have seen how bad the devastation can be.

I also want to recognize the expertise and courage of the firefighters and emergency response teams for all they are doing to save lives, properties and assist those displaced.

I will go back to my intervention on Bill C-47, the budget implementation act. I was speaking last night about what $20 billion looked like to everyday Canadians, but I am now going to have to change my question it appears because the Liberal-NDP coalition has set new standards.

The forecast deficit for 2023-24 is now $43 billion. How do those record deficits affect Canadians? It will affect lower-income Canadians disproportionately more.

In 2015, the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment was $973; it is now $1,760. A two-bedroom was $1,172; it is now $2,135.

When the Liberals took office, it only took 39% of an average paycheque to make monthly home payments. Under the Liberal-NDP fiscal management, or lack thereof, it now takes 62% of average income to make payments on an average home, an increase from what was in 2015, which was $1,400, to $3,100 today. Average minimum down payments have increased from $22,000 for a home to $45,000 for across Canada numbers. Add to this the sharp increases in interest rates and we have a situation where renters and first-time homebuyers need some relief.

The Conservatives had asked for some common-sense steps in this 2023 budget, but the Liberal-NDP coalition was blind to the problems it continued to create for Canadians aspiring to purchase a first home or upsize to have room for their growing families.

The Liberals inflationary spending has also caused the cost of food to rise and skyrocket. Food prices have risen so dramatically that one in five Canadians are now skipping meals.

When I am out meeting with the good people in North Okanagan—Shuswap, a place where we can grow so much good food, people have been sharing their grocery store experiences, and this is one of the common topics that comes up now. They have been shocked at rising prices in the grocery aisles and have been forced into making choices and not purchasing items they used to purchase.

There were warnings that these issues were coming, rising inflation, higher interest rates, skyrocketing housing costs and higher food costs, but the finance minister ignored those early warning signs. In fact, the minister ignored further warnings, and continues to plan on spending like there is no tomorrow.

In the tomorrows to come, I and my Conservative colleagues will be fighting for and providing common-sense policies and budgets that will give those everyday Canadians hope for their futures, beyond the current government’s disastrous tenure.

We will work to have Canadians keep more of their paycheques so they can decide how to spend them instead of sending more to the Liberal government for it to distribute as government sees best.

Time allocation is now shutting down debate on Bill C-47, and I believe it is because the Liberal-NDP coalition does not want people to hear how bad this year's budget is for them. It is a shame that Liberals are going to shut it down and not allow us to tell Canadians what to expect and give them more hope for the future.

The House resumed from June 5 consideration of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[G. Stephen Alsace]

Interpretative guidance would assist. As an example, if you look at the United States and OFAC, they have something like 1,300 FAQs that have been published.

Some of the interpretation around the proposed Bill C-47 is looking at changing beneficial ownership, but rather than using an OFAC 50% plus one rule, they have elected to go even further than the EU and the U.K., so it's really going to make it complicated when you look at the control test they're suggesting. That's an area where we're definitely going to need greater clarification on the amount of due diligence that will be required, because from an operational perspective it will be impossible to stop every single payment and then actually review it and exercise enhanced due diligence against it.

Bill C-47—Time Allocation Motion

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-47 includes several measures. The Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister did an extraordinary job listening to Canadians. As I often say, Canadians told us three things. Obviously, they brought up the cost of living, health care and dental care, but they also spoke to us about the need to build the economy of the future, a greener economy aligned with the 21st century.

Bill C-47 includes a huge number of measures to help our small and medium-size businesses and entrepreneurs in order to position Canada for success. These measures will help seize generational opportunities and create the jobs of the future, well-paid green jobs.

I would therefore ask the Minister of Finance to remind the Canadians listening this morning, because there are Canadians listening, why it is important to pass Bill C-47. How will the bill help position Canada for the 21st-century economy?

[Angelina Mason, General Counsel and Senior Vice-President, Legal and Risk, Canadian Bankers Association]

Thank you for inviting the Canadian Bankers Association and the Royal Bank of Canada to appear this morning to participate in the committee's review of Canada's sanctions regime.

My name is Angelina Mason and I am the general counsel and senior vice-president, legal and risk, with the CBA. I am joined today by Stephen Alsace, global head, economic sanctions, with the Royal Bank of Canada.

Recent proposed legislative changes and federal budgetary commitments in the sanctions space highlight the federal government's continued commitment to the laudable policy goals that drive the regime, which are the safeguarding of human rights, combatting significant corruption, and preserving international peace and security.

Banks operating in Canada have invested heavily in their efforts to comply with and thus enable the evolving regime. Our members work extensively with Global Affairs Canada and the RCMP to ensure broad compliance with sanctions requirements. They also have in place systems and procedures for managing sanctions risk, and they conduct active screening against sanctions lists.

The government provides valuable support for this work. We appreciate GAC's consolidated Canadian autonomous sanctions list, the increasing willingness of GAC officials to engage with stakeholders, including our members, on sanctions matters, and their efforts to perform public outreach. Further, the federal government's announced investment of $76 million in GAC's development of a devoted sanctions bureau and additional support for the RCMP is an important initial step towards ensuring the growing regime is properly resourced to function effectively and efficiently.

Given their role within the global financial system, our members have observed several ways in which Canada's sanctions regime should continue to evolve. Primarily, as the regime continues to evolve and become more complex—including with the recent proposal of deemed control provisions that contain highly subjective elements in Bill C-47—there is a need for written, publicly available guidance.

This need is well understood. It was highlighted by this committee's 2017 report, as well as in the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade's recently published report detailing its review of the regime. It is also common practice for sanctions authorities in other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom and the United States, and in other regulatory contexts within Canada.

To address this need and align with international and domestic best practices, we encourage GAC to develop this written guidance in consultation with stakeholders. Guidance will provide clarity and transparency for stakeholders—especially those that lack or cannot afford access to expensive resources to support their activities—thus mitigating the operation and regulatory risks that may flow from regulatory opacity when doing business globally. It will also help to ensure that the Sergei Magnitsky Law and SEMA are implemented as intended and that their desired policy goals are efficient and effective.

Along with written guidance—as endorsed by the Senate committee report—the government should also work to educate the Canadian public on the nature, rationale and impact of Canada's sanctions laws. In the current context, private sector entities, such as our members, are often required to address the questions and concerns of their clients. To ensure that the public receives accurate, up-to-date information that is consistent, we suggest that the federal government would be best placed to answer these questions, as our members and other stakeholders are still trying to understand the impact of the law on their own businesses.

There is also currently an opportunity to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of sanctions reporting. More specifically, our members currently provide sanctions reports to various government agencies. The government's recent proposed amendments in Bill C-47 to create additional reporting requirements to FINTRAC open the door for meaningful engagement between the regulator and industry to refine reporting requirements and ensure they meet the policy intent of the legislative amendments.

Operationally, the permit system also requires the federal government's attention. We understand that in other jurisdictions there are streamlined mechanisms for seeking permits or certificates to authorize certain specified activities or transactions that are otherwise prohibited. For example, the United States has provisions for general licences that authorize particular types of transactions for a class of persons, without the need to apply for a specific licence. This general approach has not been used in Canada, although it is possible under the law.

Given the lack of guidance and clarity in the law, we understand that GAC has been flooded by permit applications. It appears this increased volume has created a backlog of applications, leaving Canadians waiting with unclear timelines for formal responses. These permits are not always sought by large corporations. Often, it is everyday Canadians seeking these permits, such as retail banking clients attempting to remit funds to family members in jurisdictions impacted by sanctions.

We suggest that GAC align with the approach taken in foreign jurisdictions. Further, we also recommend that GAC hire additional resources to focus specifically on licence applications and, ideally, set out a mandate to complete all licence requests within a reasonable period.

Finally, as the Senate report recommends, sufficient investment in GAC’s sanctions bureau and other federal departments involved in the regime is needed. We appreciate and support the government’s previous budgetary commitments to GAC and understand the government is considering providing additional government agencies with a role in the sanctions space.

Given the complexity of the regime, it is critical that any government department or agency involved in the regime, including GAC, be properly resourced and that staff receive extensive training on and have sufficient knowledge of this highly technical area of the law.

This approach will help ensure oversight is tailored to and reflects the uniqueness of the regime and that it is not conflated with that of other legislative areas, such as Canada’s anti-money laundering—

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

Mr. Speaker, to the earlier exchange that the Minister of Finance had on the subject of Ukraine, I think it is significant that the budget implementation bill, for the first time, removes Russia and Belarus from most-favoured-nation status. We are not in this place debating the budget, which I voted against; we are debating Bill C-47, which I voted for and will continue to vote for. There are many measures in it that I support and none that I oppose, unlike the budget itself. I still cannot vote for time allocation.

Even after the amount of debate we have had in this place, I do not think anyone else has put on the record that Russia still has most-favoured-nation status for trade reasons until we pass this legislation. That is lamentable.

I wish we did not have tactics being used that amount to an obstruction to moving forward and that stand in the way of sensible debate on what we are actually talking about here. Therefore, I find myself in the awkward position of being in favour of this legislation, opposed to the government moving to push it through quickly, and very much opposed to meaningless partisan obstruction tactics that do not deal with the substance of the legislation, which I fear most people in this place still have not read.

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

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at report stage and fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Sitting Resumed

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

Madam Speaker, I would say to my colleague that seniors talk to me about housing, but they mostly talk to me about having the opportunity to work without being taxed, without changing four quarters for a dollar.

The budget could have included measures to make seniors' work more valuable, to prevent them from losing their guaranteed income supplement or prevent them from paying too much in tax. Indeed, seniors perhaps would have wanted to work a bit to stay socially active and improve their living conditions, but there are no tax measures in Bill C‑47 to encourage seniors to go back to work.

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

Madam Speaker, I will give a very honest answer. Strangely enough, no one talks to me about dental care in my riding.

As many people know, children in Quebec have some coverage. I know the Quebec government has extended coverage to include some people who need surgery but cannot have it because they need dental care before they have their surgery, so it has extended its coverage. The Quebec government made that decision without waiting for Ottawa to decide what it was going to do.

Quite honestly, people are not talking to me about that. Seniors want to talk about the loss of their purchasing power, about having to make difficult choices between groceries, care, rent and leisure activities. They tell me they are feeling so squeezed financially that they have no room to manoeuvre after working their entire lives.

Many seniors who are now 65 or 70 years old do not have a pension plan, even though they worked hard. I am thinking of people who worked as restaurant waitresses, or people who worked hard physically, in factories, for example, and did not have access to a collective agreement that guaranteed a pension plan.

Today these people are worried and do not understand why the government did not think of them when drafting Bill C‑47.

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

Madam Speaker, at my advanced age, it is more difficult to concentrate when there is background noise that seems to be coming from the great beyond.

What I was saying is that, basically, what is missing from this budget is real support for seniors. As my Bloc Québécois colleagues have said many times, there are two classes of seniors.

In Quebec and Canada, there are seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 and those aged 75 and up. Seniors aged 75 and up received an increase in their old age security, whereas those between the ages of 65 and 74 got nothing. Quite frankly, I am not sure whether my colleagues are aware that a person whose sole income is the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement does not even get enough money a month to pay for decent housing, cover all the rent-related costs and still manage to have a decent and reasonable life. It is rather shameful that a G7 country is unable to take better care of those who built Quebec and contributed to its development. We must give them what they need to live and die in a dignified way.

Roughly 22% of the people in Salaberry—Suroît are seniors 65 and over. Earlier, before the technical problems, I was saying that I attend all the events in my riding, and seniors talk to me and tell me about their problems. They cannot grasp the government's lack of understanding and the fact it does not give them more support in meeting their monthly obligations. If a senior needs home care or to buy services, go to a private seniors residence and pay for services to support their loss of autonomy, quite honestly, that person has to ask for help from the Quebec government, from their province, because what they receive in old age security benefits is not enough to meet their needs.

In this budget there is a serious lack of consideration and esteem for our seniors, those who built the society we have today.

There is another important thing missing. I am sure that people are affected by this. There is nothing about employment insurance reform. The member for Thérèse-De Blainville has often said that it is high time that old legislation were modernized. The minister has made some promises over the years.

Recently, we believed we could start working on the reform because the minister went to the trouble of holding consultations. Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois and our partners who support workers were utterly disappointed. There is no EI reform and no major change to the Employment Insurance Act to face the new realities of the labour market and secure better coverage.

In closing, I know that my time is up. Madam Speaker, I hope you gave me the time I lost because of the audio issues during my speech. I imagine you did.

I will conclude by saying that what is important to the Bloc Québécois is to vote for a budget that is really useful and serves Quebec's interests. At present, that is not what we have before us. Therefore, the Bloc Québécois will vote against the budget and, consequently, against Bill C‑47.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I have put this question to other members debating tonight. Over the course of any discussion of Bill C-47 in this place, I have heard very few members actually speak to Bill C-47, which is not the budget. The budget carried already in this place. We are now debating a budget implementation act, which changes many pieces of legislation. It is an omnibus bill, but it is not an illegitimate omnibus bill. It follows through on changes.

I actually voted against the Liberal budget, but I will vote for the budget implementation bill because it contains many, many useful measures, none of which relate to the topics that my hon. friend discussed. Universally, it seems, in this place, we assume that the legislation, Bill C-47, is the budget.

I just ask my hon. colleague if he has any comments as to why that is, since that is not what we are debating tonight.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to a number of speeches on this year's budget and on Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, at all stages of debate.

I have been inspired by some of these speeches. I really enjoyed the one delivered by the hon. member for Abbotsford. He spoke about the lines the Minister of Finance said last year she would not cross. It was about the increase in a ratio called the debt-to-GDP, or gross domestic product.

I agree with him completely. It seems as though the government, from so many of its ministries, tells Canadians what to expect from them and then ignores those seemingly brave words. It spoke of short-term deficits of $10 billion to bring us back to balance by 2019. I remember that one quite well. Then it spoke of a carbon tax that would never rise above $50 per tonne. That was in the 2019 election platform, not so long ago.

I love when the Liberals say, “We have got Canadians' backs.” What does that even mean? They say, “We are laser focused on solving this problem.” Sure. The one I like best is, “We are not worried about inflation. We are worried about deflation.” I think they would like to erase those words from the record at this point.

Talk is cheap in today's politics, until Canadians actually see the consequences of breaking the real pillars that hold up our country's financial well-being. There will be reduced opportunities in an underperforming, non-resilient economy for generations.

Social programs such as health, education and welfare will be compromised because bankers will get paid first and the amount of priority spending is increasing. This means the amount of money we have to spend as Canadians taxpayers paying the interest on our debt is a rising rate and a rising number. It is escalating quickly.

Deficits do not solve themselves. They take planning and resolve. The consequences of not solving them are upon us with rising inflation, rising taxation and rising income inequality. There are rising labour tensions, as we saw with the recent strike at the Public Service Alliance of Canada. Canadians are just trying to have their wages and salaries keep up with the rising cost of living that the government's negligence has caused.

Inflated dollars buy less. They buy less food, less shelter and fewer social services. We are all poorer by degrees. The government just hopes Canadians do not notice it too much. Canadians are noticing, and they are wondering how a modern country is throwing away its future and has forgotten the lessons from the last time this scenario unfolded just four decades ago. Politicians change, but institutional memory, the decision-making, should learn from the lessons of history, especially recent history.

I would say Canada's debt-to-GDP is a somewhat useless ratio, as it only compares how bad our ability to provide balance for tomorrow's taxpayers is with that of other spendy governments in the world. The debt-to-GDP is increasing, and there is no benefit to having a high debt-to-GDP. There is only a cost, and it is a rapidly rising cost.

As so many have indicated, that rising cost has rising consequences. The government presents in its own set of data that its sacred ratio will peak next year, this time at 43.5%. Let me caution colleagues on this opportunistic representation of data and remind everyone how last year, the Minister of Finance said that this ratio had peaked and would not increase further. Those are words and promises without meaning or real intent. I think we know the answer to that choice.

Let us look at what is called a national accounts basis, as the rest of the world looks at these metrics. That is that there is only one gross domestic product and there are a number of government debts in Canada. If we add in each of the provinces, on top of the federal government's debt, we get a ratio that is higher than 95% on the ratio.

We also have to subtract out the funds that do not belong to the government that it likes to include in its calculation. That is the amount it subtracts from workers who have to set aside money for programs, such as the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan. I should point out that that is one of the costs to workers that is increasing substantially this year.

Canadians need to tell the government that these funds do not belong to the government. They belong to the people who have earned those pensions. The government should get them out of the calculations, trying to make its numbers more justifiable. These are not the Government of Canada's assets. They are being held in trust for Canadians at arm's-length organizations. The government has no recourse to these funds, or does it?

Does the government want to explain how it might have recourse to these funds, which Canadians think are sequestered for their retirement? I ask this question because the government went out of its way to freeze Canadians' bank accounts last year, and freezing earned benefits would pale in comparison to freezing a basic bank account, so someone could buy food and pay for their shelter in Canada.

In any event, for the financially literate, let us stop painting a rosier picture of reality. The government does not get to pick and choose which numbers it uses. Sustainable finance theories aside, and these are mock theories, the government does not get to pick and choose the numbers that affect people's lives. It should just be presented factually.

The irony is that the Liberal government presents a scenario in which provincial budget balances have collectively turned positive in 2022, and thus contributed to Canada's overall turnaround. Let us be clear. That is based on the surplus in one province, Alberta, and those revenues are predicated on world resource pricing of, yes, oil and gas, which the government scorns daily in the House.

As is said, comparing badly run jurisdictions in the world, Europe is a collection of poorly managed economies with no resource wealth, whereas Canada is a very poorly managed country with a backstop of significant resource wealth. It is very clear the country needs better management. We are in line for the job, and we are just waiting for the shareholders to fire this underperforming team.

I went through much of the budget presentation, and I noted a number of fictions that the government actually prints on government paper.

How is this? “The federal government’s fiscal anchor—reducing the federal debt-to-GDP ratio over the medium term—remains unchanged and is being met.” That is wrong. There is also this: “Even with higher borrowing costs, public debt charges as a share of the economy are projected to remain at historically low levels“. That is wrong, again.

The $44 billion in interest payments is up from $24 billion just two years ago, and a larger portion of the GDP than it had been in over 15 years. The government says these metrics are going in the right direction and hope that Canadians are not paying attention.

However, they are emulating themselves in the House of Commons by now putting nonsense on paper. Let us just keep spending and everything will balance itself.

How about this one? It says:

Budget 2023 proposes substantial measures as the next steps in the government's plan to “crowd-in” new private investment by leveraging public investment and government policy. The goal of this approach is not to substitute government for the private sector, nor supplant market-based decision making. It is to leverage the tools of government to mobilize the private sector.

No, it is not. That is fantasy. It is a false narrative based on giving taxpayer money to connected friends of the Liberal government.

We are giving foreign companies subsidies amounting to double the amount they are investing in this country to put Canadian taxpayer dollars in the pockets of foreign investors. That is how the Liberal government thinks it makes friends.

Who is laughing all the way to the bank? It is not Canadian taxpayers. It is not the $200 billion in project financing that was in line in Canada before the government created absolute market uncertainty.

What is not in this budget implementation bill? Anything to do with climate financing, just like last year. The budget speech indicated moving forward on climate initiatives, yet these exist nowhere in Bill C-47.

What is in this bill? A whole bunch of items that have nothing to do with the budget, including CEPA changes and jurisdictional oversteps. It is just tax, spend and divide. That is not the way to manage Canada's finances.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, like the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C-47, but for different reasons.

I hear my Conservative colleagues talk a lot about the carbon tax. They keep coming back to the same points. We in the Bloc Québécois are a bit like that. We keep coming back to the same points, specifically the fact that there is nothing for seniors, nothing for housing, nothing for EI reform.

I would like my colleague to comment on that last point. All stakeholders have been calling for this for years, and it is considered an urgent matter. That is how urgent it is, and yet there is nothing in this budget.

I think this is long overdue, and it actually looked like it was finally going to happen. Could my colleague share his thoughts?

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

Madam Speaker, I am curious because we are debating Bill C-47 tonight, which is not the budget but the budget implementation act. In terms of reading that piece of legislation, I can understand that speeches can wander off topic, but I did not hear anything of the topic in that speech. I am wondering what part of his speech the hon. member would refer me to in terms of the budget implementation act we are debating tonight.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise to speak on behalf of the people of northern Saskatchewan. Debates such as this on Bill C-47 are good opportunities for members of Parliament to bring their own unique backgrounds and perspectives to the House. As a former accountant and mayor, members can imagine that I have dealt with a few budgets and many numbers in my day. I want to spend the first few minutes tonight talking about a few of these numbers, some very big numbers.

In 2015, when the Liberals were first elected, Canada's national debt was $612 billion. This budget projects Canada's debt to be $1.22 trillion by next March, which is $81,000 per Canadian household, and it will reach $1.3 trillion by 2028. A simple fact is that the Prime Minister has accumulated more debt in eight years than all of Canada's previous prime ministers combined.

How did we get here? In 2015, the total expenditures of the government were $280 billion. This budget again calls for billions of dollars in new spending. The Prime Minister simply cannot help himself. This past year, total expenditures were $480 billion, and this budget projects to start at $497 billion and rise to $557 billion by 2027-28. That is an average of $526 billion in each of the next five years. That is also $246 billion per year or 88% greater than expenditures were in 2015.

If this is what the finance minister meant when she said, “we will review and reduce government spending, because that is the responsible thing to do”, I would hate to see what the irresponsible thing looks like.

I have a couple more numbers. Canada will have accumulated over $700 billion of new debt under the Prime Minister by 2028. As projected, the cost of interest on that debt will rise to over $50 billion per year. That is more than a 100% increase over 2021 and 2022, and it would then become about 10% of the total expenditures of the government. If I had run my accounting practice for the little City of Meadow Lake the way the Liberal government has run Canada's finances, I would have been out of business and run out of office.

Let us consider some promises made in 2015. First, the Liberal Party said it would run small deficits and return Canada's finances back to balance in 2019. I hate to break it to the members opposite, but not only did the Prime Minister overspend this promise by about $700 billion, but the budget was never balanced and there is no plan to ever balance it. It is no wonder that record numbers of Canadians no longer trust their government institutions.

Second, the finance minister talked a lot about the declining debt-to-GDP ratio. This was her fiscal anchor. She said, “This is a line we shall not cross. It will ensure that our finances remain sustainable.” That sounds like another promise. I hate to once again break it to colleagues opposite, but the debt-to-GDP ratio has risen every year since the government was first elected in 2015 and is projected to rise again in the coming year. When the Prime Minister and finance minister make promises about debt and deficits, forgive me if I do not hold my breath.

Sometimes one must invest in things to be successful, so it is important to measure what one gets in return for choosing debt and increasing spending. Let us consider the state of Canada after eight years of out-of-control Liberal spending and inflationary deficits. Food price inflation is at a 40-year high. Nearly half of Canadians feel they are less than $200 from insolvency. One in five Canadians is skipping meals to reduce the cost of food, and 1.5 million people used food banks in a single month. The average cost of housing, both to rent and purchase, has doubled since 2015. This is the record of the Liberal government and the measures it is proposing in budget 2023 will, in fact, make the situation worse for Canadians by pouring another $67 billion of new deficit spending fuel on the flames of inflation.

I am very proud of coming from northern Saskatchewan. I believe it is an area that is a very good benchmark to measure how Canada's economy is performing. It is a region that has many important sectors of our economy: mining, forestry, agriculture, oil and gas, tourism, etc. It is also home to a unique cross-section of communities and people, communities and people that, frankly, should be thriving. Instead, everywhere I visit when I go home, people speak about how frustrated and desperate they are with the current economic situation.

Municipalities are struggling. The cost of much-needed infrastructure projects has ballooned over the last few years. Whether it be upgrading a sewer line, building a recreation complex or improving a street, community leaders are being tasked to do more with less. The result is that not only do they have to do the heavy lifting for their people, but the conditions under which they are operating keep getting worse due to the economic policies of the NDP-Liberal coalition.

These same policies are negatively impacting small businesses in northern Saskatchewan. This winter, I was talking to a business owner. He supplies people living in remote and rural communities with home heating fuel. He described to me the difficult position he was in due to the rising cost of this home heating fuel. His customers were either being forced to buy very small amounts, or they were pleading with him to extend credit until they could pay. They were having to choose between feeding their families or living without heat in the middle of a northern Saskatchewan winter, and he was having to choose between possibly losing money or seeing these families live without heat. That is the choice that this small business owner was facing because of the NDP-Liberal coalition nightmare.

Small business owners are also continually telling me how the carbon tax disproportionately affects rural and remote areas like northern Saskatchewan. This is becoming a very serious situation for them. Not only are they dealing with a labour shortage crisis, but due to the rising carbon tax they are forced to increase prices. Now the costly coalition is adding a second carbon tax that will ultimately add 61¢ per litre to the cost of fuel.

Everything, everywhere in northern Saskatchewan must be trucked. There is no other option. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, this will cost the average household in Saskatchewan $2,840 per year. Increasing taxes at a time when people are struggling to get by is not a recipe for economic success. Is it any wonder that the people I talk to are fed up?

That anger can also be felt when I talk to farmers back home. The government members seem to forget that agriculture is the economic backbone of Canada. A stabilizing sector and one that provides the food we all rely on deserves better from its government. Let us imagine being the Minister of Agriculture in Canada and voting against Bill C-234, a bill that would give farmers carbon tax exemptions to produce the food we need. If the minister will not stand up at the cabinet table for farmers, who will?

Let us face it. When it comes to agriculture, these Liberals have become the living definition of biting the hand that feeds them. In a country that feeds the world, Canada is now a place where people cannot afford food. For many people in northern Saskatchewan who were already struggling with the increased cost of living, the skyrocketing price of food has become a crisis.

“This isn't working” are the words of a food bank chair from northern Saskatchewan, who adds, “Everything is increasing—gas, rent, food, heat.... I just don’t know how people are supposed to manage.” The food bank's monthly food budget is $5,000, and it now provides half the number of food hampers that it did just three years ago. The Liberals' mismanagement of the economy, assisted by their NDP enablers, has created conditions that directly harm the most vulnerable in our communities the most.

All of this is while the people from northern Saskatchewan and Canada have a Prime Minister who spends $6,000 a night on a hotel in London, but would not admit to it for months and still takes no responsibility; a Prime Minister who vacations in Jamaica at a luxurious estate of Trudeau Foundation donors; a Prime Minister who spends $8,000 a month on groceries; a Prime Minister who is embroiled in a foreign election interference scandal and uses Trudeau Foundation members and friends to investigate; a Prime Minister who named an interim Ethics Commissioner who is the sister-in-law to a cabinet minister, who is also a long-time family friend, to replace the former commissioner who grew so frustrated by the continued Liberal ethical lapses that he finally walked away. This is not leadership by any measure at any time in our history.

Budget 2023 is not an economic document. It is the political document of a government led by a Prime Minister who has chosen power over principle.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby on his speech. I have the pleasure of working with him on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and we appreciate the collaboration we have. I think we do. I do, at least.

Having said that, I want to talk a little bit about the content of Bill C-47 and the budget in general.

We heard from many witnesses from the arts community and the cultural industry in recent months and years. They were unanimous in saying that the cultural industry needs to be supported during the post-pandemic recovery. We actually discussed this with the minister last week in committee.

I would like to hear my NDP colleague's opinion on the fact that this budget does not include the money that the cultural industry specifically asked for to survive the post-pandemic recovery. What is more, the little bit of money that is being spent is not being used the way the industry wanted.

I would like my colleague to talk about that.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-47, the budget implementation act.

I will start off by condemning the incredibly childish behaviour of Conservative MPs over the course of the last few days. We have seen in the House unprecedented adolescent, juvenile behaviour. We certainly saw that last Friday. I raise that concern because Canadians need to know that what the Conservatives have been blocking are measures that are going to benefit their constituents. I find that surprising.

What have the Conservatives been blocking over the course of the last few days? They have been throwing paper in the air. They have been trying to pretend that they are having technical problems. They have been putting forward every single dilatory motion they can think of. The member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay was able to finally put forward the emergency debate motion, after eight hours of Conservatives blocking it. They were blocking an emergency debate on wildfires at a time when Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia are consumed by fire. Firefighters are working hard, communities are threatened and there have been massive economic losses, and the Conservatives have spent the whole day blocking that motion from coming forward. I am glad they were finally overcome by the weight of more rational members of Parliament, and we will have that debate on wildfires tonight.

However, the fact is that the Conservatives are so disconnected from reality that they blocked an emergency debate that is so important for paying credit to the firefighters fighting these fires and paying credit to the communities and volunteers trying to keep people alive and safe. They blocked that for the course of the entire day, and I am unbelievably disappointed with these pyromaniac gatekeepers. Finally, the NDP persevered, as we always do ultimately, and we are now going to have this debate.

The Conservatives would justify this by saying they are blocking programs the NDP wants to bring in, and that is true. There are programs the NDP, on behalf of Canadians, wants to bring in, so let us talk about what the impact of them would be in Conservative ridings.

There is the dental care plan that the the member for Burnaby South and the entire NDP caucus forced the government to bring in after decades of commitments from Liberal and Conservative governments that they always reneged on. The dental care plan means that people with disabilities, seniors and families with kids under the age of 18 will finally have access to dental care at the end of this year. That is what is in Bill C-47. This is what the Conservatives have been blocking for two days. It is access to dental care for thousands of their constituents. It is access to dental care for seniors in their ridings, 70-year-olds who have never had access to dental care because they could not afford to pay for it.

We know that dental care is expensive. However, the Conservative MPs stood resolutely against seniors finally having access to dental care after decades. They stood resolutely against people with disabilities. I find that particularly despicable, because we know that people with disabilities are the poorest of the poor. Half the people who go to food banks to make ends meet are people with disabilities. Half of the homeless in this country are people with disabilities.

I remember during the terrible years of the Harper regime how the Conservatives steamrolled over people with disabilities, steamrolled over seniors and forced the retirement age up so that people who had worked all their lives were forced to work longer. The disrespect shown by blocking dental care, to my mind, is inconceivable.

As members know, in the recent Alberta election, the NDP swept all of Edmonton, every single riding at the provincial level, and took most of the ridings in Calgary. If I were a Conservative MP from Edmonton or Calgary, I would read the room and think, “What we are doing with the kind of mean-spirited approach we have, where we try to deny people services that can make a difference, is obviously something that people in Edmonton and Calgary have turned their backs on.”

If I was an Edmonton MP or a Calgary MP for the Conservative Party, I would think twice about doing what they have done over the last two days, which is deny basic dental care to those seniors, people with disabilities and all families that have youth 18 and under. It is not just that; the Conservatives also denied the grocery rebate. As for the average benefit to a Conservative MP's constituency, about 11,000 Canadians living in each of those ridings would benefit from that grocery rebate: $500 extra to put food on the table at a time when people are struggling.

The member for Carleton, who is the head pyromaniac gatekeeper, is saying he does not want that money to go to those 11,000 people in his constituency, and I guess other Conservative MPs are saying the same thing, that in their constituencies, they do not want those 11,000 Canadians, who are struggling to make ends meet and who have lower incomes, to get the grocery rebate. Why would they be so mean-spirited? Why would they be so entitled to deny those constituents the benefits they have? I ask, because the Conservatives have access to a dental care plan as MPs, and they have access to a good salary as MPs, but they would deny that to, on average, 11,000 constituents in their ridings. To my mind, it is unbelievable.

Then, of course there is the other element that the NDP succeeded in forcing the government to do, which is on affordable housing. The urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy financing is so vitally important. Affordable housing is finally being built. Finally, we are getting to the point where we are starting to address the housing crisis in a meaningful way. The member for Carleton likes to talk a good game. He says, rightly, that the cost of housing has doubled under the Liberal government. What he neglects to say is that it also doubled under the terrible Harper regime, one of the most corrupt governments in our history and one of the most mean-spirited governments in our history. It was an unbelievably incompetent government. It could not manage finances. It could not fight its way out of a paper bag, and all of the other things—

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech.

One of the things he spoke to was employment insurance. I know that the topic is important to him. I would like to hear him speak about the environment as well.

Bill C‑47 is very short on environmental proposals, to put it mildly. In fact, it lets the oil companies use taxpayer money that they do not really need to invest in solutions that do not really work.

I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on that subject.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, introduced by the government.

The budget is a key exercise in our democracy. It is the time when the government decides how and where it will spend the hundreds of billions of dollars that it controls. The government does not pull all this money out of thin air. Each of these dollars comes directly out of the pockets of individuals from the four corners of Quebec and Canada who worked hard to earn that money. That is why the government has a duty to use that money responsibly and reasonably. Most of all, it has to spend so as to meet the needs and priorities of the public—because, again, it is our money.

The government can also use the budget to implement its vision for society, the vision it has for the future. We saw that in Quebec with the construction of hydroelectric dams, which continue to make the Quebec nation an ambitious, visionary and decidedly green nation. I will say, however, that if we want to find a vision of the future, then we need to look somewhere other than this Liberal budget.

If we take a close look at the budget, we see that the government's priority is more about saving its faltering marriage to the NDP than meeting the needs of Quebeckers and Canadians. While the Prime Minister plays political games and uses the treasury as his personal piggy bank to stay in power, everybody else is tightening their belts and wondering how they will pay their mortgage.

We are talking about inflation, recession, the economic slowdown and skyrocketing interest rates, but the government has not seen fit to implement preventive measures to prepare the economy for the possibility of rough times ahead in the coming months and years. This government is completely out of touch with the economic situation and its day-to-day impact on the lives of real people. Since these ministers are chauffeured around and do not often take the time to look beyond Ottawa and the greater Toronto area, I will use the rest of my time to explain what is happening in areas such as mine, the Lower St. Lawrence, and how their inaction is making life difficult.

The first urgent issue is housing. It is not complicated. There is virtually nothing available on the market in my region. According to the most recent data from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, the vacancy rate in Rimouski is 0.4% this year compared to 0.2% last year. That is a slight improvement, but it is nothing to write home about. To give members an idea, a healthy real estate market usually has a vacancy rate of about 3%. We are nowhere near finding a balance between the current vacancy rate of 0.4% and the average of 3%.

That imbalance is having unprecedented consequences for my region. I held a housing summit in my riding in March to better understand and identify those consequences. Here are some of the things that the organizations and people on the ground shared with me. There is no longer any such thing as affordable housing. The housing units that are available are unaffordable or not fit to live in. Requests for emergency assistance have tripled since the beginning of the pandemic. Obviously, there are not enough resources to help all of those people and many are being left to fend for themselves. Emergency shelters, particularly in Rimouski and the surrounding areas, are full to overflowing. It is unprecedented. People were homeless in Rimouski in the middle of winter. Spending the night outside in the Lower St. Lawrence area in the middle of winter is far from pleasant.

I have heard some extremely disturbing stories. Students looking for housing are being approached by older men offering to put them up in exchange for services. That is completely unacceptable. Staff at addiction treatment centres have even told me that people cannot leave their facilities because there is nowhere go.

Given all the precariousness and the distress people are feeling, one might think the government would have made it a priority to tackle the housing crisis, but no. The Liberals have completely dropped the ball. There is nothing at all for housing in the latest budget—zero, nada, niet, not one penny.

The government members are patting themselves on the back and quoting data from the 2022 budget. It is unbelievable. How can this be happening? A crisis is going on, but no investment is being made to find solutions that could end it. The disconnect is staggering.

However, the demands of the Bloc Québécois and community organizations were fairly clear and specific. For instance, the government was asked to permanently renew the rapid housing initiative and to increase the rent supplement transfer.

The need to speed up the transfer of funds between governments was also discussed. With each day that the federal government holds on to funds instead of passing them on to Quebec to send where they are needed, construction costs keep rising and our students, families and seniors keep growing poorer. How much longer do we have to wait for action? Urgent action is needed now to resolve the housing crisis.

Another area where we hoped the government would deliver on expectations is employment insurance. This issue has been a topic of discussion for a long time. When the Liberal government came to power in 2015, it was one of their election promises. When it came back to power in 2019, it did not keep its promise then either. In 2021, it made the same promise again. We were told that consultations were being held to find out what was going on, but they know what is going on. They know the problems and they know the solutions. What is missing is the will to act, the action.

I have not forgotten the Liberal promise of 2015, and I can say that the rights groups advocating for the unemployed have not forgotten it either. The unemployed men and women who are waiting for the government to deliver real reform have definitely not forgotten it.

Currently, six in 10 workers who pay into employment insurance are not eligible for it because the eligibility criteria no longer reflect the reality of the labour market in 2023. These are not people who hope and pray for an unemployment cheque, they are people who pay into the fund. It is not complicated: this program was set up many years ago and has not been updated. There has been no reform. Naturally, it no longer reflects reality. I hope that the government will take action on this for once and for all.

As mentioned, on reading budget 2023, we learn that the government is not planning for any reform before 2030. The Liberals promised reform in 2015. During the 2019 election, they said they would do it.

In 2021, they called an early election. We all remember what a good idea it was to change government and call an election in 2021. What is more, they did it in the middle of the pandemic, when they were telling people to wear their mask and maintain social distancing. Then the government and its Prime Minister, the member for Papineau, went out and took photos with babies. They acted like the pandemic was over because they wanted to win the election. They did not want to change things for people. They wanted to return with a majority government. It is not easy to be in a minority government.

Every day, this government shows us that it does not care one iota about democracy. We know that it entered into an alliance with the NDP, which has been doing its bidding for some time. This is not new. The NDP also serves the government by supporting its gag orders. There have already been a dozen gag orders since the government and the NDP, which calls itself the New Democratic Party, struck a deal.

Let us come back to the budget. My colleagues will understand that it is quite difficult to just go along with it. I hope that the people listening to us at home will realize what is happening in this democracy. It is now operating under multiple closure motions to allow the government or an opposition party to save face. That is what we are currently putting up with in a G7 country.

I will repeat that six out of 10 workers who pay into EI are unable to access it. In the Lower St. Lawrence area, back home, seasonal work is a large part of the economic activity and the lives of workers. A strong EI system would help build solid regions and ensure that people keep living in our regions and do not leave.

The EI reform is urgent. It is part of the support measures that are necessary for seasonal work, which is an economic driver in our regions. I am thinking mainly of tourism, agriculture and the fishery. We can discuss that.

All of these sectors rely on seasonal activities. It is not because people do not want to work in certain seasons. Potatoes cannot be planted in the middle of winter. Some government ministers do not seem to grasp how it works. People are still wondering about this in 2023.

Another issue I absolutely must address has to do with seniors, specifically the inequity suffered by people aged 65 to 75 who are not getting an increase in their OAS benefits. The government is completely out to lunch on this. It is yet another broken election promise. I hope the government will do something once and for all.

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

Madam Speaker, we recently learned that the government has agreed to lend an additional $3 billion to Trans Mountain. Meanwhile, we have learned that the government took $2 billion from the employment insurance fund.

My colleague opposite talks about forest fires as though Bill C-47 is going to somehow contribute to Canada's fight against climate change. He says one thing, but his government does the opposite. How does he explain that?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on another note, I would like to talk a bit about the monarchy with my colleague. The monarchy is a subject that the Bloc Québécois is particularly fond of talking about.

As members know, the Liberals included the recognition of Charles III as Canada's sovereign in Bill C-47, which we find a bit far-fetched in such a bill.

However, the Bloc Québécois still wanted to give the Liberals the benefit of the doubt. Since it is only fitting, and generally proper procedure, we asked that Charles III be invited to appear before the Standing Committee on Finance so that we can assess his skills. That seems fundamental to me.

We asked Rideau Hall if it was possible to invite him. We were told to ask Buckingham Palace, which we did. Buckingham Palace told us that we had to send a request in writing on fine paper, no less. They are fancy at Buckingham Palace. Obviously, it was a lost cause. Charles III will not appear before the Standing Committee on Finance as we would have liked.

The Conservatives are proposing to remove clause 510, which proclaims Charles III as Canada's sovereign. I think that is worthwhile, and I would really like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Bill C-47—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the following: report stage and third reading of Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

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

Carbon Pricing

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Fredericton for that excellent question.

After more than 28 hours of delay caused by the Conservatives, the Standing Committee on Finance was finally able to refer Bill C‑47 back to the House. This bill will allow us to move quickly on getting out the Canada workers benefit, improving the registered education savings plan and reducing the tax burden for merchants by reducing their credit card fees.

I ask the Conservatives to stop their ridiculous politicking and get this bill passed.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There are 904 motions and amendments standing on the notice for the report stage of Bill C-47. I will get to the points of order after I am finished.

Motions Nos. 690 and 750 will not be selected by the Chair because they could have been presented in committee. Motions Nos. 456 to 683 will not be selected by the Chair because they are repetitive and could have been presented in committee.

All remaining motions have been examined, and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.

Motions Nos. 1 to 455, 684 to 689, 691 to 749, and 751 to 904 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 455, 684 to 689, 691 to 749 and 751 to 904 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Request to Consider Motions in Amendment—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I will now turn to the points raised by the member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

The member indicated that the programming motion adopted by the committee for Bill C-47 had prevented the moving of amendments during the clause-by-clause study of the bill. For that reason, he asked that his motions now be selected at report stage. The member for Northumberland—Peterborough South echoed the same concerns, adding that rulings made by the chair of the committee had prevented members from moving new proposals to the bill.

As stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at pages 787 and 788:

...the Speaker could, if he or she thinks fit, call upon any Member who has given notice of an amendment to explain it so as to enable the Speaker to form a judgment upon it, but in practice, Members would send a written submission to the Speaker if there were any doubt as to the selection of their amendments for debate.

I would like to stress the latter part of this sentence. This important practice was also mentioned by the Assistant Deputy Speaker when she addressed the point of order on Friday.

If members wish to assist the Speaker in his deliberations, they are strongly encouraged to bring their arguments for the selection of their report stage motions by way of a written submission when they place them on notice. They can nonetheless rest assured that all report stage motions are always carefully analyzed by the Speaker, even if they are not accompanied by written submissions. The Speaker makes his determination after a thorough analysis of the committee’s consideration of a bill, precedents and guidance provided by the Standing Orders. This includes considering whether or not motions could have been presented in committee.

As per usual practice, the Speaker’s rationale for the selection of motions for Bill C-47 will be provided to the House when it is called for consideration at report stage.

Alleged Breach of Privilege at Committee—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The Chair will begin by addressing the concerns raised by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, before turning to the question of selection and grouping of report stage motions.

In his intervention, the member claimed that his privileges were breached during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by the Standing Committee on Finance. His concerns centred on the contention that his right to vote, to move subamendments, to speak and raise points of order were unfairly limited by the committee chair. He argued that Standing Order 116(2)(a) had not been respected. Furthermore, the member alleged that the scheduling of the bill last Friday by the government had limited his ability to have report stage motions drafted and submitted in time for publication in the Notice Paper.

Standing Order 116(2)(a) makes clear that a committee can set time limits in relation to its own proceedings. The standing order reads:

Unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House, the Chair of a standing, special or legislative, committee may not bring a debate to an end while there are members present who still wish to participate.

This also applies during the consideration of legislation.

It is an established practice that a committee can adopt its own orders, set its own deadlines to submit amendments or limit debate during its clause-by-clause consideration of bills. This appears to be what occurred in this case, where the committee adopted a motion to restrict the time for considering Bill C-47. Given that the committee made such a decision, as the Standing Orders allow, I do not believe that the Speaker has any cause to invalidate its proceedings nor to consider them a breach of privilege.

As to the other matters raised by the member, Speakers generally will not address procedural concerns from committees without first having a report outlining what procedural irregularities may have occurred. This was stated by the Assistant Deputy Speaker on Friday and I too see no reason to deviate from this well-established practice in this case.

As to the contention that the scheduling of the bill for consideration in the House last Friday limited members’ ability to submit report stage amendments, I would refer members to Standing Order 76.1(1), and I quote:

The report stage of any bill reported by any standing, special or legislative committee after the bill has been read a second time shall not be taken into consideration prior to the second sitting day following the presentation of the said report, unless otherwise ordered by the House.

The report in question was presented on Wednesday, May 31, 2023. It could therefore be called for debate as early as Friday, June 2, 2023.

This two-sitting imperative, combined with the 24-hour notice requirement to submit report stage motions, is standard and usually provides enough time to have motions drafted and submitted.

As such, members who wish to receive support in the drafting of report stage motions should contact the capable staff in the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel as soon as possible with clear drafting instructions. If members wait to see when the bill will be called, they run the risk of not having their motions drafted in time.

For all these reasons, the Chair fails to see how the rights and privileges of the member were breached.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The Chair would like to comment on the points of order raised on Friday, June 2 by the members for Calgary Forest Lawn and Northumberland—Peterborough South, as well as rule on the question of privilege raised by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan regarding proceedings on Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

The various concerns raised touch upon the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by the Standing Committee on Finance, and how it should inform the selection and grouping of report stage motions by the Speaker. The Chair would also like to address the events surrounding electronic voting during the recorded division held on Friday.

Alleged Breach of Privilege at Committee

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, just to clarify, I was conceptually grouping the violations of privilege that had happened at committee. I think there were a number of violations of privilege that happened at committee.

The second issue, and this was raised as a question of privilege at committee, does touch on 116(2)(b), and that is the right of members to be able to vote. It is the right of members to be able to raise subamendments that was limited, which is a matter of privilege of members. It was the right of members, as well, to be able to vote at committee.

I remember the time this happened because the points of order were in relation to the finance committee continuing to sit during Question Period. At 3:15 p.m. on Tuesday, members were trying to raise points of order with respect to the fact that the finance committee was continuing during Question Period. While members were raising those points of order, the chair, in spite of that, proceeded pushing through to have votes take place, which a number of members were not able to participate in.

This was raised at the time as a violation of the privileges of members, and it has obviously materially impacted the bill that is before the House. This is also an issue of privilege, the rights of members to vote on something as critical as the budget implementation bill was limited by the process that unfolded at committee. This is a matter that should be of grave concern to all members.

I would just say as well that the subamendments that we wished to raise were substantive and were in fact submitted to the clerk in advance. Admittedly, they were not submitted in time for the deadline for the submission of amendments, which was Friday, May 19, however, they were submitted in advance of the consideration of those amendments. It would be impossible to submit subamendments to amendments unless those amendments had already been seen.

There would be no way to submit subamendments and get those subamendments in time for the amendment deadline, because members obviously have to be able to see the amendments in order to be able to then move the subamendments.

There were a limited number of subamendments that were emailed to the clerk. Many of them were emailed in both official languages. The clerk had them. They could have been moved. They should have been moved. It would have been a matter of privilege for members to be able to move those subamendments. They were prevented from doing so by a ruling of the chair. That ruling was challenged, but a majority of the committee did not choose to uphold the privileges of members.

It is in those circumstances, the right to move subamendments and the right to be able to vote, that I have raised this question of privilege in the House.

There is one very distinct issue of privilege, as well, that is important to raise, because it deals with what happened after the committee, that is with the process for being able to move report stage amendments and the process for being able to bring those report stage amendments to the House.

There are various services available to members in the drafting of amendments, the drafting of subamendments and the drafting of report stage amendments. These services are particularly important for members of the opposition. The reality is members of the government, when it comes to drafting amendments, subamendments and report stage amendments, have resources available to them that are associated with being in government that members of the opposition do not have available to them.

It is important for members of the opposition, especially, to be able to access those resources in a timely way that corresponds to the calendar of being able to bring these issues before the House. The right of members to be able to do that in a timely fashion depends on the ability of members to receive support from the House in order to be able to bring those things forward.

I became aware, yesterday afternoon, of a last-minute change in the schedule. This was in response to the Thursday question, after Question Period, moved by the Associate Minister of Finance, when he told the House that Bill C-47 would be brought forward to debate. He said tomorrow, which is today, Friday. At the time, I immediately sent my draft of the subamendments that I had wanted to move at committee, that I would like to move at report stage.

My view is that, given that they could not be moved in committee as a result of the ruling of the chair that subamendments could not be moved, they could then be moved in the House as report stage amendments.

Therefore, I sought the assistance of the appropriate legislative staff in preparing those subamendments and I immediately sent those in following the Thursday question, at which point we were provided information saying, where we thought we would have a bit more time, that this was required immediately.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

—filibustering when we should be debating Bill C-47.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is precisely what I intend to do. The member across the way is heckling and asking what the matter of privilege is. Again, I invite him to listen, and I think he will appreciate the point.

I also want to identify, as I said earlier, that there are at least three separate ways in which the privileges of members were impacted by the proceedings on Bill C-47. I will be appropriately brief, but I want to identify all three areas where I think there was an infringement of privilege.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to raise a question of privilege in relation to a number of issues respecting the process on Bill C-47 that I believe violate the privileges of members. I will identify at least three distinct situations, or areas, where the privilege of members of Parliament, in my view, was violated in the process of disposing of this bill. I will begin with just a few relevant references to contextualize this.

The discussion of privilege in Bosc and Gagnon, at page 57, reads:

It also refers to the powers possessed by the House to protect itself, its Members and its procedures from undue interference so that it can effectively carry out its principal functions which are to legislate, deliberate and hold the government to account. In that sense, parliamentary privilege can be viewed as the independence Parliament and its Members need to function unimpeded.

At page 59, it states, “The House has the authority to assert privilege where its ability has been obstructed in the execution of its functions or where Members have been obstructed in the performance of their duties.”

Page 60, meanwhile, elaborates on the concept of contempt, saying:

Any conduct which offends the authority or dignity of the House, even though no breach of any specific privilege may have been committed, is referred to as a contempt of the House. Contempt may be an act or an omission. It does not have to actually obstruct or impede the House or a Member; it merely has to have the tendency to produce such results.

Then, at page 81 of the third edition, House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, “There are...other affronts against—”

Request to Consider Motions in Amendment

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order before you make your decision on how to group report stage motions on Bill C-47, budget implementation act 2023, no. 1.

Before I get to the specifics of my request, let me say at the outset of my appeal to the Chair how disappointing it is that the debate on the budget has been shut down at every stage of the legislative process so far. In its rush, the government has, perhaps inadvertently, limited the ability of the finance committee to properly consider amendments, which may impact your decision in determining how to group motions for the debate at report stage and which substantive motions will be allowed to stand.

To remind the Chair, the budget tabled in the House on March 28—

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

Madam Speaker, the problems first began when the minister of finance refused to appear for two hours. It is a long-standing practice that ministers of the Crown appear at committees and answer basic questions about the business of government, especially when they are dropping a $60-billion fuel onto the inflation fire they started.

I acknowledge that there are several ministers who do appear regularly at committees; however, the minister of finance had refused three separate invitations to appear, before her last-minute appearance on May 16, which is an important piece to this issue before the House today. Had she committed in writing to appearing for two hours, the events that unfolded at the Standing Committee on Finance would not have happened. It is because of the minister's refusal to appear that the normal business of the finance committee during its study of a budget bill were unable to occur, and that, instead, a closure motion was adopted, leaving little opportunity for committee members to submit amendments to Bill C-47.

I now rise in this place to ask you, Madam Speaker, to allow these amendments to continue forward as part of report stage on Bill C-47 as I believe they are within the national interest and would enhance the legislation.

To make clear which amendments I am referencing, the first one is report stage amendment reference 12475209, which proposes to amend clause—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do think it is material to the requirements here that the government made a last-minute change to the schedule with respect to the calling of Bill C-47. Members became aware of it for the first time in the Thursday question, which was very late in the day yesterday.

I understand that it is common for members to write to the Speaker in advance, and that is ideal, but it is ideal under circumstances in which members have sufficient time. As I am going to raise in a question of privilege shortly, there was a mad scramble, which limited the rights of members in terms of submitting amendments. Therefore, some degree of recognition of that fact is important in this case, in light of the fact that the government is trying to limit the ability of members to move amendments and make arguments by these last-minute changes to the schedule. I hope that is part of the consideration as well.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I have had the honour to share with our very dear colleagues in the House the message concerning the Thursday question. I am very pleased to answer my colleague.

As members know, Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, was reported from committee yesterday, so we will call it for the final stages of debate starting tomorrow and then continue early next week on Monday and Tuesday.

We will also give priority to Bill C-40, the miscarriage of justice review commission act, also known as David and Joyce Milgaard's law; Bill C-48, bail reform; and Bill C-41, humanitarian assistance.

Finally, I would like to inform the House that next Thursday will be an opposition day.

[Annette Ryan]

I appreciate the question.

From a FINTRAC perspective, I would say that what we appreciate from Parliament is essentially a set of interlocking authorities that let us work with our partners. Specifically, Parliament established FINTRAC just over 20 years ago to have a role in terms of sharing information in respect of money laundering, terrorist financing and threats to national security.

What our colleagues at Finance have put before the House in Bill C-47 includes strengthening that mandate to allow our regulated reporting entities to report to FINTRAC directly in respect of sanctions, sanctions evasion and property related to sanctions. This will help us to work with our partners. Those authorities are also before the House, and we appreciate it.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

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

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to contribute to today's debate.

As our allies worldwide are moving forward with measures to make their economies greener and cleaner, it is really unfortunate to see that some of our hon. colleagues still do not understand the benefits of our approach. They like saying that our pollution pricing system is making people poorer, chumming the water with hyperinflated misinformation based on the worst-case scenarios of a future where we do nothing to combat climate change.

The truth is, in fact, that today, right now, pollution pricing is putting more money back in the pockets of Canadian households. In 2022-23, through the climate action incentive payments, an average family of four received $745 in Ontario, $832 in Manitoba, $1,101 in Saskatchewan and $1,079 in Alberta. In addition, those living in rural and small communities received an extra 10%.

Clearly, it appears that my colleagues from the official opposition would prefer that we just wait and take no action to address climate change. They would prefer that Canadian households just keep riding the roller coaster of international oil prices, while the cost to our environment, our health and our communities from climate change just keeps adding up. This is by no means a viable option for our country.

At the end of March, our government released budget 2023, our made-in-Canada plan for a strong middle class, an affordable economy and a healthy future. It comes at an important moment for our country.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. He is a proud Quebecker, who I am sure will share his important perspective.

To go back to my remarks, I will begin by speaking about the state of the Canadian economy today. Last year, Canada delivered the strongest economic growth in the G7, and our economic growth was stronger than expected in the first quarter of this year; I think it was 3% or 4%. There are 900,000 more Canadians working today than there were when COVID first hit. Our unemployment rate is just 5%, and it has remained near a record low for five months in a row. We have recovered 129% of the jobs lost to COVID, compared with just 115% in the United States.

Inflation was 4.4% in April, down from a peak of 8.1% last June, and the Bank of Canada predicts that inflation will drop to just 2.5% by the end of this year. Even with a slowing economy driven by elevated interest rates in Canada and around the world, our deficit is projected to be lower than it was last year, down to just 1.4% of the GDP. Our deficit and our net-to-GDP ratio are the lowest in the G7 and lower than those of other large AAA-rated economies, such as Australia and the Netherlands.

This strong economic foundation underpinned the budget our government released in March. Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, is currently at committee stage. It would implement many of the key measures outlined in our budget, including new targeted investments to make life more affordable for Canadians.

As I mentioned earlier, in Canada, inflation has come down significantly from its peak of 8.1% in June. However, we all know that it is still too high, and it is still making it difficult for many Canadians to make ends meet and put food on the table. Groceries are more expensive today, and for many people, higher prices on other essential goods are causing undue stress. That is why budget 2023 announced new targeted inflation relief to help support the most vulnerable Canadians with the cost of living. This includes the introduction of a one-time grocery rebate, providing $2.5 billion in targeted inflation relief for 11 million low- and modest-income Canadian families.

I am pleased to say that, with royal assent to Bill C-46, the grocery rebate will be delivered to eligible Canadians on July 5, 2023, by direct deposit or cheque through the Canada Revenue Agency. This means that eligible couples with two children will receive an extra $467, single Canadians without children up to an extra $234 and seniors an extra $225 on average. However, the Conservatives voted against every one of these measures. This is much-needed inflation relief that will be in the pockets of Canadians in just over a month. This is just one of example of a suite of measures announced in budget 2023 to help make life more affordable.

As another example, to support hard-working small business owners, budget 2023 outlined the government's efforts to work closely with small businesses and the payment card industry to lower these fees. Another important measure in the budget includes working with regulatory agencies, provinces and territories to reduce junk fees for Canadians. The budget also takes action to crack down on predatory lending. Predatory lenders can take advantage of some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, including low-income Canadians, newcomers and seniors, often by extending very high interest rates. With budget 2023, our government is taking action by proposing to lower the criminal rate of interest from the equivalent of an annual percentage rate of 47% to 35% and imposing a cap on payday loans.

Budget 2023 announced that the federal government will increase the number of Canadians eligible for File my Return to two million people by 2025, almost triple the current number. Budget 2023 also announced that, starting next year, the CRA will pilot a new automatic filing system. This will help vulnerable Canadians who do not currently file their taxes to receive the benefits to which they are rightly entitled.

The government knows that the higher cost of living means that students still need support to afford an education and pursue their dreams. Budget 2023 also proposed enhanced support for students for the 2023 school year. This included increasing Canada student grants by 40%, providing up to $4,200 for full-time students, raising the interest-free Canada student loan limit from $210 to $300 per week of study, and waiving the requirement for mature students aged 22 years or older to undergo credit screening in order to qualify for federal student grants and loans for the first time.

The members opposite like to make up big-cost numbers for the year 2030 and pull them forward as though they are happening right now, all the while ignoring the real damage that climate change is inflicting in our communities, whether it is through fires, floods, coastal erosion or storm damage. Meanwhile, we are helping people in the here and now in budget 2023, with measures that build on significant investments our government has made since 2015 to support Canadians and make life more affordable. These measures include reducing fees for regulated child care by 50% on average, to deliver regulated child care that costs an average of just $10 a day by 2026; increasing old age security benefits for seniors aged 75 and older by 10%; supporting about 3.5 million families annually through the tax-free Canada child benefit; enhancing the Canada workers benefit for our lowest-paid and often most essential workers to support up to 4.2 million Canadians annually; and permanently eliminating interest on Canada student loans.

In conclusion, making life more affordable for Canadians has been a priority for our government since 2015, and it remains a priority. As I have outlined, budget 2023 builds on key investments from our government throughout the years, as we continue to make targeted and responsible investments to build a stronger economic future for all Canadians. As with previous inflation relief, this new support has been carefully designed to have the biggest impact on those that need it most and, at the same time, to avoid exacerbating inflation.

National Strategy for Eye Care Act

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-284. As my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou said so brilliantly earlier, the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of this bill.

I see no reason why we would oppose a national strategy to support the prevention and treatment of eye diseases, just as I see no reason why we would oppose an age-related macular degeneration awareness month.

The Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of this bill because, and I mean no offence, it is, in my view, an apple pie bill. Indeed, no one could oppose such a strategy, especially since the health services outlined in the bill—as we will perhaps see when it is studied in committee—are more the responsibility of the federal government. Research funding and the approval of certain drugs and medical devices fall under federal jurisdiction. I do not see any problems with jurisdiction either, but we do reserve the right to take a closer look at the ins and outs of this bill in committee.

What concerns me a bit more about having a better strategy to support the prevention and treatment of eye disease is how to do it. A strategy is fine, but it needs to be accompanied by action. That is what I want to focus on as I discuss this topic.

The essential point here is that there is still a lot of work to be done. The work to improve the eye health of Quebecers and Canadians will require more services. For me, first and foremost, the best solution for more services is to have coverage under the Régie de l’assurance-maladie du Québec, which means an increase in health transfers. If we want better services, we need more resources.

Let us look, for example, at new treatments like the Luxturna gene therapy, a treatment that makes it possible to treat Leber congenital amaurosis. That is a significant and very costly illness, with just one treatment costing $1 million. That is an enormous cost.

In that regard, on March 23, the federal government announced $1.3 billion over three years to help the provinces cover those treatment costs. We know that gene therapies are treatments that herald small revolutions in medicine and health, but they are very costly treatments. If the past is any indication, we know that the federal government is not always there for health funding.

Now it is clear where I am going. The best way to have the best health care and to fight against eye disease is to combat one of the problems that plague the Canadian federation: I am talking about the fiscal imbalance. I would note that, last week, the mischievous member for Mirabel held a symposium here in Ottawa on the fiscal imbalance to study the phenomenon in depth. It was a non-partisan symposium attended by the Parliamentary Budget Officer—I do not think the Parliamentary Budget Officer is partisan—and Mr. Benoît Pelletier, a former Liberal minister from Quebec, who is not a Bloc supporter, but who came to speak to us about the fiscal imbalance.

Why am I talking about the fiscal imbalance? It is to remind members of the demands made by Quebec and the provinces on health care funding. Quebec and the provinces estimated their health funding shortfall at $28 billion per year. The goal was to increase Ottawa’s health transfers from 22% to 35%.

What did the federal government offer? Members will recall that it was far less than $28 billion. What the federal government offered was $4.16 billion. The difference between the provinces' demand for $28 billion and the federal offer of $4.6 billion is not just about money. The difference between the two means that vision care will never be provided for lack of resources. There is no doubt about that.

For example, in Quebec, year after year, health resources generally represent approximately 42% of Quebec's total budget. That means that there is 58% left for all of the government's other responsibilities such as education, fighting poverty, child care—Quebec was a pioneer in this field, as it created the child care model—infrastructure, roads, public transportation and bridges. There is 58% left for that, for funding municipalities and also for supporting Quebec businesses. If we wait for the federal government to support Quebec businesses, we will be waiting a long time, as we saw again with the announcement that Volkswagen is building in Ontario. Therefore, 42% of the Quebec government's budget goes directly to health care. That considerably reduces its budgetary margin. That is known as the fiscal imbalance.

I can give a very simple definition. It is a definition that everyone agrees on, the definition from the Séguin report. I am talking here about Yves Séguin, the former Liberal minister, not the guy who had a goat. Yves Séguin said that the provinces' spending structure is such that expenditures grow faster than the economy, while those of the federal government grow at roughly the same pace. Furthermore, when the federal government wants to adjust its spending, it can just unilaterally cut transfers to the provinces, without any political fallout.

That is the fiscal imbalance rule.

That means that the federal government can make promises like it did in March when it said that it was going to inject $1.3 billion over three years to help the provinces with new gene therapy treatments. However, nothing prevents the government from eliminating that funding down the road. In so doing, the government strangles the provinces and the provinces are then stuck having to deliver services that they do not necessarily have the funding for. That is completely objective, ideologically neutral information. Take, for example, the Conference Board, which published a report showing that the Canadian federation is not viable in the long term and that the provincial economies are not viable in the Canadian federation, given the fiscal imbalance. That is also a recurring theme in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's reports, which document how the fiscal imbalance is wreaking havoc, particularly when it comes to health care.

I am saying all of this because, if we want a strategy that will really give us a robust health care system that can provide treatment for eye disease, then the we need more funding for health care.

I want to make my colleagues aware of something that happened this week.

On Tuesday, Liberal and NDP members once again joined forces to remove an additional $2 billion for health care from Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023. The NDP and Liberals got together to ensure that $2 billion was cut from health care funding. The Liberal-NDP coalition had an opportunity to partially correct the federal government's lack of investment in health care and to take concrete action, which is what people are calling for, to relieve the overburdened and exhausted health care system. They also had an opportunity to offer treatments for eye diseases that met Quebeckers' expectations, but they decided otherwise. All they have managed to do is disappoint people.

Liberal and NDP members voted in favour of an amendment to remove $2 billion in additional health provisions for Quebec and the provinces when Bill C-47 was studied in committee. The amendment was proposed by the Liberal Party and removes additional support for health care in Quebec.

I think we should forget all the fine words and promises made by Liberal and NDP members who claim to be concerned about the state of our health care system. Indeed, when it comes time to invest more, they are nowhere to be found. Worse, they are actually cutting billions of dollars from health care, even when those billions were invested unintentionally.

I repeat, the best way to have better eye care is to have a robust health care system and health care funding that lives up to the expectations of Quebeckers and Canadians.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'll use my time to respond to a few questions.

I'd like to draw colleagues' attention to the instructions given by the House to this committee on the review of the bill, based on a motion that was passed in terms of how this committee should be reviewing the bill. I think this is important for people who are watching.

The motion, which was voted on in the House of Commons, and that I voted against but others voted for, was that.... I'm sorry. This is the motion that was passed here, but then there was a subsequent reflective motion in the House. It is:

...that the committee recommends to the House that it be granted the power during its consideration of Bill S-245, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians) to expand the scope of the Bill such that the provisions of the bill be not limited to an application to retain his or her citizenship under section 8 as it is read before April 17, 2009.

I just want to be clear with colleagues, and I want to reiterate arguments that I made earlier. The Standing Orders and rules and procedures regarding the review of bills typically are that amendments are focused on the very narrow substance that is included within the bill as presented before our committee. What this committee—and then subsequently the House—decided to do was to expand the scope explicitly to go beyond those provisions.

My colleague Ms. Kwan argued that this wasn't in scope, but it is in scope. This amendment is in scope.

Essentially, that's what she was intimating, and also that it didn't have anything to do with the bill, but what we are now looking at, for people who are watching, is that what happened here was rather than the government introducing.... They even could have put it in the budget implementation act, frankly, if they had wanted to. Instead, the government.... I'm guessing what happened is that part of the NDP-Liberal coalition deal was that they made a bit of a behind-the-scenes deal on what needed to go into this private member's bill, which was very narrow in scope.

Again, just to reiterate, my understanding from Senator Martin is that this was expedited through the Senate with all-party consensus so the bill could go through. My understanding is that stakeholders were, like, “yes, let's keep it narrow and to the point so it can go through”, but what happened here was that, when whatever deal was made to assuage whoever, the subsequent motion on how this bill would be disposed of was passed before this committee and the scope was opened up.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander, and since we have now increased the scope of the bill, we all have the right and, frankly, the obligation and duty to follow the terms of that motion, which is what this amendment does. It is completely acceptable. It deals with the matter at hand and I am following the order presented to this committee.

I want to be clear that many of us, when we were deliberating on this particular motion, made the point that we should be carrying forward in the spirit of non-partisanship and out of a desire to help the people Senator Martin set out to help. We all want to do that.

When we debated this motion to increase the scope, there were concerns raised, such as what my colleague Ms. Kwan said: that the department officials wouldn't be prepared to look at amendments. Well, now the members of the opposition have been forced to look at very technical, very substantive changes to the Citizenship Act with table-dropped amendments and without data on impact, on costing or on terms.

I understand that the intent is to help people here, but my job and my first responsibility—my fiduciary responsibility to the Canadian public—when I'm reviewing legislation is to understand things like cost, what the role of government is and what the impact is. Does this impact one group of people and not another? Is this going to cause downstream problems? It might not, but I don't have that data.

That is why the Standing Orders usually restrict amendments to a narrow scope of a bill. However, what we've done here is say, “Be darned with the Standing Orders and the review of legislation. We're just going to open this up.”

What I've done with this is to try to put in place a very common-sense amendment that does actually affect the scope of this bill, because we know that even people who are in this boat—lost Canadians—are subject to the same delays and same incommunicado status that we often get from the department.

I just want to be very clear to anybody who is watching. I take my duty to review legislation very seriously. Opening up the scope of the bill to put in things that aren't in scope on a bill that was already agreed to in the other place puts me in a situation where I am not prepared to vote appropriately without due diligence, and that due diligence will happen here. This is not any sort of game outside of.... It is not fair for me to be put in a position to vote on legislation without due diligence.

When there is an opportunity, when the committee has voted, to essentially do a statutory review of the Citizenship Act, then that is what we will do. We will take the time to do that because we all have the same rights on this committee to do that—opposition, in a coalition agreement or not. We all represent close to a million, roughly.... Well, I represent 120,000 people. In this room, we probably represent close to a million or over a million people. For us just to push this through because somebody in some backroom deal says that we're going to increase the scope because their private member's bill didn't get through in the last Parliament.... That's not my problem. I have to make sure that I'm doing my due diligence, and I'm not sorry for that.

My colleagues have been asking very good questions. Frankly, we haven't even received responses on some of the data we've asked for. We've been put in a position to vote on amendments that were done in a deal, and frankly, we've now had a point of privilege on this matter with stakeholders when we weren't even looped into the matter. I find this atrocious, the whole process atrocious, and I will try to maintain my composure here.

However, for somebody to intimate that it is somehow not appropriate to follow the letter of a motion that they themselves put forward and voted in favour of.... They have another think coming on how this is going to proceed. We are going to proceed with diligence and also undertake the order of that ruling. If they wanted to push this through quickly, then what should have been done was that we should have relied on the work that was done in the Senate, because it was done quickly and with diligence. However, that is not what happened here. What happened was this: “Let's put in place a whole bunch more amendments that are out of scope and then expect everybody around this table to vote without doing that diligence.” That's just not fair. It's not right, and that's why there are rules on order.

Let's get back to the matter at hand. One, this amendment here is in order, based on the instructions of the House. Two, it does impact the people who are with the original scope of the bill. Three, the staff here have, with regard to my colleague Ms. Kayabaga's question, talked about scope in terms of what it would apply to. Four, I'm just going to argue that some people have said the minister may already have certain powers and whatnot. It's not clear in this regard, and there's nothing in the Citizenship Act that talks about processing delays. It's a very unclear, nebulous process on which the minister can and can't do this. Then what happens is that, when we are communicating on this with constituents or if there are immigration lawyers who are looking at this, they are unclear as to what and when the minister may intervene. I would like more clarity, and that is why this motion is here right now. That's why we're seeking to amend this act.

Colleagues, if other colleagues are looking at amendments that are far beyond the scope of the original bill, then so will we. Again, Madam Chair, I want to re-emphasize that, should the government have wished to have done this, it could have put any other amendments in the budget implementation act. It could have put in place another piece of government legislation, or people could have put a private member's bill forward. However, that is not what happened here.

They changed the rules of Parliament, essentially. Now we are just responding to those changes.

I hope my colleagues will support this, because it gives the minister an additional tool. It recognizes the fact that oftentimes the department doesn't really have any political imperative to maintain service standards, even within a narrow scope, and it clearly gives people who are stuck in quagmire situations, such as the ones we've been discussing in the scope of this bill, some hope. I would hope that my colleagues would give the minister another tool and give people some hope.

Thank you.

Finance

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

I would like to thank our legislative clerk, Philippe Méla; the finance committee clerks, Alexandre Roger and Alexandre Sacha Vassiliev; committee assistant Lynda Gaudreault; the whole team of 16 additional clerks who came in to help during the long hours into the night; the whole team of interpreters, technologists and staff of the committee; and, of course, the hard-working members of the committee, our witnesses and department officials for all of their hard work in getting this report completed. I thank them all.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister Qualtrough, I want to talk about pilot projects for seasonal workers again. These pilot projects affect 13 socio-economic regions. We won't be seeing a reform anytime soon; in fact, we don't know when it will happen. So I understand that you're not going to reform the system. Perhaps a pilot project was carried out without reform because it remains a pilot project. However, you could improve things for many people working in seasonal industries.

Recommendations were made to the Standing Committee on Finance that Bill C‑47 be amended to improve the pilot projects and make them permanent. Are you prepared to study this improvement as part of passing Bill C‑47?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

On CPC-19, I do have a ruling.

Bill C-47 amends several acts, including the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. The amendment seeks to make an amendment to the title of this act, referenced in numerous other acts.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 775, “Titles, whether it be the long, short or alternative title, may be amended only if the bill has been so altered as to necessitate such an amendment.”

In the opinion of the chair, no amendment has been made to the bill that would necessitate a change to the title of the act. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

This is CPC-17, clause 247. I have a ruling.

Bill C-47 amends several acts, including the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. The amendment seeks to remove subsections 6(8) to 6(10) of the act from the calculation of the fiscal stabilization payment that may be paid to a province for a fiscal year, which could result in an increase of payment out of the consolidated revenue fund.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Lawrence, there is no discussion. It's yea or nay. It's your turn to vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next, we have CPC-15, and I do have a chair's ruling.

Bill C-47 amends several acts, including the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. The amendment seeks to make an amendment to the title of this act. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, states on page 775:

Titles, whether it be the long, short or alternative title, may be amended only if the bill has been so altered as to necessitate such an amendment.

In the opinion of the Chair, no amendment has been made to the bill that would necessitate a change to the title of the act. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We are back, everyone. I call this meeting to order.

We're resuming meeting number 94.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, May 2, 2023, and the motion adopted on May 16, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

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

As per the annotated agenda, members, we're resuming with clause-by-clause consideration.

Let's get to it.

Shall clause 223 carry?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That was sustained.

We are at CPC-10. There is a ruling here from the chair.

Bill C-47 amends several acts, including the Excise Act, 2001 to add inflationary adjustment clauses. The amendment seeks to establish new amounts of fines for alcohol offences in relation to section 76, 89 and 91 of the act.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, this addition is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

There's a challenge of the chair.

Go ahead, Clerk.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

It's been sustained.

Members, now we are at amendment CPC-8.

I do have a ruling. The ruling is that Bill C-47 amends several acts, including the Excise Act, 2001 to add inflationary adjustment clauses. The amendment seeks to establish a new amount of fine related to the supply of bulk wine offences.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, this addition is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading; therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Now we are on CPC-7. There is a chair's ruling on this one, on CPC-7.

The chair's ruling is that Bill C-47 amends several acts, including the Excise Act, 2001, to add inflationary adjustment clauses. The amendment seeks to establish new amounts of fines related to certain more serious alcohol offences.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the chair, this addition is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading; therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I'll read the ruling one more time for members.

The ruling is that Bill C-47 amends several acts, including the Excise Act, 2001, to add inflationary adjustment clauses. The amendment seeks to establish new amounts of fines related to certain alcohol offences. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, this addition is a new concept—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Now we're at new clause 126.1.

This is CPC-6. I do have a ruling, members.

Bill C-47 amends several acts, including the Excise Act, 2001, to add inflationary adjustment clauses. The amendment seeks to establish new amounts of fines related to certain alcohol offences. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, this addition is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Members, we're at clause 71, and amendment CPC-0.1.

The chair's ruling on this is that Bill C-47 amends several acts, including the Income Tax Act, to add a mechanism of transmission of information between officials for the purpose of the administration enforcement of the Canadian dental plan. The amendment seeks to add a mechanism of transmission of any confidential information related to an individual between that individual and an official at his or her request by which the official could not withhold any confidential information related to the person.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”.

In the opinion of the Chair, this addition is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading; therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to thank our two excellent clerks for all the work they do and all the effort they have made to respond to my request. I am very grateful to them for that.

Perhaps we should have found an old parchment and sent it off by horse-drawn carriage or carrier pigeon. Who knows? This reminds us once again that we are elected and that we serve the people. We want to represent them, and that's our role.

However, as a result of a tradition that we have inherited, we find ourselves dealing with a representative of the Anglican Church who won't even answer the elected representatives of his people. Under Bill C‑47, that representative would be made King of Canada. I think that raises some serious questions.

Once again, I invite the members of the committee to do as I do and vote against clause 510.2 of Bill C‑47, under which Charles III would be made King of Canada, so that we can have another, proper bill.

With that, I hope that all will go well. I would have liked to be with you in person, but I unfortunately could not.

Thank you, everyone.

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

Good afternoon, everyone.

I'm speaking to you through a House-approved standing microphone. Let me know if there are any sound problems. I also have my micro-headset for backup.

I'll try to be brief in presenting my amendments.

As Mr. Beech mentioned, amendment BQ‑1 concerns the taxation of businesses that own large servers, with major processing capacity and very high-speed fibre service, which are located in Quebec and Canada and that hire out their services. When those services are hired by a foreign business capable of carrying on mining, the concern for the industry in Quebec and Canada is that they may no longer have access to the same benefits as businesses in other sectors. Consequently, amendment BQ‑1 would specify and ensure that, if a business leases its computers for activities, it will be treated in the same way as other businesses.

This is important because this rapidly developing sector will help all kinds of research sectors. We've even heard talk about artificial intelligence. I want to thank Mr. Beech for all the follow‑up he has done with me on this issue. According to him, and according to the government's action line, these businesses are targeted by this division. However, that's not the industry's opinion. So I encourage you to support amendment BQ‑1, which would clarify matters and ensure that our industry remains competitive.

I won't present amendment BQ‑2. I had concerns about the admissibility of amendment BQ‑1. I know that our chair, Mr. Fonseca, is very strict about the admissibility of amendments. However, Mr. Méla reassures me, and it's quite possible that Mr. Fonseca will allow amendment BQ‑1. Consequently, amendment BQ‑2 won't be presented. In any case, it wouldn't completely achieve its objective. It would've had to be amended, which is no longer possible.

That brings me to amendments BQ‑3 and BQ‑4, which concern the excise tax on fruit-based alcohol products.

This takes us back to the debate on last year's budget implementation bill. The government said that it would henceforth be taxing all kinds of wines because Australia had sued Canada before the World Trade Organization, the WTO, and had won its case. We said that Australia's suit concerned only wine made from grapes. In Quebec, wine is wine made from grapes. Cider and mead go by different names. We wanted to exclude all alcohol products made from small fruits, honey and maple syrup. However, the amendment was ruled inadmissible. We very soon managed to exclude cider and mead, but all other alcohol products, such as ciders made from pear, apple, apple combined with pear and other small fruits, weren't covered by the exclusion that we obtained last year, and the producers are subject to full compensation. This makes no sense. For a year now, I've been hounding and repeating to the minister, Ms. Freeland, that the industry wants her to correct this error. We hope that will be done.

We are introducing amendments BQ‑3 and BQ‑4 in order to clarify that alcohol products, wines made from other small fruits, cider made from pears, or anything else, such as a maple syrup product, aren't targeted by the WTO judgment, which solely concerned wine made from grapes. I sincerely hope that Mr. Beech and all my colleagues can remind Ms. Freeland and her team to resolve the matter. It's urgent. It's extremely important. These are small artisans. Whether or not this tax applies can make the difference between a viable business or a failing one. This is very important.

These amendments may well be ruled inadmissible. Once again, I hope the chair of our committee will be magnanimous. Otherwise, I urge Mr. Beech to speak to Ms. Freeland and her team to resolve this, please. I realize that billions of dollars aren't at stake here, but it would really make a difference for these businesses.

Those are the concerns that amendments BQ‑3 and BQ‑4 are intended to address.

Now I'll turn to amendment BQ‑5.

When we heard from the representatives of Option consommateurs, they told us that a great innovation that appears in Bill C‑47 would pose a problem. Currently, in a dispute between a client and the client's bank, the case may be reviewed before a commissioner, but the commissioner's decision is only a recommendation. Consequently, amendment BQ‑5 supports what the Option consommateurs representatives told us, which was that the recommendation should be made binding. I obviously hope this amendment will be supported.

Amendments BQ‑6 and BQ‑7 concern employment insurance. We aren't seeking an in‑depth reform, but what we're proposing isn't in Bill C‑47. The people concerned by employment insurance generally welcome what's in the bill on this matter.

Amendments BQ‑6 and BQ‑7 propose minor amendments to improve this part. Suggestions have been made by Quebec's four main unions, the CSN, FTQ, CSQ and the CSD, the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, which came to speak to us on behalf of the group. The amendments are minor but important.

The aim of amendment BQ‑6 is to increase transparency. Its purpose is to ensure that the joint group operates properly. Currently under Bill C‑47, management reports to the chairperson of the commission, who provides a summary to all members. We are requesting—this is the unions' proposal—that management be directly accountable to the commission as a whole. There would thus be more transparency and openness than there would be with an intermediary.

Mr. Beech said his party didn't think that was appropriate. However, the unions feel that management should be directly accountable to the commission as a whole and not through an intermediary.

We're saying that we want to go back to a regionalization of appeals. In the part amended by amendment BQ‑7, if the parties say that an appeal may be heard virtually, we can do it. We're saying that not all the parties to the matter need to be consulted, just the person who brings the appeal. For example, a person filing an appeal in an unemployment case may want to be heard in person rather than have the case heard virtually.

Once again, according to Quebec's major unions, Bill C‑47 is drafted in a vague manner. For example, a person residing in Sept-Îles who wants a case to be heard in person, whereas the other parties prefer that it be heard virtually, could be heard virtually. That wouldn't achieve the desired objective. This amendment would ensure that the person can be heard in person in his or her region.

I hope I have clearly presented the Bloc Québécois' various amendments.

Having said that, I want to draw your attention to certain points. First, I will support the NDP's amendments because I think they're very constructive. The same is true of those of the Conservatives, except those respecting equalization. This seems to be related to today's election in Alberta. Failing anything better, we want a good equalization system. However, it's being said that the equalization process would be delayed, except as regards stabilization payments, which is oil company equalization. We don't agree with that, but it's fine to change the name. We also support the Conservatives' amendments respecting the excise tax, among other things.

As regards the Liberal Party's two amendments, the idea here is, first, to take away the GST check, which is just grocery money, since that's already included in Bill C‑46. However, we want to keep it since officials told us it wouldn't mean a second payment in any case. However, if that's true, I would nevertheless support it since I think the less well-off do need it.

The same is true for health. Ottawa is giving the provinces a sixth of the money they requested, but we'd have a chance to get $2 billion more if the Liberal amendment were defeated. It wouldn't be automatic, but it would be a step in the right direction.

The Bloc Québécois believes that Ottawa should make its proper contribution to health. We will therefore vote against this Liberal Party amendment.

Otherwise, as regards division 9 on equalization, we recently received correspondence from certain officials who said that adopting this division would result in hundreds of millions of dollars in losses for Quebec, without it being consulted. The Bloc Québécois therefore opposes this division.

Mr. Blaikie invited the Comité des représentants des transporteurs ferroviaires. So there's a whole debate going on. Unfortunately, we couldn't get to the bottom of things in order to form an opinion. For the moment, however, the railway carriers have convinced me, and, like Mr. Blaikie, I'll vote against Bill C‑47's divisions regarding this matter.

I have a final point to make. Under section 510.2 of Bill C‑47, which runs to hundreds of pages and more than 600 clauses, “Charles the Third, by the Grace of God” would officially be made King of Canada.

It is a rule of Parliament that we may not be irreverential toward the Crown or the monarchy.

Thus, instead of preparing a short, clearly presented bill that would be debated in the House, we are concealing the fact that we are providing for a change of sovereigns in a budget implementation bill that will affect a range of statutes.

I think this is unacceptable. I therefore encourage members of this committee to reject this clause in order to force the government to present this matter in a regular bill so that it's done properly in an open and transparent manner.

On this subject, I would like to use my speaking time to ask the committee clerk, Mr. Roger, a question.

According to tradition, when a government appoints persons to unelected positions, opposition members may summon those persons to appear before a parliamentary committee to speak with them and get to know them and their duties.

Consequently, I would have liked to welcome King Charles III to the Standing Committee on Finance since, under Bill C‑47, he would be named, and not elected, King of Canada. There is nothing more hereditary than that appointment.

As it is customary to be able to question appointees in committee, I asked, more than one month ago, that we invite King Charles III and his little prince to come and testify.

I would therefore ask Mr. Roger whether we have received any news from Buckingham Palace.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I won't dive too deep into this, but I share everyone's sense of disappointment that the mistrust has reached these levels.

I'll jump into the amendments because time is short.

The first I'd like to talk about is with respect to.... Of course, this is a huge document. It's $490 billion, and we have 15 minutes, but I'm going to talk about a couple of areas that I believe deserve some attention and that I'm familiar with as well, which are around tax policy.

There are a couple of principles of fundamental tax fairness that this budget implementation act violates. I'll start with the Excise Tax Act. I think it is a good step by the government to limit the amount of increase, but the principle behind it is so very troubling and undemocratic. It runs anti the very basics of tax policy and democracy, I might add.

What happens with the excise tax is that it increases every year. That is a tax increase on Canadians who engage in drinking beer, which many Canadians like to do, and there's no ability—no accountability—for Parliament to say yes or no with respect to it. It has sort of slipped underneath the veil of darkness because there hasn't been high inflation in recent years. However, thanks to this government's high-deficit, high-spending agenda, we saw inflation increase dramatically, which then led to—because this is tied to inflation—a dramatic increase in the excise tax.

We actually saw inflation go up again in the latest report. What happens is that, without the consent of Parliament—which is, of course, the people's representative—the government is appropriating funds for individuals performing the terrible act of going to their local grocery store, LCBO or SAQ and buying a case of beer or a bottle of wine.

In that scenario, perhaps it's only a couple of dollars on that beer or that wine, but it's the principle behind it that is so very troubling—that we would engage in taxation without representation, because that's what that is. It's giving a large tax increase, a large amount of revenue, to the government simply because of inflation. In fact, it's rewarding the government for its own poor economic record, because the higher inflation goes, the more revenue the government will receive. We saw revenues overflow, and even with that large amount, we still get large deficits and large debts.

I'll move from there to another troubling principle. Once again, it's the principle that matters, not so much the subject. This is the section within the BIA that calls for the application of retroactive taxation, and not just by a year or two years or five years or 10 years. It goes back 30 years. For those of you for whom it is unfamiliar, it is of course with respect to the banks and the application of GST and HST on certain monies that they make with respect to the charges of credit cards. The actual subject of the matter is not particularly important relative to the overall concept or the principle of it.

What happens is that, when we pass laws, those laws, by principle, are the rule of law. It doesn't matter what Philip put on the record or what Sophie put on the record beforehand. It doesn't even matter what we thought the bill was going to be. It's actually what the legislation is. It is then the courts who get to decide how the law is interpreted. It's a very basic tenet of law, and it's a very basic tenet of democracy that the rule of law is what we put in writing.

It's what separates democracies from authoritarian states, because in authoritarian states, the leader can go and say, “Do you know what? Just kidding, actually, we meant the law to mean this.” In Canada and other advanced democracies, when you write something, when that becomes law, at that point, the legislators then pass that law on to the judiciary for their interpretation, so whatever happens happens. If a legislator wants to change the law because they're unhappy with a decision, they can do that, but it's nearly always done prospectively.

When I asked Ms. Gwyer of the Department of Finance to name a single case where retroactive taxation had been put in place, she could not name one. Thirty years—that's what separates an authoritarian regime in its application of the law from an advanced democracy, where once that law is made there is certainty so that those individuals will go out and plan their lives based on the rules that exist at the time. Certainly, there could be different interpretations of the rules, and that's for the judiciary to decide, but lawmakers in general won't go back to change the rules of the game halfway through the game. This is a very basic fundamental principle, not just of tax law but of law in general.

This change proposed by the budget implementation act sets a dangerous precedent. It says that, regardless of the rules and despite the law in force for decades at the time, the government can, at its own behest or otherwise, go back and actually change the rules of the game more than halfway through the game—in fact, decades through the game. People plan their lives on this certainty in law.

The challenging part is that Canada is, of course, amongst the lowest, and predicted to be the worst, with respect to capital investment. We, in many ways, are an economy unfortunately in decline, and that's due in part at least to the lack of economic and capital investment. Our manufacturing inventory is not being updated at the rate we need. We are not seeing the capital investment that is required to keep a modern economy moving. Right now, change is exponential with artificial intelligence and other technologies that are coming online, so our country needs capital investment more than ever. Because we're not replacing our capital stock, that doesn't just hurt us for today. Some of these pieces of equipment will be online for 10, 15 or 20 years, so as we fall further and further behind, it gets to be almost a generational problem of capital investment. Some of this money will come domestically, and that's terrific. Some of this will come from investors from abroad, who would hopefully see a Canadian market that would be an excellent choice to invest in.

Unfortunately, when a government creates uncertainty, as they will with this budget by setting a precedent that, even for laws that are decades old, they can go back and change the game and they can go back and change the rules, this will no doubt have.... In fact, in talking to stakeholders from far and wide, many discussed the fact that it's this uncertainty that would be a concern to investors in their business.

You can imagine making a substantial investment—maybe of millions, maybe of tens of millions, maybe even billions of dollars—and you're counting on a certain law being in place. If they want to change the law going forward, fine, give those actors notice and they can go ahead and make their changes prospectively. However, going back retroactively might mean that you have an inability to make decisions because you were counting on the rules of the game staying the same—and if not, with notice for future changes.

This will have a chilling effect on individuals and companies from around the world and their willingness to invest in Canada at a time when Canada needs that investment most.

We're struggling with respect to innovation. We have an innovation gap with respect to most of our advanced economic peers, and the root cause is capital investment.

We also have a productivity gap. Despite having the best workers in the world—we have incredible talent here in Canada—we are amongst the lowest with respect to productivity. We're well behind the United States of America, Switzerland, Ireland and many other developed economies. This is extremely challenging.

To introduce uncertainty into our economy is baffling, quite frankly. That this would be the time, for relatively small gain in tax dollars, to put in additional uncertainty when we need capital investment to bridge that innovation and productivity gap is baffling.

All of this has resulted in our having the lowest economic growth per capita, 0.8% over the last 10 years. What that translates into is not just a statistic; that has affected Canadians' lives, because now we have double or even triple the food bank usage.

Those were a couple of the amendments that Conservatives put forward. We look forward to having a robust discussion with respect to the amendments from the other sides.

Once again, I will conclude by saying that I share everyone's disappointment at this table. Certainly I think there's a lot of blame to go around, and that disappointment in the way this committee has evolved should be shared by everyone.

What I won't do is in any way apologize for being the opposition. That's our role. As I said earlier, we don't work for the Liberal Party of Canada. I work for the people of Northumberland—Peterborough South. This government's economic record after eight years is atrocious. We have high deficits, high debt, high inflation and high interest rates. We have the worst growth since the 1930s. Our job is not to cheer the Liberal Party on as it drives our economy into the ditch. It's our job to yell, “Stop!”, and that's what we're going to do.

I will never apologize for speaking out for the people of Northumberland—Peterborough South and saying, quite frankly, the truth. I'm going to speak truth to power, Mr. Chair, because that's my job. I make no apologies for that whatsoever. The economy is in a challenging situation. I talk to so many constituents. Even the food bank chair in your own riding said that the situation on the ground is terrifying.

If, after eight years of economic failures, Conservatives are not sitting there cheering on, helping you press the accelerator to drive our economy off the cliff.... I don't understand that, and I make no apologies for telling you to stop. Stop trying to ruin our economy through the unbelievable deficits, debts and challenges that you're putting on Canadians.

We live in the greatest country in the world. We have the greatest people. The only thing stopping us from realizing our potential is the Liberal Party and this government.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I will.

It is that the amendments be deemed moved and that the committee provide 15 minutes for a representative of each recognized party to provide their views on Bill C-47, as well as the amendments to the bill. During this time, no other motions can be moved, nor can questions be put to the representative of each party, and the chair and clerk be empowered to enforce the 15-minute speaking slot.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Where are we right now?

I was actually going to read out a statement that we are very comfortable with. It is that the amendments be deemed moved and that the committee provide 15 minutes for a representative of each recognized party to provide their views on Bill C-47, as well as the amendments to the bill. During this time, no other motions can be moved, nor can questions be put to the representative of each party, and the chair and clerk be empowered to enforce the 15-minute speaking slot.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to start by thanking Mr. Blaikie for moving the motion that he moved. I think what he has tried to do is give members a chance to explain their decisions as they vote through the budget bill. I think that's really important. Our role here in Parliament, as members of committee or in the House of Commons, is not just to vote on stuff. It's to make sure that we're listening to Canadians, hearing their points of view and then sharing with them why we've made the decisions we've made in voting or why we're advocating for what we're advocating for.

Unfortunately the Conservatives didn't give unanimous consent to Mr. Blaikie's motion. I think if we could pass Mr. Blaikie's motion, it would allow us to convey to our constituents why it is we're voting the way we are. I think that's a really important mechanism. I'm disappointed. I'm not looking to place blame, but I do think....

Let's be frank. The Conservatives just spent 27 hours or so filibustering this committee, which prevented us from hearing from witnesses. It prevented us from working on the bill to make it better. It prevented us from working on a bill that has tremendous implications for a lot of Canadians, especially on issues of affordability.

The fact that those 27 hours were spent filibustering by the Conservatives, who now won't give us five minutes per MP to speak to the amendments that are before us because they've declined Mr. Blaikie's motion, is really disappointing and goes counter to the spirit of how this place is supposed to work.

It's not just that it's not in Mr. Blaikie's interest or that it's not in our interest. It's not in the interest of any of the members here at this table not to be able to at least communicate for a few minutes about why we're voting the way we're voting or why certain amendments have been brought forward, or under what circumstances we would support certain amendments that have been brought forward. I'm disappointed in that.

More broadly, I would like to say that, as a member of this finance committee, this is the piece of legislation that I look forward to working on the most. I would argue that it's the most impactful part of what we do as a finance committee.

When I think about the challenges that all of our constituents are facing—especially when it comes to affordability, when it comes to challenges like growing our economy, when it comes to challenges like providing the most vulnerable with the support that they need—I think it's important that we take the opportunity and take the time we can to make this budget bill as strong as possible. Because of what has happened over the past number of weeks and the filibuster, we're not going to be able to do that. All we're going to be able to do is vote on the amendments as they are before us, and I think that's really unfortunate.

The intent of the budget bill is to supplement the budget that was introduced by the finance minister at the end of March. When I think about what the budget was designed to do, it was designed to, first of all, help people with the cost of living. As inflation has hit Canadians hard, as they struggle to pay their bills, the budget was meant to help address some of those challenges.

An example of that is the grocery rebate to help folks with the rising cost of food. Whether it's cracking down on junk fees, credit card interchange fees or predatory lending, whether its the tax-free first home savings account, which would allow homebuyers to save $40,000 tax free, or whether it's freezing the excise tax for a year on beer, wine and alcohol at 2%, these are some of the measures, in addition to many others that have been taken in the past several years, to help folks with the cost of living.

The budget had significant investments in health care, with conditions attached, which is really important because we need to make sure that not only are we getting value for taxpayer dollars as they get provided to provinces, in this case for health care, but that they actually deliver results for patients. We know there's a lot of improvement but also a lot more results that Canadians expect from their health care systems, and that's why we've not only provided a record amount of money but also attached conditions to that funding.

There's $13 billion for the new Canadian dental plan, which will provide dental coverage to families earning less than $90,000. I think that's transformational.

Then there are investments to build a clean economy and a number of other things to make sure that our economy grows so that the pie grows for everyone, and so that the quality of life in this country is growing and people's prosperity is growing.

All this is to say that I think there's a lot in this budget implementation act, an awful lot, designed to make Canadians' lives better. I look forward to voting on these amendments. It really would have been nice to be able to debate them, hear from more Canadians and communicate why we're voting the way we are.

I thank you, Mr. Chair, for the time.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I wanted to make sure of that, just in case something happened.

Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chair. I will say to you that I also want to acknowledge and honour the comments that Mr. Beech and you made at our last committee meeting. I think you both did an outstanding job of explaining how we got to where we are.

I also would like to say—just because I know the people in my riding and I have to be accountable to them—that there has been in no way any desire not to be accountable for this very important budget 2023 and the budget implementation act. I think there are a number of issues, concerns and questions that we could have had an opportunity to raise last week. Unfortunately, there was a filibuster that was led by our Conservative colleagues.

I will also say to you that I'm very glad our Deputy Prime Minister has come to committee. It's important for us to reiterate that our Deputy Prime Minister has been to this committee four times. There's no minister who ever comes every time they are invited to committees in general. I do want to say that our Deputy Prime Minister has, indeed, been here before this committee on a number of different bills. Before this bill, the budget implementation act, she actually came for almost two hours. It was just over an hour and 40 minutes.

Mr. Chair, I know that there are a number of other people who want to speak. I'll say to you just in ending that I think it's very important for us to move forward with this budget implementation act. I think there are a number of targeted inflation relief measures for Canadians who need it the most. We do know that there are a lot of Canadians who are having a hard time making ends meet. There are a number of measures in the budget implementation act that will be very supportive to them. I think it's important for us to move forward with haste on this bill.

I think there are stronger public health care dollars, including millions of dollars for dental care. We currently have a dental care benefit, but the passage of budget 2023 will allow us to actually transition that dental care benefit into a dental care plan.

There are also significant investments to build Canada's clean economy, which will not only continue to create really great middle-class jobs but also ensure a prosperous economy moving forward. I'll tell you, in my riding there's a very strong belief that we need to move as quickly as possible to decarbonize and get to net zero by 2050. I know that this part of the budget is particularly important for those people in my riding.

Mr. Chair, I think that my colleague Mr. Blaikie is very right. I think we need to do much better. I think we have to come together after this budget implementation act to say how we can rebuild trust amongst ourselves and find a way to move forward on the important work that we've been elected to do on this very important committee.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I believe the slate is clear, as it were, of motions. I'd like to start by moving and then motivating a motion.

The motion reads as follows:

That notwithstanding the May 16th motion passed by the Committee, if the Committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill C-47 by 4:30 PM on Monday May 29th, 2023, (i) all remaining amendments submitted to the Committee as of Friday, May 26, 2023 shall be deemed moved, (ii) the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate on all remaining clauses and proposed amendments, except that not more than 20 minutes shall be allotted for debate on each proposed amendment, to be divided to a maximum of five minutes per recognized party, unless unanimous consent is granted to extend debate on a specific amendment, (iii) no subamendments or motions may be moved during debate, (iv) at the expiry of the time provided for debate on a specific amendment, the Chair shall put every question to dispose of the amendment, forthwith and successively without further debate, (v) the Chair shall be empowered to group clauses for which no amendment has been proposed, subject to the unanimous consent of the committee, (vi) once all questions necessary to dispose of all remaining clauses and proposed amendments have been decided, the Chair shall put, forthwith and successively, every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause of the bill, as well as questions necessary to report the Bill to the House and to order the Chair to report the Bill to the House as soon as possible.

This motion is really just meant to address the problem that I highlighted last day. Due to the choices of folks around the table, we've now exhausted most of the time we have to debate proposed amendments to the bill. How that works is that, until we get to the clause, the amendments that have been proposed so far aren't moved. At 4:30 they're all deemed moved. Then you could talk about them, except that the motion, which was agreed to by everyone around this table, including the Conservatives, by unanimous consent, prohibits debate.

We end up in an awkward position where prior to 4:30 we can't talk about the amendments. After 4:30 we have to vote on them. I think that means we end up not being accountable for the decisions we're making around the table.

I would say, because I notice we have some substitutions here today, that unfortunately we've come to a place where there's just no trust around the committee table. On trying to extend this process, I think many of us feel that any goodwill we might show in order to extend the process for appropriate reasons won't be honoured, and that it will be abused in order to do more of what we have seen around the table so far. It makes it really difficult in that kind of context, where you just don't have a lot of trust around the table, where the goalposts have often shifted and where you thought you had an understanding about how to proceed and then the time isn't used for the purposes we thought we had agreed to.

As I've said earlier too, I don't think it's just one side that's been difficult in this whole process. I think the minister ought to have told the committee if she was going to come for more than an hour, whether that was an hour and 20 minutes, an hour and 40 minutes or the two hours that I would have liked for us to express as a committee that we wanted her here for, but we never did get to a vote on the invitation for the two hours. There has been a lot of dysfunction.

I think the minister should show more respect to the committee than to refuse to come for a reasonable amount of time. I think she clearly had time in her schedule to stay longer. I think she should have indicated that to the committee beforehand. I think that's a very easy, respectful thing to do. That means that people can prepare for a longer appearance. It's nice of her to stay longer, but in a properly functioning professional work environment, people would have a heads-up. It's not like she can claim she didn't know that this was a matter of contention.

That doesn't mean I endorse the way everyone around this table handled it. I think they actually wasted all the time we had to hear from witnesses, then agreed to a really quick turnaround on clause-by-clause, and then kind of went back on that and decided to complain that, even though the text of the motion they agreed to was honoured, it wasn't good enough for them.

You know, I can hear them wanting to have heard more witnesses. There was some time for that early last week. Instead of raising it on the Sunday or the Monday, they chose to raise it on the Wednesday. They chose to raise it publicly before they raised it anywhere else.

We can all point fingers at each other around here. This has not been a good process. I think it's pretty pathetic, frankly. I hope nobody here is feeling good about what we've been doing over the last four or five weeks for any reason. I don't think there's anything we can point to in order to say to Canadians that we've done our job the way it should have been done. Some of us may be able to say we were prepared to do our job. I certainly undertook to do all the things one has to do to prepare for these meetings. Then I wasn't given the opportunity to do the work required.

This motion is just to allow five minutes to each party on each amendment that has already been proposed, to put some reasons on the record for why we're either supporting that amendment or not supporting that amendment. If folks here want to spend the next hour debating it and not have a vote, then what we'll end up doing is just going and voting on everything successively. It's just that Canadians won't get to know the reasons why we're voting. There will be nothing to hold us to account on that. I don't think that's value added to the process, regardless of the reasons somebody might feel it hasn't been a good process to date or of where they lay the blame. The one thing we can do now in the situation we find ourselves, where nobody really trusts anybody around the table, is to at least do the minimum to make sure that Canadians have an opportunity to hear why certain parliamentarians on this committee are voting one way on amendments or why they're voting the other way.

As I said, we can talk it out, but that's not going to do much except ensure that we have less accountability around this table. We don't all have to agree on it. All we have to do is let it come to a vote. Then the majority of the committee can decide if this is the way they want to proceed or not.

I've said my piece on that, Mr. Chair. I hope this is something that, at a minimum, we can agree to in order to meet our responsibilities to Canadians and to make ourselves accountable for the decisions we're going to make around the table. We don't have the power to compel a minister to appear, but we're here. We do have the power to allow ourselves to put comments on the record and then be held to account for those. I hope that at least we will hold ourselves to that standard of accountability. That remains to be seen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I look forward to hearing debate on this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 94 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, May 2, 2023, and the motion adopted on May 16, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

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

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

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike. Please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

Just as a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Members, I'd like to bring your attention to paragraph (b)(iii) of the motion adopted on May 16:

(iii) if the Committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill by 4:30 PM on Monday, May 29th, 2023, all remaining amendments submitted to the Committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate on all remaining clauses and proposed amendments, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, as well as questions necessary to report the Bill to the House and to order the Chair to report the Bill to the House as soon as possible.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses. They are all virtual. With us today, for the first hour, is a multitude of senior officials from various departments to answer any questions from the members.

Where we last left off.... Actually, I see that MP Blaikie's hand is up and MP Dzerowicz's hand is up.

I don't know if anybody else's hand is up.

No. There is nobody on the screen.

I will go to MP Blaikie just before we get started here on an annotated agenda.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Unfortunately I didn't get any calls from the Conservatives, but I will try this.

I move for unanimous consent on the following motion that the committee reconvene at 3:30 p.m. on Monday, May 29, and that the committee provide 15 minutes for a representative of each recognized party to provide their views on Bill C‑47 as well as the amendments to the bill. During this time, no other motions can be moved nor can questions be put to the representative of each party, and the chair and clerk will be empowered to enforce the 15-minute speaking slot.

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

Then I won't propose my compromise amendment that would have, I think, addressed some of MP Blaikie's concerns. At this stage, I will continue with some of the witnesses who have not been able to speak on this important piece of legislation. I think I left off at the Canadian Canola Growers Association.

The next one, I know, is the Fish, Food and Allied Workers union. Now, I know I get eye rolls from the government side when we start talking about fisheries, but I have 7,000 commercial fishermen in my riding. The Fish, Food and Allied Workers union, FFAW as it's known, is part of Unifor, a very important organization, particularly representing those in Newfoundland. They have lots of things they would like to say about not only the overall economic thrust of this Bill C-47, but also the amendments that this omnibus bill makes to the ocean protection act. They represent thousands and thousands of harvesters throughout Newfoundland. You would be familiar perhaps with this if you've been reading the press lately, because they've been dealing with the issue of the crab pricing in Newfoundland.

Previous members talked about the fact that we've not heard from any first nations or indigenous groups. There is a long list of those organizations that we should be hearing from, as well as those in the hotel association, and the construction and municipal associations—many more.

I know that some of the folks around the table, the Liberals, would appreciate this. I believe, Mr. Chair, that I can make a motion to adjourn the debate, which I will make now.

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

I don't know if you heard me congratulating MP Chatel for all the work that goes into preparing for a half marathon or a marathon, so congratulations on making it this far. Good luck on the weekend. I know the Ottawa marathon is a big event.

To refresh those who perhaps are not aware of what we're doing, I moved a motion on this issue of the amount of time the finance committee should spend on hearing from witnesses. It's really just a follow-up motion to the original one, which I think passed unanimously but was negotiated in good faith by all parties, that the committee spend 20 hours hearing from witnesses. That work was begun by the committee, but it has been cut short partially because the committee didn't schedule all the time this week, even though it had an end date of the coming Monday to have this completed. As a result of the movements, in my view, of the government members to limit it, the government now wants to limit this legislation—Bill C-47, the budget implementation act—to only the 10 hours of witnesses who have been heard so far.

My motion is built on the earlier motion that MP Beech put forward and that was passed by the committee, which called for 20 hours. I suggested, as a compromise, 19 hours, so that's only nine more hours of witnesses, which I think could easily still be done today, tomorrow and Sunday before clause-by-clause recommences on the deadline on Monday. There is no reason for government members not to want to hear from the witnesses. Specifically, that motion reads as follows:

That the committee reiterate its desire to hear a total of 20 hours of testimony in relation to Bill C-47, Budget Implementation Act No.1, as agreed to on May 16, 2023, and notwithstanding that motion, the committee maintain its goal of receiving 20 hours of witness testimony but not proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill until the committee hears a minimum of 19 hours of witness testimony.

That's what we're here discussing. In my discussion, before we took this break, I had offered, on several occasions, to have the government members say, “Hey, I think that's a reasonable alternative given this is a constituency break week. There was no reason why we didn't schedule 20 hours of witness meetings. You make a compelling point.” MP Beech, as the parliamentary secretary, could easily say to the committee and say right here that we'll continue that now and have those witnesses. I've offered the opportunity, but I have been met with silence from the government members. I'll offer it again.

Silence again. I'll keep going then, and I'll discuss why that's important.

I had left off discussing a number of the witnesses who had been put forward and whom we should hear from in the committee, who would add to the expert testimony that's been received already. Most of the 10 hours of witness testimony did not put the government's budget in a good light, particularly that from the food banks, which have seen a massive increase in their customer base, unfortunately. The massive increase was not only in the donations required to supply that need but also in the donations of financial resources required to help them meet that need even though they operate, for the most part, across the country as volunteer organizations.

We are here in this dilemma of trying to argue and to use the tools that the opposition has to try to compel the government to live up to its agreement to hold 20 hours of hearings. We don't think that's a big commitment and didn't at the time. That's why we all agreed to it a week or so ago. For those watching, we are on a constituency break, which means parliamentary committees, for the most part, aren't meeting. Therefore, the resources of the House of Commons are there to support this committee in achieving its goal to hold hearings for 20 hours this week. However, the government chose not to do that.

As a reminder, this is dealing with hearings on this budget bill, which amends 51 acts of Parliament and sets the cumulative spending for the next five years at $3.1 trillion, a record number. Again, it's been said in the past.... I will utilize what others have mentioned. If these numbers are to be believed, they would add another $130 billion to Canada's national debt. The reason why I say, “to be believed”—we'd like to hear more witness testimony on this issue—is that, only six months ago, the government, in the fall economic statement, had a window for the first time.... I shouldn't say “the first time”. For the second time in their eight years in power, they projected a window for a balanced budget within five years of the fiscal framework.

The last time the government did that was when they were freshly, newly elected in 2015. They said they'd run these tiny deficits as a stimulus, and then, in 2019, at the end of four years, they would be back to a balanced budget. As we know, that promise was broken. They ran larger budgets and deficits than they projected. They added $110 billion to our national debt pre-COVID and, in 2019—the year it was supposed to be balanced—they actually ran a deficit budget. After re-election, they said, “Now we'll do it. What's really important is the accumulated debt, and the debt-to-GDP ratio is our anchor. We won't let it go. We want to see that continue to decline.” Of course, as we entered COVID and afterwards, all pretense of having any kind of fiscal anchor declined.

It's perhaps the easiest job of any finance minister in history. Generally, finance ministers have to say no quite a bit. Am I right? There are a lot of good, worthy things other ministers have put forward. In every government in the past, the fiscal framework does not allow for those things. It requires choices and saying, “That actually is more important than this thing over here that we're already spending money on, so we'll stop doing that in order to do this more important thing.” If your answer is that there is no end to the amount of debt we can accumulate and no end to the burden we can put on future generations, the finance minister's job is quite easy. It's basically to say yes. That's why we ended up in this situation. The only thing she has not said yes to, of course, is accepting invitations from this committee. She has ignored most of those invitations, including the one we had a discussion on for this budget.

The national debt, under this plan, will rise to $1.3 trillion. We have a debt ceiling in this country. It's $1.8 trillion. This is going on in the U.S. right now—the discussion on whether the federal government will be able to default and not pay its employees or programs, because they've reached their debt ceiling. If we continue in this manner of unlimited deficits and spending, the way this government does, we're going to face the same issue in the not-too-distant future. This is why we need to hear from witnesses. I don't think another nine hours of hearing witnesses is too much to ask for.

One thing, of course, is that debt builds up interest. We've been spoiled by the interest payments the government has been paying, because we've been at these historically low rates prior to the last six months. Now we have a situation. As that debt rolls over, which it will, because of the bonds that have been bought on the market.... They're short-term and long-term bonds. When those short-term bonds roll over, they're going to roll over at higher interest rates, and those higher interest rates are going to be crippling. They're already significant in the amount we have to pay. We are actually paying as much, essentially, in interest on the accumulated debt as we transfer to provinces for health care.

With the growing exposure of the government to higher interest rates, it's not too hard to see that we could be in the position that the governments were in during the 1980s and early 1990s where 38¢ out of every tax dollar that came in from taxpayers went to pay interest on the debt. Back then, we paid more on the debt than we paid on health care and national defence just on interest. We made no progress on paying the debt down. We barely were treading water in paying interest.

The more that happens, and the likelihood that interest rates will rise.... We know we have projections from RBC and others that we're going to be in a recession this year, because the economy can't handle the level of debt, which is causing the inflation, which is causing the interest rate rises, which is causing the affordability crisis, from housing to food to fuel to everything this government is doing.

As part of that, of course, we have carbon tax one, which everybody knows about. Now carbon tax two is coming in the clean fuel standards. Built into this fiscal framework we're going to raise the carbon taxes one and two, plus the HST on top of that—because the government likes to tax its own tax—and that will rise to 61¢ in additional payment per litre of gas for people in this country. These are people who are already suffering and having trouble meeting the 10% annual food inflation that we're dealing with.

This is a serious issue, which requires more witnesses in order to have a serious consideration of such a massive spending bill.

There's $84 billion in new tax credits for businesses in this budget and fiscal framework and this budget implementation bill. That's $84 billion. It's not that long ago that this was almost the whole size of the federal government's spending.

A colleague of mine mentioned earlier the interest rate projection here, which we need to have more witnesses in to talk about. It would be good to have the ability to talk to Jack Mintz about this question, or the Business Council on national issues, both of whom are on the list to appear but aren't able to because the Liberals are cutting off the discussion with witnesses on their bill. That's because, of course, they're right and everybody else is wrong.

That attitude that they're right and everybody else is wrong is really hard to believe, as they've never met a fiscal target they've set. They broke the one they set only six months ago about having a balanced budget. They'll never have one in your lifetime or my lifetime.

In this budget, just this year alone—we know we're dealing with inflation—the budget projects that inflation is going to be 3.5%. That's 3.5%. It's been tracking at 6%, 5%, 4% for most of this year, so for that to be achieved, inflation, in July, is going to have to be at 2%. There's absolutely no way and no sign that this is going to happen, particularly if we go into recession.

I don't understand why the government is shutting down its own witness motion of 20 hours of witnesses back to 10 hours for any other reason than they don't want to hear from witnesses telling them that this is the absolute wrong thing to do. I know they're afraid, beyond afraid, of former minister of finance Bill Morneau, the random Liberal finance minister who is on the list and we'd like to see appear. He's been quite public that this is a government out of control on its spending. That's why we need to hear from him as a witness.

However, maybe that's the primary reason we're being shut down. It's perhaps bad enough that they hear from me, from my colleagues, from some of the witnesses over here or from other leading economists and business groups in this country about how bad this is for the economy, but to hear it from their own is perhaps cutting right to the heart of the Liberal belief that this is the right thing to do. The right thing to do is to continue on the path of causing 1.5 million people to have to go to food banks—a new record.

Let's just put that in perspective in terms of the spending this government is doing compared to what they inherited.

We know they like to blame the previous government for not passing legislation that prevents them from doing the things they've been doing. It is the Harper government's fault that we didn't pass legislation that prevented them from breaching the ethics act or dealing directly with Chinese interference in our elections. Somehow, over the last eight years, they've had no responsibility as a government. I know that's a big issue for them. In the last year of the Harper government, government spending was $280 billion. It handed over a nice, fat $1.9-billion surplus to this government, which, as I already said, proceeded to run deficit after deficit every single year since they've been in power, contrary to what they promised Canadians.

This budgets projects, I believe, $456 billion in spending this year. That's up $176 billion since 2015, a 63% increase in spending since the Liberals have been in power. The fiscal framework that Bill C-47 outlines, which we need to hear more witnesses on, says the projected government spending in five years.... The government publicly puts out five-year projections when they do budgets, every year. Five years from now, government spending will be an incredible $543 billion. That's only if there are no new spending programs announced. We know that, every time there is an occasional appearance by the Minister of Finance in the House and she makes a statement about finance—whether it's a fall economic statement or a budget—she spends more. There hasn't been one where this government has not used the opportunity, every six months, to update and spend more money.

It's not to be believed that, in the next five years, there won't be any additional spending and that government spending, five years from now, will only be $543 billion. I think, at the rate this government is going, it will probably be—if they see out the mandate of the supply agreement or costly coalition with the NDP, which will probably see us into a 2025 budget by this government—a projected $700 billion in spending, maybe even closer to a trillion dollars, because there is no limit. We're skeptical on that and want to hear from witnesses about what that kind of spending plan will do to drive our economy into further productivity.

All you have to do is look at the OECD. I know the Minister of Finance likes to quote the IMF and other international things to say that we're this, that or the other thing in terms of our economic performance, but the OECD actually says we rank last in the OECD in per capita GDP growth—last. Six, seven or eight years ago, in 2015, when this government took over, we were one of the top in the OECD in per capita performance relative to the United States. We were so for decades, including into 2015. We were essentially parallel. We were just as productive as the economy in the United States. Today, the OECD's numbers project that we are 40% less productive based on that measure of GDP per capita growth. We are 40% less productive than the United States.

What's happened since 2015? What's happened is this: a record of this government spending with abandon and focusing, now, on their industrial strategy of branch plant economy and not actually on producing invention, creation or commercialization of Canadian technology. They just want to build things for other countries. Volkswagen believes there is no Canadian technology being used in that $14-billion, massive and largest-ever government subsidy to one company. You reap what you sow.

As the Minister of Finance said only a month before that, matching the Inflation Reduction Act was a “race to the bottom”. Apparently, that's something she's now proud of. We're going to be doing that, since what happened with Volkswagen inevitably led to what's happening with Stellantis now and the demand by every other....

The Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry brags that everybody wants to come here. Of course they want to come here when we have an unending subsidy barrel to subsidize companies that have more revenue every year than the Government of Canada. This government says that's a great strategy. The great strategy is that they wouldn't come here if we didn't subsidize them, so let's subsidize everything they want to do. There's no end.

At the end of all of that, you end up with this situation they have with Stellantis, where Stellantis says, “They're treating us differently from our competitors, so we'll go to the U.S. We'll go somewhere else.” You end up in these blackmail situations like that in the race to the bottom.

The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry go around saying it's Ontario's fault. It's not the federal government's fault that it's subsidizing Volkswagen for $14 billion a year. It's the Ontario government's fault now. The Ontario government needs to do what they're doing. It needs to come out and print money and run deficits beyond comprehension in order to do it. Everybody should pour gasoline on the fire and adopt this strategy.

I am probably the only person at this meeting today who has actually read those contracts. I could share a lot with them. I'd be open to any questions from the government as to what's in those contracts. They are shockingly bad contracts, but there will be more to come on that. I can hardly wait to see the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on that, because he has access to it too, and I suspect it will be scathing.

Getting back to that, $543 billion is not a believable number, because no number this government has put out in the budget plan is believable, and we need to have witnesses on the economic side of the ledger come and talk about those issues in the committee. If that $543 billion were believable, it is $263 billion more than the government spent in 2015. That's a 94% increase—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There's been a lot of discussion in the last hour or so by MP Blaikie and MP Beech, which I found interesting. As they say, there are usually at least two sides to every story. In this case, it is probably three.

Those watching need to understand how we got to this place and why we're asking for 19 hours of witnesses, as opposed to the 10 that have happened today. It goes back to the original motion MP Beech spoke quite extensively about a few moments ago. It was negotiated in good faith. We certainly believe it was negotiated in good faith that we would get 20 hours of witnesses. This is an issue about how we got here, which both MP Blaikie and MP Beech may have a different view on.

Our view is that we negotiated that in good faith. The government decided not to have 19 or 20 hours of debate or witness testimony. They decided to have only 10 hours on a spending bill of half a trillion dollars for the budget implementation act. We negotiated that in good faith and believe that good faith is not being upheld by the government and its supply arrangement partner, the NDP, in saying that it's okay to have only 10 hours of witnesses on a piece of legislation that has record spending and will have impacts on generations to come.

MP Beech talked about arbitrary filibusters. Well, I'm sorry he thinks democratic tools are arbitrary. They're not arbitrary. As the chair points out, the 27 hours of discussion held on the minister's appearing for two hours at this committee to defend her bill, Bill C-47—which amends 51 acts of Parliament and spends half a trillion dollars—was not arbitrary. It was a specific democratic, institutional accountability issue.

The minister has built up a level of distrust in this committee and in the House because she has refused to accept three invitations by this committee in the last six months, the first being to appear on the issue of inflation with the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the second being on estimates. While these are invitations and it's up to the minister to come, generally, even the Treasury Board guidelines I referred to in my earlier discussion about her appearance say that an estimates appearance is a must for a minister. It's not really optional. You have to come, as a minister. It's part of the accountability element of Parliament to do it, yet she was unwilling and we were unable to secure a guaranteed commitment from the minister that she would appear for two hours. That's all we were asking for. I don't think it's a lot to ask.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. The fact is that the minister ignored three invitations, the third being on the actual pre-budget consultation for this budget delivered in Parliament. It was one of the five days between May and January when the minister appeared in Parliament. That was about—

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

Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

On the budget implementation bill, I'd like to move the following motion:

That the committee reiterate its desire to hear a total of 20 hours of testimony in relation to Bill C-47, Budget Implementation Act No.1, as agreed to on May 16, 2023, and notwithstanding that motion, the committee maintain its goal of receiving 20 hours of witness testimony but not proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill until the committee hears a minimum of 19 hours of witness testimony.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I think Mr. Chambers could wear this as a badge of honour and that he has probably been called worse things by better people. In any event, that's not productive.

I really think that what would be productive is that we have witnesses come to talk about a half a trillion dollars in government spending. That's what we're arguing for here, Mr. Chair, and it's very important.

I want to get into some of the substance, though, of what we need these witnesses here for. For example, the department actually provided a document. There is one thing I want to mention, by the way. When we had Ms. Gwyer here a while ago, I asked her what the issue was with CRA not accepting cheques over $10,000. I'm paraphrasing, but she essentially said that, if someone can't do it, and if they can't figure out how to transfer electronically, CRA will try to help them. I just saw a news report that she testified in front of the Senate committee about how CRA is going to be accepting these cheques. That's just one example of something we need to get clarification on.

The overview report the department provided is close to 90 pages long. It's massive. There is electronic filing and certification of tax information and electronic payments. We need more time to discuss those types of things.

We did get to speak about the doubling of the expense credit for tools of the trades, although it would actually have been nice to get testimony from my colleague Mr. Lewis about his bill on this matter.

We have not heard from the real estate industry, when housing—affordable housing and housing in general—is a major crisis in this country. This country is growing and it's going to be much bigger over the next 10 years. We have a massive shortage of housing and housing starts have gone down, yet at this committee we have not heard from experts on housing and what government can do to create the environment that home builders need to get houses built in this country. That's a major hole in witness testimony, and those voices are not being heard.

We have new rules on house flipping, on which we have not heard external witness testimony to find out how those might affect the market. I'm not saying that maybe this isn't a good thing. I just don't know, because we haven't had a chance to hear from people representing co-ops, people in the real estate industry or people in the banking industry what this type of change to the rules of our real estate markets might mean. It's a huge gap in our witness testimony.

Regarding taxation of veterans' and active members' benefits, again, we all have great respect for our veterans yet we haven't heard from any veterans. They haven't appeared before committee on this budget, yet their benefits are being directly affected by this budget. Why haven't we heard from veterans organizations?

All we've said is that we want another 10 hours of testimony—which could really have been done by now—before we get to clause-by-clause. It's not as though we're asking for the moon. It wasn't as though we were asking the finance minister to do a lot either, other than to come to the committee for two hours.

At every step of the way, this government seems to want to cut off debate on the budget in the House and to cut off witness testimony. Maybe it's because they didn't like the 10 hours of witness testimony we had. It was pretty bad for the government. There weren't a lot of good things—or any that I can recall—said about this budget.

Maybe they wanted to stop the bleeding. It's really hard to say. I can't get into their minds. I can really only speculate. Nevertheless, that's the point of having these meetings, of having an opposition to the government that can point out flaws. We know that having an effective opposition is fundamental to good governance. We know that because all we have to do is look around the world and look at countries that don't have an effective opposition.

Do you know what happens in those countries? Bad things happen. We can see that right now in Russia, in China, in Sudan and in many other places around the world.

Getting back to the issue of witness testimony, there's a provision here, in part 1, dealing with technical changes to the Gottfriedson class settlement agreement, a class action proceeding on behalf of 325 Indian Act bands. We haven't heard from those bands about what this settlement means. We've heard no indigenous testimony, in fact, about this budget. If I were a member of the indigenous communities across this country, I would be aghast at the short shrift this government is giving to indigenous communities, especially when their legal status has been affected by this budget, yet there's been no indigenous testimony.

We talked about the grocery rebate already, so I'll move on from that one.

There's also the automatic advance for the Canada workers benefit. It might be a good thing, but, again, we haven't heard from workers. We haven't had unions speak to what this means for their members.

Registered education savings plans is another area that we have not had witnesses on. There have been no witnesses on the RESPs. This is a very important program. I had those for my kids. I'm sure many members of this committee had them. Millions of Canadians have these RESPs, and there are changes being made to the RESPs. We haven't been able to hear from parent groups. We haven't been able to hear from schools. There's been just a complete absence of testimony on a policy that will affect millions and millions of Canadians. There's been zero testimony.

There's the registered disability savings plan. This one is actually near and dear to my heart. Probably many committee members don't know but my son Nathan was born in 1999. When he was two, he was diagnosed with autism. He was actually among the most severe. When Mr. Flaherty brought in this particular program, we were among the first to sign up for it. The registered disability savings plan is an extremely important program for families in this country who have a loved one with a disability. We have not heard from disability groups. I would love to hear from disability groups about what we could do to improve the effectiveness of the registered disability savings plan. For Mr. Flaherty, may he rest in peace, this was a signature accomplishment of his career. He was an excellent finance minister for this country. I can guarantee he would never do what this government is doing now in terms of their spending.

Where are the special needs groups? Why isn't the St.Amant centre in Winnipeg here testifying about the importance of the registered disability savings plan? There are so many. The Autism Society of Manitoba, my home province, could be here testifying about the registered disability savings plan. In fact, there's been no testimony from any family, group or individual on special needs issues even though there are major changes being made in this budget that will affect millions of Canadians who have children.

It's just appalling that the dearth of witness testimony being enforced by the costly coalition of the Liberals and the NDP on this committee is really doing a massive disservice to Canadians.

On fixing contribution errors in defined contribution plans, there's no witness testimony on that.

There are technical tax changes to the dental program and taxpayer information sharing for the Canada dental care program. These are very important things. We're talking about having CRA share confidential information. We've seen problems. There's a bill before the House right now to try to deal with privacy issues around leaking personal data. CRA has been hacked already. There are a lot of issues around protection of personal data. Again, it would be interesting to hear, for example, from the dental profession about this issue, but, no, we haven't had those witnesses either.

For hedging and short selling by financial institutions, we haven't had testimony on that one. That sounds like a very important subject that we should really be talking about at the finance committee, which is where we talk about the finances of this country, yet major changes to banking laws are being made without any testimony.

I'm not going to go through every single one of these, but there are a few more that I want to touch on. Just bear with me here.

There's treatment of mining of crypto assets. That's in terms of the GST/HST. We did have some testimony on that. I'm no expert on that, but that strikes me as an area that needs to be further examined. We did hear testimony from, I think, a couple of lawyers here from Toronto, who said that this is of serious concern, this particular change, and that it needs further examination. Other countries are going to eat our lunch on this type of technology in the future if we don't start treating entrepreneurs in this area with a little bit of respect.

The credit card services we heard.... I have to say in my testimony, Mr. Chair, that I've never seen a government actually make a promise and break that promise in the same budget. That was a new one. They've broken many promises. I won't go through the whole list here. I'm sure my colleagues would like to speak about those later, but we have a situation in which the government has said they want to bring down credit card fees and that they've made agreements with the banks now to bring down the charges that people pay when they go shopping and use their credit cards, but at the same time they change the GST rules to make it more expensive. They giveth and they taketh away, not a few months apart or years apart but actually in the same moment, in the same document. It's quite stunning.

We have the pension limitation period rebate fix. We've had no testimony on that.

For freight transportation of money, we've had no testimony on that one either.

On alcohol excise duties, we have had some testimony. I suppose it was good to see the government at least freeze the excise tax increase at 2% instead of inflation. I know I had asked the Minister of Finance to freeze this back when the fall economic statement was released, when she was actually in committee that one time. She said something about this advice being akin to crypto or something. It was a weird response. I didn't expect the government to actually move on this, but I guess the finance minister must have thought about it, thought about my question and my arguments, and agreed with me. I suppose that's one good thing, because when the budget came out, I would have liked instead to see zero.

Frankly, the undemocratic nature of the escalator tax is clear. Taxes should not be increased unless Parliament actually votes for them, not by order in council or any other way, but that's not what the excise tax does.

On a fair external complaints handling system for banking, again, we have not had the banks in to talk about what this means. It may be a good thing. I'm not arguing for or against it, but the point of this motion isn't to argue for or against these measures. The point of this motion is to argue for the fact that 10 hours of witness testimony for a half-trillion dollar budget is simply not sufficient. That's painfully obvious.

On strengthening the pension and federal pension framework and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, again there was no testimony.

By the way, I just want to spend a few moments talking about the Canada growth fund. I think this is very important. This is a $12-billion project the government wants to stand up really quickly. My experience in my prior life as a lawyer has been that, when clients rush to do things, often mistakes are made.

They want to stand it up really quickly, so instead of doing what they did with the Canada Infrastructure Bank—which is a whole other issue that I will get to later—and going out and hiring people to run the Canada Infrastructure Bank, what did they do? They decided to approach an independent pension fund management firm, the PSPIB, the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, and ask them to stand up the Canada growth fund as soon as possible. In fact, the departmental briefing notes say that a team has been seconded to stand up the growth fund.

We did have officials here on this in the prestudy of the budget, and one of the things I asked the officials was whether or not a request for proposals was made and how the PSPIB was selected. They are independent. They are not a branch of the government. They stand alone. How is it that all of a sudden the PSPIB is managing the Canada growth fund?

When I asked whether or not there was an RFP, the official said she would have to get back to me, which is fine, Mr. Chair, but the problem is that this is now approaching the end of May and I've not heard back. I don't know why the PSPIB was selected without having to go through a request for proposals. In fact, the Government of Canada's own website on procurement says that for the public service to retain services of any company for over $100,000, it must go to an RFP. I would like an answer to that question. I asked the clerk to follow up on that for me last week. He did, and I still do not have an answer. That is fundamental, and we need to have an answer as to how the PSPIB was selected. Who made that decision? Was that a cabinet decision?

We've seen so many things happen with this government and how these decisions are made. People get appointed because of their connections. I'm not saying that the PSPIB isn't a worthy organization or a qualified organization. I just don't know, because no RFP was conducted. We haven't heard from witnesses. We could call other witnesses who might be able to testify and who might be able to do that as well, but somehow, out of the blue, the PSPIB gets to manage $12 billion, with no request for proposals. This is terrible practice, Mr. Chair. We saw what happened with the WE Charity when this happened. It's like this government has never seen a conflict it didn't want to embrace.

I look at the intergovernmental affairs minister's sister-in-law being tapped to be the interim director of ethics and members of the Trudeau society being appointed to provide reports that are supposed to be independent and potentially critical of the government.

Of course we've seen what happens when this government appoints people—its friends—and says they're independent. It's just a farce. This government seems to have a blind spot frankly when it comes to these types of conflicts. It is a huge concern. Why don't we have witnesses? It's a $12-billion project. Certainly you would think a request to hear from witnesses on the $12-billion Canada growth fund would be reasonable, yet, no, we're stymied. This committee wants only 10 hours of witnesses. We're not going hear about the RDSP. We're not going to hear about RRSPs. We're not going to hear about CRA sharing private information. We're not going to hear about the Canada growth fund. It's appalling, but again I do hope...and I want to relay to the clerk that perhaps he could follow up again to get me that answer. I would very much appreciate having answers as to why on a $12-billion project—$12 billion of taxpayers' money that is being rushed out the door—no request for proposals was done to find absolutely the best management for this project, this program, in the country.

Who decided it should be the PSPIB? Was it someone in the public service? Was it a minister? Was it the Prime Minister? It's a mystery, and I don't like mysteries, especially when it comes to taxpayers' dollars, especially from a government that said it would be open by default, from a government that pretended to be the most transparent government in Canadian history. That was another important promise that was broken.

We have not heard from any witnesses about the important issue of money laundering in this country. Canada has become a safe haven for money launderers. In fact we have our own nickname now for it in Canada. It's called snow washing. It's not a badge of honour, yet there's been not a single witness on money laundering, which is a major issue. I know my colleague Mr. Chambers cares very much about this issue. In fact he presented an important bill, a very simple bill that would have helped get this situation under control, and the government rejected it. They rejected a common-sense bill that would reduce money laundering in this country. Why? Is that responsible government? No, it's not responsible government. That's why we should be hearing witnesses on why Canada has the nickname “snow washing” of all things. Again, it's not a badge of honour.

There's supporting the economic growth of developing countries and preferential tariff programs for developing countries. This is division 4 of Bill C-47. This may also be a very laudable goal, but we have no explanation on this. We have no witness testimony. It would be interesting to hear from developing countries, in fact, as witnesses on this matter. I know that in my time on the foreign affairs committee, we spent a lot of time talking about how we could help civil society organizations around the world improve the standards of living of people living in poverty around the world. Canada is in many respects a leader in that type of thinking. Again that's another very important part of this budget, but there's been nothing, no witnesses and no testimony.

There's the indefinite withdrawal of most-favoured-nation status from Russia and Belarus. By the way, this is in the budget bill. The indefinite withdrawal of most-favoured-nation status from Russia and Belarus—I ask all the people who are watching this committee meeting now what that has to do with a budget. Send me your emails. It has nothing to do with the budget. It again gets back to this issue of the dangers of omnibus bills.

I may get back to some of these provisions in a few minutes, Mr. Chair, but I want to say that I think we also need to have witnesses on omnibus bills. This practice has gotten out of control.

I have an academic article written by Louis Massicotte. I won't read the whole thing, but there is one passage here that I think needs to be read into the record. It's not a recent document. It refers to an older bill, Bill C-38.

Bill C-38 has been widely condemned, and criticisms came from unexpected sources. Why are so many people concerned about omnibus bills? The reasons are in many ways the exact reverse of the previous ones. From the point of view of the opposition, omnibus bills are as attractive as the closure, time allocation, supply guillotines and so on. They create quandaries for opposition parties and oblige them to object to some popular measures delicately hidden in a less attractive package.

The real question, however, beyond the convenience of the government or of the opposition parties, may well be: is the public interest well served by omnibus bills? Take for example the clause-by-clause study in committee. When a bill deals with topics as varied as fisheries, unemployment insurance and environment, it is unlikely to be examined properly if the whole bill goes to the Standing Committee on Finance. The opposition parties complain legitimately that their critics on many topics covered by an omnibus bill have already been assigned to other committees. The public has every interest in a legislation being examined by the appropriate bodies.

We know that Speakers have consistently refused to act as referees on such issues, while at times hinting that the House might provide for some special procedures. One of them, Lucien Lamoureux, came up with what is probably the best question: is there any end?

This is the point of this article: Where does this go?

Could a government wrap up half of its legislative programme into a single measure dealing with the improvement of the life of Canadians or ensuring prosperity for all?

We often hear that omnibus bills are like closure and time allocation: “all governments do it”, which.... This is why some of the most eloquent pleas against the practice of omnibus bills have been made in the past by the present Prime Minister, and were no less eloquently refuted by then Cabinet ministers now sitting in opposition. But in recent years, the logic behind omnibus bills has been pushed to extremes never seen before. It has been computed that between 1994 and 2005, budget implementation bills averaged 73.6 pages, while since 2006 they averaged 308.9—four times longer. But the increase is even more huge than it looks. While during the first period a single budget implementation bill was presented each year (there were none in 2002 and two in 2004), bills of that nature have since then been presented twice a year except in 2008, when there was a single one. The yearly average of budget implementation legislation in recent years is therefore closer to 550 pages—this is seven times longer! Another contrast is that during the first period, budget implementation bills tended to be slimmed down markedly between first reading and Royal Assent, while in recent years they kept their initial size throughout.

The debate on Bill C-38 reminds us that omnibus bills have become a slippery slope now generating high controversy. In my view, they do little to improve the already low esteem in which legislators are held by the Canadian public. My colleague Ned Franks wrote three years ago that omnibus budget implementation bills “subvert and evade the normal principles of parliamentary review of legislation”. I fully concur with his assessment.

I couldn't have put it better, Mr. Chair.

With that, I think I am going to give up the floor for the moment. I would ask the clerk to put me back on the list, though.

I do hope that some of the things I've said have some influence on the other members of this committee.

It is vitally important. The Liberals need to put their partisanship aside and look out for the best interests of all Canadians. With a half-trillion dollar budget, reaching almost 25% of this country's GDP, Canadians deserve no less.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 93 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, May 2, 2023, and the motion adopted on May 16, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

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

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

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

With regard to interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of either floor, English or French audio. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

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

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

Members, before we begin, for the benefit of our members and of Canadians who are joining us and watching us today in the committee's proceedings, I'd like to inform you that, as per the motion adopted on May 16, 2023, through unanimous consent from all parties, we scheduled a clause-by-clause meeting yesterday that went for five and half hours, completing a total of two clauses out of 681 clauses total. Now, that's very unusual.

At the finance committee, we've worked on many report considerations in the past. Last year, clause-by-clause took a total of five hours to complete. Again, yesterday we could complete only two clauses in five and half hours. We scheduled this meeting to begin clause-by-clause consideration, as per part (b) of the motion adopted, again, by unanimous consent from all parties. It reads, “(b) Moving to clause-by-clause review of Bill C-47 no later than Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 11:00 a.m.”, which is what we did.

As of yesterday, we've completed a total of 46 hours, equivalent to at least 23 meetings, for the subject matter of Bill C-47. A few members mentioned yesterday that they had assumed there would be more witness meetings scheduled for this week. I reminded those members and all others that, as per the motion adopted with their unanimous consent—meaning all members were in agreement—there were no objections to that and to what was being agreed to at that time. There were no objections. We met with the requirements of the motion before we moved to clause-by-clause, again, as per the motion's part (b) that I read out a little earlier.

After consulting with our clerks, I also reminded them that, during our last witness meeting, during the late evening of May 18, 2023, I stated the following during my remarks: “You will be the last set of witnesses the committee will hear on this piece of legislation”. All party members in this room wholeheartedly thanked our witnesses, as well as our clerks, who had diligently arranged the witness testimonies in such short order.

To reiterate what I mentioned yesterday, as chair, I must interpret the motion as written. Given that there's still some confusion over part (d) of the motion and how the phrase “goal of accomplishing at least 20 hours of study prior to the beginning of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill” interfaces with the rest of the motion, I want to specifically read out the start of the motion and part (a):

That the committee continue its pre-study of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, by:

a) Inviting witnesses to appear on the contents of Bill C-47 during meetings scheduled the weeks of May 1, May 8 and May 15, 2023

Our meeting 87, which was scheduled with the clear intent of proceeding with witnesses as per the motion, ran for approximately 27 hours—at least equivalent to 13 meetings—starting on Tuesday, May 2 at 11:00 a.m. and ending on Tuesday, May 16 at 4:24 p.m.

The members who spoke at length during meeting 87 were already fully aware that we had to cancel all scheduled witnesses in order to allow them to keep speaking for hours.

Canadians would have preferred instead to listen to testimony from witnesses, including the many individuals and organizations that were eager to appear in front of our committee to answer many questions from our members. I know all our members work hard to prepare thoughtful and intelligent questions for our expert witnesses.

We adjourned that meeting with unanimous consent from all parties to add, “and that the whips of the recognized parties, and the clerks, be empowered to seek as many meetings as possible, with the goal of meeting for 10 hours before the end of this week”. That was for the week of May 15, which was last week.

Thanks to our extremely hard-working clerks—I thank them—we were able to achieve the 10 hours of witness testimony last week, as required, with a full house of witnesses for every hour of those meetings. Everything was done in good faith and collaboration, as evidenced by it being carried with unanimous consent from all parties.

All parties submitted amendments in the same good faith, within the required deadline of 12:00 noon last Friday. This was an indication that everyone interpreted the adopted motion the same way that the clerk and I understood it. Also, this timely submission helped our legislative clerk and his team work towards the next step, to ensure that they prepared the required documents and package for clause-by-clause.

I understand that members who brought this up in the late afternoon on Wednesday had plenty of time to bring it up ahead of submitting their amendments. In spite of having my personal contact information, none of these members called, texted or emailed me to discuss or to clarify. You had an opportunity to reach out to me last week or all of this week, but you decided not to.

Again, I am happy to make myself available to all members, and I am glad that a number of you sent me messages yesterday. I have sent MP Morantz.... I apologized yesterday that MP Morantz did not have my personal information. I believe he has it now.

Marty, feel free to contact me any time.

Again, I hope what I mentioned has brought better clarity to the motion that was adopted on unanimous consent, and we can move on.

I would again like to take this opportunity to thank our clerks, our legislative clerk and their team of analysts, interpreters and technicians, who have made these 46-plus hours possible and still keep on working really hard.

Thank you.

Members, if this is good, let's try this again. We will go ahead with what's in front of us. Please refer to the package received from our clerk.

With us today, again, are a multitude of senior officials from various departments per division discussed. If you have any questions for them, you'll have an opportunity to ask those.

At this time, we'll get to our annotated agenda here. I'll look to the legislative clerk, but we were at clause 4. Is that correct? Yes.

We have some hands up. I see MP Morantz—his hand is up—and then MP Blaikie and PS Beech.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I will respond to that, MP Lawrence. What is disingenuous is what you've just said.

I'll read it into the record, because I'd like to do that. This is what I said today at the start of this meeting as we were going to get into clause-by-clause. This will give me an opportunity. All those who may be watching can hear this, which may be limited to the members of this committee.

Knowing that we have spent a considerable number of hours on the subject matter and Bill C-47, I'd like to provide a recap for the benefit of our members, as well as for anyone watching this committee.

To be precise, as of last week, we have completed a total of 40.5 hours, which is the equivalent to at least 20 meetings, thanks to our wonderful clerks right here to my left. As chair, I must interpret the motion as written, given there seems to be some confusion—and that may be your confusion—over part (d) of the motion and how the phrase “goal of accomplishing at least 20 hours of study prior to the beginning of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill” interfaces with the rest of the motion.

I want to specifically read out the start of the motion and section (a). It reads:

That the committee continue its pre-study of Bill C-47, an Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, by:

(a) Inviting witnesses to appear on the contents of Bill C-47 during meetings scheduled the weeks of May 1, May 8, and May 15, 2023....

I hope you have a calendar in front of you, MP Lawrence. You could look at when those weeks were.

In keeping up with specific requirements, our clerks had diligently worked hard to schedule witnesses. Our members may already be aware that we had to cancel all those scheduled witnesses ahead of the meetings. We had to cancel those, MP Lawrence. In fact, thanks to the kind intervention of our Bloc member, MP Ste-Marie, we were able to break a marathon meeting, number 87, which ran for approximately 27 hours or at least equivalent to 13 meetings. It started on Tuesday, May 2, at 11 a.m., and ended on Tuesday, May 16, at 4:24 p.m. I just want to make sure that you get that correctly. We adjourned that meeting through unanimous consent.

For all those watching, and for members, who I'm sure are aware, unanimous consent means that all members, including yourself, MP Lawrence, from all parties agreed to add the following:

(e) and that the whips of the recognized parties, and the clerks, be empowered to seek as many meetings as possible, with the goal of meeting for 10 hours before the end of this week.

That's what you agreed to—for 10 hours before the end of the week—for the week of May 15, which was, again, last week, MP Lawrence, if you pull out your calendar. Thanks to our extremely hard-working clerks again, we were able to miraculously achieve the 10 hours of witness testimony last week as required with a full house of witnesses for every hour of those meetings.

Unfortunately, due to the late passage of this motion, members are fully aware that we are under constraints, and our clerks did their best to work around the timelines required for last week. We had a number of committees that had to be cancelled, etc., to be able to pull those hours together and to have the resources to have those witnesses come before us. Everything was done in good faith and in collaboration.

I know that because, MP Lawrence, you never reached out to me. You had my number. You had my text. For MP Chambers and MP Hallan, it was the same. Actually, you spoke to me about a number of things but never was this ever brought up. I just want to let you know. Everything was done...as evidenced by being carried, again, with unanimous consent from you and from all the members, from all the parties here.

All parties submitted amendments in the same good faith within the required deadline of 12 noon last Friday, including the Conservatives. This was a very clear indication, MP Lawrence, that everyone interpreted the adopted motion the same way that I understood. Also, this timely submission helped our legislative clerk and his team—who are with us here right now, and we have heard them read some of the clauses into the record—work towards the next step to ensure they prepared the required documents and package for clause-by-clause.

I understand that the members brought that letter that came to us late in the afternoon yesterday. Yesterday is when you sent it—the first time I heard from you from our last meeting when we were here, hearing from witnesses. You had plenty of time to bring this up earlier, submitting whatever amendments you had.

All members on this committee have my personal contact information. I know, because you text me regularly. Adam Chambers texts me regularly. Jas Hallan does the same. I don't know if Marty has ever texted me.

Marty, I'd love to get a text from you. Please text me, Marty. I feel lonely when you're not doing that.

Everybody, including the Liberals, including the Bloc, including the NDP, regularly communicates with me. None of you reached out to me. None of you ever reached out. I just want to make that very clear, MP Lawrence.

Again, let me thank MP Ste-Marie here for his quick thinking. He was really quick on his feet. He was able to think of how we could efficiently get in as many witnesses as possible, which we did. Thanks to the hard work of our clerks and everybody else, we heard from those witnesses.

That's where we are today, MP Lawrence. You know, we have officials who have been brought in. They are here to answer questions, etc., and to help us as we go through clause-by-clause. Many Canadians are waiting for their benefits. You've spoken to some of them. They've come up, actually, in the first couple of clauses, where we talked about tradespeople, etc., who need this to happen.

MP Lawrence, I'm going to give the floor back to you, but that's where we're at and that's how we got to this place.

Just to do a full recap for you, if there's something that you feel was not right in what I just spelled out for you.... Did you not vote for that motion? Through unanimous consent, did you not say “yes” to what we wanted to do here today? Now it sounds like amnesia, like you've never heard of this before.

MP Lawrence, go ahead—

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

It's just in terms of relevance. I'm reading the motion that was circulated by the clerk. It has to do with whether or not we'll go back to hearing witness testimony on Bill C-47, not hearing the testimony itself from Mr. Lawrence. I would ask that he stay relevant to the motion on the floor so that we can have a vote on it and decide how this committee is going to proceed.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll start from the top because of the interference. I move: C-47

That given the committee has yet to achieve its objective of obtaining 20 hours of witness testimony on Bill C-47, notwithstanding the motion adopted by this committee on May 16th, the committee allocate an additional 10 hours for witness testimony and that clause by clause begin immediately following the 20th hour of witness testimony.

I'd like to continue with that motion if it is found to be in good order, Mr. Chair.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like, at this point, to bring a motion to the floor: That given the committee has yet to achieve its objective of obtaining 20 hours of witness testimony on Bill C-47, notwithstanding the motion....

I'm getting some feedback, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We're moving on.

Members, we are now back to meeting number 92. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, May 2, 2023, we are here for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.

We are now at part 1, “Amendments to the Income Tax Act and Other Legislation”. There are no amendments to clauses 2 to 70. I don't know if members would like to group those, but we would need unanimous consent to be able to do that.

Did I hear a “no”?

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

Thank you. I'd like to read into the record the following letter with respect to our members at this committee:

We are writing to express our profound disappointment regarding the insufficient witness testimony on Bill C-47 the Budget Implementation Act. The motion passed on May 16th, which was the result of collaborative efforts by Conservatives, clearly outlined the committee's objective of conducting a minimum of 20 hours of study before commencing clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill. However, as the scheduled time for the clause-by-clause review approaches...May 25th at 11 am, we have only received 10 hours of witness testimony....

Conservatives were fully prepared and available to work diligently over the weekend, as well as on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, to ensure ample witness meetings took place. Regrettably, no such meetings were scheduled, which undermines the goodwill with which [the motion was passed on May 16th]. Furthermore, it is disheartening for all Canadians who are eager to testify on the budget.

Canadians need to have their say as they are struggling with the cost-of-living crisis. Budget 2023 proposes $60 billion in new spending and since it was introduced, inflation in Canada has increased. Groceries are inflated [by] 10% [per month], food bank use is at record highs—

I might add, from the testimony of this very committee, that food bank experts, CEOs and leaders were saying that the situation on the ground was “terrifying”.

—1 in 5 Canadians are skipping meals and it is getting harder and harder for many to get by. On housing, rent and mortgage payments have doubled over the past eight years, and 9 out of 10 young people believe that they will never...own a home. These are the issues concerning Canadians and this is the testimony that committee needs to hear.

Considering that we are...10 hours short of the testimony required to fulfill the minimum goal specified within the motion, Conservatives will introduce a motion tomorrow....

It has been introduced.

Let me put some background behind this. I had numerous discussions in good faith with my counterparts across the way and made it clear that Conservatives wanted 20 hours of testimony and that we were willing to sit whether it be Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday, to get this done. We were absolutely clear on this, and there can be no doubt. I would put my honour on it. Any type of comment otherwise is the height of disingenuity. That's perhaps not surprising, given that with this government's record of corruption, with the SNC-Lavalin affair, with WE and with foreign interference, we have seen that this is a government we cannot trust.

Maybe it was because of the testimony, which was absolutely damning for the 10 hours. We heard that this was the slowest economic growth since the 1930s. Since the Great Depression, Canada has never experienced such economically challenging times with record-low growth.

Yes, there was some time before the committee, during which absolutely Conservatives engaged in a lengthy discussion or debate, and that was in order to get Minister Freeland here. This is a minister who has now presided over the worst economy since that during the Great Depression, and she wouldn't come to talk for two hours.

That was the outrageous demand of Conservatives: to have her come and testify for two hours. Then she came to committee and she wouldn't answer the most basic of simple questions. My colleague Mr. Chambers asked the simplest question, a question she was well equipped to answer off the top of her head, but she would not answer. She would not answer the simple question of how much interest was being paid on the debt.

These were simple questions. All that we asked was for the Minister of Finance, who is presiding over the biggest national debt, some of the highest inflation and the worst housing situation in a generation, to come for two hours and answer simple questions. That was the only precondition to going forward. Acting collaboratively and in good faith, I personally worked with members at this committee and told them to work more to move the process forward. I personally had discussions with them and counted on them to act as honourable members of this House, and they committed to me that they would do everything possible to get 20 hours of testimony. That was a personal discussion. It's the spirit of this act, and it's the spirit of this motion.

If this chair is unwilling to do the right thing and have testimony put on the record...and it's completely possible, because do you know what, Mr. Chair? When it came to you trying to grind or punish Conservatives, you had all the time in the day. We could go until midnight any night we wanted to. Now, suddenly, there's a lack of resources. This is the height of hypocrisy and a biased chair.

All Conservatives want is to hear from Canadians. Canadians deserve the right to hear why $60 billion of their money is being spent and why this government—why this Minister of Finance—is blowing past the debt-to-GDP ratio. All we want is the right for Canadians to testify. This is not outrageous. We are not trying to do anything that is beyond the pale. We're asking for an additional 10 hours of testimony.

Conservatives are committed to democracy. Conservatives are committed to putting on the record the important issues and, Mr. Chair, one of the most important issues with respect to the current economy. Philip Cross, a noted academic, a noted former employee of Statistics Canada, used Statistics Canada information to demonstrate that we have the worst economy since the 1930s, and one of the issues is this government's war on work.

If this chair is unwilling to put forward witness testimony, I will simply start reading it into the record, as is my right. The C.D. Howe Institute has a report: “Softening the Bite: The Impact of Benefit Clawbacks on Low-Income Families and How to Reduce It.” This would have been an important witness to hear.

It would have been great to hear from some of the great think tanks across the country, not just on the right but on the right, the left and in the centre. I would have loved to hear from the Fraser Institute and many other institutes...the Broadbent Institute.... I would have loved to hear all of this important information.

As we start here, we'll start with the summary, just to give our viewers an idea of what I'm going to talk about:

As families earn more taxable income, government benefit entitlements are reduced...at various phase-out rates, which reduces their overall cost for government and ensures that they remain targeted to the [low]-income families. However, benefit reductions act like hidden tax rates: They reduce the effective gain from working to generate...income. To determine the tax system's full impact on a family's financial gain from work, one must take into account the combined effect of both taxes paid and cash...reductions.

What this means, Mr. Chair, fellow members and all of our viewers out there, is that Canadians are increasingly being disincentivized to work. Their incentive to work is being reduced. There are many low-income Canadians who are giving back to the government more than 50¢ on the dollar of every dollar they earn. The government is the greatest thief of the means that low-income families need to provide housing, to provide food and to take care of their children.

It continues:

This Commentary presents various estimates of effective tax rates on personal earnings for families with children. These effective rates play a key role in family work decisions by reducing the monetary reward of earned income. The “marginal” effective tax rate...conveys the loss, through additional taxes and diminished benefits, associated with an extra dollar of earnings. For a working parent, it represents the financial penalty that must be paid from any small addition to their income. The “participation” tax rate (PTR) is the cumulative effect of all...taxes, other contributions, payroll deductions and loss of...benefits on the entire prospective earnings from work.

That means that if a mom or dad wants to go back into the workforce, they face substantial headwinds. Many times, they're greater than the child care cost, because of the taxes they are paying. If this government were serious about allowing women to return to work—as they are still the disproportionate caregivers to children—they would reduce these barriers. Quite frankly, however, they are not serious about enabling women to return to work. If they were, they would remove these barriers, these high levels of clawbacks and taxation, that make it difficult for women with children to return to the workforce.

Marginal effective tax rates, or METRs, as they are sometimes colloquially referred to, “have generally been higher for lower-income families than those of higher-income families.” Let me reread that, because I think it's important for people to understand: “[Marginal effective tax rates] have generally been higher for lower-income families than those of higher-income”. That means that the poor are paying more and the rich are paying less.

It continues, “In some cases, the lower-earning parent in a dual-earner family with three children might lose more than 80 cents of an extra dollar of earnings.” Yes, you heard that right. If, for example, you are a mom and dad, and you have three kids, with the next dollar that you earn, you might be giving 80¢ of that back to the government. That's a substantial disincentive.

As Mr. Cross so eloquently said when he was at this committee, when we allowed witness testimony, it's not necessarily the calculation that occurs. It's more the global social impact that happens. It's like death by a thousand cuts. As Canadians work harder and harder, and earn less and less and keep less of their paycheques, it is a disincentive. You feel that the more you work....

You're working so hard, but you're just spinning your wheels. You're not getting ahead. That has to have a negative impact on Canadians' desire, on Canadians feeling that they are rewarded for their work. This is an issue not only for their economic well-being but also for their mental health.

It says, “Nationally, 15 percent of working lone parents or the lower-earning parents in dual-income families face a [marginal effective tax rate] above 50 percent, and 14 percent of stay-at-home parents face a PTR”, which is a participation tax rate, “above 50 percent.” This means that if you are a stay-at-home parent and you wish to rejoin the workforce, for every dollar you earn, you're only going to be able to keep less than 50% of it. Finally, it says, “And these proportions have risen substantially since the mid-1980s and early 1990s when very few families faced a [marginal effective tax rate] or [participation tax rate] greater than 50 percent.”

There are a number of ideas that I could carry on with in this discussion, but I think I'd like some of my colleagues to make a couple of comments, if they wish. Please do put me back on the speaking list, Mr. Chair.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Thank you.

I'd also like to note that part (a) of the motion clearly states—again, this is the motion that was passed by unanimous consent—that we are able to hear from witnesses the weeks of May 1, May 8 and May 15. I'm happy to read that quote:

(a) Inviting witnesses to appear on the contents of Bill C-47 during meetings scheduled the weeks of May 1, May 8, and May 15 2023

In fact, we did have those meetings. The Conservatives chose to use that time not to hear from witnesses but to instead talk to themselves about almost anything that didn't have to do with the BIA. Given the limited time we have, the many officials who are present here to support us in this important work in studying this bill, and all the work that has been done by all members and staff and the clerk and everyone else—

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

Mr. Chair, thank you very much for your opening remarks. I disagree with nearly all of them.

I would like to put the following motion on the table for discussion and debate. I move:

That the committee reiterate its desire to hear a total of 20 hours of testimony in relation to Bill C-47, Budget Implementation Act No. 1, as agreed to on May 16, 2023, and notwithstanding that motion, the committee not proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill until the committee hears 20 hours of witness testimony.

I think you'll find that it's in good order. I'd like to at this point start my discussion of the motion if I could, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I'll call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 92 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the order of reference on Tuesday, May 2, 2023, and a motion adopted on May 16, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

Members, if you can put yourselves on mute, I will complete my opening remarks.

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

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

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

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

Members, before we begin, I understand that there have been some questions on the interpretation of the motion adopted. Knowing that we have spent a considerable number of hours on the subject matter and Bill C-47, I'd like to provide a recap for the benefit of our members as well as anyone watching this committee.

To be precise, as of last week, we have completed a total of 40.5 hours, equivalent to at least 20 meetings, thanks to our wonderful clerks here.

Thank you, Clerks.

As chair, I must interpret the motion as written. Given that there seems to be some confusion over part (d) of the motion and how the phrase “goal of accomplishing at least 20 hours of study prior to the beginning of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill” interfaces with the rest of the motion, I want to specifically read out the start of the motion and section (a). It reads:

That the committee continue its pre-study of Bill C-47, an Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, by:

(a) Inviting witnesses to appear on the contents of Bill C-47 during meetings scheduled the weeks of May 1, May 8, and May 15, 2023....

In keeping up with specific requirements, our clerks have diligently worked hard to schedule witnesses. Our members may already be aware that we had to cancel all those scheduled witnesses ahead of the meetings. In fact, thanks to the kind intervention of our Bloc member MP Ste-Marie—and thank you very much, MP Ste-Marie—we were able to break a marathon meeting, number 87, which ran for approximately 27 hours or at least equivalent to 13 meetings. It started on Tuesday, May 2 at 11 a.m. and ended on Tuesday, May 16 at 4:24 p.m.

We adjourned that meeting through unanimous consent from all members here on this committee, which represent all parties on this committee. Again, it was by unanimous consent. Those watching may not know that all members voted unanimously and that all parties were represented by those members. It read:

(e) and that the whips of the recognized parties, and the clerks, be empowered to seek as many meetings as possible, with the goal of meeting for 10 hours before the end of this week.

That week was the week of May 15, which was last week. Thanks to our extremely hard-working clerks again, we were able to miraculously achieve the 10 hours of witness testimony last week as required, with a full house of witnesses for every hour of those meetings.

Unfortunately, due to the late passage of this motion, members are fully aware that we are under constraints, and our clerks did their best to work around the timelines required for last week. Everything was done in good faith and in collaboration, as evidenced by being carried with unanimous consent from all of the members of committee, who represent all parties.

All parties submitted amendments in the same good faith within the required deadline of 12 noon last Friday. This was a clear indication that everyone interpreted the adopted motion the same way that the clerk or I understood. Also, this timely submission helped our legislative clerk and his team—Philippe Méla, thank you—work towards the next step to ensure they prepared the required documents and package for clause-by-clause.

I understand that the members who brought this up late afternoon yesterday had plenty of time to bring this up ahead of submitting their amendments. All members on this committee have my personal contact information: my cellphone, email, etc. You can call me, text me and email me. You've done it during weekdays, weekends, workday hours and after work hours. It doesn't matter. I'm open to hearing from the members.

The members who have put this letter together have also reached out to me many times in the past, and I always try to get back to you within a reasonable time. Sometimes within minutes I get back to you. You had the opportunity to reach out to me last week or all of this week, but I did not hear from any of you.

I hope what I've mentioned has brought better clarity to the letter that was received and the motion that was adopted by—again, I'll repeat—the unanimous consent of all the members.

Again, I would like to thank MP Ste-Marie for quickly thinking of an efficient way to bring in the witnesses who were cancelled a couple of weeks ago. I really believe that our finance committee works well with this kind of collective team effort.

I would again like to take this opportunity to thank our clerks, our legislative clerk and team of analysts, and our interpreters and technicians, who have really made these 40-plus hours possible and are still working. Thank you very much.

Thank you to all of you.

Members, if good, we will go ahead with what's in front of us. You have received the package from our clerk. With us today are a multitude of senior officials from various departments, per division as discussed, if you have any questions for them.

I see a hand up. I see MP Lawrence.

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

Thank you.

Obviously, the EI system needs reforming, as I said, to make sure it meets the demand and covers the people who need it. That was promised for last summer. Then last summer, the government said it would happen in the fall. Last fall, the government said it would happen eventually.

My understanding is that the consultations have happened. Meanwhile, what we find in Bill C-47—the one-year extension—doesn't solve anything. It is indeed a temporary measure to address the gap in the targeted regions. The board of appeal is fine, but it could be better, given the points you raised.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bissonnette, in your opening remarks, you talked about the Employment Insurance Board of Appeal. My understanding is that Bill C-47 basically replicates what was in Bill C-37 with respect to the appeal board. We know that a real appeal mechanism is needed.

I gather that you support the same proposal, but you think the details need improving. You feel that the hearings should take place in person and that the chairperson shouldn't be involved.

Would you mind explaining that again?

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

All right. I have time left.

All the government is doing in Bill C-47 is extending, for one year, a temporary measure to address the gap in the targeted regions. Is that enough?

[Marc Brazeau, President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee.

Former member of the CTA and Liberal candidate in Manitoba Mary-Jane Bennett said that interswitching was inefficient—that it wouldn’t correct problems with the supply chain, but amplify them.

Each switch adds to transit time. The more switches you do, the bigger the slowdown. The more you handle a car, the longer it takes to get moving. This measure undermines the capacity, the efficiency and the fluidity of Canada’s supply chains and will harm all shippers.

In fact, that measure was tried between 2014 and 2017, and it failed. Extended interswitching adds, on average, one to two days to rail transit times. It was abandoned by this government after an independent statutory review of the Canada Transportation Act. This government’s transport minister at the time, Marc Garneau, acknowledged that the policy was always meant to be temporary. Nothing has changed that would justify going back to extended interswitching.

Let’s review why extended interswitching was sunset. First, is the lack of reciprocity in the U.S. Regulated interswitching does not exist in the United States. Under the government’s proposal, U.S. railways will be able to solicit Canadian traffic at cost-based rates, without any reciprocity for CPKC and CN to do the same in the U.S. That means fewer available car loads for Canadian railroaders to move across Canada.

It may also mean less available work for port workers if shipments end up in Seattle rather than Vancouver, for example. These are good-paying, overwhelmingly union jobs. The combined network of CN and CPKC exceeds 60,000 kilometres of track. CN and CPKC have 27,000 employees based in Canada. U.S. railways’ Canadian presence is mainly incidental, with just a few hundred kilometres of track.

Why should Parliament intentionally disadvantage Canadian railways to directly benefit U.S. railways?

Helena Borges, former associate deputy minister of Transport Canada, told Parliament in 2017 that extended regulated interswitching was “having unintended consequences on the competitiveness of our railways vis-à-vis the U.S. railways.” Long-haul interswitching was the government’s much-consulted response. Now the government wants to resurrect a policy it already recognized as a failure.

The second reason for sunsetting was the non-compensatory rate. Bill C-47 will force Canadian railways to move traffic, sometimes in the wrong direction and always at below-market rates. The 2016 review found that below-market rates were inappropriate because they hurt railways’ ability to reinvest in their networks. Everything we purchase is at market rates, from buying steel to paying salaries. Railways cannot be the only parts of our supply chains that are not operating at market rates.

The transport minister’s office, in the National Post this morning, acknowledged that extended interswitching creates congestion. It admitted that's why they’re not doing it in Ontario, Quebec or British Columbia. The fact that this measure will apply only in the three prairie provinces proves that this is not evidence-based supply chain policy.

The national supply chain task force never consulted railways on interswitching before its final recommendation. Canadian grain shippers already pay some of the lowest freight rates in the world. To move one ton of grain one mile in Canada, it costs on average just 2.97¢ U.S.

Our class I railways both set historical records for grain movements this past year. This was made possible by a combined $1-billion investment in new grain hopper cars, built in Hamilton, Ontario, and by tens of billions of dollars of investment in capacity and technology over the last decade. An independent study conducted this past January by CPCS found that Canadian freight rates are the lowest among market economies. In fact, they are 11% lower than in the U.S. These rates support the competitiveness of Canadian railway shippers.

Extended regulator interswitching is a cure in search of a disease. There is no justification for market intervention, particularly through a policy as egregious and ill-advised as extended regulated interswitching.

The government's decision to eliminate this policy was the right one. It was based on facts and evidence.

Long-haul interswitching was the government's solution to the problems with extended regulated interswitching. The former is based on market rates for comparable traffic, and the latter is the below market regulated rate. Those asking for this policy want a cheaper rate. It is not about improving service, nor is it about improving competitiveness.

Extended interswitching will do the exact opposite. The only winners of extended regulated interswitching are U.S. railways. To limit the harm to Canadians, division 22 must be amended or deleted entirely.

We're asking, at a minimum, that rates be market based and applicable to Canadian origins and destinations. You'll find more details in our brief.

Mr. Chair, it is collaboration and not more economic regulations that move supply chains.

My colleagues and I will be happy to take questions.

[Cara-Marie O'Hagan, Executive Director, Policy, Law Society of Ontario]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's nice to see you again.

I'm here with my colleague, Matthew Wylie, from the Law Society of Ontario. We are speaking to the new mandatory disclosure provisions in Bill C-47.

I'd like to start with a few words about the Law Society of Ontario and the obligations of our members.

The law society regulates almost 70,000 lawyers and paralegals in the public interest. We protect the public, in part, by setting and enforcing standards of ethical conduct for lawyers. Lawyers have duties to keep client information confidential, to protect the client's privilege, to avoid conflicts of interest with their clients and to avoid assisting the client in dishonest or illegal conduct. These duties, along with the legal protection afforded to solicitor-client privilege, allow for the free and frank exchange of information between lawyers and their clients. Most importantly, they enable lawyers to serve as safeguards in the legal system. Clients can seek legal counsel with the benefit of full disclosure; in response, the lawyer provides advice that ensures the bounds of the law are protected and adhered to.

This dynamic is undermined by the proposed amendments to the mandatory disclosure rules in the Income Tax Act. As you are aware, the proposed amendments significantly broaden the instances in which lawyers would be required to report to the CRA on certain client transactions. They impose new reporting requirements on lawyers. The amendments could impact a significant number of transactions conducted daily in large and small law offices across the province.

In many cases, the amendments could work like this: The lawyer provides advice that the transaction—the one the client is engaged in—is compliant with the Income Tax Act. The lawyer could be required to report the transaction to the CRA, so the CRA could then challenge the lawyer's conclusion after the fact, to the detriment of the lawyer and the client. If the lawyer does not report, they and their client can face very significant penalties.

In our view, these amendments are counterproductive to the overall goal of encouraging compliance with the requirements of the Income Tax Act. If these amendments are adopted, clients may fear that their lawyers will report confidential information to the CRA. They may well avoid the essential step of seeking legal advice to determine whether their proposed course of action is, in fact, compliant, or they may withhold information that prevents the lawyer from providing the proper legal advice. In either case, the taxpayer will not have the benefit of the lawyer properly advising them on their existing reporting obligations in the legislation.

Although we recognize the protection afforded to solicitor-client-privileged information in the proposed amendments, the extent of the privilege is uncertain and, in our view, not a solution in this situation. We are also concerned about the constitutional validity of the new proposed mandatory disclosure provisions. In the case of Canada v. the Federation of Law Societies, the Supreme Court found “as a principle of fundamental justice that the state cannot impose duties on lawyers that undermine their duty of commitment to their clients' causes.” The court said this duty “is essential to maintaining confidence in the integrity of the administration of justice.” The proposed amendments require lawyers to report to the CRA on their clients' transactions, so the CRA can then scrutinize the transactions for impropriety. This requirement imposes an obligation on lawyers to act contrary to their “commitment to their clients' causes.”

The Law Society of Ontario offers two proposals for the committee to consider as fixes to these significant concerns.

Our preferred solution is to amend the definition of “advisor” under clause 68 and clause 69 of Bill C-47 to specifically exempt legal professionals from the reporting requirements when they are acting in their capacity as legal counsel.

The second option would be to maintain the relieving rule for lawyers, so that lawyers' compliance with the reporting requirements could be established by the lawyer's advising their client of the obligation to report the transaction to the CRA.

I'd be happy to provide further details about these solutions in the Q and A. Those are my remarks. Thank you very much for your time.

[Michael Bernard, Deputy Director, Humane Society International/Canada]

Thank you very much to the chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to provide comments on Bill C-47, specifically on the proposed amendments to the Food and Drugs Act pertaining to cosmetics testing on animals.

I am the deputy director of Humane Society International/Canada, part of Humane Society International, which has a presence in more than 50 countries, making us one of the largest animal protection organizations in the world. Our organization has been working for a decade in Canada to achieve these historic measures for animals, so we are absolutely delighted to see Canada moving forward with this critical legislation.

I am also very proud to co-represent with Darren a coalition of industry, animal protection, and retail companies that have been working together for the past few years to build alignment and consensus on the principles of this legislation. We sent a letter of support for this legislation to the committee by email, but unfortunately, due to time constraints, I was informed that there was not enough time to have it translated before these proceedings, so I would like to take the opportunity to read the letter into the official record.

The letter is dated May 17, 2023:

Dear Chair and Committee Members,

We are writing to you today to convey our full support for a ban on cosmetics animal testing as proposed in Bill C‑47.

Who We Represent - A Broad Consensus of Industry, Animal Advocates, & Retailers.

The collective of our organizations represents a broad range of stakeholders including the cosmetics industry (150+ companies represented by Cosmetics Alliance Canada), animal protection advocates (Humane Society International/Canada, Animal Alliance Canada, Cruelty Free International) and their retailer partners (Lush Cosmetics, The Body Shop).

Since this issue was first raised in Parliament through a Private Member's Bill in the Senate in 2015, our group of key stakeholder organizations have been working together, and with Health Canada, to advance workable legislation.

The legislative language in Bill C‑47 pertaining to a ban on cosmetics animal testing is consistent with the policy approach that our group has long been advocating for in discussions with Health Canada; that a Canadian ban align with the principles of the E.U. ban and the necessary amendments be drafted by Health Canada to ensure they work within the Canadian regulatory context.

We are thrilled to see this legislation...introduced and look forward to seeing its passage without issue into law.

Of note, Canada will be hosting the 2023 Animal Alternatives World Congress on August 23-27, 2023, in Niagara Falls, Ontario. Government, industry, and other stakeholders will be participating in this important international event. This will be an ideal opportunity to highlight Canada as a leader in the development of animal testing alternatives and the banning of unnecessary animal testing on cosmetic products.

This letter has been signed by representatives of the organizations that I mentioned earlier.

What would this legislation do? This legislation would prohibit testing cosmetics on animals in Canada, selling cosmetics that rely on new animal testing data to establish the products' safety—with some exceptions—and false or misleading labelling pertaining to the testing of cosmetics on animals.

These measures would bring Canada into line with the 43 countries that have already introduced similar bans or restrictions, including the United Kingdom, the European Union, India, South Korea, Taiwan, New Zealand, Australia and many others. In addition, 10 U.S. states have also enacted bans, and further federal measures are in development in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Of course, there is tremendous public support for these measures here in Canada. In 2018, a public petition with over 630,000 Canadian signatures supporting a ban on cosmetics testing on animals was delivered to Parliament Hill.

Polling conducted in 2019 by Insights West found that 87% of Canadians support a ban on animal testing for cosmetic products.

It is important to note that modern non-animal methods are available for testing cosmetic safety issues and have been shown to predict human responses in the real world better than the animal tests they replace, so there is simply no need for animal testing for cosmetics in this day and age.

This legislation—and the history of this campaign—truly shows the great things that can happen when government, political parties across all party lines, industry, the non-profit sector and the public work together to create a better future.

Thank you, again, to the committee and all parliamentarians and senators for coming together on this important issue.

[Anne Kothawala, President and Chief Executive Officer, Convenience Industry Council of Canada]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the members of the committee for inviting our association to speak with you this evening.

My name is Anne Kothawala, and I serve as the CEO of the Convenience Industry Council of Canada, the CICC. We are the voice of the country's 23,000 local convenience stores, employing more than 200,000 Canadians.

Allow me to paint a brief picture of the economic realities facing our local businesses.

Over the past two years, we have seen our store locations decline by 5%. That translates into three convenience stores closing their doors for good every single day. That not only impacts our employees and their families, but also affects the entire community, particularly in rural and remote areas, where we're the only source of essential goods.

We are heavily regulated businesses, so the future of our stores in Canada is heavily dependent on smart government policies.

We are deeply concerned by the inaction on credit card interchange fees and contraband tobacco in the 2023 budget. In the last 12 months, credit card fees have increased by 55%. These fees represent the second-highest cost to Canada's convenience stores, next only to payroll.

We also face a double whammy on credit card fees, as we pay both the interchange fee on the product sold itself plus an interchange fee on the tax of that product. This is an issue that our stores have worked with the federal government on since its initial campaign promise to address fees in 2019.

Despite years of work on this file, it is now clear that the government has caved to pressure from card networks and financial institutions. Make no mistake: The vast majority of small businesses will be excluded from this policy. Today's announcement doesn't change the fact that the government is allowing credit card companies and banks to force retailers to pay for their credit card loyalty programs.

The details of the scheme announced earlier today will help only the smallest micro-businesses in Canada. It treats most local businesses no differently than large corporations like Walmart or Costco. What's worse is that large corporations like those I just mentioned have the negotiating power to demand better rates than small businesses, so we are actually worse off than these major corporations.

No high-volume, low-margin business will be able to access this new rate, and even qualifying businesses will see, at most, a $1,000 return to their bottom line. This is hardly the relief that we were promised.

This approach also penalizes our local businesses by asking them to pay for the privilege of being a tax collector for government. Tax alone accounts for 42% of our sales. Because convenience stores sell heavily taxed products like gasoline, tobacco and alcohol, we are further penalized by this short-sighted approach.

I'd like to share with you a quote from a local retailer, Jamie Arnold, who is a CICC board member and with Ontario-based Little Short Stop, on today's announcement. He said it was very disappointing to him as a small convenience retailer, because he wouldn't qualify, plain and simple. He said the government had promised to address this issue, but had not delivered. During the pandemic he kept stores open despite a massive decrease in sales, and it would have been nice to see the government acknowledge the essential role convenience stores play in communities by reducing their second-highest cost of doing business.

Bill C-47 presented an opportunity for the government to make good on its promise and do much more to rectify these punitive fees on our businesses. Instead, the government has caved to pressure from card networks and financial institutions, leaving local businesses like ours holding the bag.

While the government missed the mark today, there are other steps it can take to help our stores on interchange fees, namely, removing the interchange fees charged on the HST/GST portion of the sale. The government could also fix rates for fuel purchases made by credit cards to 10¢, which is in line with utility payments. I'm happy to speak to either of these proposals in the Q and A.

I would be remiss not to mention another area of inaction in Bill C-47, which is on the issue of illegal, untaxed tobacco. The proliferation of contraband contributes to organized crime and results in millions of dollars in lost tax revenue for governments annually. Federal leadership is needed on this issue, which was once contained to central Canada but is now a national problem.

Members, as you can see, there are no shortage of challenges facing our businesses. We strongly urge that the budget be further strengthened by revisiting the approach to interchange fees and by dedicating resources to addressing the long-standing issue of illegal tobacco, both of which impact our stores nationally.

I look forward to answering any questions you may have and discussing solutions with you on these issues.

Thank you.

[Kaven Bissonnette, Vice-President, Centrale des syndicats démocratiques]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the invitation.

I am the vice-president of the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, the CSD, and I'm here to present the written brief jointly with the three other labour federations in Quebec: the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, or CSN, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, or FTQ, and the Centrale des syndicats du Québec, or CSQ. Together, our four labour federations represent more than 1,165,000 workers in all regions of Quebec, in both the public and private sectors.

In a joint brief, the federations are presenting a series of recommendations to the federal government to adjust the employment insurance program to the reality of today's work organization, pending a major reform of the program.

The program is broken, complex and inaccessible, and it also provides inadequate benefits. Before the pandemic, only 40% of unemployed workers in Canada were entitled to benefits. Part-time workers—especially part-time workers who are women—are struggling to accumulate enough hours of work to qualify for benefits.

We therefore recommend that a comprehensive modernization of the Employment Insurance Act be introduced and passed as quickly as possible in order to improve the program and meet the needs of workers as quickly as possible.

With regard to unemployment and seasonal work, we need to end the EI black hole. The weeks between the end of employment insurance benefits and the start of employment are what we call the “black hole”. To try to contain the EI black hole, the government adopted temporary rules in 2018. The government introduced a pilot project in 13 regions where EI is characterized by significant seasonal economic activity and high unemployment. This pilot project allows unemployed workers considered “seasonal” to benefit from five additional weeks of benefits, for a maximum of 45 weeks. The special measures were to end on October 28, 2023. Budget 2023 proposes extending these supports until October 2024.

For the labour federations, it's obvious that the end of the pilot project would be catastrophic. In those regions, workers choose to work in seasonal industries because full-time year-round work is often not possible or accessible, despite the many solutions put in place in the industries to extend the working season. People working in seasonal industries generally have long working weeks in the high season, and their work is often intensive and strenuous. They are the backbone of industries that are vital to communities, which unfortunately rely on a fragile and undiversified economic fabric. This situation is common across Canada.

The average duration of a seasonal job is less than 16 weeks, and the average duration of benefits is 17 weeks. The extra five weeks do not help fill the black hole for most seasonal workers, unless they live in a region where the unemployment rate is higher than 16%.

Quebec's labour federations reached a consensus containing 15 requests to reform the program, for example, to introduce a universal standard of eligibility for benefits after 420 hours or 12 weeks of work, and to provide a minimum of 35 weeks of benefits.

We also recommend that, pending a comprehensive reform of the EI program, measures relating to workers in seasonal industries be amended to make an additional 15 weeks of benefits available to eligible claimants, and that the criteria for selecting claimants eligible for additional benefits be reviewed, so that it's no longer based on an individual's previous benefits, but rather on the employer's track record or the reason for seasonal layoffs. In other words, a person working for a seasonal company would automatically be eligible, given the nature of the company's activities. In addition, the calculation of the benefit rate would have to be calculated on the best 12 weeks of work, regardless of the regional unemployment rate, and additional benefits for seasonal work should be made permanent.

Furthermore, the creation of an appeals board is another important element in having a true tripartite appeals system. When it was announced in spring 2019 that an appeals board would be created to hear EI appeals, the Quebec labour federations welcomed this decision. Four years on, the situation remains unresolved.

Some progress has been made. First of all, all board members will have part-time worker status. This will ensure that the difference in status between part-time and full-time members doesn't lead to different levels of commitment and effectiveness. Second, Bill C‑47 provides that appeals will be heard in the appellant's region, except in prescribed circumstances.

However, two major problems persist: the bill doesn't insist on in-person hearings, and the proposed new subsection 43.02(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act states that the executive head of the Board of Appeal, who is responsible for managing the day‑to‑day work of the board, reports “to the Commission, through the Chairperson of the Commission, on the overall performance of the Board of Appeal”.

This means that the board of appeal will not be fully tripartite if its top manager is accountable only to the government representative of the Employment Insurance Commission, and not to the commission as a whole. In this regard, we recommend that the Employment Insurance Board of Appeal be established.

Still with regard to Bill C‑47, in subclause 43.04(2), we recommend that the words “through the Chairperson of the Commission” be deleted.

We also recommend, in proposed subclause 43.16(2), that “in the format selected by the appellant” be changed to “in person, except in exceptional circumstances”.

Before I close, I'd like to mention one last point concerning workers who have experienced a lockout. A lockout is a unilateral decision by the employer. The workers didn't choose to go through this situation, because the lockout often ends after several months. When these people aren't called back to work, they don't have access to EI benefits because they aren't considered to be employed for the duration of the lockout. It's a situation they can do nothing about, and it puts them in an incredibly precarious financial and social situation.

This needs to be corrected, as do the federation recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome, everybody, to meeting number 91 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, May 2, 2023, and the motion adopted on May 16, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

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

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

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

For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French audio. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

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

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

We have a full room today. It's literally full here, but it's also full on the screen.

We thank all our witnesses. I know it was with very short notice that you had to pull your opening remarks and some of your materials together, but we thank you for doing that for us and for coming before our committee today.

You will be the last set of witnesses the committee will hear on this piece of legislation, so we look forward to hearing your opening remarks, as I said, and your answers to the many questions.

Now I have the opportunity to welcome our witnesses.

We have with us, from the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques, Kaven Bissonnette, who is the vice-president. Also joining us is the union adviser, Francis Fortier.

From the Convenience Industry Council of Canada, Anne Kothawala is with us today. She is the president and CEO. Welcome.

From Cosmetics Alliance Canada, we have Darren Thomas Praznik, who is in my hometown of Mississauga. He's coming to us virtually. He is the president and CEO.

From Humane Society International Canada, we have with us Michael Bernard, who is the deputy director of the organization.

From the Law Society of Ontario, I have an old friend, Cara-Marie O'Hagan. Cara, welcome. It's good to see you. I haven't seen you in many years. It was another life.

Here in the room, we have with us Frederica Carla Anne, also from the Law Society of Ontario, and Matthew Wylie, who is the director of policy.

From the Railway Association of Canada, we have president and CEO, Marc Brazeau. We also have the assistant vice-president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, Nathan Cato, and we have Eric Harvey, who is the senior counsel, regulatory, for the Canadian National Railway Company.

Locally, one of our witnesses is from the Ottawa Food Bank. We have Rachael Wilson, who is the CEO of the organization. Welcome.

Now we're going to have an opportunity for opening statements. We are going to start with the Centrale des syndicats démocratiques.

You have up to five minutes, please.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Finishing up on air passenger rights and in the interest of giving credit where credit is due, I wonder if Dr. Lukács could share with the committee which aspects of Bill C-47's portions on air passenger protection he feels the government has gotten right.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, Mr. Chair, I want to say that I feel you were very harsh with Mr. MacDonald interrupting him the way you did as he laid out his reasoning. You are the timekeeper, but that really shocked me.

My last questions are for you again, Ms. Brazeau. They're related to what you said at the beginning of the meeting and your recommendations for the latest budget.

You talked about the importance of the circular economy and creating a restorative fund. It was mentioned in budget 2023. This initiative is not yet in Bill C‑47, but it's coming. A Conservative colleague has also introduced a private member's bill, and that's really great.

You mentioned food, agriculture, and mobility. Our colleague Mr. MacDonald also talked about them. In Quebec, you're running a major mobility campaign to reduce the size of vehicles, as you said in your presentation.

If you would, I'd like you to remind us of the major action the government could take on mobility to reduce our carbon footprint.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Lukács, we have this legislation in front of us. Based on that legislation, the government promises to craft regulations, but one of the clauses in Bill C-47 empowers the CTA to also establish guidelines setting out the manner and extent to which the regulations are applied, so now we're kind of two steps away from the legislative process.

Do you have concerns about the CTA essentially getting to write their own guidelines for the manner and extent to which these regulations are applied?

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

In the provinces where the federal tax applies, the tax is paid and it must be used for an environmentally friendly project. Right now, if the project is not completed before the end of the year, the money goes back to the government, if I understand correctly. Under Bill C‑47, that money will be put into funds that will enable these projects to be carried out later.

The question is whether this measure will encourage companies to take their time to develop green projects, or whether this is something that you support. I can ask you again in writing to get your opinion. I'm curious.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Dr. Lukács.

The government has claimed that Bill C-47 and this new approach to air passenger protections will make this the strongest air passenger protection regime in the world. Do you feel like that's a fair statement, given what you've seen of the legislation?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, colleagues, for allowing me to sit in on the finance committee.

Shifting our discussion a little bit to the topic of air passenger rights, I want to start by thanking Dr. Lukács for his tireless work on behalf of Canadian air passengers. He does this as a volunteer, and over the past several years has emerged as Canada's foremost consumer advocate in the air passenger space. I think a lot of the advancements that we've seen are due to his work. I'm very pleased that he's joined us today to talk about the portion of Bill C-47 dedicated to this government's attempt to finally fix Canada's air passenger protection regime.

Dr. Lukács, you and I worked closely on developing Bill C-327, the Strengthening Air Passenger Protection Act. I wonder if you could comment a little on the contrast between what is in that private member's legislation and what we see in Bill C-47 today.

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

On that note, Ms. Brazeau, I offer my congratulations to Équiterre on its 30th anniversary. It's amazing how quickly time flies.

My first questions have to do with the Canada Growth Fund and investments in the green economy, namely the $80 billion to support the energy transition announced in the last budget in response to the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act.

I had asked a question of the department on March 30, and we received a reply on May 2 with a breakdown of sorts of the $80 billion amount. We learned that there was $12.5 billion for carbon capture, $17.7 billion for hydrogen production and $25.7 billion for electricity, which includes nuclear, including small power plants and modular reactors.

How do you react to this?

Before hearing your response, I'd like to remind you that, in Bill C-47, the transfer or disbursement of this $80 billion will not happen all at once. First and foremost, two institutions will be created to administer the sums the government plans to invest. As a result, these sums will no longer be under the control of parliament. We, the members of Parliament, the legislators, will no longer be able to vote on these sums.

I'd like to hear what you think about all this.

[Andréanne Brazeau, Analyst, Climate Policy, Équiterre]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, members of the Committee.

My name is Andréanne Brazeau and I'm a climate policy analyst at Équiterre, one of the country's leading environmental organizations, which this year is celebrating 30 years of environmental and climate action.

Our organization works on four key issues: climate, sustainable mobility, food systems and, finally, the consumer and waste management sector.

Équiterre aims to advance these issues in a way that benefits Canadian families and helps lower the cost of living, while helping to combat the climate crisis and the collapse of life.

Our organization is also a member of the Green Budget Coalition, which includes some twenty Canadian organizations whose mission is to promote a set of recommendations relating to the annual federal budget.

First, Équiterre salutes the various initiatives announced in the latest budget that promote social justice, such as the new Canada Dental Benefit. It also supports all the measures in Bill C-47 that aim to tighten penalties and monitoring to limit environmental damage, as well as measures that encourage the consumption of durable goods.

For example, section 232 of Bill C-47, which amends section 36 of the Customs Tariff Act, proposes to add the General Preferential Tariff Plus to goods originating in a country that complies with international standards relating to sustainable development, labour rights and human rights. Équiterre believes that this is a major step forward in raising the socio-environmental standards of international trade.

Then, more generally, Équiterre believes that the federal government's budget presents several interesting measures for the transformation of our economy, including assistance for the decarbonization of the country's power grids as well as the conditions established for this assistance, particularly with regard to labour and the cost of energy for families. Tax credits in this sector are also good news, especially as they were a key demand of the Green Budget Coalition, of which Équiterre is a member.

The budget announces the government's first steps towards the right to repair, a promising sector given that our economic system needs to be fully transformed to become carbon neutral, circular and more equitable. According to some data, the repair industry's revenues in 2030 could vary between $47 billion and $51 billion and create between 400,000 and 450,000 jobs in Canada.

Équiterre therefore welcomes these first steps, which aim to establish a targeted framework for household appliances and electronics in 2024.

However, as provided for in the Minister of Finance's mandate letter, Équiterre would still have liked to see the immediate introduction of a repair fund or fiscally green measures to encourage the growth of the repair sector, a sector of the future that will enable us to take concrete action to reduce household spending and consumption.

More generally, other items in the budget seem problematic in the context of the climate crisis. First, we feel that investments in the development of carbon capture and storage, an unproven technology, take up an inordinate amount of space in the government's finances this year. These investments divert attention from the real challenge at hand: the just transition to sustainable employment for workers in jobs that are doomed to disappear, at a time when the global economy is in the throes of transformation and Canada is falling behind.

For Équiterre, continuing to invest in the exploration of new hydrocarbon deposits in the Arctic is another inconsistency in the federal budget. Investments in the development of the hydrogen industry, including hydrogen produced from fossil fuels, are also problematic. Hydrogen is a form of energy with limited potential, and a niche product. So we mustn't fall for false solutions to the climate crisis.

On the transport side, it's mainly road transport that is responsible for the sector's greenhouse gas emissions. Équiterre therefore deplores the fact that the latest budget includes no new measures to develop, for example, public transit and active mobility, while the number and size of vehicles on our roads continue to grow.

In short, several elements of Bill C-47 seem interesting to us in terms of facilitating the transition to a carbon-neutral and equitable economy. Nonetheless, much remains to be done to ensure that the industries with the highest emissions contribute to prioritizing their reduction at their source and fostering a more equitable and sustainable society.

Larger sums will certainly have to be disbursed in the future to prepare Canada for the climatic hazards whose effects we are already experiencing from one end of the country to the other, in different, but no less serious ways.

Thank you for your attention and for listening. We'll be happy to answer your questions.

[Dr. Gábor Lukács, President, Air Passenger Rights]

Mr. Chair and honourable members, Air Passenger Rights is Canada's independent, non-profit organization of volunteers devoted to empowering travellers. We have a track record of successfully predicting shortcomings and loopholes in legislation related to air passenger rights.

Five years ago, we testified before the House of Commons and the Senate respective committees and cautioned that the Transportation Modernization Act was inadequate. In 2019, we published a 52-page report with predictions of how airlines would likely exploit the air passenger protection regulations' shortcomings and loopholes. In December 2022, we cautioned that Canada's air passenger protection regime was broken, and we proposed specific legislative amendments as a solution. Mere days later, during the holiday season, Canadians witnessed a second meltdown of air travel that year, compounded by airlines' flagrant disregard for passenger rights under the APPR..

Our predictions are based on the experience of the passengers we help daily in their struggle to enforce their rights. They have been validated by the four years that have passed since the regulations came into force. Today, even the government acknowledges that our air passenger protection regime needs to be substantially strengthened. Unfortunately, the legislative amendments put forward in Bill C-47 have the opposite effect.

First, the government proposes to create a secretive, star chamber-like process for adjudicating consumer disputes between passengers and airlines with no right of appeal. The adjudication will be conducted on the basis of confidential information instead of evidence, with the exclusion of the public and the media. This is unheard of in consumer disputes.

Bill C-47 therefore violates Canadians' freedom of expression and the open court principle guaranteed by section 2(b) of the Charter, as well as the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, protected by section 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Second, proposed section 85.12 is effectively a Henry VIII clause that allows the Canadian Transportation Agency to change the law while bypassing the system of checks and balances set out in the Statutory Instruments Act. The agency will be able to make and modify guidelines affecting passengers' rights overnight without examination by the Clerk of the Privy Council and the deputy minister of justice, without publication in the Gazette and without scrutiny by Parliament's committees.

Third, Bill C-47 perpetuates existing loopholes and creates a new one. In spite of the government promise to the contrary, the bill retains the “required for safety purposes” excuse for airlines to avoid paying compensation and shunts that excuse into regulations. This made-in-Canada loophole has unnecessarily and disproportionately complicated adjudication of disputes between passengers and airlines.

Since evidence about the reasons for a flight disruption is in the airlines' exclusive control, passengers are at a great disadvantage in enforcing their rights to compensation. Bill C-47, however, shifts the burden of proof to the airlines in such disputes only if the passenger gives up their right to a fair and open hearing before an impartial judge and instead agrees to submit to the star chamber-like process.

Bill C-47 also creates a new loophole. Clauses 467 to 470 would allow airlines that sign a so-called compliance agreement to avoid paying penalties for violating passengers' rights.

To summarize, many of the government's proposed amendments to the Canada Transportation Act miss the mark, do the opposite of their stated purpose and will weaken not only air passenger protection but also fundamental rights in Canada.

We urge you lawmakers to amend division 23 and not to forgo this historic opportunity to create a robust air passenger protection regime in Canada. A suitable model for amending division 23 would be Bill C-327, a private member's bill to harmonize Canada's air passenger protection regime with the European Union's gold standard. Bill C-327 has been endorsed by Canada's leading consumer protection organizations, and it is what Canadians need.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome, everybody, to meeting number 90 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, May 2, 2023, and the motion adopted on May 16, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

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

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please used the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Also, members and witnesses, if you are speaking, just make sure the red light is on so that all of what you have to say is captured by the interpreters and by the House.

Let me just begin by thanking our witnesses. I know you didn't have a lot of time before you were contacted to appear before our committee on the BIA, but we do appreciate that you were able to graciously be here for us to provide your testimony. I'll say that in advance on behalf of all the committee members and the clerk, the analysts, the staff and everybody who is here. We really do appreciate it.

With us today from Air Passenger Rights, we have Dr. Gábor Lukács, who is the president of the organization. We also have, from the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal, the president and CEO, Michel Leblanc. From Équiterre, we have Andréanne Brazeau, who is an analyst of climate policy; and from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute we have Philip Cross, who is a senior fellow. Welcome.

Members, I didn't mention this yet, but we have the Canadian Home Builders' Association and the CEO Kevin Lee. We're still having some technical issues with the sound, and we're trying to get that rectified. Hopefully when others have given their opening remarks, we'll be ready for Mr. Kevin Lee to join us. We're also having some technical difficulties with Henderson Brewing and Mr. Steve Himel. We'll also try to rectify that before our last witness speaks and allow Mr. Himel to join us for this panel and make his opening remarks.

With that, we're going to start with Dr. Gábor Lukács of Air Passenger Rights, please, for five minutes.

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

If members or witnesses don't have their microphones on when they start speaking, the interpreters can't do their job. I just want us to make sure that our mike is on before we speak. That was my point of order, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses again. This is a really fascinating panel. Unfortunately, we only have a certain amount of speaking time. That said, just because we haven't been able to ask you all our questions doesn't mean we haven't listened carefully or that we're not taking your testimony and the measures you're proposing into account.

For my last turn, I will address Mr. Robertson and Mr. Brock.

Mr. Robertson, you said that mining activities require a geat deal of computational ability, but artificial intelligence requires even more. We're developing expertise in Quebec and in Canada through businesses that have that computational ability. If Bill C‑47 passes as is, it will hinder the development and future of this key business sector.

In the few minutes I have left, I'd like to hear what you have to say about this or about other factors related to your requests.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Robertson, in Bill C‑47, there seems to be some confusion regarding services and businesses, how it's done in Canada and how it's done elsewhere. You suggested an amendment to the bill that would solve the problems, but I believe you ran out of time before you could present it.

You have a solution, so I'm listening.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I'd like to welcome all the witnesses, who are most interesting.

As you can see, we work long hours, and sometimes things can get a little heated. However, I find the questions interesting.

My questions will be for Mr. Brock and Mr. Robertson. However, first I have a comment for Mr. Hannah and Ms. Mason.

I recognize that Canada's banking and financial system is one of the most stable in the world, and I salute that. However, I'm very critical of Bay Street banks, particularly with regard to the assets and activities they report in tax havens. If we want a fair and reliable ecosystem, we need stability, predictability and justice. To my mind, bringing in retroactive legislation against court rulings is worthy of a banana republic. Your views have been heard, and I hope the committee will be able to take your suggestions into account. On that I do agree with you. Thank you.

Now, Mr. Brock and Mr. Robertson, thank you for being here and for your testimony. You raise a lot of concerns.

I want to tell the committee that I'm really not a fan of cryptocurrency. It's not very attractive to me. However, as I said to Mr. Hannah and Ms. Mason, I am in favour of a fair tax system and stability. As you've clearly demonstrated, what we have in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada are companies with big servers, big computational abilities and high-speed fibre-optic Internet access. I know a bit about that ecosystem. What do these companies do? They sell their computational abilities to the highest bidder. I studied economics. One of my former professors worked with companies in Boston, where he could often rent computational abilities. The same goes for the pharmaceutical sector.

Bill C‑47 is telling companies in this sector that when they sell their services to foreign mining companies, we'll treat them differently than companies in all other sectors of the economy. Under the rules, we'll let them deduct taxes, but other companies will no longer be able to deduct them. I have a problem with that.

The second problem relates to the point you raised about companies that create good jobs and bring in expertise. We have some in Quebec. Quebec businesses benefit from the cold weather and hydroelectricity, and therefore from green energy. So if Bill C‑47 passes as is, for those businesses, the integrated sales tax will be 15%, whereas in Alberta, where hydrocarbons produce electricity, it will be 5%. Since it will be cheaper in Alberta, future activities will shift to that province. That's economy 101.

I would like to hear your comments on that.

What can the committee do to resolve the situation and even out the playing field again?

[Daniel Brock, Law Partner, Fasken, Digital Asset Mining Coalition]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, committee members, for having us here to speak with you today.

My name is Daniel Brock. I'm a partner at the Canadian law firm Fasken. I'm joined by David Robertson from EY Law. Together, we are advising an industry coalition representing more than 23 companies and organizations, all participating in Canada's growing digital asset and blockchain ecosystem. The coalition came together last spring to address a surprise legislative proposal published by the Department of Finance in February 2022, which would increase our members' costs of carrying on business in Canada by 5% to 15%. It is about this proposal as it appears in Bill C-47 that we are here to speak with you today.

In 2017, Canadians might have been using their computers in their basement or garage to mine for Bitcoin. Today, almost all digital asset mining is big business. Companies are using industrial-scale computing to verify and secure transactions that occur on a public blockchain. At today's market rate, the transaction fees and subsidies for adding a single block to the Bitcoin network have a value of almost $200,000.

More than 1,000 blocks get added to the Bitcoin blockchain every week. That's more than $200 million in potential revenue per week for mining pool companies that mine for Bitcoin. There are, however, no major mining pool companies in Canada. All are non-residents to Canada, based primarily in the U.S.A., Asia and Europe.

Canada's role in this emerging industry is not in mining for Bitcoin. Instead, Canadians are the suppliers of high-performance computing power that makes Bitcoin mining possible. Canadian companies take advantage of our cooler climate, our skilled workforce and our excess hydroelectric energy to produce and export clean computing power as a commodity like wheat or precious metals. Canadian computing companies are quickly becoming industry leaders in the supply of the clean computing power that international blockchain mining pool companies want.

Since 2018, this high-performance computing sector has brought in more than $2 billion in revenue to Canada. It has paid millions of dollars in corporate property and payroll taxes. It has invested $1.5 billion in the rural and resource communities in which they operate, and it has created 1,500 well-paying high-tech jobs in these communities. The average age of employees in most of these companies is under 35 years old.

Our main concern with the Finance proposal on crypto-asset mining is that this early success and the potential for future growth in Canada are being put at risk. There are several problems with the proposed GST changes. Let me highlight three.

First, proposed new section 188.2 declares that a Canadian company that (a) allows its computing resources to be used by foreign non-resident mining pool companies for crypto-asset mining, and (b) shares in the proceeds of that mining, is not engaged in commercial activity and will not be able to receive input tax credits. By contrast, all other companies that allow their computing resources to be used by non-residents are entitled to input tax credits, regardless of how that computing power is used or how their fees are calculated.

Second, by denying input tax credits to Canadian computing companies, these new rules make them less competitive in the international marketplace. The GST replaced the old federal sales tax in 1991, specifically to remove Canadian sales taxes as an input cost for Canadian businesses. The GST is to encourage investment both in Canada and in Canadian exports, and to make our goods and services more competitive in international markets. Proposed new section 188.2 does the exact opposite.

Third, the GST proposal creates a competitive disadvantage for computing companies across Canada, depending on the province in which they reside. The GST proposal creates an incentive for companies operating, for example, in Quebec, or in Newfoundland, where the embedded sales tax cost will be 15%, to move their operations to Alberta, where the sales tax cost will be only 5%, or outside of Canada altogether. The GST should never lead to this type of competitive imbalance for businesses within Canada.

What's the solution? We think there is a simple solution that is consistent with good GST policy. We are asking this committee to add a clear and unambiguous exception to the GST proposal.

What's the solution? We think there is a simple solution that is consistent with good GST policy. We are asking this committee to add a clear and unambiguous exception to the GST proposal. This exception should state that if a Canadian company supplies its computing power to a mining pool operator that is a non-resident of Canada, then proposed subsection 188.2(2) does not apply to them and, instead, ordinary GST rules will apply.

We look forward to your questions.

[Darren Hannah, Vice-President, Personal and Commercial Banking, Canadian Bankers Association]

Good morning. Thank you for the invitation to speak at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-47, the budget implementation act.

My name is Darren Hannah. I'm the vice-president of personal and commercial banking with the Canadian Bankers Association. I'm joined by my colleague, Angelina Mason, general counsel and vice-president, legal and risk.

The CBA is the voice of more than 60 domestic and foreign banks that help drive Canada's economic growth and prosperity. The CBA advocates for public policies that contribute to a sound, thriving banking system to ensure that Canadians can succeed in their financial goals.

While Bill C-47 is extensive and the committee is studying numerous provisions, our remarks will be focused on part 2, clauses 114 to 116, which retroactively amend the Excise Tax Act. This is a very small component of the budget implementation act, but it has profound implications on how businesses, entrepreneurs and investors, both domestic and international, view the opportunities and risks of doing business in Canada.

Simply put, the government is attempting to legislatively override a decision by the Federal Court of Appeal and to retroactively change the GST treatment of payment card clearing services, literally back to the introduction of GST in 1991, by expressly overriding the general legislative limitation periods under section 298 of the Excise Tax Act. The effect is, therefore, to retroactively tax transactions that happened as long as 30 years ago. In doing so, the government is ignoring widely accepted positions among taxpayers and tax professionals, as well as its own published guidelines for the appropriate and exceptional use of retroactive legislation. The government's position is inconsistent with its own treatment of payment card network services as financial services for the purposes of regulatory oversight by the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada. Moreover, through this proposed measure, the government is adding this tax burden at the very time the government is claiming to lower the cost of card acceptance fees for small businesses. Increasing taxes on card issuers and acquirers will inevitably impact the cost of card acceptance for merchants.

Retroactively taxing past transactions, especially in the face of court rulings to the contrary, erodes investor confidence in Canada, period. This is a concerning signal to investors, entrepreneurs and business owners. Core to the decision-making criteria of where to invest are certainty and predictability, not only in the rule of law and in its application but also in the ability to ensure that I, as an investor, can access the legal system to get fair treatment if I feel the law is being applied incorrectly. Indeed, this proposed measure fundamentally challenges the traditional understanding of tax law. This approach not only raises serious questions about fairness and legal certainty but also potentially inhibits future economic activity.

Imposing such a retroactive burden undermines the trust in the certainty of the tax system. While it might seem like an easy fix for fiscal shortfalls, it's important to consider the long-term implications of such a precedent-setting move. The retroactive tax measures in part 2 contradict these principles and, in doing so, undermine investor confidence in Canada at the very time we need to be attracting new investment, both from at home and from abroad. A recent study by RBC indicated that Canada will need an estimated $2 trillion over the next 30 years to finance the transition to a low-carbon economy.

These are large, long-term investments that Canada is seeking from investors to pivot our economy to a low-carbon future. An investor will make that type of commitment only if they are certain that the terms, conditions and business environment upon which they make their investment decision will be respected, that the government will not suddenly seek to retroactively revisit those conditions, and that they will have recourse to the legal system should they need it. That's why we strongly encourage MPs to take action to restore investor trust in the Canadian economic and legal environment by removing the retroactive provisions of part 2.

I thank the committee for your invitation and look forward to your questions.

[Luke Chapman, Vice-President, Federal Affairs, Beer Canada]

Mr. Chair and honourable members, thank you for the invitation to appear this morning as part of the committee's study of the subject matter of Bill C-47.

My name is Luke Chapman. I'm the vice-president of federal affairs for Beer Canada, the only inclusive national trade association for Canadian beer companies. Our membership includes 48 small, medium and large-sized breweries, which when combined account for 90% of all beer produced in our country.

Domestic brewers are heavily invested in Canada. Last year, 88% of all beer purchased and consumed here was made here by some of the 20,000 Canadians directly employed by brewing companies.

The value chain for brewing, packaging, distributing and selling beer in Canada is long and interconnected. For a pint of beer to reach your glass, brewers depend on western Canadian barley farmers, can and bottle manufacturers in central Canada, and truck drivers and restaurant and retail staff from across the country.

When all the steps in the production, distribution and retail process are considered, the production and sale of beer in Canada supports 149,000 jobs, generating over $13 billion in economic activity and $5.7 billion in taxes. Currently, federal and provincial taxes and markups account for almost half of the retail price of beer, giving Canada the title of having the highest beer taxes among G7 countries.

I think we can all agree that beer is a social beverage. Enjoying a beer with family or friends at a backyard barbeque or sports event, an outdoor summer concert or a neighbourhood pub provides great social and community benefit. In a typical preCOVID year, restaurants, bars, concerts, sporting events and other public venues accounted for nearly a quarter of all beer sold in Canada.

It's not surprising, then, that the restrictions placed on social gatherings over the past few years due to the COVID pandemic had a dramatic impact on the Canadian beer market, with the total volume of beer sales declining by 6% over the past three years. Draft beer sales, which primarily occur at restaurants and bars, are still 25% below where they were prepandemic, in 2019.

As brewers were grappling with where and how they were allowed to sell their beer during the pandemic, inflation began to take hold, presenting a new set of difficulties and challenges.

For brewers, the concerns were twofold. First, in 2021 and into 2022, the cost of producing, packaging and distributing beer started to rise rapidly, with key inputs like barley and packaging materials up by as much as 60%. Second, the impact of rising inflation on the annual and automatic federal beer excise duty rate increases—which are determined using a formula that is tied to inflation—was also a concern that was front and centre.

Since the automatic indexing of federal beer excise duties was included in the 2017 federal budget, beer taxes have increased every year. While we continue to be concerned over this automatic approach to beer taxation and its negative impacts on the Canadian beer and hospitality sectors, we recognize that CPI inflation was relatively stable for most of the period between 2017 to 2022. As a result, the annual increases amounted to an average of around 2% over that period.

While the past automatic increases were not inconsequential, as we monitored CPI inflation throughout 2022 we reached the conclusion that this year's increase was likely to exceed 6%, making it the largest federal tax increase on beer in the last four decades.

As a result of the effort and support of MPs from across parties—some of whom are in this room today, so thank you—we were pleased to see the government address our immediate concern by including in the 2023 budget a 2% cap on the 6.3% excise duty rate increase that would otherwise have gone into effect this past April 1.

While this temporary one-year cap was not all that our coalition of barley farmers, unionized brewery workers, restauranteurs, consumers and breweries had been advocating for, and while our position remains that the continued use of automatic excise increase is neither appropriate or effective—particularly in an era defined by high inflation and declining beer sales—we do view a temporary 2% cap as a fair compromise. We certainly welcomed and appreciated that it was included in the 2023 budget.

In this respect and in conclusion, we encourage the adoption of section 124 of the budget implementation act to reduce the scheduled increase in federal beer excise duties from 6.3% to 2%, retroactive to April 1.

We thank the members of the finance committee for the opportunity to provide our perspective, which we hope will be helpful as they review and consider Bill C-47.

I'm happy to answer any questions after the other witnesses. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I'm calling the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 89 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the order of reference on Tuesday, May 2, 2023, and the motion adopted on May 16, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

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

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

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French audio. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function.

The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best as we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Before I welcome the witnesses, I want to thank the witnesses for graciously accepting our invitation.

I know you had very short notice to be with us today, to get your opening remarks ready and to be able to take questions from all the members. On behalf of all of us on the committee, thank you very much.

With us today we have Beer Canada and its vice-president of federal affairs, Luke Chapman. We also have with us the Canadian Bankers Association and Darren Hannah, vice-president, personal and commercial banking, and Angelina Mason, general counsel and vice-president of legal and risk. From the Canadian Canola Growers Association, we have president and CEO Rick White, and Dave Carey, vice-president of government and industry relations.

From the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, we have with us Alex Gray, the senior director of fiscal and financial services policy. From the Digital Asset Mining Coalition, we have Daniel Brock, a law partner with Fasken, and with Daniel we have a partner from EY Law, David Robertson. From the Hotel Association of Canada, we have with us Susie Grynol, who is the president and chief executive officer.

Welcome, everybody. It's great to have you here.

We're going to start off by hearing opening remarks from Beer Canada.

Go ahead, please, Mr. Chapman.

[Alexandre Plourde]

Of course.

Consumer associations in Canada have been waiting for this measure for a long time. For a long time now, we have been calling for a single body to handle complaints in the banking sector. In our view, it is essential to have an effective complaints mechanism that is impartial for consumers and inexpensive for them when they have a dispute with a bank.

It is important to remember that banks are among the most profitable businesses in Canada. They have a great deal of ability to advance their interests. Obviously, when a consumer is alone in asserting their rights against these companies, it can be very difficult. It can be a lengthy court process. So we think it's important that the process be absolutely impartial and that there be no doubt about the independence and integrity of the body.

The fact that banks can choose from a number of organizations creates all kinds of potential conflicts of interest and biases. Bill C‑47 closes a loophole in the complaints system.

However, we still have a request, and that is that the decisions made by this single body be binding.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is about air transportation and is for Ms. De Bellefeuille or Mr. Plourde.

As for consumer protection in the airline industry, we have such a long way to go that it is important to applaud what Bill C‑47 proposes, as you have done.

In your opinion, could the government have gone even further, for example by comparing Canadian standards to those in effect in the European Union? Do you believe that amendments to the bill should or could be proposed?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Like you, I would like to thank all the witnesses for accepting our invitation on such short notice and with so little time to prepare. It's very much appreciated, and I thank you for it.

I would like to say hello to Mr. Kelly and tell him that an all-party caucus is currently working on entrepreneurship with his organization and a number of his colleagues. For my party, Sébastien Lemire is co-hosting the event with several of my colleagues at the moment.

My questions will be for the representatives from Option consommateurs. I would like to thank Ms. De Bellefeuille for her presentation and Mr. Plourde for being here.

Ms. De Bellefeuille, you raised three very important topics that are addressed in Bill C‑47: air transportation, banks and usurious credit. I will have a few brief turns to speak and I will try to come back to these three elements.

I'll start with the banks. There will be changes, and you told us that Bill C-47 will put an end to banks' ability to choose the external body that will handle complaints against them.

Can you give us an example of what that means and what it changes? Could you then explain to us why that organization's recommendations will remain non-binding?

[Greg Northey, Vice-President, Corporate Affairs, Pulse Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the committee for the invitation tonight to speak to you.

My name is Greg Northey, and I'm the vice-president of corporate affairs with Pulse Canada.

Pulse Canada is a national association representing over 25,000 pulse growers, as well as the processors and exporters of Canadian pulse crops, including peas, lentils, chickpeas, dry beans and fava beans. Canadian pulses are among the most sustainable sources of protein in the world. In 2021 alone, Canadian pulses, thanks to their nitrogen-fixing capabilities and the modern agricultural practices of pulse growers, removed 3.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the environment. This is the equivalent of taking 1.1 million cars off the road in a single year.

In addition to our environmental contributions, the pulse industry is a significant economic driver, accounting for roughly 26,000 Canadian jobs and delivering $6.3 billion in annual economic activity. This is in part thanks to the fact that Canada is the world's largest exporter of pulse crops. We send billions of dollars' worth of pulses to over 120 markets around the world.

To do this economically, Canada's pulse industry and the entirety of Canadian agriculture rely on timely and predictable rail service.

In its final report, the national supply chain task force identified the key persistent issue that consistently threatens the competitiveness, productivity and growth of Canadian agriculture exporters. It says, “Railways are the only source of transport for many shippers, giving rail companies pricing and service discretion that is not balanced by normal market forces.” Simply put, railways are monopolies, and the lack of competition between them results in unreliable and unpredictable service for shippers.

That is why Pulse Canada was pleased to see important transportation measures that explicitly focus on incenting and improving a competitive dynamic within the rail sector included in Bill C-47. Key among these measures is the proposal to implement a pilot on extended, regulated interswitching. It is extremely positive that the government has recognized the pro-competitive value of extended interswitching and the positive economic benefits that competition delivers.

Competition unlocks the full potential of Canadian shippers, improves innovation and collaboration among Canada's class 1 railways and supports Canada's overall economic growth. When extended interswitching was in place from 2014 to 2017, it was the first time that competitive forces were introduced to a monopoly rail market ever. Even in this limited sample, the results were positive as shippers adjusted to the new market dynamic.

How could they not be? It is well known that competitive forces improve economic outcomes and productivity.

The previous extended interswitching period was also beneficial for the overall rail system. Railway operating ratios remained low, system average train speeds, car velocity and yard productivity increased in that time, and dwell times decreased. Importantly, movement of Canadian grain on both CN and CP also increased.

Extended interswitching has proven to be a vital tool for Canadian shippers, and Pulse Canada and our allies urge this committee and all members of Parliament to look to the successes of the last pilot as the foundation on which to build a more permanent extended interswitching program that will benefit Canada for decades to come.

In fact, to further strengthen this pro-competitive policy, the Government of Canada can improve it by setting the extended interswitching distance to 500 kilometres to ensure competitive market forces are available to a large group of captive shippers, which is only fair; ensuring that extended interswitching is available to all North American railways with operations subject to the Canada Transportation Act to further integrate our North American market and shorten the distance goods need to travel; promoting investment in rural rail infrastructure so that interchanges can accommodate larger trains and further unlock productivity and efficiency gains; and assuring that the pilot lasts a minimum of five years to unlock the full potential of competition.

This five-year extension is key, as presently shipments can be booked for up to 12 months in advance, meaning two-thirds of the pilot may expire with the 18-month pilot that's proposed now before a shipper can make use of the new competitive regulations.

To close, extending the interswitching is a policy that works for Canadian shippers, railways and consumers. We urge this committee to move this proposal through to completion and consider improvements in needed competition for Canadian rail shippers.

Thank you.

[Sylvie De Bellefeuille, Lawyer, Budget and Legal Advisor, Option consommateurs]

Good evening, Mr. Chair.

Good evening, committee members.

We thank you for the opportunity to present to you today.

My name is Sylvie De Bellefeuille. I have been a lawyer with Option consommateurs for 13 years. I'm accompanied by my colleague Alexandre Plourde, who is also a lawyer.

Established in 1983, Option consommateurs is a non-profit association whose mission is to help consumers defend their rights. As such, we receive thousands of legal information requests every year from people experiencing difficulties with merchants, including financial services and travel. We also provide budget consultations to people who are struggling with debt and credit.

In our view, Bill C‑47 introduces a number of measures that will benefit Canadian consumers. Our remarks today will focus on three themes addressed in this bill: air transportation, the complaint process in the banking sector and usurious credit.

In recent years, there have been countless delays and cancelled flights by airlines, which have led to tens of thousands of consumer complaints. While changes have been made to the air transport regulatory framework to strengthen consumer protection, efforts still need to be made to provide adequate protection for Canadian travellers. We think Bill C‑47 responds to several of the requests we have made over the past few years.

First, the bill removes the three categories of flight disturbances so that only exceptional circumstances can justify a lack of compensation for passengers. This will then allow us to amend the air passenger bill of rights so that passengers can benefit from better protection.

Second, it closes certain loopholes in Canadian regulations that benefited airlines. This will put the onus on the carrier to prove that the delay or cancellation of a flight is not attributable to the carrier, rather than putting the burden of proof on the consumer. In addition, the bill requires airlines to compensate consumers for late luggage, not just lost luggage.

Finally, this bill makes it easier for air passengers to have recourse by requiring airlines to provide a decision to the consumer within 30 days and by creating a more effective complaints regime for the Canadian Transportation Agency, as well as requiring airlines to cover the cost of handling complaints filed with the Canadian Transportation Agency.

In short, we believe that the proposed amendments to the Canada Transportation Act are positive for consumers and should be adopted.

In the banking sector, we are pleased to see that Bill C‑47 finally puts an end to the ability of banks to choose the external body that will deal with complaints made against them by their clients. This is something that consumer associations have been waiting for for a long time.

In the current version of the act, a bank can choose between two external complaints bodies that are currently approved by the government. Needless to say, this situation raises serious questions about the independence of the handling of consumer complaints and, more importantly, about the appearance of bias in the process.

While we welcome the amendment in the bill to create a single external complaints body, we regret that the body's decisions remain non-binding on the banks, which could choose not to abide by them. To ensure full consumer protection, we believe that this bill should make the body's decisions binding on the banks.

Finally, Option consommateurs welcomes the initiative to lower the usury rate set out in the Criminal Code. The current rate, set at 60%, was introduced in the early 1980s, when the economic situation was significantly different and the Bank of Canada rate was around 20%.

That said, we have a number of reservations about the bill.

First, rather than the fixed rate proposed in the bill, we believe that a variable interest rate would make it possible to adapt to the economic situation. In a number of countries, the limit fluctuates based on the rates set by the central bank or the average market rate.

Second, contrary to what the bill proposes, we believe that no regulatory exceptions should be allowed for consumer loans. We therefore believe that exceptions such as the one concerning payday loans should be abolished.

Without this appropriate usury rate framework, lenders can easily take advantage of consumers and make them even more vulnerable.

Thank you.

I look forward to your questions.

[Peter Davis, Associate Vice-President, Government and Stakeholder Relations, H&R Block Canada Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and other committee members, for the opportunity to appear before you this evening on behalf of H&R Block Canada and our broader industry.

I also serve as co-chair of the board of directors for Tax-Filer Empowerment Canada, the national industry association for Canada's tax preparation and software industry, so I am pleased to also provide their perspective along with my company's this evening.

I'll give you a little background on H&R Block Canada. We are the largest assistant tax preparation firm in Canada. During tax season we have nearly 1,000 service locations across the country, with nearly 10,000 associates operating coast to coast to assist Canadians with their filing obligations year-round.

I am going to provide some brief commentary on Bill C-47 specifically and then finish up with some more general remarks on budget 2023.

Bill C-47 contains some very important legislative provisions that will enable our industry to better serve Canadians with their taxes. Specifically, these provisions include amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Tax Rebate Discounting Act. These will permit approximately 60% of tax filers who do work with tax preparers and accountants to use electronic signatures on certain key tax forms. If these changes pass, that will open the door for Canadians to file their taxes virtually with their preparers and also to potentially receive refund advances in a timely manner, all without having to leave their homes.

We believe the innovations through this legislation could incent more Canadians to file their taxes as we make the process easier for them and could also ensure that they are able to receive their benefits as soon as possible. H&R Block Canada and our industry have long advocated for electronic signatures, and we fully support the timely passage of these amendments in their current form within Bill C-47.

I would like to switch gears a little bit and talk about budget 2023 and take this opportunity to raise some significant concerns with the budget's proposals to expand the role of the CRA to include filing taxes on behalf of millions of Canadians.

I'd like to first touch on how taxpayers would be negatively impacted by the prospect of government directly preparing and filing their taxes. In Canada, we have what's called a voluntary tax compliance system. This system ensures a clear separation of roles between the tax collector and the tax preparer, for the benefit of Canadians. This gives Canadians the right to independently prepare their taxes in order to maximize their benefits and reduce their tax liability to government.

How would this work if the CRA were to start filing taxes for some Canadians? For starters, the CRA would find itself in a major conflict of interest on two fronts. How can the CRA successfully balance maximizing government revenue while also ensuring Canadians get the most back from government coffers?

H&R Block Canada's independence from government tax collection allows us to remain impartial and to fully dedicate our efforts to maximizing refunds and benefits for Canadians, even in the many instances when the CRA feels that they are entitled to less. In fact, our tax professionals frequently advocate for our clients by opposing CRA rulings that seek to reduce the benefits claimed on their tax returns. If the CRA were to file our taxes, would any of us feel confident that the agency would ever advocate against itself with determination equal to that of an independent third party to ensure that we receive all of our benefits and deductions?

Second, how can the CRA function as an effective impartial regulator when it introduces government products and services to market that are in direct competition with the industry it regulates?

The Government of Canada's policy decision to directly file Canadians' taxes runs counter to the successful partnership between our industry and the CRA, which has served Canadians well for decades. While we don't believe that government tax filing can best assist Canadians, we are very supportive of ensuring that low-income Canadians file their taxes in order to get their benefits. This is why our industry offers several low- and no-cost options to Canadians who need them most.

One quick example is that at H&R Block Canada we have our annual Returning Hope program, which supports Canadians who live below the poverty line and who may be experiencing homelessness. These individuals tend to miss out on government benefits or tax refunds because they're unable to file and often do not have a fixed address or bank account. We have been able to partner with 15 non-profit organizations across Canada to prepare tax returns for over 800 Canadians in need and found over $715,000 in missed refunds and credits.

In-depth tax interviews with Canadians in need, conducted by tax professionals at H&R Block Canada, help determine whether these individuals could qualify for the significant disability tax credit and other applicable related benefits. This is something that automated and telephone government tax filing will not be able to achieve and, therefore, a loss of economic benefits to Canadians who need them most would result.

With that, we would conclude by saying that, instead of embarking on more large-scale government IT projects to create automated tax filing and to expand government telephone tax filing, Canadians' needs would be far better served by the CRA meaningfully working with industry to create the conditions needed to support and expand initiatives like H&R Block Canada's Returning Hope program.

Thank you very much. On behalf of H&R Block Canada and our product industry, we're looking forward to questions.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would first like to remind my esteemed colleagues that the historic compromise of the federation was to establish a federation, not a legislative union. It was decided that the provinces would manage certain powers, and the delivery of health care is one of them. I want us to have better health care in Quebec. When I vote in National Assembly elections, I make sure that I vote for a party that will work towards that.

According to the Constitution, the federal government's role here when it comes to health care, the historic compromise, is to properly fund it. That's not happening right now; it's a matter of fiscal imbalance. That's why my party is fighting tooth and nail to resolve this issue. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Having said that, I want to thank my colleagues for letting us have a few meetings like this to hear from witnesses, who are raising very important issues. At the end of parliamentary sessions, I always get the impression that the government is in a bit of an ivory tower. It's good to face reality and the heart-wrenching testimony we're hearing today. I'd like to thank the witnesses for accepting our invitation on such short notice. I also tip my hat to the clerk, who organized all of this. It's a remarkable job done in an incredibly short amount of time. I'd also like to thank the whips of the various parties for clearing up the schedule so that we could hear from the witnesses, as we are doing this afternoon.

My questions will be for Mr. Céré.

Thank you for accepting our invitation on short notice, for running to get a headset and for being here with us. Your testimony was very much appreciated.

I'd like to discuss four topics with you. I'm going to have more than one round; I don't think we're going to get to all four in one round.

First, I'd like to come back to the long-awaited and much-promised reform that's not happening. That was the purpose of your testimony.

Second, there were significant deficits during the pandemic. The government was there and paid down the deficits, except for the deficits in the EI fund. Because the law requires that the EI fund be balanced every seven years, the workers who pay into it are being forced to eliminate the deficit. The government is taking $17 billion out of their pockets. In my opinion, if that doesn't change, it will be impossible to reform the system. Something should have been included in Bill C‑47 to deal with that. However, there's nothing there.

So I'd like to hear your comments on those two things, but I want you to know that I'll be asking you later about two things in Bill C‑47. First of all, it's just an extension of the EI spring gap pilot project, which you talked about. That's in part 4, division 35. Next is part 4, division 38. I don't know if you've had time to look at the reform of the Social Security Tribunal, but it's essentially what had already been proposed and what's being repeated here.

However, first, let's talk first about the obligation to balance the EI fund and the government's refusal to pay down the deficit resulting from the pandemic, and then about the long-awaited reform that's not happening.

I'm listening.

[Kate Walsh, Director of Communications, Canada's Building Trades Unions]

Thank you, Chair. It's good to be here.

Thanks for the opportunity to address the committee on the recent federal budget and Bill C-47.

My name is Kate Walsh, and I'm the director of communications with Canada's Building Trades Unions. I may or may not be joined by my colleague, Rita Rahmati, who is the government relations manager for CBTU.

CBTU represents 14 international construction unions, with over 600,000 skilled trades workers from coast to coast.

Budget 2023 provided some significant support for middle-class workers, and I appreciate the opportunity to highlight some of these policies here today.

Last year's budget included the labour mobility tax deduction for tradespeople, which has helped tradespeople this tax season, allowing them to travel to where the work is and to deduct those related travel expenses from their income. It's a policy that was welcomed by our industry and something that makes a meaningful difference to Canada's skilled tradespeople.

Included in this year's budget, and the subsequent implementation act, is the doubling of the tradespeople tool deduction, from $500 to $1,000. Again, that's putting money right back into the pockets of the skilled tradespeople who build our country. We support this measure and hope that all parties will vote in favour of this component of the budget.

Also committed to in budget 2023 are five investment tax credits to support the economy's transition to net zero, which are linked to one of the strongest definitions of “prevailing wage” in Canadian history. In order to receive the highest level of these investment tax credits, employers will need to provide good labour conditions for workers, which includes paying the prevailing wage and meeting apprenticeship requirements.

The definition of “prevailing wage” will be based on union compensation, including benefits and pension contributions from the most recent and most widely applicable employer collective bargaining agreements in that region or corresponding project labour agreements. Additionally, 10% of the tradesperson hours worked must be performed by registered apprentices in Red Seal trades in order to receive the maximum credits. Tying these incentives to a prevailing wage that includes union compensation will raise the standard of living for all workers, maximize benefits for the entire economy and create a legacy of good-paying, middle-class jobs throughout this transition.

When the United States passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which includes over $300 billion in clean energy tax incentives for energy infrastructure projects and increased tax credits of up to five times more where certain labour conditions are met, we knew that Canada needed to respond with strong investments of its own. With commitments first announced in the fall economic statement and expanded on in budget 2023, Canada is now on a similar path.

The building trades look forward to continuing to work with the federal government to operationalize the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements tied to these monumental credits. We'll also continue to advocate for these credits to further incentivize good jobs by increasing the delta when good job requirements are met and decreasing them when these workforce requirements are not met, so that the public dollars spent on these credits go back into good jobs and supporting working families.

As Canada transitions to net zero and we move away from our reliance on fossil fuels, Canada's energy demands could double by 2050. We need to build clean energy infrastructure in Canada that grows our manufacturing base and creates opportunities to grow our middle class, all while meeting our net-zero goals. Many of the commitments in budget 2023 will help us do this, but there's more to be done.

We need just transition legislation tabled and the launch of the sustainable job secretariat to map out our energy needs and the needs of the workforce so that no worker is left behind. We need to ensure we have appropriate labour market information data to plan the transition. We need to continue to address labour availability through investments in training—for instance, through the union training and innovation program and programs to recruit and retain equity-deserving groups—and make changes to our immigration system to bring in more skilled trades workers.

Budget 2023 includes significant policies that support our economic transition and building trades workers across Canada.

On behalf of our 14 affiliated international unions, thanks for the opportunity to present. We look forward to any questions you may have.

[Steven Staples, National Director of Policy and Advocacy, Canadian Health Coalition]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chairperson and members of the Standing Committee on Finance.

I also want to extend a thank you to everybody who met with our volunteers in March. I know that many of you spent very valuable minutes of your day with our volunteers. It's very much appreciated.

My name's Steve Staples. I'm the national director of policy and advocacy for the Canadian Health Coalition. We were founded in 1979 to defend and expand public medicare in Canada. We're comprised of frontline health care workers, community groups and experts.

I'm delighted to speak to you on the topic of Bill C-47. I last met you in October during pre-budget consultations.

We would like to address “Chapter 2: Investing in Public Health Care and Affordable Dental Care”.

Today, I'd like to focus on three aspects. Number one is the enforcement of the Canada Health Act and conditions for federal funding to provinces and territories. This includes reining in private, for-profit delivery of publicly insured services. Number two is the importance of universality, given the means-tested approach to the dental care program that leaves untold numbers of families behind because of their incomes. Number three is the need to extend the goal of providing public coverage of medically necessary services to include prescription medicine through public, universal pharmacare.

In October, the Canadian Health Coalition recommended that the government work with provinces and territories to increase federal funding through a Canada health transfer that's accountable, while improving outcomes for people in Canada through new public health care programs, such as dental care and also pharmacare. There's more work to do. We applaud the additional funding provided by the federal government to the tune of $198 billion over 10 years, including $46 billion in new CHT funding and $25 billion over 10 years through bilateral agreements with the provinces and territories.

Concern remains that this money could yield limited results in improved health care without conditions and accountability. It's a dirty little secret that the Canada health transfer, the money that goes from the federal government to the provinces, doesn't actually have to be spent on health care. The money flows from Ottawa into the general revenues of the provinces and territories, and they can spend the money as they like. It's a sad day when the federal budget that just came out promises to—and I'm quoting here—“Ensure that new federal investments are used in addition to provincial spending, and that provinces and territories do not divert away health care funding of their own”. How can the federal government ensure transparency that the money is actually going to be used for health care and not be diverted away, as the budget says?

The Canadian Health Coalition is very concerned that billions will be spent on publicly insured services in private, for-profit clinics—putting Canadians at risk of user fees and extra billing—and be wasted on profit-taking by inefficient private providers. Health Minister Duclos' own annual report on the Canada Health Act cited eight provinces violating the act. They withheld $82 million with respect to patient charges levied during 2020 and 2021 for medically necessary services that should be accessible to patients at no cost. We know that's probably just the tip of the iceberg.

Furthermore, data uncovered by the public interest group in Quebec called IRIS revealed that the cost of a carpal tunnel surgery averaged $908 in the private sector compared to $495 in the public sector. The list goes on. A short colonoscopy costs $739 in the private sector compared to $290 in a public institution. This is our health care money, yet the federal government has been silent on this matter. In fact, remarks by the Prime Minister about Ontario's privatization plans reported widely in the media were very worrisome.

One of the principles of the Canada Health Act is universality. The budget says, “Canadians are proud of our universal publicly funded health care system. No matter how much money you make, or where you were born, or what your parents do, you will receive the care you need.” Well, we can all agree on that.

Why does this principle of universality not apply to dental care?

The Canadian Health Coalition applauds the $13 billion committed to this program, a result of unprecedented collaboration among political parties. However, there's unfinished business. What about the self-employed or the gig workers who have no benefits but might have a family income of just over $90,000? We asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer how many families would be left behind. They know the number, but they won't share it with us.

Finally, we look forward to Canada's pharmacare act being passed this year, but we were disappointed to not have it acknowledged in the budget. In October, we requested $3.5 billion for essential medicines, as recommended by the 2019 government-appointed advisory council on the implementation of national pharmacare and the Hoskins report, led by Dr. Eric Hoskins.

When the pharmacare act is brought forward this year, we expect it to reflect—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Welcome, everybody. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 88 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to Standing order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, April 20, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss the subject matter of Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, divisions 1 to 9, 32 to 34 and 37. I remind members that the other divisions of part 4 will be studied at a subsequent meeting.

Pursuant to the order of reference on Tuesday, May 2, 2023, and the motion adopted on May 16, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and the members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. For interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room with us, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. I remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

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

Members, the witnesses we have with us today on this first panel include the Canada's Building Trades Unions. We're trying to get them set up here, because they are virtual. They are Rita Rahmati, government relations specialist, as well as Kate Walsh, the director of communications. Also coming to us virtually, and we're trying to get them hooked up, is the Canadian Health Coalition and Steven Staples, the national director of policy and advocacy.

We have Dr. Alika Lafontaine with us here in person. He is the president of the Canadian Medical Association. We also have the Comité Chômage de Montréal and Mr. Pierre Céré, who is with us. He is the spokesperson for the organization. From the Daily Bread Food Bank, with us here in the room, we have Neil Hetherington, the chief executive officer. Welcome.

I'll show a little bit of my bias here. From Mississauga and the Mississauga Food Bank—thank you for all of your hard work—we have Ms. Meghan Nicholls, who is the chief executive officer.

Meghan, I just want to congratulate you. I know you have a new facility that you have moved into or are moving into as we speak in Mississauga. I look forward to visiting as soon as you are set up and have the doors open.

I see a hand up.

Go ahead, Mr. Ste-Marie.

Air Transportation

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the parliamentary secretary believes that this third approach at getting it right is going to finally work.

However, we have some grave concerns. From a passenger perspective, this is a complex approach that they have to navigate. It is not two steps. First of all, passengers have to complain to the airline about the disruption that has impacted their lives. Then, when the airline gets back to them and denies them compensation, they have to enter this mediation process, and possibly go on to a third stage of obtaining an order.

One of the things we are very concerned about is the fact that an order of these mediation processes is not considered to be a decision of the agency. Therefore, the passengers who file the complaint would not have the ability to pursue an appeal under the provisions of the Canada Transportation Act. We are very concerned that Bill C-47's air passenger rights actually reduce the ability of passengers to pursue the full compensation that they are due.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, protecting the rights of air passengers when air travel does not go as planned is a priority of our government.

Creating the air passenger protection regulations provided an important framework for travellers' rights; however, lessons learned throughout the pandemic, which began shortly after the regulations were implemented, have provided the Government of Canada with valuable information, including areas that need strengthening.

Legislative amendments to the Canada Transportation Act have been introduced to clarify and strengthen Canada's passenger rights regime while increasing air carriers' accountability and streamlining the process for administering air travel complaints by the Canadian Transportation Agency. With these changes, air carriers would be required to pay compensation to travellers unless they can demonstrate that a disruption was caused by specific allowable circumstances. These allowable circumstances would be predetermined and regulations would be established by the agency in consultation with the Minister of Transport.

Our government recognizes that changes are needed to ensure that passenger complaints are dealt with as quickly as possible. Legislative changes are being proposed to streamline the process by which dispute resolution services are provided to Canadians and to help reduce the agency's backlog of complaints.

The current process involves three steps, including time-consuming and resource-intensive adjudication. The new process is simplified with mediation and a decision, if no settlement is reached. This would ensure Canadians obtain decisions more rapidly while having their complaints thoroughly addressed.

It is important to note that the mediation process for air passenger complaints has always been confidential, since we introduced these protections in 2019, becoming the first Canadian government to enshrine the rights of air travellers in legislation. The amendments being proposed in Bill C-47 do not impose any new restrictions. While a confidentiality obligation is typical in mediation processes to allow a frank and open discussion between a complainant and an air carrier, the new process has been designed to ensure that more passengers have access to the information they may need to claim compensation.

Under the new process, the agency would be required to make public a summary of each case, including the flight number and the date, as well as the reason for the flight disruption and whether compensation was awarded, which would provide insightful information to other passengers on that same flight.

In addition, because compensation amounts are publicly available in the air carriers' terms and conditions of carriage, there is nothing to prevent the agency from publishing this information. I expect the agency to do just that.

Our government is confident that the proposed changes will improve transparency while allowing for more timely resolution of air travel complaints.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, on April 25, I asked the Minister of Transport a question regarding air passenger rights, the response to which I found wholly lacking, and so I am glad I have a chance this evening to speak at greater length to this issue.

As a quick recap, the Liberals brought in their first air passenger rights framework in 2019 promising that Canada's approach was going to be one of the strongest in the world, and yet what we have seen over successive travel seasons is anything but. We have seen thousands of passengers greatly inconvenienced, sleeping on airport floors, out thousands of dollars and having their much-awaited travel plans uprooted.

Last September, the Liberals brought in further changes, again promising that this was going to make it one of the strongest in the world, and yet the complaints have piled up. Now there are over 40,000 air passenger complaints before the Canadian Transportation Agency, and we see the government going into its approach yet again and trying to finally fix what is clearly broken and not working.

The European Union has had an effective approach in place for over decade, an approach that gets passengers the compensation they deserve. However, instead of copying that approach or following my private member's bill, which is based very closely on the European approach, this minister and this government have taken a circuitous, complex and bureaucratic tack in trying to finally put in place something that protects air passengers.

I want to highlight some of the specific concerns, the first of which is the concern that I raised on April 25, which is that as part of the mediation process envisioned in Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, passengers who enter into mediation to resolve their complaints with the airlines would be forbidden from speaking about any matter that was covered as part of that mediation. This is a confidentiality clause that I do not believe any air passenger who has a grievance with an airline would want to commit to. Passengers deserve transparency, they deserve a process that is open and transparent, and so this confidentiality clause, which was the topic of my question on April 25, seems entirely misplaced in the legislation.

There are other concerns too. There has been much said about a loophole in the current approach that allows airlines to deny passengers compensation for reasons within the airline's control but on what they deem to be required for safety. Now, the minister has stated very vehemently that the legislation before us would close that loophole, and yet we see the phrase “required for safety” repeated time and time again in the legislation we are debating.

Much of the meat of this approach the minister has put off to regulations, which will not get debated in the House, and he has gone one step further. He has given the Canadian Transportation Agency the ability to establish guidelines that will set out the extent and manner in which the agency enforces the regulations, which are based on the legislation. We need accountability, and when we see an agency that is supposed to be at arm's length from this government given such great powers to determine the extent to which it upholds the spirit of the legislation, that is very concerning indeed.

We need an approach that is transparent and has air passengers' backs. We are not seeing it in this legislation, and we certainly intend to bring forward amendments that will finally get air passengers their due.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay, colleagues, we're back, and I call this meeting to order.

We are resuming meeting number 87 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance and the debate on the motion of PS Beech and the amendment by MP Blaikie in relation to the study of Bill C-47.

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

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

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either the floor, or English or French. For those in the room you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

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

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

Again, just to focus, members, we were on a discussion of MP Blaikie's amendment. That would come at the end of the main motion, and it reads:

That the Minister of Finance be invited to appear for two hours on the bill and that this appearance be scheduled on or before May 18th, 2023.

MP Perkins last had the floor. I have MP Lawrence and MP Morantz on the list after MP Perkins.

Go ahead, MP Perkins.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was in the midst of reading a fascinating document about ministerial accountability before we entered all these procedural issues, which are about the issue of finding Freeland. I know that MP Blaikie in particular is excited to hear the remainder of the article.

Just as a reminder, because we've had some visitors in the room as well, on what I was speaking about and what it was from, it's an article by Dr. Scott Brenton, and it was published in the Australian Journal of Public Administration, volume 73, issue 4. I won't begin from the beginning again, but it's about “Ministerial Accountability for Departmental Actions Across [the] Westminster Parliamentary Democracies”. It looked at four countries in particular: Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

As we know, the United Kingdom is considered the mother of all parliaments that sets all the precedents and all the rules that flow from us. We all have our individual elements that are unique to our parliamentary and Westminster systems.

I was reading the second section of this academic study on this issue. I'll just remind the members and those watching that the section was called “NPN”, which is an acronym. It was earlier in my presentation of this, but I'll spare you the search for that.

It's called “NPN: Clarifying or Complicating the Convention?”, the convention being ministerial responsibility to Parliament. I won't begin that section from the beginning, but I will go back a sentence or two so you can get the context. I was about midway through a paragraph when we entered into the last round of procedural issues on this discussion about the motion by MP Blaikie to try to ensure that the Minister of Finance, who has not responded in a positive way to a number of invitations by this committee. It is the minister's prerogative to come or not to come, and she has not responded to some of those invitations.

We're concerned that on the most important element of her job, which is the budget and the budget implementation act, the thing for which she's most accountable to Parliament—not to the Prime Minister, but to the people who Canadians elect to come here.... There is nothing more fundamental than a budget bill, which is about the spending of your tax dollars: how they're spent and what the plan of this government is going forward.

This is a record-sized budget and spending. Over the fiscal framework—that's what we call the five years of planning—and this budget and budget implementation act, it's proposed to spend $3.1 trillion: an incredible—an unfathomable—amount of money. The budget today for the government as proposed in this year is actually almost twice as large as it was in 2015 when they came to office, as are the taxes from Canadians that they are increasing. They will have gone up 96% by the end of this fiscal framework.

That's why it's so important that the minister show this record level of spending. It's essential that the minister come and be accountable to her colleagues. That's why this finding Freeland exercise of what we're embarking on is important. It's not parliamentary games or silliness. It's about the fundamental tenet. That's why these bills are called confidence motions. We get a lot of emails, all of us as members of Parliament, about wanting to see confidence motions in this government. Obviously, we feel, as do many, that we would like to see the government defeated on one of these.

Every spending bill of taxpayer money is, by Westminster parliamentary tradition, a confidence vote. That's why this is so important. In order to obtain the confidence of the House, the minister needs to be accountable to Parliament and to this committee.

On the sentence where I left off on the study, I'll just reread it before I go onto the new part. It was talking specifically about the United Kingdom.

Ministers were able to blame them—

The “them” means officials.

— for 'operational' failures as they were no longer able to issue orders of the day. In both the United Kingdom and New Zealand separation between policy and implementation was unclear in practice, while ministers were accused of interference and bureaucratic 'silos' developed.

This is about where I stopped.

It goes on to say:

Australia and Canada opted for more managerial autonomy within larger multipurpose departments and closer ministerial control but with a more informal political separation that ministers describe as an 'arm's length' distance from administrative activities. The use of 'contracts' has become politically popular, whether contracting out to the private sector, establishing purchaser-provider relationships within the public sector, or claiming that a contract exists with service users or citizens.

We know—and this is an editorial comment—that this government has made record numbers of contract-out provisions. We've had the McKinsey controversy. An excessive amount of the thinking, the policy development and idea development that officials used to make, this government has chosen to contract out to friends and, in some cases, family. “The use of 'contracts' has become politically popular”, as this says, in Canada, and that's certainly true.

While the latter two conceptions lack the legal force of a contract, all require greater specification as to day-to-day control that often shifts away from the executive, therefore supposedly increasing accountability.... Written contractual terms, specified outputs and outcomes, and agreements outlining exceptions and responsibilities in the administrative sphere have been mirrored in the political sphere with increased codification of unwritten conventions. Codification has often appeared to be a response to a series of scandals or controversies and has increased in recent years.

That's certainly true with the government. We've seen scandals increase, both ethical and others, including the failure of this government to inform a member of Parliament that his family in China was being intimidated by the Chinese government. The government won't seem to admit what date—although the briefing notes are from two years ago—it actually learned of it. I suspect that means it learned of it two years ago, did nothing, as we know, is embarrassed and, in fact, doesn't want to be held accountable for its actions, as the Minister of Public Safety or the Prime Minister did not act on one of those most fundamental parliamentary principles of accountability to Parliament in protecting the rights of members of Parliament to represent the people who sent them there without intimidation.

This report contains many tables. I won't read those tables because it's difficult to do, but it goes on to say:

Table [1] summarises the legislative and codified accountability roles and responsibilities of senior public and civil servants in relation to the convention of individual ministerial responsibility. Australia and New Zealand have some of the most extensive legislation, with the Australian Public Service's Code of Conduct also legislated.

I'll skip over the very lengthy chart they're referring to here, which goes on to the next page, as well. I'm sure members will be happy that I've moved on past reading those charts.

The United Kingdom has relied on convention more than the other countries, but the reform movement is pursuing further legislation. The next section more closely examines codification within the political sphere, which has thus far resisted and likely will continue to resist entrenchment in legislation

We know—as my colleague, MP Morantz, referred to earlier—that this current government has this document called “Open and Accountable Government” from 2015. I think it's something that the Minister of Finance should actually read. I suspect that, because finding Freeland has been so difficult, we wouldn't be facing these issues in finding Freeland if she had not only read it a few times but actually committed the spirit of it to memory.

The next section says: “Codification of Ministerial Responsibility and Accountability”. It's that issue of whether a document like this code would actually get legislated, which it has in other jurisdictions. Codification of accountability in law would make it more difficult, I believe, for this government to escape its ministerial accountability and responsibilities, which we have seen often happen. It's “Oh, well, I apologize for giving contracts to my best friend and former colleague in the Prime Minster's Office”, said the Minister of International Trade in the House. She apologized for giving her untendered contracts even though she worked on her campaign. She said she apologized, and that's all the accountability that should happen.

That's the problem, to some extent, of just having a piece of paper that's not in legislation but is just guidelines. It's not really anything I have to advise or even read, perhaps, as a minister. But what this says is various codes of conduct, guides, manuals, handbooks and legislation have attempted to codify and clarify politico-bureaucratic relationships. This codification of conventions has been relatively superficial:

in the sense that general principles have been captured in written form, but lack the legitimacy and authority of written constitutions.

That's what I was referring to a moment ago.

The most legitimate and authoritative codes are legislative.

I'm going digress again.

We know that in the legislative world we have an ethics law in Canada that tries to legislate some of this codification on ministerial accountability and behaviour. Obviously, it has no teeth when a minister can get up and say, “Oops, I ignored procurement rules and gave a contract directly to my friend. Oops, I apologized. Wait, I did it a second time. Oops, I apologize and that's okay.” That's why this lacks teeth, even if one minister did or did not read it.

Again, it says:

The most legitimate and authoritative codes are legislative, yet these tend to be the most limited in scope.

That's shocking, I think, to most people, that government would make them limited in scope. The paper says “Each of the codes do attempt to address each of the four key accountability dimensions” that this paper is outlining.

The paper goes on to remind us from the beginning of what those four accountability dimensions are. The first is “who is accountable and to whom”. The second is “for what are they accountable”. The third is “how are they accountable and by which standards”. The fourth is “why are they accountable”.

Those are four critical examinations and questions that we are facing here with MP Blaikie's motion about trying to make the Minister of Finance accountable for the budget by actually showing up to the invitation from the committee. It would be a change, because we have been trying to find Freeland in many instances, both here and in the House. It's incredible, really, to think that.

In preparation for this I actually did a count of the times since January that the Minister of Finance has been in the House to be held accountable, under minister accountability. I don't know if the government members have done this. I'm sure they've noticed that the appearances have been stark, in this effort to find Freeland. If they haven't counted them, it's not hard to do. You only need one hand: one, two, three, four, five. That's it.

You just need one hand to count the number of times the Minister of Finance has been in the House since January to be held accountable for a half-a-trillion dollar budget that she's proposing. At the end of the five years it's over half a trillion annual budget. That's $500 billion.

That's one appearance for every $100 billion that the minister is proposing.

I think that's probably inadequate from my view, and that's why this committee is so intent on trying to compel— which is really incredible—the Minister of Finance to be accountable for this budget in committee. The finding Freeland effort goes on, but apparently it takes $100 billion of spending for each appearance to get her to show.

The paper goes on to talk about Australia and codification. “After a series of scandals in the latter years of Paul Keating's labour government..”. Well there's a surprise: a labour government had a number of scandals. Paul Keating was Labour prime minister of Australia.

You know that the Labour Party is part of the Liberal international organization where all the Liberal parties get together across the world. That's not the Australian Liberal Party. The Australian Liberal Party, confusingly, is actually the conservative party in Australia. The Labour Party in Australia is the Liberal left-wing socialist government. They are the partner in Liberal International, with both the Liberal Party of Canada, which is a long way from conservative, and the Democratic Party in the U.S., which has become more socialist.

Their lead socialist spokesman is speaking this weekend at the Liberal Party of Canada's convention. They believe in and love Americans, to the point that the democratic party wants Hillary Clinton to provide them with advice on how to win elections.

It's an odd sort of thing that you would turn to Hillary Clinton on how to win elections.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Finding Freeland is what we are talking about, Mr. Chair. Specifically, we're speaking to member Blaikie's amendment that the Minister of Finance be invited to appear for two hours on or before May 18, 2023.

Why are we so concerned with having the Minister of Finance here? Well, after how the Prime Minister treated the prior minister of finance, Mr. Morneau, by completely ignoring his recommendations during the pandemic, I'm not so sure. But, here we are.

The thing is, we're trying to find Freeland because she hasn't appeared here at this committee in almost six months. During that time, we've invited her three times. She just has not come here.

On February 2, we invited Minister Freeland in the same meeting as Bank of Canada governor, Tiff Macklem, to discuss inflation. On March 7, the committee invited Freeland to appear to defend her main estimates. On April 20, the committee invited Freeland in relation to the prestudy of the budget bill. We respect that the finance minister is very busy, but she should respect the will of this committee.

I'm not the only one who feels this way, Mr. Chair. In fact, there was a document that was signed by the Prime Minister, dated November 27, 2015 and entitled “Open and Accountable Government”. I thought we could take some time to discuss this document because it sets out the Prime Minister's expectations of his ministers. I presume that his expectations of his ministers are the same today as they were on November 27, 2015.

Part III is entitled “Ministerial Relations with Parliament”. It reads:

In our system of government, Parliament is both the legislative branch and the pre-eminent institution of democratic accountability. Clear ministerial accountability to Parliament is fundamental to responsible government, and requires that Ministers provide Parliament with the information it needs to fulfill its roles of legislating, approving the appropriation of funds and holding the government to account.

It then goes on to say, “The Prime Minister expects”—he expects—“Ministers to demonstrate respect and support for the parliamentary process.”

In particular, it says:

They should place a high priority on ensuring that Parliament and its committees are informed of departmental policy priorities, spending plans and management challenges, including by appearing before parliamentary committees whenever appropriate.

I can think of no more appropriate a time for the finance minister to appear before the finance committee than to discuss her budget. I think this is the time.

It goes on to say:

Ministers are expected to seek the views of parliamentarians and parliamentary committees on future plans and priorities, and to dedicate time to consulting and engaging their colleagues in Parliament in order to earn their support.

Under responsible government, Ministers exercise executive authority on the basis that they have the confidence of Parliament (more specifically, the House of Commons as the confidence chamber), which requires that they, and through them the officials under their management and direction, be accountable to Parliament for their actions.

Parliamentary review of spending is a key element of this accountability. The Constitution Act, 1867 sets out the principles underlying the sovereignty of Parliament in the raising and spending of public money. Revenue can only be raised and moneys spent by the government with the authority of Parliament. Ministers must be prepared to respond to questions on spending for which they are responsible, and to regular parliamentary review of departmental expenditures.

It goes on to talk about “Ministerial House Duties”, noting that “The Prime Minister expects Ministers to place a very high priority on their House duties.”

Now, I noted earlier that the Minister of Finance has only actually been in the House for five days in 2023. That's just 11% of the sitting days this year. She was in the House on January 30, February 13, March 10, April 25 and May 1. That's five days.

That doesn't seem to be the minister placing a very high priority on her House duties.

It gets a little more specific, Mr. Chair. It actually says “Daily attendance at Question Period”. I can't remember the last time I saw the finance minister, except I think a couple of days ago. I went through the dates she was in the House. Five days this year is not daily attendance, and yet this is what the Prime Minister expects of her.

It says:

Any proposed absences must be cleared with the Prime Minister's Office before other commitments are made. When a Minister is absent, a designated Minister or Parliamentary Secretary answers for him or her.

Attendance. Attendance at other specified times is required according to a mandatory schedule of House duties prepared....

I haven't seen that happen either. I have not seen the Minister of Finance in the House on House duty all year.

Ministers are personally responsible for arranging replacements if they have to be absent and for notifying the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Chief Government Whip of the arrangements.

Piloting legislation.

This is key, Mr. Chair, and it actually says:

The Prime Minister expects Ministers to pilot their own legislation through the House and to appear before parliamentary committees of both Houses...

This really gets interesting. Let me read that again. It says, “The Prime Minister expects Ministers to pilot their own legislation”—which this bill is, legislation of the finance minister—“through the House”.

Before we get to the committee part, I want to draw your attention to the fact that just a couple of days ago the government decided to shut down debate, essentially by bringing a time allocation motion to kill debate on this bill, Bill C-47.

Normally the finance minister would be in the House to defend the legislation for the required 30 minutes. That is the customary way we do things. In fact, I've never seen it done any other way in my three and a half years here, Mr. Chair, but again, they couldn't find Freeland. She didn't show up to defend her own legislation, to pilot, as the Prime Minister expects, her own legislation through the House. She wasn't there, and, you know, the associate minister, Mr. Boissonnault, wasn't there. Ironically, we would end up with Minister Wilkinson, the Minister of Natural Resources—who actually has nothing to do with piloting the budget—defending Minister Freeland in the House on her motion to shut down debate.

I'm getting concerned, Mr. Chair, about the well-being of the finance minister. I hope she's okay. I sincerely do, but she is not here. We need to see her presence to know that she is ready, willing and available to do what the Prime Minister expects of her, which is to pilot her legislation through the House. It says very specifically on page 9, “to appear before parliamentary committees of both Houses”, here and the other place, the Senate, “as required.”

The government will pursue its legislative agenda by requiring that all government Members of Parliament vote with the government on matters of confidence, which include matters of fundamental importance to the government such as the Main and Supplementary Estimates, the Budget, the implementation of electoral commitments, and matters that address shared values and the protections guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights....

“Committee relations” is a very important section. On page 10 of the same document, it says:

Ministers are expected to ensure that policy [initiatives] and legislative issues are brought forward so as to enable meaningful discussion at—

Do you know where, Mr. Chair? This was the Prime Minister talking: “meaningful discussion [of legislative issues] at parliamentary committees.”

Ministers should also place a high priority on developing good relationships with parliamentary committee chairs and members, and supporting the essential work of the committee. This includes appearing before committees whenever appropriate.

I think we have a pretty strong case here that the minister should appear on her own budget. In fact, it's hard to imagine that we really even have to argue for it. I think the sooner she comes to this committee to answer a few questions, the better.

Page 48 of the document says:

Supporting Ministerial Accountability to Parliament

Appearances before House and Senate committees by Ministers and their officials are an essential part—

This isn't me talking. This is from a document posted on the Prime Minister's website.

It states:

Appearances before House and Senate committees by Ministers and their officials are an essential part of informing Parliament, [which enables] parliamentarians to represent the views of their constituents...and to hold the government to account for its management and policies. Ministers should promote an ongoing dialogue with parliamentary committees on their department’s policy priorities, legislative and spending issues, and management challenges. Ministers, supported by the public service, should appear regularly before their respective parliamentary committee to seek the committee’s input into policy and spending priorities, and to discuss departmental performance and results. Ministers are expected to provide, consistent with Treasury Board guidelines, informative and balanced reports to Parliament, most importantly the Estimates, the Report on Plans and Priorities, and Departmental Performance Reports. Ministers and their officials must cooperate with the committees in their work....

Let me read that last part again: “Ministers and their officials must cooperate with the committees in their work”. I have to reiterate this. We invited the minister here three times this year. On February 2 we invited her to appear with the bank governor. On March 7 we invited her to appear to defend the main estimates. She didn't come on the main estimates. That's hard to believe. The committee invited Minister Freeland in relation to the prestudy of the budget bill.

Here we have a section in the document, tabled by the Prime Minister, that “Ministers and their officials must cooperate with the committees in their work and seek the views”, and that's not happening. We have a dysfunctional situation. That's why we are so adamant that we have a motion passed by this committee that calls on the finance minister to appear before we get into the....

Now, we'd like to see, as Conservatives, that the minister appears before we get to clause-by-clause. It will be easier to consider each clause once we have the input and perspective of the minister herself and once we have the chance to ask her questions directly related to those clauses. We have no guarantee that this will happen.

The principles of ministerial accountability guide ministers and their officials appearing before parliamentary committees, including when officials appear in their capacity as accounting officers. Ministers are responsible for providing answers to Parliament on questions regarding government policies, programs and activities and for providing as much information as possible about the use of their powers, including those delegated to them by others. This is the Prime Minister talking. This isn't me. I'm just reminding the committee of the Prime Minister's views.

Now, I'm assuming that the Prime Minister feels the same way about this as he did in 2015. If he does, he should perhaps speak with the Minister of Finance at the earliest possible time to urge her to get to committee so that we can get on with the consideration of her legislation.

You know, Mr. Chair, another reason she needs to come here is that we have many important questions for her. The fiscal anchor that the Minister of Finance said she was completely committed to just one short year ago is now gone. What are fiscal anchors? Fiscal anchors are essentially a policy position of government that says we're going to do something to make sure that we are fiscally responsible. Some fiscal anchors are when government says we're going to commit to a balanced budget by a certain year. Another fiscal anchor is where a government says we may still run deficits, but we're going to make sure that the total amount of our debt as a percentage of the total value of our economy, the GDP, goes down a little bit every year so that we're not encroaching on the equity of our economy.

That's what Minister Freeland did last year. In fact, I'll quote her:

...let me be very clear: We are absolutely determined that our debt-to-GDP ratio must continue to decline. Our deficits must continue to be reduced. The pandemic debt we incurred to keep Canadians safe and solvent must—and will—be paid down.

This is our fiscal anchor. This is a line we shall not cross.

The sad part of all this is that I don't know how we could trust the Minister of Finance, if she came up with a new fiscal anchor this year, that she wouldn't just ignore it when it was convenient again, and next year.

We have a real credibility gap here, and that's another reason why she needs to come and explain why the debt-to-GDP ratio is going up just a year later when in fact she promised. In fact, it was not just a promise, it was a declaration of “a line we shall not cross”. She needs to come here and explain why she did that. Those were bold words. She proclaimed to the world that our debt-to-GDP ratio was her fiscal anchor, that she could and should be trusted to bring Canada's finances under control. She said that and it's not happening.

Another thing she said, not even a year ago, in the fall economic statement, was that by 2027, the budget wouldn't be balanced but would have a surplus of $4.5 billion. That's music to Conservative ears. I thought, that's okay, maybe they're actually serious now about bringing the budget to balance, being fiscally responsible, doing the right thing. But that was November. That was ancient history, according to this government. Six months is a lifetime.

I'm flipping through the budget document. By the way, so people watching can understand what we're talking about, I brought a copy of the budget bill here with me. This is it, for all the students here today. It's over 400 pages, and you know what? The Finance Minister who wrote this law won't come here to answer questions about what it's all about. That's not right. Do you folks think that's right? Anyone put up their hand if they think that's right. I don't see any hands going up from our wonderful students at the back of the room, Mr. Chair.

It's not even mostly a budget. For the most part, it's what they call an omnibus bill. It purports to amend or introduce 51 acts of Parliament. It's unbelievable. She has to come to explain why this budget isn't actually about budgeting, because what this budget is about as far as I can tell is almost anything but budgeting.

Some of these acts are the Air Travellers Security Charge Act, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, the Canada Elections Act and the Canada Emission Reduction Incentives Agency Act. All these maybe are laudable goals, but they aren't about budgeting. They aren't about revenue. They aren't about expenses. They aren't about fiscal or economic policy. They're about all kinds of other things, so we're wondering what it is the Finance Minister is doing here. Why is she introducing amendments like this? some of the acts are the National Research Council Act, the Privileges and Immunities (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) Act, the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, the Patent Act, the Pension Benefits Standards Act. I could go on and on. I'm not going to belabour the committee with reading the names of all 51 of them.

I want to say why this important. Just a few short years ago, in a bill just like this, the finance minister of that day, Mr. Morneau, introduced a 500-page long bill that included buried in it a clause that would amend the Criminal Code of Canada to allow the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to give a free pass, a deferred prosecution agreement, to one particular company, SNC-Lavalin. That led to a major scandal. It led to the destruction of political careers. It led to the first indigenous Attorney General and Minister of Justice of Canada having to withdraw or being taken out of her portfolio.

I asked the question of the officials the other day and you might recall this, Mr. Chair. Is there any single company that benefits from any provision in this bill, this 400-page document, that we don't have the opportunity to properly scrutinize?

They said absolutely nothing. We had 50 public servants in the room and not a single one uttered a word. They would not answer my question.

We have a lot of questions for the Minister of Finance.

I am going to take a bit of a rest, although I would like you to recycle my name on the list, Mr. Chair.

I know my colleagues, who are far more eloquent than I am, are ready, willing and capable of picking up these arguments and explaining to this committee and to you, Mr. Chair, why finding Freeland is imperative to the progress of this committee, and to making sure that Canada remains a fiscally responsible country with a government that is accountable to its citizens.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We're resuming meeting number 87 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance and the debate on the motion of PS Beech on the amendment of MP Blaikie and the subamendment of MP Genuis in relation to the study of Bill C-47.

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

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

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

For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Of course we have PS Beech here because it's his motion.

We last left off with MP Perkins. Then I have MP Blaikie, then PS Beech and then MP Morantz on my list.

We're going to start with MP Perkins.

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill S-5, the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act. It proposes amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999, also known as CEPA.

As members know, our government introduced Bill S-5 in the Senate on February 9, 2022. Over the past year, Bill S-5 has moved steadily through the parliamentary process. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the tremendous contribution from parliamentarians on all sides of the House, and their insight and efforts to advance and strengthen this bill.

The parliamentary process was clearly a success. The committees that worked on this bill spent nearly 50 hours studying it. They heard testimony from over 80 witnesses representing civil society, academia, industry and indigenous organizations, and received more than 100 written briefs. In the end, over 40 amendments were adopted, with the government supporting more than half of these changes. The bill is stronger as a result, and the government supports it.

It is now time to pass the bill as reported by the ENVI committee, send it back to the other place and, most importantly, ensure that the bill receives royal assent without delay so we can implement it.

Bill S-5 would be the first major overhaul of CEPA in more than a generation, as many members have pointed out. The bill would modernize CEPA in two key areas. First, it would recognize a right to a healthy environment, as provided under CEPA. Second, it would strengthen the foundation for chemicals management in Canada and enable robust protection for Canadians and their environment from the risks posed by harmful substances.

The recognition of the right to a healthy environment, as provided under this act, would be an important achievement. It would be the first time such a right has been recognized in federal legislation. Under the bill, the government would have a duty to protect that right and uphold related principles, such as environmental justice. Within two years, if it comes into force, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change would be required to develop an implementation framework to set out how that right would be considered in the administration of the act.

People may ask what difference the recognition of this right would make. They should recall that CEPA provides the foundation for multiple programs aimed at preventing pollution, such as those dealing with air quality, environmental emergencies, greenhouse gases and, of course, the chemicals management program. The right would apply to the administration of the whole act.

I will take one principle: environmental justice. I have heard those words in the chamber today. It includes avoiding disproportionate harmful impacts on vulnerable populations. Examining decision making from this perspective would require a greater understanding of who is most impacted by pollution and putting some priority on addressing those situations. Because a solid understanding of the situation would be important, the bill would require the ministers to conduct research, studies or monitoring activities to support the protection of the right to a healthy environment.

Complementary to that right, the bill would confirm the government's commitment to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including free, prior and informed consent. Amendments confirmed the role of indigenous knowledge in decision-making related to the protection of the environment and health, and encouraged examination of whether CEPA is implemented in a way that advances reconciliation.

Bill S-5 would also modernizes Canada's approach to chemicals management by, among other things, emphasizing protection of Canadians who are most vulnerable to harm from chemicals, encouraging the shift to safer alternatives and accounting for the reality that Canadians are exposed to chemicals from multiple sources, often referred to as cumulative effects.

Central to these amendments is the proposal to develop and implement a plan of chemicals management priorities. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Health would develop this plan in consultation with stakeholders within two years of royal assent. It would set out a multi-year integrated plan for chemical assessments, as well as supporting research and information-gathering activities. The plan would also consider factors such as vulnerable populations, cumulative effects and safer alternatives, as I have already said.

This proposal was strengthened with amendments, supported by the government, that would require the plan to include timelines and that it be reviewed every eight years following its publication. Recognizing that Canadians are exposed to multiple chemicals from many different sources, the bill broadens the scientific basis for risk assessments under CEPA to include consideration of cumulative effects and vulnerable populations. Amendments adopted at committee introduced the related concept of a vulnerable environment. The changes will help ensure that assessors consider real-world exposure scenarios.

To support the shift to safer alternatives, the bill would establish a new watch-list of chemicals of potential concern. Amendments adopted at committee clarify the process for removing chemicals from the watch-list and provide helpful guidance to industry and other chemical users. The bill would also shift the risk-management paradigm under CEPA by expanding its regulatory focus to a broader subset of toxic substances, that is toxic substances that pose the highest risk, and requiring that priority be given to prohibiting activities and releases of these toxic substances.

However, amendments adopted at committee and supported by the government make it clear that it must include toxic substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction, in addition to persistent and bioaccumulative substances, which departments have always aimed to eliminate. These important changes bring CEPA in line with the latest science and understanding of environmental and health risks.

Having summarized the key chemicals management components of the bill, I will now speak to some cross-cutting themes that came in through amendments.

Openness, transparency and accountability in environmental and health protections were major themes underlying many of the amendments made to the bill at committee. These included a preambular statement to this effect, along with various timelines and reporting requirements for the risk assessment and risk management of chemicals. These changes would increase accountability under CEPA and ensure risks to Canadians and their environment from chemicals are assessed and managed in a timely fashion.

Similarly, amendments made to the bill would create a more open and transparent regime for confidential business information by requiring that claimants justify their confidentiality requests against Access to Information Act criteria, and would require that the Minister of the Environment review and validate a statistically representative sample of confidentiality requests and report annually on the results.

Animal testing is another major theme of the amendments to the bill, with the committee adding several new provisions aimed at replacing, reducing or refining the use of vertebrate animals. Moreover, the plan of chemical management priorities discussed earlier would include a strategy to promote the development and use of methods not involving the use of vertebrate animals.

These amendments are consistent with work under way in other jurisdictions around the world, such as the U.S. and EU, and help further this government's commitment to move away from vertebrate animal testing. This includes continuing to work with industry, academia and our international partners to develop and evaluate non-animal alternative methods with the goal of moving closer to ending animal testing. In fact, the government recently reaffirmed its commitment to end cosmetics testing on animals in the 2023 federal budget, and with amendments to the Food and Drugs Act tabled in Bill C-47. These CEPA amendments would be an important complement to this work.

Lastly, on the topic of amendments, not all of the amendments that were made to the bill in the other place were maintained, but I would say majority were. There were some that were not in keeping with the principles of the act, would be difficult to implement or were premature, in light of ongoing consultations being undertaken by Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada. As I mentioned before, this is not the last chapter on CEPA.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

—the Conservatives continue to raise points of order. They have spoken for basically all of 20 hours, minus a few minutes when our members have been able to speak, and for most of those 20 hours, they've discussed nothing to do with the motion that's being debated.

Now I've raised a point that is relevant. I've not moved it. What I'm doing is procedurally correct. I'm simply giving an indication in the context of our current debate, in the context of this amendment and the subamendment, that this is our intention. I want them to know what I plan to move when they end this filibuster and allow us to go for the vote, so that we can get the BIA passed and get Canadians the supports they need that are available in the budget but won't be available if we don't get the BIA passed soon.

That won't get passed soon if the Conservatives continue their filibuster.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much, Chair. I'm making sure that members are aware of the intention here, so I'm giving notice. I'm not moving it. I wanted to give advance notice so that members can understand our intent going forward in this debate.

I believe that the current filibuster, which has seen us lose 20 hours of committee time that could have been spent hearing from witnesses, is indicative of the need to set a deadline for clause-by-clause to be completed. This amendment mirrors language from the motion we adopted during last year's BIA, following a Conservative filibuster last year.

I believe we need this deadline, because without such a deadline, we're likely to see another filibuster during our clause-by-clause review of the bill, which would result in a delay to the supports that are in the budget implementation act: things like dental care or other measures that are going to help, the affordability measures that are going to help Canadians. We would see a delay in these supports being delivered, and it would impact, of course, the rest of the committee's schedule.

I'd be curious to see where members stand on this amendment in the context of our current discussion about the subamendment and clause-by-clause, and I look forward to moving it when the Conservatives are prepared to allow a vote on the invitation for the Deputy Prime Minister to appear for two hours, which is an amendment that we support.

I have provided the text of the motion that I gave notice on to the clerk in both official languages as well.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

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

I won't perhaps bore those watching with the thing. It does feel to some members as though I have been speaking for all 87 meetings of the finance committee, but it hasn't been that many.

Just to sort of summarize, for those watching, what I've been speaking about is the desire to have, under this subamendment and amendment to the main motion by Mr. Beech, what we believe to be an important discussion about ministerial accountability to Parliament. We, as the official opposition, have been requesting that the Minister of Finance come in on her Bill C-47, which is the budget implementation act. It's an omnibus bill that amends 51 acts of Canada, some of which have to do with finance and some of which don't. We've been seeking two hours for the minister to speak on a fiscal plan that was presented to Parliament, which plans to spend $3.1 trillion in the next five years.

I understand that the minister has agreed to appear—which is heartening, because we have been in search of Freeland—but will commit to only one hour instead of two. This whole discussion about ministerial accountability could be solved right now if the minister agreed to appear for two hours, which we've been unable to get confirmation of. Perhaps some of the members of the government or the chair could confirm whether we've received an update from the minister as to whether she's agreed to come for two hours as opposed to what she said in her last email, which I understand—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

We're resuming meeting number 87 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance and the debate on motion by PS Beech, the amendment by MP Blaikie and the subamendment by MP Morantz in relation to the study of Bill C-47.

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

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. There is interpretation for those on Zoom. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either the floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. I remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For the members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as well as we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

I do see a hand up with MP Baker, but I do have the speaking order right now. I have MP Perkins, MP Lawrence, MP Baker and then MP Blaikie.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There were a couple of specific questions on the point of order on how King Charles III related to this bill. Let me quote from division 31.

This bill is broken up into 39 divisions, as they call them, in the act, in Bill C-47. Division 31 is on amendments to the Royal Style and Titles Act, which has to do specifically with Charles III and nothing to do with raising revenue or expending money, and it has nothing to do with borrowing, yet it's in this omnibus bill. I was speaking towards the relevance of this bill.

Perhaps it would be helpful for members if I went through all of these sections so that they understand all of the various things that are in this bill that are unrelated to financing.

If I start at the back, this bill amends the Canada Elections Act. The Canada Elections Act, last time I checked, was not part of spending, borrowing or raising revenue.

It creates a new body called the “Employment Insurance Board of Appeal”. Generally, that would be done through an act of Parliament on its own if the government wanted to seek it, remembering that this government and this Liberal Party opposed omnibus bills in the 2015 election. In fact, most of the members from the government side campaigned on that in 2015, but apparently that's here.

There are amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Again, it has nothing to do with raising or spending money.

There are changes to the Criminal Code of Canada. Perhaps it would be helpful, too, for members of the government to understand that this supposed budget bill amends the Criminal Code, which I don't believe is a factor in raising revenue, spending money or borrowing money.

It creates the “Canada Growth Fund”. I can agree with you there: A commitment of somewhere between $8 billion to $15 billion—we don't quite know yet because we haven't been able to ask any minister about this—to create the Canada growth fund is in this bill. That is definitely spending: spending without actual knowledge of what the thing will be, which is a habit of this government.

If I continue to go back, I mentioned the Royal Style and Titles Act in division 31.

You're not going to believe this, but the bill amends the Canada Post Corporation Act. I don't think the government needs to go to Parliament to raise the price of a stamp, so what could they possibly be doing in putting a change to the Canada Post act in a bill that supposedly is about the budget?

I will go on, since the question was asked by government members about the relevance to these things that are obviously not apparent even to them in terms of why they would be in an act of Parliament.

Division 28 calls for changes to the Food and Drugs Act (Cosmetics Testing on Animals). We all appreciate that, if we can, we wouldn't want animals used in cosmetics testing, but again, that should be a separate act of Parliament, not in a budget.

For those members who are confused about these issues and why anyone would want to question the minister about why these are in her bill, I can understand why government members are confused, because I don't understand why they're in a budget bill either.

Division 27, just one above that, is again on the Food and Drugs Act, but no, it's not the same thing. It's another thing on natural health products. They'll need to amend the Food and Drugs Act to tax more, which I know this government likes to do, but they're making amendments to that.

We all know that Canada is lagging the world in intellectual property in terms of patenting, seeing as China filed 350,000 patents at the world trade patent organization last year while Canada filed 32,000. We're making amendments in this bill to the Patent Act.

I should say as an aside that of China's over 300,000 patents filed worldwide, 35,000 were for artificial intelligence. I guess because the Liberals are so good at math they would know how many patents were filed by Canada last year for artificial intelligence at the world trade IP organization. Unfortunately, I don't see any Liberals across from me raising their hands and saying they have the answer. Let me help you: 12. Twelve, so the Patent Act changes here, hopefully, will get us up to maybe doubling that to 24, while China continues to put in 35,000 a year.

The National Research Council Act is amended here. Again, if the government were to provide the National Research Council with more money, it would not require a change to the National Research Council Act. It just requires a ways and means motion in the House.

Division 24 changes the Customs Act. I suppose the Customs Act might be changed in here to increase taxes. That could be a legitimate purpose.

Now, I know that all the members travel a lot and that all the members have constituents who travel a lot. We know—and it's been in the news a lot—about all the transport complaints. Liberal members might say, “There he goes again, way off topic, and why isn't he sticking to the topic of holding the minister to account for her budget bill?”

In fact, the Liberals would be wrong and I would be right, because I've actually read this. It says in division 23 that there is a new portion called “Air Travel Complaints”, and the one above it has changes to the Canada Transportation Act.

Now, we appreciate that there needs to be better rules to protect consumers on air travel, but if you really believed in this, you'd give it House time on its own for parliamentarians to question that act and make sure that the best legislation to protect consumers was available. You would not put it in a budget bill that gets closure at all stages. Members on the government side don't even know that this bill is being used for that.

Moving on to the oceans protection plan, the member asked me earlier why I would ever talk about fisheries. Well, don't get me going. With 7,000 commercial fishermen in my riding, and having defeated the fisheries minister because of her performance in fishery under this government, I could talk to you for days and days on the fishery. You might say that's not relevant to this act, but it is, and I can tell you why. Division 21 in Bill C-47 amends the oceans protection act.

I'm not even sure how many government members are aware that there's an oceans protection act, but the amendments here are to do things in the oceans protection act around the protection of certain ecosystems. As valuable as that may be, that should be a bill on its own if it's so important. This is supposedly the government that is committed and at the forefront and full of virtue signalling on the environment, and yet they have buried in a bill that amends 51 acts changes to the oceans protection plan. I would think they would want to be proud of that.

Things that swim in the ocean, such as elvers, lobster, pelagic fish.... For all you landlubbers, a pelagic fish is a fish with a fin that swims—like cod, like halibut, like hake, and like any number of fish. Shrimp, which are shellfish, swim in the ocean. Do you know what also swims in the ocean? Mammals called seals—pinnipeds. Part of the oceans protection plan is to protect the biodiversity of the oceans. When the largest predator is allowed to exponentially grow in the ocean without any kind of management plan under the oceans protection act, which is amended by this bill, you have a biodiversity imbalance.

The government talks about wanting to respect biodiversity except when it comes to pinnipeds, seals and sea lions—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think this is my third set for today on this.

Mr. Chair, you summarized the situation well in our "finding Freeland" exercise, and, in particular, I would like to say that one of the reasons we like to ask the Minister questions with regard to this budget bill, this bill that amends 51 acts of Canada and spends $3.1 trillion, is that Canadians are suffering because of the high costs of everything, in particular, housing. I know many members of Parliament who have been grappling with this issue of high-cost housing.

I would just like to bring to the committee's attention something that I would love to bring to the minister's attention, were she to come here for two hours to discuss the impacts of this government's budgetary process on housing.

A recent report on housing affordability by the Royal Bank of Canada is entitled, “Buying a home has never been so unaffordable in Canada”, which I think is really true. There are four opening summary points to the more detailed report, which I'm sure members will like to hear in order to understand the types of questions that could be asked if we had a bit of freedom for Freeland to come here to committee and actually answer questions for two hours as parliamentary accountability, which is the purpose of both the subamendment and the amendment by Mr. Blaikie. The reason this seems to be a challenge is that, in the last six months, there have been three invitations to the Minister to appear.

For those who are watching and aren't familiar with parliamentary process, committees can only request that a minister appear. The minister does not need to feel compelled to appear, but out of parliamentary tradition and, quite frankly, because of the open and accountable government document that all ministers are required to review and understand released by this government in 2015.... This document, referenced in every single mandate letter of every minister of this government, says that ministers must make themselves available for questioning both by Parliament—that would be the House of Commons—and the Senate, as well as by the parliamentary committees that are tasked with examining government legislation and policy ideas.

This is the finance committee responsible for going through Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, which amends 51 acts of the Government of Canada. In this accountability, some of the areas that we've approved include this concern, while Canada's leading bank that says that buying a home has never been so unaffordable in Canada. In the summary here, there are four points.

The first one is:

Surging interest rates drive ownership costs to record-high levels: The Bank of Canada’s rate hiking campaign since March has added hundred of dollars to mortgage payments

That would be the previous March in 2022. In some cases, as we know, it's up to $7,000 a month "that comes with a home purchase. This, along with the jump in property values during the pandemic have made it more difficult than ever to become a homeowner in Canada."

I see that we're joined by a number of young people here who are working on the Hill for the summer, some very bright and intelligent interns. When they graduate and enter the workforce, I'm sure they hope to own a home. That's the dream of everyone, yet this RBC report says that dream is out of reach. As our leader, the next Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Poilievre, says quite often, it's become out of reach for new homeowners. Indeed, "RBC’s national aggregate affordability measure reached 60% in the second quarter, surpassing the previous worst-ever point (57%) in 1990."

Now, in 1990 there was another global recession. It was a difficult global recession and led to double-digit interest rates, causing massive issues with affordability. It wasn't like the early 1980s recession under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, when mortgage rates reached 21%, if you can believe that—21%. These rates only reached 12%, 13%, 14% in the early 1990s, a relative bargain compared with what happened under Pierre Trudeau, and they obviously make the current situation look less drastic. But if you are entering the housing market now with some of the highest housing prices in the world, two of the biggest housing bubbles in the world are in Toronto and Vancouver, and so this, combined with the double whammy or perfect storm, if you like, of high interest rates is going to make it virtually impossible for that dream of home affordability.

The second point of RBC is in the summary is that affordability worsened everywhere in Canada: “The deterioration over the past year has been off the charts in most markets in most markets with only parts of the Prairies and Quebec having experienced deeper erosion in the past.”

I live in rural Nova Scotia and we have a housing crisis in every part of rural Nova Scotia. Some people think this is only a big city issue, but it's an issue everywhere. We've seen soaring housing prices in rural Alberta, in rural Canada. I'm sure all members from rural ridings around this committee will acknowledge that they receive those calls every single day.

The third point is of particular interest to some of colleagues: Ontario and BC buyers are extremely challenged. Banks can sometimes be the centre and focus of understatement and I think “Ontario, BC buyers extremely challenged” is perhaps an understatement. RBC goes on to say in that bullet that “Conditions are still manageable in the Prairies and most of Atlantic Canada and Quebec though.” I tend to disagree, as these regions have lower average household income and there are fewer household opportunities to buy, to purchase a house. Yes, the housing prices in parts of my riding may be at levels that seem ridiculously low compared with Toronto and Montreal, or even Vancouver, but when the median income in my riding is $30,000, a $200,000 to $400,000 home at these interest rates is out of range, just unfathomable to most people, forcing them into rental units, if you can find one.

The largest community in my riding—I would like to ask the minister about this—is called Bridgewater and the Prime Minister will be familiar with Bridgewater, as will the industry minister because they were just there a few parliamentary breaks ago making an announcement with one of our employers, Michelin. A one-bedroom apartment on the main street above a retail store starts at $1,200 to $1,500 a month, so if you think it's a bargain to live in small town rural Atlantic Canada, it is not. Yes, the rents are not huge like in Toronto, but the income levels are relatively lower too and make it more difficult.

The fourth point RBC makes is that “Home price declines [will] eventually bring relief to buyers”. That's what we all hope. They say:

The sharp housing market correction that began this spring is rolling back some of the spectacular price gains made during the pandemic. We expect benchmark prices to fall 14% nationwide by next spring—more so in Ontario and BC. This should help lower ownership costs next year. But the likelihood of further rate hikes from the Bank of Canada is poised to intensify affordability pressures before then

—which we have gone through—

more so in Ontario and BC. This should help lower ownership costs next year.

Unfortunately, counterbalancing that—perhaps levelling out in some markets a lowering of some of the higher-end products—are higher interest rates, which doesn't make housing any more affordable to the new homebuyer.

These things are the questions we would like to ask on affordability when housing prices, whether you rent or buy, have doubled under this government. But we can't get to ask those questions if the Minister of Finance has been present at question period only six times since January and has not shown up, has blown off, one might say.... In fact, I said in question period today that the minister has blown off the last three invitations from this committee and has not bothered to come to those hearings.

We're only asking for two hours of her time. I would remind the Minister of Finance that the spending arm of the government, the Treasury Board, has a policy document on ministerial accountability that I'm sure she has read, but isn't listening to.

For the translators, on page 15 of that document, section 2.2, is called “Parliament's role in holding the government to account”, and it says:

Parliament’s role, on behalf of Canadians, is to hold ministers to account for the activities carried out under their authority or those authorities vested directly in departmental officials. Ministers, in turn, need to assure themselves that structures and processes are in place to give them the appropriate degree of control, which includes ensuring that their deputy is managing the department well enough to support ministerial accountability.

It goes on to say that “Parliament has a broad range of means to hold the government to account. The oldest and still among the most powerful is control of the public purse—the exclusive right to authorize taxation and the expenditure of public funds. In support of this responsibility, Parliament audits the accounts of revenues and expenditures in a manner of its choosing.”

Now, let's just stop there. Let's take a look at Bill C-47, the budget implementation act. By its very nature, the purpose of the budget implementation act, and the examination by this finance committee with the minister, is to do precisely what Treasury Board says our job as parliamentarians is: “The oldest and still among the most powerful is control of the public purse—the exclusive right to authorize taxation and the expenditure of public funds.” That is our duty as parliamentarians. It's to scrutinize the spending plan of the Government of Canada, in this case as exemplified in Bill C-47: “In support of this responsibility, Parliament audits the accounts of revenues and expenditures in a manner of its choosing.”

There's a footnote on that. It's footnote 11 at the bottom of the page:

See Norman Ward. The Public Purse. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1951, pp. 3–4, for a statement of the core principles and practices of parliamentary control of finances. Part IV of the Financial Administration Act sets out the manner in which the Public Accounts are to be kept, subject to the regulations of the Treasury Board

To go back into the document, it says:

Other means include Parliament’s role in the passage of legislation, the scrutiny and approval of public expenditures, debate over resolutions, and the provision of information, whether through Question Period or formal reporting.

There's a footnote here on that sentence:

Based on Peter Aucoin and Mark D. Jarvis. Modernizing Government Accountability: A Framework for Reform. Canada School of Public Service, 2005, pp. 20–21.

This is a fairly commonly written-about thing:

Parliament audits the accounts of revenues and expenditures in a manner of its choosing. Other means include Parliament’s role in the passage of legislation, the scrutiny and approval of public expenditures, debate over resolutions, and the provision of information, whether through Question Period or formal reporting. Three areas warrant specific attention: Question Period, the scrutiny of the government’s performance by parliamentary standing committees (particularly the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts), and the role of the auditor general.

Toward the bottom of the page, there's a new section under 2.2 entitled “Question Period”. As I think I've said before, in our effort to find Freeland we've been disappointed by the fact that there have been six appearances in Parliament. We were hopeful that there would be a seventh, since she was there yesterday, but apparently a seventh was not possible today. We live in hope that there may be an appearance tomorrow, but Wednesdays are the Prime Minister's question period, so it's not terribly useful if she shows up then. We cannot pose questions to the Minister of Finance on a Wednesday in the House of Commons. We are reliant on the other days for the minister to be present and/or in committee here, as this report says.

For those who are unfamiliar, the Treasury Board guidelines say this about ministerial accountability in question period:

Question Period is a distinctive feature of Westminster democracy and arguably its most powerful instrument of accountability.

We had the President of the United States here recently, and we had secretaries of state, their cabinet, who are not elected. They are appointed by the President and ratified by Congress, but they are not elected individuals. They marvel that ministers in charge of departments have to actually be held accountable on a daily basis in question period. It's what I think makes our system so much superior to a republican system like the U.S., that daily our ministers are held to account by other elected people—not by the media when you show up and do a press conference, and not by the media when you are at an event and scrum afterwards, but by people duly elected to hold you to account. As this paper says, “A centrepiece of parliamentary life, Question Period gives parliamentarians timely”—the key is timely—“opportunities to challenge policies and raise questions about administration.”

This is Treasury Board now. It's the Government of Canada. This document says:

Ministers are obliged to be present in the House of Commons to respond to questions, to account for the authority that has been assigned to them, and to defend the way in which they or their officials have exercised authority.

At the bottom of the page, just so the translators can follow along, we find footnote 14. The footnote to that important direction from Treasury Board states:

Ministers have a duty to attend Question Period daily. See Canada. Governing Responsibly, 2004, p. 16. Any proposed absences must be cleared with the Prime Minister’s Office before other commitments are made. When a minister is absent, a designated minister or parliamentary secretary answers for him or her.

Of course, for the past number of months—we're in month five, I guess, since Parliament came back in January—we've seen six days with the Minister of Finance and all the rest answered by somebody else. Sometimes I have the feeling when we're in the opposition and asking questions of the Minister of Finance, who clearly has been given permission, according to this, by the Prime Minister to not actually attend to earn her paycheque, that—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm happy there's quorum because I know that when I've moved motions to adjourn and my colleagues on the Conservative side have agreed to adjourn, I've been really quite entertained by the fact that the government continues to vote against adjourning so that I can continue explaining to them all the intricacies of ministerial accountability, and so that I can explain to them why we need to have the minister here, like her colleague the Minister of Industry has done in trying to be held accountable for a $14 billion unbooked expenditure. I certainly would like to ask the Minister of Finance.... Besides the fact that she clearly has a different definition of return on investment—and if she doesn't, maybe she should explain to the industry minister what return on investment is.... But if she does have a different explanation, I would like to know that.

I would also like to ask her, if she would show up for the two hours in our "finding Freeland" effort, if we could find a way to understand what in the Financial Administration Act allows the minister to commit the government to $13 billion of spending for this Volkswagen thing beyond the fiscal framework. The minister does not have parliamentary authority to do that because the parliamentary authority that the minister seeks with Bill C-47 is just to amend some financial acts and many acts that have nothing to do with the budget that the minister is....

Perhaps in "finding Freeland" maybe the minister is actually reading the act, Bill C-47, which amends these 51 acts and doing her cross-referencing to the 51 acts to make sure that she understands and prepares herself well for the incredibly insightful questions that I think all parties will ask the minister if and when she shows up on the 16th. We'll be thrilled to have her next week on the 16th for two hours, but for some reason she's unwilling to commit to two hours, which is a small amount of time given the fact that she has that much—

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

He says it's commercial confidentiality, but I think the reason the minister wants to be in camera is that he's actually going to be embarrassed by the fact that he claimed in the House.... This goes to the issue of ministerial accountability, which is what this subamendment is about. It's about ministerial accountability. Even the minister of industry has said in the House that this enormous, unprecedented Volkswagen taxpayer subsidy by the Government of Canada has an ROI—a return on investment, as it's known—of five years.

I'm curious about that. I did spend 20 some years in the private sector and I know that a return on investment is when you make the investment and then you actually make a profit on that investment.

Now, in order for the government to even get that basic return of that money in five years, the plant would actually have to be open. Until the plant is open, the plant is not producing revenue. I don't see how, on a plant that the minister by his own words said will take five years to build, it can have a five-year return on investment.

This is the kind of question we need to ask the Minister of Finance—whether she agrees with the Minister of Industry that there is a five-year return on investment on a $14-billion contract subsidizing a company that has the same revenue as the Government of Canada while at the same time producing no revenue and no batteries for the next five years; that somehow it magically produces it. Maybe that's why we know that the Minister of Industry was actually a corporate lawyer and not a person delivering a P and L statement, or profit and loss, for companies. I think he missed his math there.

At the industry committee last week, we asked the minister for a copy of that ROI report that he so proudly claimed in the House of Commons existed—that there was an ROI report and that the bureaucrats and department had done this amazing work to say that we will get this money paid back within five years. Do you know what the minister's answer was there? He actually came to committee. We invited the minister to come to committee, and he came to committee. When we posed that question to him of whether or not there was an actual report, as he claimed, he said, well, it's the Trillium report.

Now, if you had a computer in front of you, I could give you the URL for the Trillium report. It's a report by a think tank in Ontario, as they're called, to the Ontario government about what the electric vehicle manufacturing industry could be worth in Ontario on theoretical grounds. If the fairy dust got spread here, and the fairy dust got spread there, and we had this part of the manufacturing process here, and we had this assembly of the process there, and if the stars lined up, and if all things worked out, somehow there would be this massive job creation between now and 2050 in Ontario.

Do you know what? I read that report again last night in preparing for this committee, and do you know what I found in that report? The report is called, “Electric Vehicles: a $48 billion opportunity for Canada”. It sounds like something this government would write, because the bigger the number, the more impressive the announcement is. I read though this report twice. I did a word search, which you can do on a PDF, and I didn't find the word “Volkswagen” once in that report. I don't understand how the minister says this is the report that is publicly available that supports his contention that there is a five-year return on investment on this $14-billion investment in Volkswagen for a plant that won't even open for five years. He says it's right there in that report. I searched it. I guess that's why we're going to have the minister back. We will have the minister back for two hours to talk about this contract.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if she knows of a different way to calculate a return on investment. Perhaps it's not the one they teach in business school. Perhaps it's not the one that every company uses in trying to figure out whether they should make a capital investment. Perhaps this Minister of Finance from her journalistic career—not business career, because she didn't have one—has a different definition of what a return on investment is. Perhaps she learned it from the Prime Minister, who said that budgets balance themselves. As we know, apparently they don't.

When you look at this very large Bill C-47—I'll hold it up for people to see—this budget implementation bill that implements 51 act changes, including the symbol of the crown for the King—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, committee members, and thank you, Mr. Chair, for summarizing where we are on the subamendment to the amendment for our effort to find Freeland. I hope it's not free Freeland, as we talked about earlier...that the PMO has given her the latitude to appear before us. We would like the free Freeland.

We assume that she can make up her own mind, but we are still curious, as to the finding Freeland effort, about the six appearances in the House since January and her lack of willingness to accept previous very polite and well-worded invitations by this committee to appear in the last six months. It's very curious that the minister has chosen not to.

Before I get back into the ministerial accountability document of Treasury Board, I spoke earlier in terms of accountability and about the spending that this budget Bill C-47, which amends 51 acts of Parliament, imposes on Canadians and their wallets over the next five years. I spoke about the paycheque deterioration that we've seen as a result of the fiscal program of this Minister of Finance. Her willingness, obviously, to be questioned for two hours is very important. We think that is a small amount of time, given that this is a $490-billion budget and a$3.1 trillion spending plan over the next five years.

Quite frankly, in two hours, it will be extremely difficult to question her on the 51 acts of the Government of Canada that this bill intends to amend. In fact, without that I'm not sure that we could get to the creation of a new corporation—the CIC—in that timeframe.

I'm not sure that we could get to the creation of yet another global investment fund. It seems like every six years we have a growth fund, a global investment fund or a fund of some sort that gets $15 billion.

I'm sure we're not going to get to the $14 billion Volkswagen contract. I think it was mentioned earlier. It seems awfully embarrassing for me and it actually almost brings a tear to my eye that the only thing in this five-year fiscal framework for that $14-billion dollar VW contract is the mere $778 million dollars that the federal government is going to subsidize Volkswagen for to built a plant. The $13 billion that the minister announced so proudly both in Ontario and also in the House.... He is very proud of it and very effervescent when he talks about it. He is very proud of the fact that the $13 billion is not actually even in the fiscal framework. That spending actually happens further beyond this fiscal framework.

I suspect that the current minister of industry is hoping that, as prime minister, he will be able to cut the ribbon on this plant five years from now and actually be responsible for then providing $13 billion of subsidy.

Did I mention that Volkswagen last year had the same revenue as the Government of Canada? Volkswagen's revenue last year was $413 billion. Guess what. The federal government's revenue was, I believe, $412 billion or $413 billion. The difference is that Volkswagen actually made a $200-billion profit last year, I believe it was. The federal government, having the same revenue, actually made a $40-billion deficit. They lost $40 billion.

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

There you have it. A Conservative actually said:

Parliament is not an institution of management; Parliament is an institution of accountability. We're not here to run the government;

—as Opposition—

we're here to hold the government accountable for the way they run themselves.

That's a key principle. John Williams was a fine Edmontonian and a fine representative of his community and obviously very respectful of the role of accountability in Parliament, the role that members of Parliament play and the role of ministers being accountable.

The report goes on to say, on page 10 at the top:

While the organization of the ministry and the corresponding organization of portfolios is one of the defining responsibilities of the prime minister, Parliament plays a key role in the assignment of ministerial responsibility. In Canadian practice, departmental acts, which are passed by Parliament, characteristically set out a number of important provisions that help define ministerial responsibilities.

As we know, Bill C-47 here, which we want the minister to answer on, amends 51 acts of Parliament. Perhaps we should have the whole cabinet here through a series of meetings to hold themselves accountable for the parts of the acts they are responsible for in this bill.

Well, there was a promise, I am told. I was in private life back then, busy running a retail chain. I was in private life then, but in 2015 I understand that the now Prime Minister and then leader of the Liberal Party promised not to do these kinds of bills that take a budget bill and add in amendments to the Criminal Code, amendments to the oceans protection plan, and things that have nothing to do with the budget. He would never do that. Promise made, promise broken: That's what we've come to expect from this government.

This report from Treasury Board goes on to say on page 10 that “They”—they being the department, Parliament and ministry—"provide for the appointment of a minister; set out the powers, duties, and functions for which the minister is responsible; and give the minister responsibility for the overall direction and management of the department's financial and public service resources."

As we know from the Minister of Finance's mandate letter—and we know this only from the letter, because in the last six months we've been unable to get the minister to accept the invitation from the finance committee. Theoretically the minister's letter says, at least in print, that the minister is to be “accountable to Parliament both individually, for your style of leadership and the performance of your responsibilities, and collectively, in support of [the ministers]”. The minister is to be available to Parliament to answer questions. What a concept.

The Treasury Board report on ministerial responsibility goes on to say that, “Parliament has also approved the Financial Administration Act”. For those of you who don't know, that's the act that allows and sets out the parameters of how the government collects and spends money—how it collects and spends your money and, when they spend more than they collect from you, how they borrow money. It provides them with their credit card authority. That obviously is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance, the very heart of our issue here today. The report continues:

This Act is the cornerstone of the legal framework for general financial management and accountability of public service organizations. It describes the manner in which government spending may be approved, expenditures made, revenues obtained, and funds borrowed.

As I've said, it's almost as though I had read this before. Perhaps some of the ministers should have read it. The report continues:

It provides a procedure for the internal control of funds allocated to departments and agencies by Parliament and for the preparation of the Public Accounts of Canada, which contain the government's annual statement of revenues and expenditures.

The report goes on to say:

The Financial Administration Act assigns rights and duties to ministers and directly to deputy heads in relation to the organizations they manage. These rights and duties include the obligation for a deputy head to establish procedures and maintain records respecting the control of financial commitments chargeable to public funds;

Furthermore it states: ...the fact that only a minister or his or her delegate can request the issuance of a payment; and that before a payment is issued in return for work, goods, or services, the deputy of a minister (or another delegate) must certify that the work has been performed, the goods received, or the services rendered.

Ministers remain individually and collectively responsible for their statutory duties and accountable to Parliament...

A C C O U N T A B L E—that's how you spell the word “accountable”.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate your summarizing where we are in terms of what the ask is. We're trying, as we put it, to find Freeland and have the Minister of Finance appear for two hours on her budget implementation bill, which amends 51 acts of the Government of Canada. A number of these are not related to the actual revenue or expenses of the government.

Where I left off before the vote, Mr. Chair, was discussing the issue of how the budgetary spending in this bill is impacting not only the confidence of Canadians going forward and their feeling that we will be in a recession within 12 months, according to the Bank of Canada, but how it is impacting those on the lower income side in Canada, particularly. They are being disproportionately hurt by the high-inflation, high-interest rate environment that this spending has been a major contributor to.

I was citing some of the economic statistics on this, having gone through a few of the highlights from the Bank of Canada's most recent report. It's the hot-off-the-press report from the Royal Bank of Canada called “Proof Point: More Canadians to fall behind on debt payments” It was written by two of the Royal Bank's economists, Robert Hogue and Mishael Liu, and published on May 3, 2023.

I was summarizing the first point, which is that a looming recession, according to them, is projected as unemployment is projected to rise from its current rate of 5% to 6.6% by early 2024. That is according to the Royal Bank of Canada. Most disturbingly, as a result of the financial plan of this Liberal government and our search to find Freeland to get answers to why this is a good approach, the Royal Bank projects that consumers are going to have an increase in insolvency of “almost 30% over the next three years”. That's people defaulting on credit cards, mortgage rates, bank loans and that kind of thing.

They put in this that there were some gains. They call this the “bottom line”. It's on the front side:

The noticeable improvement in Canadians’ finances (in the aggregate) early in pandemic wasn’t sustainable.

Most of that was caused by cash payments being given to people who needed it—and, in a lot of cases, people who didn't need it and businesses that didn't need it—and the government spending about half, or $200 million, during the pandemic on things that were not pandemic-related.

The report goes on to say the following:

Those gains are now reversing and will likely erode further amid a softening economy and higher interest rates.

The Royal Bank, on May 3, went on to say:

...a booming housing market put mortgage debt on a fast track. By late-2021, Canada’s household debt-to-income ratio had exceeded pre-pandemic levels.

The next section is called “Cracks are beginning to form”. That's a typical banker understatement. They're “beginning to form”. The bank went on to say:

Over the last year, the burden of that debt has grown even heavier for Canadian households...These developments have caused an increasing number of Canadians to fall behind in on debt service payments that have suddenly swelled.

They've swelled, of course, because of interest rates. The report went on to say:

...the rate of consumers 90+ days late on their debt service payments has nevertheless risen for installment loans—

Installment loans are things, according to this report, that are typically used for one-off purposes like home renovations, unexpected emergencies and debt consolidation. The rate of consumer loans that are 90%-plus in arrears have risen in this area. These are things like credit cards and auto loans. More recently, they're seeing lines of credit. Lines of credit are based on your house.

When people are starting to dip into their lines of credit to pay for groceries, to pay heating costs and to pay increased mortgage costs, it's like using a credit card to pay for the other credit card bills. That is an inevitable economic spiral downhill, particularly with these higher interest rates caused by the $3.1 trillion of spending that this budget implementation bill sets out.

The report says:

A looming recession and the ongoing effect of higher interest rates will only add stress in the period ahead....

the modest contraction we expect for Canada's economy will likely trigger job losses.

That is according to the Royal Bank. It goes on to say:

We project our national unemployment rate will rise from the current 5% to 6.6% by 2024Q1. Historically, the loss of a job has been one of the principal factors contributing to loan delinquencies and consumer insolvencies in Canada.

That's understandable.

The next section goes on to pose a legitimate question that I think all Canadians are asking, which is: “How much more challenging will it get” for me?

The report says that “rising unemployment could push a growing number of Canadians into insolvency over the coming year—though higher interest rates and heavier debt service loads would likely contribute too.”

Remember, we've seen other reports from other companies stating that more than half of Canadians are only $200 away every month from not being able to pay their bills. When you get a spike in interest rates—whether it's your mortgage, increased costs in housing, or the annual 10% increase in food inflation that seems regularized under this government—something has to give for people. We start to see insolvency.

Now, if you pile on top of that a forecasted rise in unemployment from 5% to 6.5%, that's a lot of Canadians losing their jobs and unable to pay their bills.

The bank goes on to say in this report, “We expect the household debt-to-service ratio to rise more than 1 percentage point over the next year, to a historical high of 15.5% by 2024Q4. Consumer insolvencies could rise almost 30% over the next three years, according to our analysis.”

This is obviously a massive concern for those who are in public office who actually will see more traffic. We will see people coming into our offices looking to their members of Parliament for help as they have to sell their house or no longer have a house and can't even afford to live where they are. That's why ministerial accountability is so critical in this discussion of the amendment.

Earlier today I was giving those watching a little bit of guidance about what the Treasury Board of Canada—the spending arm of Canada—says are the responsibilities and accountabilities of ministers. Ministers obviously have to be held to account by Parliament. It's a fundamental tenet of our Westminster system.

For the interpreters, just so they know what page of this document I'm starting on, it is page 9 in English. At the top, the title is: “The Role of Parliament in the Accountability Regime”. It starts off by saying:

This section provides an overview of the role that Parliament plays in the accountability regime, specifically in relation to financial management. It highlights Parliament's involvement in the assignment of responsibility through its legislative role, explains the key mechanisms that Parliament uses to hold the government to account, and sets out the limits of Parliament's role in sanctioning ministers. In the course of explaining the practices of parliamentary scrutiny

—something we're trying to get to here is parliamentary scrutiny of this spending plan—

the key principles of collective and individual responsibility and the anonymity of public servants are spelled out and certain misconceptions are addressed. The section makes it clear that accountability: is a shared relationship between Parliament and ministers;

That's an important point. It's shared between Parliament and ministers.

Moreover it “is fundamentally political", meaning that the elected officers, in this context, are fundamentally responsible. And it "depends on the neutrality of the Public Service for its efficacy."

Next is section 2.1, “Parliament and the assignment of responsibility”. This is a Treasury Board guideline to ministers:

Parliament is the primary guarantor of the government's political accountability in responsible government.

It has a footnote here—five. If you read the footnote, it says, “The primary guarantor of legal accountability is the judiciary”, as we know, which this government has tried to interfere with a few times.

The report from Treasury Board goes on to say:

The direct accountability of ministers to the House of Commons is a central feature of this system, and its efficacy depends heavily on the will and capacity of the House to hold ministers accountable.

Let me read that one again: “its efficacy depends heavily on the will and capacity of the House to hold ministers accountable.”

We know this committee, as an instrument of the House of Commons, has the will—at least on the opposition side—to hold the minister to account. We know the House, in session and with our tools on the opposition side—like question period—has the will to hold the minister to account. However, six days of work in the House by the Minister of Finance since January.... It makes it difficult for parliamentarians to do the work that people sent us here to do, which is to hold the minister to account for the most fundamental thing.

I'm going to digress here a little—that's for the translators. On our side, and I'm sure on the government's side, too—they are, I can see, listening intently—we often get emails asking us to make sure there's a vote of confidence in the government. Just so the people watching know, every money bill of Parliament is automatically a vote of confidence in the government. It's important because, if the government doesn't have the confidence of the House to spend the people's money, it has to go to an election to seek a new mandate.

The budget we're dealing with here, Bill C-47, is a confidence vote. In determining whether or not and how we should vote in this budget in the next stages—once it comes out of committee—we need to hold the minister accountable, get answers and make a determination, as parliamentarians, about whether the government still has the confidence of the House...in our decision on how to vote on that.

I know, for example, the “supply agreement”, as it's called, between the NDP and Liberals requires the NDP to vote with the government on this, even if the NDP.... I'm sure some of the NDP members are not happy with this budget. I'm sure some of them are not happy with the fact that their supply agreement says there should be a pharmacare program, but there isn't one in this budget. I'm sure some of them are not happy with the fact that, truly, this is not a dental care program. It's just a cheque that goes out, not a true dental care program covering the large costs people have.

I'm sure that, if they were not bound by this supply arrangement, some of the members, in hearing the minister's answers—if the minister comes to this committee for two hours, at least, to deal with this half a trillion-dollar spending plan that budgets for this annually—would ask some of these questions and hold the minister to account. Perhaps, if they were truly free members of Parliament, they would be willing to look objectively at this budget and not be bound by what their whip tells them they have to do because of the supply agreement with the Liberals. They would actually vote against this budget. Alas, I fear that's probably not going to be the case. The independence of the NDP disappeared in the supply agreement.

The assignment of responsibility of Parliament is key.

It goes on to say in this report, “However, although Parliament is sovereign, it does not exercise executive authority.” Of course, executive authority rests with cabinet, not with Parliament.

Let me read that again. It's “the responsibility”—of course, we said earlier—“of ministers, individually and collectively” to look after the executive branch of the government. It goes on to say:

As Chair of the Public Accounts Committee recently put it, “Parliament is not an institution of management; Parliament is an institution of accountability. We're not here to run the government; we're here to hold the government accountable for the way they run themselves.”

There's a footnote here on that. It's number 6. Wow, look at that. It says, “John Williams, M.P., Public Accounts testimony, May 6, 2004.”

I believe that he was a Liberal member of Parliament, was he not, John Williams? It's before my time in the House. We'll check that one. It's not John Williamson.

It's John Williams, M.P., public accounts committee testimony, 2004. The footnote continues: “That said, parliamentary committees can obviously contribute significantly to policy development through debate and discussion.”

Opposition Motion—Home Ownership and Renting Affordability

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle.

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to today's debate. I will preface my comments by saying that, based on a former intervention, I will be concentrating on what was mentioned earlier by the member opposite: equity and the opportunities to provide for affordability through the investments that the government is currently making.

At the end of March, our government released budget 2023. Our made-in-Canada plan for a strong middle class, an affordable economy and a healthy future was paramount to the remarks made by the Minister of Finance. It comes at an important moment for our country, concentrating on the business of government versus the business of politics. I am proud to say that it makes investments, for example in public health care, and provides new measures to make life more affordable for Canadians. It makes investments to offset the cost of living and in many other areas, making life more affordable.

In Canada, inflation is coming down, having declined for nine months in a row, and the Bank of Canada predicts that it will drop to just 2.5% by the end of this year. However, we all know that it is still too high, and it is still making it difficult for many Canadians to make ends meet, put food on the table, put gas in the tank and ensure that their little ones have the luxuries that we had when we were growing up.

Groceries are more expensive today and, for many people, higher prices on other essential goods are causing undue stress. Therefore, it is relevant that this government is making investments to offset that affordability crisis. That is why, once again, in budget 2023, we announced new, targeted inflation relief for the most vulnerable Canadians to help support them with the cost of living. This includes the introduction of a one-time grocery rebate, providing $2.5 billion to target inflation. This is relief for 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and their families. The grocery rebate will provide eligible couples with two children with up to an extra $467, single Canadians without children with up to an extra $234, and seniors with an extra $225 on average.

The grocery rebate is making great legislative progress as we speak. I am glad to report that Bill C-46 passed the House at all stages on April 19 and is now being considered by the Senate. This means we are closer to being able to deliver this much-needed support and affordability for Canadians.

A couple of weeks ago, our government introduced Bill C-47, the budget implementation act. This essential piece of legislation proposes to implement many of the government's key commitments in the budget, including those that will continue to make life more affordable for Canadians.

For example, we are cracking down on predatory lending. Predatory lenders can take advantage of some of the most vulnerable people throughout our communities, including low-income Canadians, newcomers and seniors, often by offering very high-interest-rate loans. With budget 2023 and Bill C-47, our government is taking this challenge very seriously.

Another step our government is taking to support low-income Canadians is through automatic tax filing to ensure that—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

That's exactly what I was doing, so I'll quote back the relevant portion of the motion: “That the committee continue its pre-study of”—what?—“Bill C-47”—that is the budget implementation act—“...tabled in Parliament on March 28, by”, and it goes on to talk about a number of things that would be done.

I'm speaking directly to the budget and to housing affordability, which has become an appalling failure on the part of this Liberal government, so I'm going to continue to talk about housing, Mr. Chair. I note that other members of this committee have also addressed the issue of the budget and have been given much leeway to actually address the broad scope of this fiscally irresponsible and reckless fiscal document.

Mr. Chair, I'll go back. This house that I purchased—with the green carpets, the orange carpets and the crimson carpets that my wife was shocked to see when she came—became our first home, and it was affordable. I was on a very low salary at the time, and even on that salary—my wife wasn't working anymore because we had our first child at home—even on that single salary, I could buy a home with a down payment and afford the mortgage payments when the interest rate was 10% per annum. Today, no matter what the interest rate is, housing is no longer affordable in Canada. It is a major failure on the part of this government.

It's not only housing, Mr. Chair: Taxes are going up on everything, whether it's CPP, EI premiums or payroll taxes, and whether it's excise taxes that go up in this budget and carbon taxes that go up in this budget. This is what the Liberal government is doing to Canadians. Not only did it create the problem; it's making things worse.

Here's another problem, Mr. Chair. We have stagnating wages. Inflation is eroding what the dollar buys, and wages are not keeping up. Sadly, those with assets are growing richer, and those who rely on a paycheque are getting poorer day by day, because of the eroding value of those paycheques.

Did you know that one in five Canadians today is skipping a meal each day? One in five people across our country, one in five individuals in our neighbourhoods, is skipping a meal every day just to get by, because they can't afford that extra meal.

It's a perverse situation, Mr. Chair, when the working poor and the indigent are approaching food banks and asking for medically assisted death: actual proven cases of people approaching our food banks and saying, “I want to die rather than live in poverty and live hungry.” Is that the perverse situation Canada now finds itself in? Is that how we want to live as a country?

Yet there's very little in this budget that addresses that problem. Today, I viewed a video online about a food bank in Toronto called “Fort York”, with a line blocks long.... That's going viral now, of course, because it symbolizes what this Liberal government has done to our country.

Now I want to go to the issue of uncontrolled spending, Mr. Chair. I mentioned earlier that uncontrolled spending actually contributes to the inflationary pressures that we face today in our country.

Uncontrolled spending undermines the value of the paycheques that Canadians receive. Uncontrolled spending undermines the work that Canadians do. We're pumping so many dollars—so much liquidity—into the economy that there are way more dollars chasing the same number of goods and services. Any economist will tell you that if we cannot improve our productivity in our country—in other words, what every single Canadian produces—we have some serious problems on our hands. One of those problems is inflation.

The deficit in this budget is $43 billion. Remember, it was the finance minister who said that they were going to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio and that they were on track for balanced budgets. That was the finance minister, only months ago, in the fall economic update. Today, she's saying, “Sorry, folks,” and that she was just kidding.

It's actually gone. The balanced budget commitment is gone. You know that line that she drew in the sand a year ago and said she'd never step across? Well, she just did. Nyah, nyah, that's tough on you.

Mr. Chair, this country has moved from having a $2-billion surplus under Stephen Harper some eight years ago to having a massive structural deficit. I mean that word “structural”, because it implies that these deficits are going to be a way of life for Canadians for the foreseeable future. These are interminable deficits that we are running.

Who pays for that, Mr. Chair? It's future generations of Canadians, so I want to speak to those future generations of Canadians. They are our children, our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren and new immigrants who are looking to Canada as a great country to come to and live in. Their future is a future of debt, deficits and rising interest rates, where they'll be paying back the money we're spending today.

In other words, we're spending our children's and our grandchildren's inheritance as this government blows the wad year after year. In fact, it will shock Canadians to know that over the last eight years, this government has racked up as much debt as every single Canadian government before it—combined.

It should come as a shocking statistic to Canadians to understand that this Liberal government has paid no regard to its obligation to future generations of Canadians, but continues to spend recklessly, knowing full well it will be left to a Conservative government to clean up the mess in the future, as it always is. It's always Conservative governments cleaning up the mess of previous Liberal governments. That's where we find ourselves.

The generational debt that I talk of is of epic proportions. Today, $81,000 is owed by every single household in this country. It's going up in leaps and bounds as this government continues to spend.

Let me talk a little, Mr. Chair, about the staggering cost of government.

Now, one would have thought that a government that's going to spend so much money at the very least would understand that it's important to exercise restraint in how much it spends on the government itself, and that it would exercise restraint and spend cautiously when it comes to growing the civil service. However, over the last eight years of this Liberal government, the government has added 80,000 new positions, federal government positions, each of which has to be paid with benefits, with pension....

I ask Canadians, has your service level gone up since the government added 80,000 federal government jobs? Are your passports coming quicker, the renewals that you need...? Are your visas coming more quickly? How about your tax refund? Is it coming more quickly?

It goes on and on. The service level we get has decreased, Mr. Chair, yet the cost of government has gone up dramatically. In fact, it's a 30% increase in the cost of government, with a lower level of service and interminable deficits. That is the staggering cost of government today under a Liberal government.

Well, what about our economic performance, Mr. Chair? I had hoped that at the very least there would be a plan in this budget for economic growth. This has been promised every year since Prime Minister Trudeau got elected, and every year economists point out that his budgets do not have a growth component to them.

Canada suffers from a major weakness. It is our Achilles heel, and it is what I mentioned earlier: our productivity, our declining productivity. In other words, it's what Canadians produce. Each Canadian is producing less and less as time goes on, which undermines our economic competitiveness vis-à-vis the very competitive countries around the world that want to eat our lunch when it comes to our economy, to manufacturing and to trade. When productivity lags behind, it undermines our long-term prosperity as a country.

Did you know, Mr. Chair, that Canada is at the bottom of the list of OECD countries when it comes to foreign investment or, in other words, attracting investment from abroad? When we attract dollars from abroad, when foreign investors say that Canada is a great place to invest in, that's good for our economy. Now, there are some investments from abroad that we have to review very carefully, of course, to determine whether they are to Canada's net benefit, but overwhelmingly, the money that comes from abroad, from the United States, from the European Union and elsewhere, is used to create jobs in Canada, to grow our prosperity as a country. Sadly, we are falling further and further behind when it comes to foreign direct investment in our economy.

Why is that? One of the reasons is regulatory strangulation. In other words, we have so many laws and so many regulations spread across our country, especially at the federal government level, that businesses are no longer free to thrive in an open marketplace. Bit by bit, we're shutting down the marketplace by imposing level upon level of government regulation, so that many businesses simply give up. They say, “We just can't grow,” or they say, “We're going to have to shut down.” When we have a government, a Liberal government, that calls those small businesses that are growing our economy—or that are supposed to be growing our economy—tax cheats, that's a great way of incentivizing and encouraging our small businesses to grow—to call them tax cheats, the way this Liberal government has done.

Another area where we're declining is domestic investment. Fewer and fewer Canadian companies and entrepreneurs are willing to reinvest their profits in our economy. Do you know what they're doing? They're looking elsewhere. Colleagues, you know this. Domestic investment is disappearing. It's going to markets around the world that actually appreciate their investment and welcome their investment.

Our taxation in Canada requires, I believe, significant reform. There hasn't been tax reform in our country for many years. We're paying a huge price for that. We need to review how our tax system operates to ensure that Canadian businesses and foreign businesses that want to invest here can do so in a thriving economic environment. Right now, that doesn't exist.

Here's just a note. It's a little factoid, Mr. Chair. Did you know that Canada's per capita GDP.... There are a number of standards and organizations that assess per capita GDP around the world. I've just taken one of them and plucked these figures. The per capita GDP in Canada is $59,000.

Do you know what it is in the United States? It's $78,000. That's almost $20,000 more. Do you know what it is in Australia? It's $9,000 more than in Canada. We are falling further and further behind when it comes to our economic performance as a country. We're falling further behind in terms of our competitiveness when it comes to attracting investment from other countries. Mr. Chair, we are failing when it comes to economic growth.

I'm going to close my remarks and pass it on to my colleagues here.

I want to say this as well, that there was one last thing that I wanted to see in this budget. I think you can guess what that might have been. Beyond its being just a growth budget—which it isn't—and beyond its being just a low-tax budget—which it isn't—I wanted to see if this budget actually had a substantive amount allocated to address the curse and the threat of foreign interference in our country.

As you know, colleagues, our country faces a very significant threat from hostile actors around the world who want to interfere in our elections, steal our intellectual property, steal our research, and conspire to undermine our long-term prosperity as a country and our long-term national security. It's right for us to ask if there is a sufficient amount in this budget that would address the threat of foreign interference.

This week we learned that one of our colleagues, Mr. Chong, had his family threatened because he voted in favour of human rights in the House of Commons. Mr. Chong is a champion of human rights at home and abroad. Because of his firm stand on human rights, his family elsewhere around the world has been threatened by the Communist regime in Beijing.

It's right for us to ask if there's enough in this budget to address that very specific threat to our democracy. The sad answer is no. There's virtually nothing in this budget to address that threat.

When we raised the issue and asked in the House of Commons, Mr. Chair, that the Speaker allow us an emergency debate on the issue of foreign interference—specifically on the intimidation of Canadian MPs and their families when it comes to standing up for human rights—the response was, I'm sorry, we're not going to grant this emergency debate. It seems that foreign interference isn't important enough.

Mr. Chair, you will sense my profound disappointment in this budget, and you will understand why we, as Conservatives, had no option but to vote against the budget earlier today in the House of Commons. We will do so again at third reading.

Whenever called on to do so, we will vote against this budget, unless there are substantive amendments made that allow us to confirm that the investments that are required to be made in things like addressing foreign interference, are, in fact, made. We don't see that there now. There are many other failings in this budget.

I now yield the floor to my colleague, Mr. Morantz.

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

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. It's great to be back after the question period break. I was pleased to see that, in the House of Commons in question period, the minister who was answering my questions about our subject at hand pronounced “elvers” correctly. That made me happy.

For those who are just joining us, we're having a discussion about a motion by MP Beech, that's been amended by MP Blaikie, to have the Minister of Finance appear for two hours before clause-by-clause. That was subsequently amended again, specifically striking, as I recall, after Mr. Blaikie's paragraph (h), so that it would now read as follows:

h) That the Minister of Finance be invited to appear for two hours....provided that, if the Minister of Finance has not appeared by May 18, 2023 amendments to Bill C-47, notwithstanding subparagraph (b)(i), be submitted to the clerk in both official languages no later than 11:00 a.m. ET the business day following the Minister appearing at Finance committee for a duration of no less than 2 hours.

The budget implementation act, Bill C-47, amends 51—count them—acts of Parliament. It's what otherwise is called, in parliamentary language, an “omnibus” bill. It amends some elements of what is required, or all the financial elements that are required, in a budget, but many, many additional acts, from the Criminal Code to what the symbol of the King's crown will look like in Canada—a very important element for the budget. One of the reasons we need to get the Minister of Finance here....

A colleague who mentioned earlier that the minister has now been in the House six times since January was feeling optimistic that the minister may have turned a new leaf and would be considering appearing more often in Parliament and being held to account. This is really what this is about. With the minister's appearance in question period yesterday, he held out some optimism for today. Alas, he was mistaken.

The question is that the minister spent time here on the weekend, as we know, meeting with friends like Hillary Clinton, but not having the time to commit...although she is committing, apparently. We're told that perhaps, by some sort of communiqué here, she will commit to coming next week, but will not commit to coming for two hours. When you're spending over $490 billion in one year in a budget, and you're spending $3.1 trillion over the five years of the fiscal framework, then we don't think it is a great deal to ask for the minister to spend two hours with a very congenial group of members of Parliament asking questions. Presumably the Deputy Prime Minister is in very fine form in terms of the knowledge of the details of the 51 acts that the minister is proposing to spend.

Just in case the folks who are watching this aren't fully up to speed, let me summarize a few of the financial elements of this piece of legislation.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to opine on the merits of budget 2023.

I will start off by saying that I am deeply troubled by this fiscal document. After eight long years of a Liberal government, we have a document that is disingenuous and that, in fact, reflects an untruthful spirit on the side of the government. Canadians, I believe, have the right to ask who they can trust with the finances of their country. At the end of the day, Canada's prosperity hinges on whether budgetary documents actually put in place a fiscal environment within which not only government but Canadians themselves can flourish.

A budget document should outline not only what the government's spending priorities are, but also what the government's growth objectives are and how it intends to actually achieve those economic growth objectives. I'll get to that further down in my comments.

As to the question of who you trust when it comes to budget 2023 and, more broadly speaking, who you trust to manage the finances of our nation, we can begin by going straight to our finance minister and her statements. I am going to quote her statement here at this table. It's been quoted before in the House of Commons. It's probably been quoted here at this table.

Here's what the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, our finance minister, said a year ago when the 2022 budget was tabled. I believe she was already scrambling at that time to try to make sense of Canada's finances. I don't think she actually got a grip on those finances, but she made this bold statement:

...let me be very clear: We are absolutely determined that our debt-to-GDP ratio must continue to decline. Our deficits must continue to be reduced. The pandemic debt we incurred to keep Canadians safe and solvent must—and will—be paid down.

This is our fiscal anchor. This is a line we shall not cross.

That was our finance minister almost exactly a year ago. “This is a line we shall not cross” is something she said. We were going to have a declining debt-to-GDP ratio to ensure that after this massive spending that took place during COVID, our country would finally pivot back to living within its means, to having a defensible, sustainable, fiscal policy going forward.

Then, in the recent fall economic statement, less than six months ago, the minister doubled down. She was still predicting balanced budgets. Now it was going to take five years to get to balanced budgets, but at least she had a commitment, or we thought she had a commitment, to balance budgets at some point in time in the future. Then budget 2023 came around and we dug, dug and dug. We couldn't find this restatement of a commitment to a balanced budget because the reality is there was no such commitment anymore. It's gone, disappeared into the ether.

Of course, what this means is that we will be adding to our national debt, year after year after year, into the future, without any plan of living within our means, the way most Canadian families have to do when they're managing their family finances. A family can't continue to spend, spend, spend on luxury items if they can't pay for those items. They can't keep drawing down on their lines of credit, on their credit cards, without at some point in time finding a way of repaying back those borrowed funds with interest. By the way, interest rates are increasing in Canada.

I get back to the question I asked earlier: Who can you trust? Who should Canadians trust when it comes to managing our country's finances? I think Canadians are slowly but surely concluding it is not the Liberal government.

Let me go back to the notice of motion that we are debating at the table. I am going to quote from it. It asks that the committee continue its pre-study of Bill C-47, which is of course the budget implementation act, by:

(a) Inviting witnesses to appear on the contents of Bill C-47 during meetings scheduled the weeks of May 1, May 8, and May 15 2023, and that;

Members of the committee submit their prioritized witness lists for the study of Bill C-47 to the clerk of the committee by no later than Wednesday, May 3rd, 2023, at 12 p.m., and that these lists be distributed to members of the committee as soon as possible;

(b) Moving to clause-by-clause review of Bill C-47 no later than Thursday, May 25 2023 at 11:00 a.m., provided that the bill is referred to the committee on or before Thursday, May 18, 2023, and that;

i. amendments be submitted to the clerk of the committee in both official languages no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, May 19, 2023;

ii. the clerk of the committee write immediately to each member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee and any independent members to inform them of the study of Bill C-47 by the committee and to invite them to prepare and submit any proposed amendments to Bill C-47 which they would suggest that the committee consider during the clause-by-clause study of the Bill....

I'll stop there, Mr. Chair, just to highlight the fact that the amount of time that's been reserved to review and amend this huge bill, which is a culmination somewhere in the order of half a trillion dollars' worth of spending on behalf of this Liberal government over the last eight years.... The amount of time that's been allocated to study this budget is not sufficient. In fact, it's a travesty for Canadians to have to witness their Parliament and their parliamentarians having so few days to review a document that reflects a reckless approach to the fiscal situation of this country, the finances of this country.

The motion goes on to say:

(c) If Bill C-47 is referred to the committee by the House during the subject matter study of the Bill, all witness testimony, evidence and documentation received in public in relation to its subject matter study of Bill C-47 be deemed received by the committee in the context of its legislative study of Bill C-47....

That sounds fairly straightforward. Witnesses will be coming to this committee, and of course the pre-eminent witness we would call to this committee is who? It is the finance minister of our country. We have asked, time and time again, for the minister to free herself up to come to committee to defend her budget, to explain why we have spent so much money as a country and find ourselves in the middle of an incomprehensible inflationary crisis where the cost of living has skyrocketed.

Today we're debating a motion in the House of Commons brought forward by our Conservative MPs in which we lament the fact that, despite having spent close to half a trillion dollars' worth of taxpayers resources—borrowed, I might add—this government has been unable to provide an affordable housing plan. In fact, we're in a situation where Canada's housing prices have virtually doubled over the last eight years. When we look at the price of housing in the markets of Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary and all the communities in between, we see that housing prices have virtually doubled. We've seen rents double.

We have seen deposits or down payments that prospective purchasers have to make increase dramatically. We have seen the payments that mortgage holders or mortgagees have to make go up almost overnight by an incredible amount.

Why? It's because we now have rising interest rates driven by the fact that we have, yes, inflation in our country.

Yes, inflation is in part driven by supply chains that were compromised during the COVID pandemic. Yes, inflation was driven in part by the fact that we had to shut down our economy during the COVID pandemic.

However, one of the major contributors to inflation in our country—and it has been confirmed by economist after economist—was the fact that this government spent so much money during the COVID pandemic. It was far beyond what was required to support Canadians with benefits. This Liberal government spent so much money and pumped so much liquidity into the marketplace that we are now grappling with an inflationary crisis that has become existential for many Canadians.

Many Canadians are on the verge of insolvency, personal bankruptcy or foreclosure, because they cannot afford life in Canada anymore. Exacerbating that problem, of course, is the fact that interest rates have gone up dramatically over the last half year or so.

Why? It's because the Bank of Canada had to intervene in order to fight inflation by raising those interest rates.

The fault lies with this government, which created the problem in the first place and is now asking the Bank of Canada to resolve it by increasing interest rates.

The question goes back to who we trust as a country to manage the country's finances. Is it a government that is directly responsible for creating inflation in our country? Are we going to trust a government like that?

As we entered the budget process, Mr. Chair, you will remember that we, as Conservatives, had three requests. That's all we had.

The first was, Mr. Prime Minister, end the war on work and lower taxes on Canadian workers. They are suffering from inflation. They need a break. That was the first request.

The second was, Mr. Prime Minister, please end your reckless spending and end the endless inflationary deficits that are driving up the cost of everything that Canadians buy, whether it's groceries or gas at the pump, and whether it's going into the hardware store or, yes, buying a house. Stop these inflationary deficits. That's the number two ask we had.

The third was remove those gatekeepers, those folks in elected and non-elected positions who are increasing the cost of homes and reducing the number of homes that are actually being built. Get the gatekeepers out of the way so that average Canadians can buy a home. Now we have enough homes coming on stream that will mitigate against some of the rising housing prices that we have seen across our country.

Sadly, nine out of 10 Canadians today believe that their dream of home ownership has evaporated. Nine out of 10 Canadians no longer believe in the dream of home ownership. That is appalling, Mr. Chair. I cannot believe that we, as a country, have got to this place in time when our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren no longer have the hope of home ownership.

When I first got into the home ownership market, Mr. Chair, I was a recently graduated law student. I was articling, receiving a pittance in terms of a salary. Do you remember those days?

That was me, slaving away in a law firm, making $1,500 a month, yet back then, in the middle of the year that I was articling, in July, my wife was out of town and I found a bargain. I bought a home. At that time, interest rates were 18% to 20%.

That should shock you, Mr. Chair, that 18% to 20% was the interest rate at the time I bought my first home. The vendor of the house I purchased was agreeable to taking back a 10% mortgage. I thought I had hit the jackpot. I phoned my wife and I said, “I bought a house with a 10% mortgage; I got a real deal,” because I did get a good deal on that house.

I was able to make the mortgage payments on the house, and over the years we were able to pay off that house and buy a new one and upgrade to maybe a slightly larger home, because we quickly had four daughters in succession.

When I got home after buying that house, and my wife got back from a two-week trip abroad, she saw the countertops and they were orange laminate. The carpets were—

The House resumed from May 1, 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.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Thank you.

I want to thank my colleagues for giving me time to speak at this committee. It's not often that I get to participate at the finance committee, so I would really like to thank them for this opportunity.

As we were saying earlier, I would expect the Minister of Finance to be more than happy to come to this committee and explain the government's budget. This is the finance committee. This is the committee that's responsible for scrutinizing her work and scrutinizing the finance department. I note that we had nearly 50 bureaucrats here today to do just that and explain what the budget was all about, and explain the implementation act that is Bill C-47. We heard about a great many things.

What's interesting is that the bureaucrats are generally empowered to implement the actions of the government, not necessarily to explain why these things have been chosen. Generally, the buck stops with the minister, so it's interesting that the minister is not interested in showing up, or that this motion does not require her to appear for a couple of hours. That seems like it would be the bare minimum of the minister's obligations. I would note that we had several bureaucrats here today who said they were knowledgeable on the technicality of what's being implemented, but as to the logic and the why, that generally falls to the political staff or the politicians, or the finance minister in general.

It's frustrating to hear that we're not able to hear from the finance minister for a couple of hours. I was very interested in—and we had some of the bureaucrats here talking about it—the clean—

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

The next part is, “Members of the committee submit their prioritized witness lists for the study of Bill C-47 to the clerk...no later than Wednesday, May 3rd, 2023, at 12 p.m., and that these lists be distributed to members...as soon as possible.”

I would actually take this opportunity.... We still have a couple of days before this motion is passed to get witness lists in to the clerk. I would make a call-out to the folks in my riding. If anyone has been affected by inflation, as many of you have, and you wish to talk, please.... We believe in a democratic process. If you have a good story to tell, we'll certainly do our best to put your name forward for our study here at the finance committee. I'm looking forward to having some great witnesses.

The Conservatives are willing to extend hours and work through the break week to get this done, as I said, in the spirit of good faith, collaboration and congeniality, and in acknowledgement that the Liberals did take the most seats, even if they didn't win the popular vote in the last election.

Unfortunately, two hours is just too long for the Deputy Prime Minister to spend with the people of Canada regarding the finance portfolio she oversees. I guess it's too long for her to come down and talk to the Canadian people. I'm sure she believes she has more important things to do.

I'll go back to the motion, which says, “Moving to clause-by-clause review of Bill C-47 no later than Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 11:00 a.m.” As I said, we would like to bring in the clause-by-clause just three or four days later, on the Monday, so we can do it in the regular course of the meeting. The Conservatives have absolutely no problem sitting throughout the break week to make sure that we can get as much testimony on record as possible and so that we hear from Canadians. We believe that as elected representatives, one of our critical obligations to the people who elected us is to engage with them, talk to them and listen to them.

Then, of course, we have the usual with respect to amendments, which would be on Friday, May 19. If we did move back the date, we would probably move that back as housekeeping, going forward from there.

The motion continues with this:

ii. the clerk of the committee write immediately to each member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee and any independent members to inform them of the study of Bill C-47 by the committee and to invite them to prepare and submit any proposed amendments to Bill C-47 which they would suggest that the committee consider during the clause-by-clause study of the Bill

Of course, we do have a number of independents. We used to have Jody Wilson-Raybould, but she was thrown out of the Liberal caucus for speaking truth to power. She decided not to re-up, which is unfortunate because I though she was an excellent member of Parliament.

I'll continue with the motion:

(c) If Bill C-47 is referred to the committee by the House during the subject matter study of the Bill, all witness testimony, evidence and documentation received in public in relation to its subject matter study of Bill C-47 be deemed received by the committee in the context of its legislative study of Bill C-47;

(d) Subject to the approval of the recognized parties' whips, and the availability of meeting slots from the House of Commons, the committee hold as many additional meetings as possible with the goal of accomplishing at least 20 hours of study prior to the beginning of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill;

In the spirit of good faith, the Conservatives are willing to work with this government, but I really believe that 20 hours would be the absolute minimum. I can't overstate the amount of money that the government has going out the door. It's billions and billions of dollars. Think about that. How many billions are being spent and are getting out the door for every hour of witness testimony?

I really believe that the more consultation and engagement in the democratic process we have, the better off Canadians are. Then we can find issues and we can find ways to improve things. No person—no government—is perfect, and this government is certainly far from perfect.

I think it's great to have discussion, to have NDP ideas, Green Party ideas and Conservative Party ideas, so that we can improve this budget. Twenty hours, to me, is the very minimum of what we should be utilizing to discuss this—not to delay or in any way obstruct the process, but to make sure that as many voices as possible are heard.

Next is (e), which recommends this:

(e) That the Chair of the Committee write, as promptly as possible, to the Chairs of the following standing committees to invite them to study the subject matter of the following provisions of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament....

I think my colleague Marty talked about the fact that we're not studying the proposed changes with respect to sanctions in the foreign affairs.... I believe that's correct, and I think it should be something we add there. Just in spending the last four or five meetings with the foreign affairs committee, I know they're working extremely hard, and the sanctions are a critical part of that.

In fact, in my own private member's bill, Bill C-281, we sought to give Parliament some say and some power with respect to the imposition of Magnitsky sanctions. Bill C-281 would give Parliament the ability to ask the government to report back to Parliament with respect to individuals who Parliament believes should be sanctioned but have not been. The Magnitsky sanctions have been, by nearly all accounts, underused in Canada. We're not seeking a full parliamentary or legislative trigger, as actually exists in many different countries around the world. All we're asking for is some additional transparency and for them to come back to the foreign affairs committee and report that.

I was very impressed with the level of expertise of many of the members of the foreign affairs committee, and I think that studying those changes in the foreign affairs committee makes a lot of sense, as we have some real experts. Of course, among them is Michael Chong, a parliamentarian renowned both for his ability to communicate and for his incredible level of knowledge on foreign affairs and everything relating to foreign affairs.

We have the various divisions—which I think is a good step for this committee—to divide up the budget for committees that have some greater expertise. Certainly, we all try to spend as much time as possible gaining knowledge and understanding in various fields, but when you look at this and you see an omnibus budget like this.... I know that the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party complained about omnibus bills when the Conservatives were in power, but they have everything but the kitchen sink in here.

Let me read off what's included here, just some of the areas that are included in this budget. We have the status of persons with disabilities, and skills and social development; citizenship and immigration; health; industry; national defence; government operations; natural resources; industry and technology; the environment; procedure; indigenous topics; and international trade. Those are just some of the topics covered in this massive omnibus budget.

I sincerely believe that it should be an obligation for all of us as parliamentarians to cover these subjects in the depth that they require. This will affect people's lives. This could have a significant effect on many Canadians. The least we should be doing as parliamentarians is ardently studying these important changes to the Canadian budget.

The next part, (f), calls for “recommendations in relation to the provisions considered by them be provided in the form of a letter to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, in both official languages, no later than 12:00 p.m. on Thursday May 18, 2023”. That date is really coming up. As I said, we as Conservatives would like to work forward and just get to work so that we make sure we can get through this substantial amount of work and testimony as quickly as possible, and that, in the spirit of collaboration, we can get the maximum number of testimonies and conversations on the record. That way as many voices as possible can be heard.

Paragraph (g) says, “if a standing committee listed in (e) chooses not to consider the subject matter of the provisions, it advise the Chair of the committee by letter, in both official languages, no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, May 12, 2023.” I would hope that all committees would have the ability to study these important provisions, but other things could certainly get in the way of that.

The other part of this budget implementation act that is critical is the context that we are in right now in Canada. We're facing some significant economic headwinds, not the least of which is our productivity numbers, which are lagging behind other countries'. Our dollars earned per hour and GDP contribution per hour of work, in other words, are only $55. That's lower than in the United States. That's lower than in Ireland. That's lower than in Switzerland—considerably, I might add. There are countries blessed with far fewer resources than we are blessed with that are just, quite frankly, eating our lunch when it comes to productivity, innovation and capital investment. We need to get those issues solved.

One of the things that I want to ask officials and other witnesses is what in this budget will enable greater productivity. What in this budget will really put us on the map with respect to innovation?

We have, in my opinion, the smartest, hardest-working people in all the world right here in Canada. Unfortunately, we're not enabling them. We're not facilitating. We're not putting them in the position to maximize their potential. In fact, some of them are being scooped up and taken down to the United States or to countries in Europe where they can ply their trade.

I talked to one gentleman who is an absolute genius. He's already contributed to the creation of multi-million dollar and multi-billion dollar companies. He's an immigrant to Canada, loves Canada and is a supporter of our country. He is a terrific individual and human being. He said it was great news that he made those million-dollar and billion-dollar companies, but he said with great sadness that he had to do it in the United States. He just didn't have the support he needed in Canada to make that happen.

This is really a condemnation of this Liberal government's failure to put in place the framework that he knew we needed in order to succeed. We don't have to be just branch plants. Branch plants are great, and I certainly appreciate every single manufacturing job we can bring to Northumberland—Peterborough South, the greatest riding in all the world. We certainly appreciate that, but in addition to attracting manufacturing and services, there's no reason why we shouldn't have headquarters and R and D right here in Canada. We have great professors and we have great universities, but we're losing intellectual property.

Too often what happens is that ideas are generated here in Canada but are not commercialized here. What happens, if you can believe this—and this happens over and over and over again—is that ideas are generated at our great post-secondary education facilities and are created and generated by a great population of inventors and entrepreneurs, but then, because we don't have the intellectual property framework, because we're overly burdened when it comes to taxation and regulation and because we're not agile enough as an economy, those ideas leave our shores. Oftentimes people might go down to Silicon Valley, Europe or other places in the world where they can find a more supportive framework, a place where they believe they can turn their ideas into a product or service that will change the world and will make our world a better place.

The sad part, though, for Canadians is that those products and services, which were created in Canada by Canadians, are sold back to us at a premium. It's often that we're pushing aside some of the jobs that create the greatest amount of GDP per worker. That's one of the reasons why our GDP per worker lags behind that of the United States, among many other OECD countries. We're not capturing those ideas. We're not keeping some of those great jobs here in Canada.

The average is about $50 to $55. That's what the Canadian worker contributes to the GDP per hour. In clean Canadian energy, it's about $500. That's 10 times more. This Liberal government is doing everything it can to compromise, limit, reduce and eliminate clean Canadian energy from our economy, which will have a tremendous impact not just in Alberta or in Saskatchewan, where many of those resources are located.... Those resources fuel our economy. They are really a bright light in our economy.

While we struggle with our productivity per GDP per hour in many sectors, we don't struggle in Canadian energy. That's $500. Every hour a worker out in Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick or Newfoundland is working in the energy sector, they're contributing $500 to the GDP, whereas the average is $50. This is something we need to build on, not eliminate.

It's incredibly troubling when the government doesn't acknowledge the contribution of the great folks in Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Alberta, Saskatchewan and, of course, in my very own province of Ontario as well. In fact, they're compromising it. They're making it more difficult to get our product to market.

In the regulatory regime, we will have many critical minerals that will be important to the economy in the future. Whether it's lithium for batteries or other natural resources located in Canada, we need to do everything we can to encourage the development and extraction of those important minerals and get them out of the ground and into the market as quickly as possible, because without those critical minerals, we simply won't have the batteries needed for electric vehicles or other technologies. We need to make sure that we do it in a way that allows Canadians to get the benefit of it.

Some say too many ideas are just flying out of Canada. They are flowing out of the Canadian economy and growing without being of any benefit to Canadians in growing our prosperity.

I see that one of my colleagues wants to.... I feel like I'm hogging the floor here. Watching my son play hockey, I was amazed this year by his U-11 team and how well they shared the puck, so I will practise what I preach now and share the puck a bit with one of the other members.

Who's next on the list, Mr. Chair?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank my colleague Mr. Lawrence for his bang on remarks. We're having this problem in the finance committee today because, ironically, the finance minister won't commit to coming to the finance committee to answer questions about her own budget. I think it's important that Canadians know what it is we're talking about.

I want to try to follow the rules, Mr. Chair, as much as I possibly can. Since we are debating a motion, I thought we should take a few minutes to go over the wording of the motion so that everyone watching can understand what it is we're debating about.

The motion begins with this:

That the committee continue its pre-study of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, by:

(a) Inviting witnesses to appear on the contents of Bill C-47 during meetings scheduled the weeks of May 1, May 8, and May 15, 2023, and that;

Members of the committee submit their prioritized witness lists for the study of Bill C-47 to the clerk of the committee by no later than Wednesday, May 3, 2023, at 12:00 p.m., and that these lists be distributed to members of the committee as soon as possible;

(b) Moving to clause-by-clause—

For those watching, “clause-by-clause” essentially means we literally go through the bill, discussing each and every clause and voting on every clause. That's some of the terminology we like to use here on the Hill when we're dealing with legislation.

—review of Bill C-47 no later than Thursday, May 25, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., provided that the bill is referred to the committee on or before Thursday, May 18, 2023, and that;

i. amendments be submitted to the clerk of the committee in both official languages [by] no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, May 19, 2023;

ii. the clerk of the committee write immediately to each member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee and any independent members to inform them of the study of Bill C-47 by the committee and to invite them to prepare and submit any proposed amendments to Bill C-47 which they would suggest that the committee consider during the clause-by-clause study of the Bill;

Now this particular portion is very important because, for those watching, they may not realize that it is generally officially recognized parties that sit on the committee. For example, this committee has 12 members. There are six Liberal members, four Conservative members, a Bloc member and an NDP member, but there could also theoretically be other parties—there aren't right now—in the House that are official and that might not have a member sitting on the committee. That could happen. There's the Green Party, but they're not actually an official party. They are not a member of the committee, so technically, under our rules, they're independent members even though, out of deference to them, we call them the Green Party.

What this clause is speaking to is giving those types of members notices. Also, there are independent members who deserve the right to be able to come make submissions for recommended amendments to the committee. Therefore, (b)(ii) is an extremely important measure to make sure the democratic process will be followed and be inclusive of members who are either a member of an official party that is not represented on the committee or independent members who have no party affiliation. That's what that particular clause is trying to deal with.

Let me move on. There are a few more points here:

(c) If Bill C-47 is referred to the committee by the House during the subject matter study of the Bill, all witness testimony, evidence and documentation received in public in relation to its subject matter study of Bill C-47 be deemed received by the committee in the context of its legislative study of Bill C-47;

(d) Subject to the approval of the recognized parties’ whips, and the availability of meeting slots from the House of Commons, the committee hold as many additional meetings as possible with the goal of accomplishing at least 20 hours of study prior to the beginning of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill;

(e) That the Chair of the Committee write, as promptly as possible, to the Chairs of the following standing committees to invite them to study the subject matter of the following provisions of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023:

I'm going to go through these letters, but I think this is an important point that I want to circle back to. It's something I raised earlier in the meeting. It's very important that Canadians who are watching this meeting right now understand this. Budget implementation bills are supposed to be about the budget. They're supposed to be about revenues and expenditures, economic policy, fiscal policy and that kind of thing.

The problem is that a massive part of this bill has nothing to do with any of those things. They call it an omnibus bill, and it's really an opportunity for government, politicians and public servants to basically get into legislation things that they should really be trying to get into legislation through the normal course, through the ordinary process of introducing a bill, having it go through the various readings, the committee stage, third reading and then over to the Senate.

This omnibus method is essentially a shortcut, particularly in a budget bill, which is essentially considered to be a confidence motion. The reason that's important is that a confidence motion is a bill for which, if the government loses the vote on it, it loses the confidence of the House and in all likelihood an election ensues.

I think public servants and politicians who put those types of non-budgetary matters in the bill think that it will slide by, and it's going to pass because we have the costly coalition. The NDP's going to support it no matter what, because they're basically not an opposition party anymore and they're just going to support this budget. This is an opportunity for them to get something passed, to short-circuit the process, essentially, to get something passed that they might not be able to get passed in the ordinary course. That's really unfortunate. I'm really not a big believer in these types of bills, but I'm not the only one. In fact, I have very well-known company on this opinion. I'll tell you what he said before I tell you who said it.

He said:

Omnibus bills—I’d like to say I wouldn’t use them, period. There will always be big bills, but they need to be thematically and substantively linked in all their different pieces so that they form a piece of legislation. The kitchen-sink approach here is a real worry to me.

There's also this:

Stephen Harper has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals. We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.

Do you know who said that, Mr. Chair? It was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who said that.

He and I are of the same mind on this one. There's not a lot that we agree upon, but it begs the question of why he would say that back in 2013 and now be doing the exact same thing he said he would never do. He called it undemocratic.

I shouldn't be surprised because there are so many things. They said, we'll plant two billion trees; it didn't happen. The debt-to-GDP ratio is going to go down; it didn't happen. We will have electoral reform. This was the last first-past-the-post system election. We should be worried about deflation not inflation. Interest rates are going to stay low. We're going to have the budget balanced by 2019. Don't worry; vote for us. By the way, you get more back from the carbon tax rebate than you pay in carbon tax. We know all that's not true, so I shouldn't be surprised when the Prime Minister says something for political convenience and then literally does exactly the opposite thing.

That gets me to the rest of this motion, because what this bill ironically tries to do is deal with all these non-budgetary rules, things like the style and title of the King of England. Some of them may be laudable goals, like experimentation on animals and things like that, but I don't know what that has to do with a budget bill.

What they try to do to get around that is say to us that they recognize that the expertise to study all sorts of things in this budget bill doesn't really exist at the finance committee, so they're suggesting that we send letters to a bunch of other committees and ask them to study those types of things. For example, earlier today I was asking about the amendments to the sanctions legislation, or what's called the Special Economic Measures Act and the Magnitsky act.

I was surprised to see in this motion that, although there are referrals to a number of different committees, there's no referral to the foreign affairs committee, which would be the right place to study those provisions. I don't see that in this memo, unless I'm missing it.

That also begs this question: What else isn't in here? In part 4, there are 39 different pieces of legislation, most of which have actually nothing to do with the budget.

What they're doing is saying that they recognize that, so we're going to send the immigration stuff to the immigration committee and the foreign affairs stuff to the foreign affairs committee. We'll send the national defence piece to the national defence committee. We'll sent the natural resources stuff to the natural resources committee. We'll send the environmental stuff to the environment committee. However, so many of these things have actually nothing to do with revenues, expenditures, fiscal policy or economics.

It's just a kitchen sink that the government has decided to throw this stuff into to try to get it through the legislative process and make it very difficult for members of Parliament to scrutinize all these different pieces of legislation. I think I mentioned that, in the briefing notes of the department for dealing with some of the border stuff, the briefing note itself was 21 pages long. It should be its own piece of legislation.

I have a lot more to say about this, Mr. Chair, but I know that my colleague, Mr. Chambers, is chomping at the bit to finish off his arguments. I am prepared to cede the floor to him since I don't see the Liberal member here.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I want to go back to the sanctions legislation. The official is still in the room. I thank you for that.

Again, in terms of Bill C-47, if it's adopted, how would the Government of Canada's interpretation of “deemed ownership” of property by a sanctioned person compare to the way that Canada's allies determine ownership of property held or controlled by an entity?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions are about division 23 of the bill, so it's for the transport officials. Could they please come to the table?

While we're waiting, I'd like to thank Mr. Beech. We just got the answers to the questions we had asked. The information isn't broken down by province and doesn't provide much detail per sector, but we really appreciate the response that was provided.

I'd also like to take this opportunity, Mr. Chair, to reiterate something. If I understood Ms. Dzerowicz correctly, she has numerous questions, so it's very important for everyone on the committee to get the answers to all of their questions before voting on Bill C‑47. I think we'll need at least a hundred or so more committee hours to get through the honourable member's list of questions.

I will now ask the transport officials my questions on division 23 of the bill.

Which exceptions is the Canadian Transportation Agency expected to define in the regulations regarding the minimum compensation air carriers are required to provide to passengers for disruptions caused by a flight delay or cancellation, or by being denied boarding? What will happen to a complaint if the dispute resolution officer doesn't make a decision within the prescribed time frame?

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to start by commending Mrs. Chatel for her comment on tax evasion and tax avoidance.

What you said about food banks was very moving, Ms. Freeland. Thank you. I think we are all united in the fight against poverty.

During the pandemic, you were there to support the economy and help everyone out. There's something this bill doesn't address, however—the employment insurance, or EI, fund. The deficit in the EI fund was not shifted to the consolidated revenue fund, so it wasn't absorbed. The Employment Insurance Act requires that the fund be balanced over seven years. Short of amending the Employment Insurance Act to transfer the pandemic-related deficit to the consolidated revenue fund, the government intends to take $17 billion from the pockets of EI contributors. This means it will be impossible to reform the system to make it more accessible. There is nothing in Bill C‑47 to prevent this tragedy. Why?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I have two questions about the $80 billion earmarked for the green shift and transition we talked about.

Pursuant to Bill C‑47, that money will be administered by two institutions and thus evade Parliament's control. The department told us that there was a lot of money to support the oil and nuclear industry. Quebec is receiving some funding, but I was a bit envious, I must say, when I saw how much was going to Stellantis and especially Volkswagen. I wish Quebec would have gotten a game-changing investment like that.

Here, in front of all the committee members, can you assure me that Quebec will get its fair share of that $80 billion per capita? Furthermore, why are you putting that funding beyond Parliament's control?

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

Thank you.

We can connect later regarding the application of the GST/HST to exported services involving cryptocurrency mining activities.

I'll move on to my second question. Before you introduced Bill C‑47 in the House, Bill C‑46 was passed at all stages. That legislation doubled the GST credit and provided two billion dollars in health care funding.

The next day, we received Bill C‑47, and those same measures were in it. In the news release accompanying Bill C‑47, the government trumpets the passage of Bill C‑46 by the House. Bill C‑47 includes another two billion dollars for health care, which I support since the federal government's recently signed agreements with the provinces don't match their needs, in our view.

My understanding was that your government and your colleagues would be proposing an amendment to Bill C‑47 to remove that additional two billion dollars, so that only the two billion dollars in Bill C‑46 would be provided. Will you be making the vote on the amendment to remove the two billion dollars a confidence vote?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Minister. I have a number of questions.

The first is about businesses that have told us how concerned they are regarding measures in Bill C‑47. I'm talking about companies that run large IT servers on high-speed fibre optic networks and lease that data transfer and calculating capacity to the highest bidder.

Some of those companies' clients engage in cryptocurrency mining, whether in Canada or another country. Our understanding of Bill C‑47—and the department officials confirmed this—is that companies exporting a service such as mining would no longer be considered to be performing a commercial activity eligible for the input sales tax credit. This means that the company would have to pay the tax, hurting their competitiveness.

That applies to the whole tax, and since Quebec's sales tax is higher than Alberta's, for example, this could incentivize companies to move the activity someplace where the energy is derived from fossil fuels. Can you reassure the industry? Are there any mitigation measures? What's the solution, and where do you stand on the matter?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just picking up where I left off, there are a few other legislative initiatives within part 4, like attempts to solve issues with Canada Post parcels being stolen—and I'm not sure what that has to do with a budget—and establishing the employment insurance appeal board.

I guess my point is that a few years ago I thought there was a lesson learned. A few years ago, in the budget implementation bill, there was a section that amended the Criminal Code to allow for deferred prosecution agreements. That initiative led to a major scandal that resulted in the dismissal of the first indigenous attorney general in the history of Canada.

When I see these kinds of bills, I worry, because there's just so much in them. I know the government wants to get their bill passed, and there's pressure to get it done.

I'm wondering if anyone can answer this question. Are there any changes in Bill C-47 that would benefit any one particular company? Can anyone here answer that? You don't know. There might be. There's a lot of silence around the table.

Okay, I'll go on to something else, but I think that non-response speaks volumes.

I want to ask a question about SEMA and the Magnitsky act. Is there someone here who can take that up?

Specifically, my question has to do with the prior changes. The briefing notes say:

In response to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine...Canada implemented legislative changes to both SEMA and JVCFOA to authorize the Minister of Foreign Affairs to seek forfeiture of seized assets. The forfeited funds can be used in support of reconstruction of a foreign State, to restore international peace and security, and/or as compensation to victims.

I'm just wondering what action has happened under that section since it was implemented. What's the value of assets seized to date? Have any of these monies been allocated to reconstruction or as compensation to victims?

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

Thank you.

Currently, the carbon tax that big polluters pay is used to fund green projects in the province where it was collected. If the oil companies don't have any green projects, they lose the money at the end of the year. It's a bit like the infrastructure money for municipalities: if the work isn't carried out by the end of the year, they lose the money.

If Bill C‑47 is passed, division 36 will make it possible to put the money aside for future use. That could incentivize oil companies to take their time, so they would be in no rush. Do I understand the division correctly?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

We are resuming meeting number 87 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance and the debate on the motion by PS Beech, the amendment by MP Blaikie and the subamendment by MP Morantz in relation to the study of Bill C-47.

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

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike. Please mute yourself when you are not speaking. With regard to interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either the floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpieces and select the desired channel.

As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Members, before we commence, you should have received the budgets for our PBC travel as well as for the potential Paris travel.

I just want to see if we can adopt those budgets at this time. That is for the clerk.

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you, members. That is done.

On another note, a very important one, there have been some injuries to interpreters because of devices. There are popping sounds, etc., that happen. Try to keep the earpiece and the mike a little distance away...and make sure that your devices are a little bit away from the mikes. It has caused some injuries to our interpreters. We want to ensure that we do everything we can to stop that from happening.

When we last left off, MP Perkins had the floor. We're going to MP Dzerowicz after that.

MP Perkins, the floor is yours.

[Robert Lalonde, Director, Individual Payments and On-Demand Services, Benefits and Integrated Services Branch, Service Canada, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Good morning and thank you. I am Robert Lalonde from Service Canada.

Effectively, the legislation in Bill C-47 is exactly identical to Bill C-37, which was tabled in December.

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

Thank you. I appreciate the clarification.

It's clear I'm drawing a huge crowd here today, so I'll continue.

The budget implementation act, tabled in Parliament on March 28, amends the following items. It amends the Income Tax Act and other legislation. It has provisions around the GST and the HST. A number of these are directly related, obviously, to the country's finances, but not all of them are, in my view.

The next part is “Amendments to the Excise Act, the Excise Act, 2001 and the Air Travellers Security Charge Act”. Of course, the Air Travellers Security Charge Act is a critical element of the country's finances. Obviously, it's important to consumers, but I'm not sure that it is part of a budget.

Division 1 of this legislation makes changes to the Excise Act and Excise Act, 2001 with regard to alcohol products. We know that's related to the automatic escalator provision that the Liberals imposed in the budget on all the libations that Canadians consume that have an escalator attached to inflation. We, as Conservatives, were demanding that the escalator be suspended or removed, and the government has changed its position and limited the increase to a mere 2%, so all of those increases that you saw on April 1 in a lot of our liquor boards across the country are thanks in part to this change.

Division 2 says, “Air Travellers Security Charge Act (Charge Rates)”.

Part 4, as it's put in, has various measures and amendments to the Bank Act and amendments to private sector pension plans.

Division 3, as it's called, has “Measures Related to Money Laundering and to Digital Assets and Other Measures”.

Division 4 is “Preferential Tariff Programs for Developing Countries”.

Division 5 is “Removal of Most-Favoured-Nation Tariff Treatment for Belarus and Russia”. I think that's something that's long overdue.

Division 6 is “Non-application of Sections 27 and 27.‍1 of the Bank of Canada Act”.

Division 7 says that this is making amendments. They're actually not amendments. Division 7 has to do with the creation of a brand new act called the Canada innovation corporation act, and that act has a whole bunch of provisions.

Normally, this would be a separate piece of legislation to go before Parliament so that it could be scrutinized on its own when you create a new multi-billion dollar Crown corporation, but apparently buried in this omnibus bill is a series of changes, or creation that includes everything from the designation of the minister, which I understand is the Minister of Industry.... “Continuation and status”, as they're called as part of this act, have been created by this.

It outlines every act of Parliament and the purpose and function of creating this Canada innovation corporation. It sets out the board, the chief executive officer and employee structures. It has what it calls miscellaneous provisions, restrictions on directives, disclosure of information to federal institutions and payments out of a consolidated revenue fund—because it wouldn't be a new Liberal program if it didn't have lots of taxpayer money going into it. There's a financial year and establishing that, requiring it to have quarterly financial reports and annual reports. It also has transitional plans, as every act of Parliament does that changes an existing act.

Division 8 is “Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act”, which amends the Canada Health Transfer.

Division 9 is “Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act”, which deals with equalization and territorial financing.

Division 10 is “Economic Sanctions”. Again, economic sanctions aren't necessarily what you would see as standard in a budget bill. Needless to say, we need upgrading to have more teeth in the ability to have more powerful economic sanctions against the rogue state Russia and its illegal war, but the budget bill is being used to make those changes, rather than a separate piece of legislation, which would be the norm.

Division 11 is “Privileges and Immunities (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) Act”. Apparently, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, other than paying our fees, is a budget element. Generally, that act would be amended on its own.

This is why we call it an omnibus act. It's because it's amending lots of acts that have nothing to do with the country's finances. What they have to do is.... Since they were mentioned in a written document somewhere, that apparently justifies putting them in an act all together.

Division 12 says “Service Fees Act”.

There are amendments in division 13 to the Canada pension plan.

Division 14 amends the Department of Employment and Social Development Act, another act where you could do that separately under that act as a separate piece of legislation, not in a budget bill.

There are amendments to the Canada Labour Code. I know my colleagues will be shocked to learn that a budget bill is used to amend the labour code. It's an omnibus bill at a classic definition if there ever was one.

Not to be outdone by Canada Labour Code changes, division 16 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Of course, we all know that the Immigration and Refugee Act claims and refugee protection are always classic things included in a budget. We always think of the money in and the money out that a government spends and that amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is a critical part of whether or not the government balances its budget or not.

Division 17, again, not to be outdone by the previous one, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act claims and refugee protection, division 17 amends the same thing, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act sponsorship applications. Sponsoring immigrants is clearly not a budget item, but it's thrown in this act because it's mentioned in a written document tabled in the House.

Division 18 concerns the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants Act. Well, well, well, more amendments. More amendments to how we regulate and manage immigration consultants in our system. There is nothing to do with revenue in or revenue out, but that's apparently a budget item under this government.

Then it's amendments to the Citizenship Act. Yes, of course. What we say and how somebody gets sworn in as a citizen is always something that comes top of mind when we're talking about a budget.

Then there's the the Yukon Act, division 20.

Division 21 is the oceans protection plan; now we're going to have some fun. As members know, in addition to my afternoon and evening appearances at this committee, I sit more formally on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and I'm the vice-chair of the industry committee. I was getting questions even earlier today about why speak to elvers? There are amendments here to the Oceans Act, which is clearly an issue the government seems to think merits budget attention.

Last time I checked, elvers... As a reminder for those who weren't here the other day, they're baby eels. They're not as cute as seals, but they're worth an awful lot more—help me here—$5,000 a kilogram they're sold for. We have massive amounts of poaching and illegal fishing going on, but the oceans protection plan is being amended here through a budget bill. It's not money in, money out, but yet more amendments to acts of Parliament unrelated to our financing.

As an aside, I got yet another email this morning from the elver fishermen complaining about the minister's statement yesterday that she thought that arresting and seizing 123 kilograms of elvers was great enforcement. That seizure of elvers represents one poacher's day on one river since the closure has happened, so it's not really great enforcement when there are thousands of poachers who have caught in some estimates over 10,000 kilograms of illegal elvers.

In fact, yesterday found in the Tusket River in Digby were 30 pounds of dead elvers because the rocket scientist who was poaching elvers didn't realize that things you take out of the ocean, if you want them to stay alive, actually have to stay in water. So that's sitting there. The information from the poacher was given to the RCMP, which was the context in which I was talking about elvers before, because we were dealing with a subamendment on the appearance of the public safety minister before this committee and how he should be held accountable for the fact that the police forces of Canada, the RCMP, are not enforcing the law on these issues.

I won't go on too much more on fisheries, although I note MP Beech is fascinated by everything, including the importance of our lobster fishery.

Division 22 is the Canada Transportation Act, which is yet more relevance that comes top of mind when I think of a budget.

Division 23 is air travel complaints. We know how important it is and how bad it's gotten for Canadians in terms of their air travel service and the growing complaints. It is a good thing that there are more provisions being put forward by the government to improve the ability of Canadians not only to get answers, but to get paid when airlines cancel their flights and do things that are against the interest of the consumer. That is a good thing, but air travel complaints should be a bill on its own. Because of its importance, it should not be buried in this massive omnibus bill.

The bill makes changes to the Customs Act. I know this is getting dizzying, but there are a few more pages of acts that are left here to read out.

There's the National Research Council Act. This is a granting council. Some of you may not know it gets a lot of money—$1.6 billion or $1.8 billion a year. An additional $1 billion was given to it in last year's budget. It makes amendment to the act of the National Research Council. You don't need to change the act of the National Research Council if you're simply giving it more money. If you are changing or altering its mandate and its role, this omnibus bill is making changes to that. It's not to the flow of money. The flow of money would be in a budget bill, but changes to the National Research Council in terms of its act and its mandate should be on its own in another act.

There are changes to the Patent Act. Wow, I always think of changing the Patent Act in a budget bill. I always think that's a money item. It is a money item for those who have patents or for those who are filing patents.

I checked through this. There have been studies by the industry committee recommending that this country and this government adopt a patent box. It's a preferential tax rate for those who have patents to encourage the development and ownership of intellectual property. When I checked through division 26, which is on the Patent Act, I did not see the government creating a patent box.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I'm happy to continue.

At the end of the day, all we're asking is for the minister to come to the committee to answer some questions about her budget. The budget is the major legislative initiative of this government.

As I've said many times already in this committee, what I find unfortunate about the budget implementation bill is that most of it isn't really about the budget at all. There's something like 50 different pieces of legislation. Many of them have nothing at all to do with budgeting. The document itself is well over 400 pages long.

To deal with the fact that...the government is essentially admitting that the budget implementation bill has little to do with the budget, because in its motion it wants to refer massive portions of the budget off to various committees that are not the finance committee. I don't blame all the people who are watching us right now and wondering why it is we're talking about a subamendment to an amendment to a motion on reviewing the budget implementation bill that in and of itself refers the vast majority of the budget implementation bill off to committees that have nothing to do with budgeting.

For example, the motion calls for part 3, division 2, and part 4, divisions 21, 22, 23 and 24 to go to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. That's not a committee I associate with reviewing the finance minister's budget in the time that I've been here. The motion goes on to say that with regard to part 4 divisions 13, 14, 15, 35 and 38...those are going to go to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

I'm sure many of these are important initiatives, but I really don't understand what they're doing in a budget bill. It seems to me that this is circumventing the ability of Parliament to properly scrutinize major legislative initiatives that should be tabled, introduced and debated, and go through the proper readings and committee stages that any bill would go through. Instead, in order to fast-track or, essentially, short-circuit the process, members of the government decided they're going to throw these in here.

We learned a valuable lesson about this practice just a few years ago, Mr. Chair, when in a very similar bill, there was a seemingly innocuous provision. It was an amendment to the Criminal Code that would allow the Attorney General and Minister of Justice to grant something that had not been available to that point in Canadian law before. It was something called a prosecution deferral agreement. At the time, the committee was kept in the dark. I think some committee members, even including Liberal members, raised concern about that provision at the time.

Why is this here? Why are we doing this? Why are we giving this additional power?

The government of the day, which is the current government we have now, didn't tell the committee. It's possible some committee members knew the actual intent. I don't know. I'm not going to assume that. I can't get into their minds and know what they knew or what they were thinking. The fact of the matter is that the provision was put there intentionally, so pardon me for being a bit suspicious, Mr. Chair, when I see a budget bill that has literally dozens and dozens of provisions that have nothing to do with the budget.

I can go on. Here's another one, regarding part 4, divisions 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the bill. Those are being referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

I can go on and on and on, Mr. Chair. I have grave concerns about the lack of accountability.

All we're asking for with this massive, 400-page document is that the finance minister appear for two hours. She hasn't been here since November. It's not a lot to ask. I think Canadians expect it. If the committee members don't want to listen to the will of this committee, then listen to the will of Canadians, who would like to hear from the finance minister of this country...to answer questions about her budget. That's the impasse we have here, right now.

I could go on and on. I'm going to ask the clerk to recycle me back on the list. I will give up the floor to the next speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

That's very clear.

I want to stay on the topic of EI, but I'm not sure whether my next question is directly tied to the changes proposed in Bill C‑47.

Last Wednesday, the spokesperson for the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses met with senior Service Canada officials, including senior assistant deputy minister Tammy Bélanger. The department confirmed that, for privacy reasons, it would no longer provide information on the files of claimants represented by organizations assisting unemployed workers. That is an assault on the primary mission groups like these have taken on, which is to support and represent workers. What's more, it severely limits people's access to justice.

Does Bill C‑47 change things? The Privacy Act is not new legislation, so what is the reason behind the decision? On top of it, these claimants duly sign a form appointing their representative. Do you no longer recognize those consent forms? How do you explain the change?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to all the senior officials joining us in person and remotely. We really appreciate the work you do.

My first questions are for the Privy Council officials in relation to division 31 of Bill C‑47.

Basically, division 31—

[Colin Stacey, Director General, Air Policy, Department of Transport]

Good morning. My name is Colin Stacey. I'm the director general of air policy at Transport Canada. I'm very pleased to answer that question.

The changes in Bill C-47 will have a significant impact on how the air passenger protection regulations are administered, in a couple of ways.

To begin with, they are changing the onus: placing more onus on the air carriers themselves. The way they're doing this is.... Currently in the regulations, there are different categories. There are three categories of incident, two of which allow the air carriers to not provide compensation in instances where there are significant delays or cancellations. Those would be where the carrier interprets that an incident is not within its control or where the carrier interprets that an incident is due to safety.

Those categories will disappear, and instead there will be more onus on the carriers themselves to provide compensation in all incidents, except for those incidents that are deemed to be exceptional. A specific list will be articulated in the regulations themselves. As a result of that, to begin with, there will be fewer complaints.

In addition, the legislation will require that the air carriers cover the costs of complaints that go forward, and that are within scope to go forward, to the Canadian Transportation Agency. Once again, that will provide an additional incentive for the carriers to address complaints directly with passengers before they get passed over to the Canadian Transportation Agency. On top of that, I note there will be a specific timeline required for the air carriers to address those complaints with passengers.

Those are various ways in which we would expect there to be fewer complaints. Beyond that, I note there will also be an improvement in the process so that those complaints will be addressed more quickly.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning.

I have a quick point of order. A few weeks ago, the Department of Finance officials pledged to provide the committee with a detailed list of planned expenditures for the $80 billion in green economy and transition funding. I'd like to follow up with the department on that. The clerk also followed up.

The information is especially important since Bill C‑47 introduces mechanisms that put the money beyond Parliament's control. That's why we need the information before we vote on Bill C‑47.

Mr. Chair, I'd also like to know whether we have a date scheduled for the Minister of Finance's appearance on Bill C‑47.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 87 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, April 20, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss the subject matter of Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as well as divisions 10 to 31, 35, 36, 38 and 39.

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

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

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

For interpretation for those on Zoom, there is a choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

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

I'd now like to welcome our witnesses. With us today, we have 14 departments and 48 officials. Due to the limited time, I won't be recognizing all of you by name, but on behalf of the committee and in advance of the many questions you will be answering as best you can, we want to thank you. Thank you for your work on the budget. Thank you for being before us for this committee meeting and for this study.

When answering questions, please commence with your name, department and title.

I understand that Mr. Graeme Hamilton will be making some quick opening remarks, and then we will commence with a round of questions from the members.

Members, please note that some of the witnesses are in the adjacent room with a simultaneous audio and video feed. Please be mindful when posing your questions to give them a chance to arrive in our room. The clerk and I will take the time to do that into consideration when calculating your allotted time for asking questions.

We will also leave a seat open—I believe it's number 22—here at our table for anybody entering the room or coming from the back and joining us at the table to answer questions.

Mr. Hamilton is going to make his opening remarks.

I see a hand up. Go ahead MP Ste-Marie.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to lend my voice today in support of Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, on behalf of the government and on behalf of my community of Newmarket—Aurora.

Budget 2023 is entitled “A Made-in-Canada Plan: Strong Middle Class, Affordable Economy, Healthy Future”. However, like many things done in Canada, this is a plan that has an impact extending far beyond our borders, and that is because, in order for us to have a healthy future, we must have a healthy world, a world based on the rule of law where no people or nation can be threatened, subjugated or destroyed by illegal acts of aggression. That is why, since Russia's illegal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Canada has supported the people of Ukraine as they fight for their sovereignty and democracy, and for democracy around the world. Canada will stand with them for as long as it takes.

With more than $8 billion in total aid, Canada has provided critical financial assistance to the Ukraine government and has provided significant military and humanitarian support. In particular, Canada has sanctioned over 1,800 individuals and entities since February 2022. We have played a key role in the development of price caps on Russian oil and petroleum products to deprive the Kremlin of revenues to fund its illegal war. In fact, on March 2, 2022, Canada became the first country to revoke Russian and Belarusian eligibility for most favoured nation status, placing Russia and Belarus in the same category as North Korea, and in turn applying the 35% general tariff to virtually all Russian and Belarusian imports. Similar measures were subsequently implemented by the United States, the United Kingdom and other major trading partners.

Canada is playing a leading role in efforts to cut Russia off from the global economy and to hold Putin and his cronies accountable for their illegal war on Ukraine. With budget 2023, we are taking this measure one step further by proposing to amend the Customs Tariff to indefinitely extend the withdrawal of most favoured nation preferred tariff treatment for Russian and Belarusian imports. Bill C-47 would make this change a reality, and it needs our support as parliamentarians.

Our government's efforts to secure a safer world also includes working with our partners on the Russian elites, proxies, and oligarchs, or REPO, task force to block or freeze more than 58 billion dollars' worth of assets from sanctioned individuals and entities. Budget 2023, once again, builds upon these efforts. It does so by proposing targeted changes in the Special Economic Measures Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, known as the Sergei Magnitsky Law, which would support the effectiveness of seizure, forfeiture and disposal framework introduced in 2022 as a means of holding Russia accountable for its illegal invasion of Ukraine. These changes represent an important step in strengthening our ability to pursue the assets of those who have enabled Russia's unjust war and to use them to help finance Ukrainian reconstruction.

The budget also proposes to make a related amendment to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to aid in these efforts. The changes would require the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada to disclose information to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in certain circumstances. We are proposing these changes, because serious financial crimes, such as money laundering, terrorist financing and evasion of financial sanctions, threaten the safety of Canadians and the integrity of our financial system. Canada needs a comprehensive, responsive and modern system to counter these sophisticated, evolving threats.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We are very generous in the leeway we give in debate, but the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has a point. I am sure the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo will bring us to the discussion on Bill C-47.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, as usual, it is a pleasure to rise in the House.

However, it will quickly become apparent that my speech on Bill C‑47, budget implementation act, 2023, is half-hearted because there is not a lot of good news in this budget. On top of that, we were told this morning that we will not be able to discuss this for very long. We always get quite upset when the government prevents debate and deeper consideration. There is a lot to do. There is a lot we need to discuss.

Why are we displeased with the budget?

I am repeating myself, but I think that our message bears repeating so that it might end up being heard. It is unacceptable for the government not to respond to the demands of Quebec and the provinces on health transfer increases. People in emergency rooms and on waiting lists for surgery are waiting—no pun intended.

There is also the issue of old age security starting at age 65. Everyone talks about the cost of groceries, the cost of living and how difficult things are, and everyone forgets those aged 65 to 74, who are on fixed incomes and are left behind. Government members will respond in a while that they treated seniors very generously and so forth, but these people are not getting any real help. It is unacceptable to create two classes of seniors. We will keep repeating that until it is understood.

EI reform has been promised since 2015, and it is now 2023. That is not right. Promises made need to be kept. What is more, if I understand correctly, in this budget the government will help itself to $17 billion from the EI fund. It is not moving forward with the employment insurance reform so it can balance the budget.

Members who spoke before me talked about housing. It is urgent and essential that 1% of the budget be dedicated to social housing. The sunny-ways speeches and the hair-blowing-in-the-wind rhetoric about affordable housing need to stop. We recently held sessions in Berthier—Maskinongé with the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, who has been working very hard on this file. People on the ground are telling us that even those in the middle class cannot afford affordable housing. That is why we need to act on social housing to get the less fortunate out of the market. It must be done. We have to act.

Obviously, this is a broad outline. However, members will not be surprised to hear me talk about agriculture, because I always talk about agriculture at some point in my speeches. The first disappointment is the tax on Russian fertilizer. They took the $34 million and put it in the on-farm climate action fund. I understand that this is meant to be ancillary compensation, because we are incapable of reimbursing the agricultural producers who paid the tax.

That already does not make sense, but let us say we go along with it. It was too complicated to pay back that money so the government decided to put it in the fund. Will the government do away with those tariffs for next year? Right now, farmers are funding their own program. I hope that the government does not think that that makes it generous.

We need to enhance the support programs for farmers. In our budget requests, we submitted a proposal from young farmers and that was for the government to provide lower-interest loans over 40 years. That would help them cover the cost of buying land, which has become extremely expensive. It is very difficult for a new start-up to be agronomically profitable because the initial purchase price is too high. Can we help them?

In recent weeks, members of the Union des producteurs agricoles, or UPA, sounded the alarm citing the results of a survey. According to this survey of its members, one in 10 agricultural businesses are considering permanently closing their doors in the next year. That is huge. This situation is a result of the huge hike in interest rates and the heavy debt being carried by farms, particularly those owned by young farmers.

The government is saying that it is good and kind and that it is going to feed people, but it needs farmers to do that.

They are the ones who have the courage to take over the family business, after watching their parents work seven days a week, countless hours, when they have endless career options. There is a labour shortage in every sector. It is very easy for a young person living on a farm to look at their parents and decide they do not feel like working all the time and struggling. Then they pick a different career. We need to put measures in place to encourage them to stay. Farming seems rewarding, but it is not easy. People like it and do it because they have a passion for it. I think we need to respect the people who feed us. Let us help them. Let us do as they ask.

I asked the minister this question some time ago. We got what seemed like a favourable response. She said she was thinking about it, but now we expect meaningful action. We often end up waiting for the federal government to take action.

As for improvements to the advance payments program, this budget increases the interest-free limit from $250,000 to $350,000. I applaud this measure. Bravo. I hope that the member from Winnipeg North will be pleased to see that I can point out the positives. However, this should be made permanent. It costs about $13 million, which I think is a quite small amount. It would ensure that our businesses have some flexibility to get through difficult periods. I am asking the government to consider it. Let us make it permanent.

There is also money for the vaccine bank. I also salute this contribution. It is about time. Will the $57 million be enough? We shall see, but it is important to prevent illnesses from spreading. That is why, this morning, we were talking about protecting biosecurity on farms. That is a related issue. It is very important.

I am going to talk about support for modernizing processors. Unfortunately, there is nothing about that in the budget. I think it is important. I am appealing to those in government. When we talk about agriculture, we often tend to simply say “agriculture”, but the portfolio encompasses both agriculture and agri-food.

Most of what we eat has been processed in some way. Agri-food processing plants are in trouble. There is a significant labour shortage, but there is also significant underinvestment in our infrastructure. I have raised this issue in the House a number of times. I do not want us, as a state, to wait for the day when a multinational company that owns a processing plant in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada says that the plant is so old that it is no longer profitable and that it must be torn down and another one must be built, because there is no guarantee that the other one will be built here. That is also important.

Another positive point in the budget is the clarification regarding transfers of family farms. That is a positive. It is long overdue. It has been too long.

If the members of the government are listening in a constructive manner and wondering how they can do better, then I would tell them to act more quickly on things like this. We have been badgering the government to clarify its intentions for over a year now. This has blocked farm transfers, particularly in Quebec.

We need to support regional processing and regional slaughterhouses in particular. I have been talking about this for a long time. Government support will be required for that to work because it is hard for these businesses to turn a profit. I think we realized during the COVID-19 pandemic that our processing industry is sometimes too consolidated. We need only consider what is happening in the pork industry right now. The closure of one processing plant causes major disruptions. We need alternate sites that can help absorb the shock and fluctuations. We need to take action to make all that happen.

I want to talk about reciprocity of standards. Farmers are always talking to us about that. There is nothing in the budget about increasing inspections. Will the DNA test that poultry farmers created ever be implemented? Will vegetables from outside the country be required to meet the same quality standards as what is expected of local growers?

That is important. The government needs to quickly take practical measures to help the agricultural community. I am committed to collaborating, and the Bloc Québécois will be there to help pass appropriate, constructive measures for the agricultural industry. We will be there to support such measures, but they need to be included in this budget. I raised a few points, but there are a lot of things missing.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a pleasure and a privilege to rise in the House today to contribute to the debate at second reading on Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, 2023, No. 1.

I said it is a pleasure and a privilege to rise because it is always a pleasure and a privilege to rise to express the concerns of the people of Perth—Wellington. While it is a pleasure and a privilege to rise, I am nonetheless disappointed and frustrated with the budget. Like many in the House, I feel like this is a case of déjà vu. Once again, Canadians are looking to the government for a budget to address their needs, yet all we have seen from the government is another failed budget.

Bill C-47 is the first step in implementing parts of the flawed 2023 budget, which the Minister of Finance presented on March 28. That budget, as presented, would produce a $43-billion deficit. Recently, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that could balloon even higher to $45.1 billion. This is from a government that has already driven the national debt up to nearly $1.5 trillion.

Let us take a walk down deficit memory lane. What we see with the government is continuous overspending by spending more and achieving less. March 31, 2017, one year after the Liberals introduced their first budget, the national debt had already, at that point, climbed to $631 billion. A year later, it jumped up by $40 billion to $671 billion.

By 2019, the year before the COVID pandemic, the national debt spiked to $685 billion. A year ago, the deficit had jumped to $1.13 trillion. Now, in budget 2023, the Minister of Finance has told us that the national debt will reach $1.22 trillion by the end of this fiscal year.

This debt is a direct result of poor decision-making by the Liberal government. Only last November, the Minister of Finance rose in this place and told us the deficit for this year would be $30.6 billion. Five months later it was $40.1 billion.

In this budget, the cost of servicing the national debt is projected to nearly double to $43.9 billion. This $43.9 billion is just going to pay the interest on servicing the national debt. That is $43.9 billion that is not going to the Canada health transfer; not going to build better roads, bridges and wastewater treatment plants in Perth—Wellington, Simcoe—Grey or any riding across the country; not going to help ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces has the equipment it needs to do the important job asked of it; not going to help Canadians afford their rent; not going to prevent poverty; and not going to fully implement the Canada disability benefit. All that $43.9 billion is going toward is the interest owed to wealthy bond holders on the national debt.

We have been told in the past that we just need to look at the debt-to-GDP ratio, that it will continue to go down. For this year and next year, it is once again going to be going in the opposite direction.

In budget 2022, the Minister of Finance promised there would be a fiscal anchor. Well, that anchor has been dropped. For eight years, we were told this would be good. That we would see results from this deficit spending. Once again, we are seeing Canadians struggling to make ends meet.

If there is one topic I hear about time and time again in Perth—Wellington, it is housing. In every community in Perth—Wellington, where just a few years ago housing was affordable, it is now out of reach for those the government likes to call the middle class and those working hard to join it. My generation and younger, those under 40, are not seeing the hope there once was of owning their own home.

The government has created large, expensive programs without success. The national housing strategy has been a failure. The housing accelerator fund has been a failure. The Canada housing benefit has been a failure. When it comes to affordable housing, the Liberal government has been a failure.

Unfortunately, Bill C-47 will not address the growing problem of housing unaffordability. They promised one thing and delivered nothing.

Like many members, I often hear from young families, seniors and folks who are trying to make ends meet. They are telling us that they cannot afford their groceries. They are cutting back. They are making alternatives. They are skipping meals, yet what we see in the Liberal government is a failure to address the root causes of rising prices.

Its ineffective and inefficient carbon tax is forcing Canadian families to pay more for less. Canada’s Food Price Report predicts that a family of four will spend up to $1,065 more this year than last year. This is after last year, in which there was an increase of nearly $1,100. If the Minister of Finance were serious about reducing the costs of food for struggling Canadian families, there is an easy way to fix it, and that is to remove the carbon tax from all elements of food production.

The carbon tax has served to make life more expensive, especially for lower-income and working-class Canadians. While higher-income Canadians, such as the Prime Minister and others, simply pay the tax and absolve themselves of any guilt for their excessive emissions, average Canadians cannot afford it. Every time Conservatives have proposed measures to reduce costs, the Liberals have voted against them.

If we are looking at the roots of our food production system, we are looking at the agriculture and agri-food industry. Unfortunately, the Liberals fail to acknowledge that the high cost of groceries is their fault. There is the rising costs on fertilizer, with $34.1 million collected in tariffs, but none of that is being rebated to the farmers who paid those tariffs. The rising costs of fertilizer is making it more and more expensive for farmers and farm families to grow the crops that quite literally feed our families, our country and the world.

However, Bill C-47 does not address that. It does not address a rebate for those farmers and farm families who paid those $34 million in tariffs, and it does not remove the cost of the carbon tax. Farmers need fuel to heat their barns. They need it to transport their crops. They need it to dry their grains. There are no alternatives for these measures.

Sadly, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food continues to side with the Prime Minister and his finance minister over the farmers and every other person along the food supply chain. From this, I can only conclude that either the agriculture minister is not really listening to farmers or the Prime Minister and finance minister are not listening to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

As I conclude, I want to reiterate that budget 2023 has failed to address the real concerns of families in Perth—Wellington and across Canada. After eight years in office, the Liberal government and the Prime Minister has made life more unaffordable for Canadians. Now, with this budget, the finance minister expects to be congratulated for the benefits the government promises, despite the fact that those benefits do not even come close to matching the massive increases in prices caused by its inflation crisis.

I will be voting no. I will be saying no more. Canadians cannot afford any more of the Liberal government. I encourage all members to stand up for their constituents and vote against this failed Liberal budget.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to take part in this debate on Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

Over the past number of years, I have heard from my constituents about how difficult life is getting to sustain. They want to take care of their families and ensure they are doing well, that they are living comfortably and that they are continuing to be part of the middle class and among those who are working really hard to join the middle class. We have worked so hard over the past seven and some years to ensure that those Canadians are able to sustain themselves. Whether it is through reducing taxes on the middle classes and increasing them for the wealthiest; including early learning and child care within our Canadian system; enhancing health care; or providing supports for small businesses and students, we have been working hard to ensure that the middle class thrives.

I know, because I hear from my constituents, that people in the middle class have had trouble and have really been struggling over the past year to thrive. That is not just a Canadian problem. It is a global catastrophe that economies across the world are dealing with. However, we are really lucky that here in Canada we are doing well in comparison to the rest of the world. We are doing better than most G7 nations. We are doing better by our middle class. We are doing better by our students, by our single mothers and by our children to ensure that they are thriving despite the challenges they are faced with not just here in Canada but across the world.

Budget 2023, then, is really significant. It is really important that we make sure that those working hard to join the middle class and those who are a part of the middle class are well supported as we buckle down and ensure that we get through this and weather the storm.

What I really appreciate about budget 2023 and what I hear from my constituents is what I would like to highlight today in my remarks. That includes our grocery rebate, which would really impact the middle class in my community. They will be able to keep the lights on, work and take care of everybody in the family on a regular basis.

The budget means cracking down on junk fees to ensure that businesses are transparent with their prices. That is another way to ensure that access to the economy and to capital is fair and equitable so that those who need support are able to get support without having to be gouged for it.

The budget also means securing commitments from Visa and Mastercard to lower fees for small businesses and cracking down on predatory lending. What that means to my community and my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills, which is a significant small business community, is that small business owners who hire five, 10, 15, 20 or 50 people in my riding will be able to save and make their overhead costs balance out because of the reduction in credit card fees. It is a big deal. It is something that I have been hearing from my constituents on a very regular basis, and I am so happy that budget 2023 ensures that we tackle this issue. This is a really important issue that businesses in my community and across Canada deal with.

Since 2015, our government's focus has been on investing in the middle class. It has been about growing the economy. It has been about strengthening Canada's social safety net and making life more affordable for Canadians. We know that investments in our economy are basically investments in Canadians. Canadians do not need handouts; they need a leg-up.

Canadians have the capacity to take care of themselves. They just want a foundation, that equality of opportunity, and, when they are down, to know that their government will look out for them. That is exactly what this government represents.

The important budget measures I have outlined really provide additional support for inflation relief. They will help put money in the pockets of people who need it the most and who need help to make life affordable. I have advocated for these measures in my role as the previous chair of the women's caucus and in my community. I am hearing directly from my constituents to ensure that their voices are carried here in this chamber.

In budget 2023, the government outlines how targeted inflation relief is going to support Canadians, including the proposed grocery rebate, which will support the many Canadians and families struggling to put food on the table due to the rising cost of groceries. For 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families, the one-time rebate would provide eligible couples with two children with up to an extra $467, single Canadians without children with up to an extra $234 and seniors with an extra $225 on average. This would be delivered through the GST credit system.

By targeting the grocery rebate to Canadians who need it the most, the government will be able to provide important relief without making inflation worse. Let me be clear: It is going to get better for Canadians.

As I mentioned, we know that inflation is still too high, and the steep increase in interest rates has caused economic pain for a lot of Canadians, including small businesses, which need to pay more for their lines of credit to keep business rolling and keep capital circulating. We saw that the pandemic led to an increase in people using credit cards when they shop. Canadian small businesses pay significant fees to provide Canadians with the ability to process credit card transactions. The largest component of that is the interchange fee paid to credit card issuers.

To support hard-working small business owners, budget 2023 has outlined the government's efforts to work closely with small businesses and the payment card industry to lower these fees. This includes the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which represents over 97,000 small and medium-sized enterprises. I have had the pleasure to sit down with some of them and learn more about the challenges that small businesses, these mom-and-pop shops across our country, go through on a regular basis and how we can help.

This issue has been a number one issue not just for this year but for many years. I was really happy to see that budget 2023 addresses it with a concrete measure that is going to make small businesses more and more sustainable when doing their daily transactions as the consumer base changes and as transactions happen.

In budget 2023, the government announced that it secured commitments from Visa and Mastercard to lower fees for small businesses, while also protecting reward points for Canadian consumers, because Canadians love their reward points. Over 90% of credit card-accepting businesses in Canada will benefit from these small reductions. Small businesses will see their interchange fees reduced by up to 27% from the existing weighted average rate.

I know I have been a bit passionate in my remarks so far, and there is so much more I want to talk about, but in conclusion I just want to say how important it is for us as a government to support the little guy, whether it is students who are getting out of school and who now no longer have to pay interest on their student loans, the small business person who now has lower interest fees on credit cards or the small families having difficulty putting food on their tables that are now able to access the grocery rebate. This budget is about Canadians, and I am so happy to support it.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to say good afternoon to my hon. and esteemed colleagues. Through you, I wish all of my colleagues a productive and healthy week. I hope their families are all doing well.

It is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, which contains many measures that will continue to strengthen and grow the middle class, and yes, help those working hard to join it.

It is a bill that contains many measures that were brought forward in budget 2023, and it is great to be able to speak to them. Bill C-47 is about putting Canadians and their families first and building an economy that works for all Canadians, all while ensuring a sustainable and strong fiscal path that will allow us to meet the challenges of today and, just as important, the unknowns of tomorrow.

One thing that is abundantly clear is that Canada and Canadians are ready to meet the challenges of the world we live in today head-on and with our heads up. Our talented and entrepreneurial citizenry; abundance of natural resources; trade agreements, including CUSMA, CETA and CPTPP; and our strong fiscal position put us in a favourable moment relative to our global peers in a seminal moment in the world's economic and political history.

Bill C-47 contains a number of measures that I know will assist the most vulnerable Canadians and provide the assistance they need with the elevated everyday expenses we all face. In a challenging time period, we will always have the backs of Canadians when the cost of living is high.

In Bill C-47, we see the grocery rebate. It will begin arriving shortly to literally millions of Canadians, those who need it most and are impacted most by the elevated costs of everyday essentials. Eleven million Canadians and their families will receive these payments, with up to $467 for eligible couples with two children, for example, and up to an extra $234 for single Canadians without children and an extra $225 for seniors, on average. These funds can be used to pay for groceries or everyday essentials. Again, we have the backs of Canadians. This is a prudent and fiscally sensible measure, and at the current juncture, it is the right thing to do.

Bill C-47 contains an important change to the Canada workers benefit. I will use the term “automatic advance”, which will see automatic advance payments of the benefit to people who qualified for it in the previous year, starting July 2023 for the 2023 taxation year. This $4-billion investment over the next five years will ensure that advanced payments based on income reported in the prior year's tax return and any additional entitlements for the year would be provided when filing one's tax return for the year.

This measure would provide, for example, a split among three advance payments, with up to $714 for single workers and $1,231 for a family. The CWB assists literally millions of low-income Canadians on an annual basis. It is one of the most powerful policy instruments, lifting families and individuals out of poverty; this is the third enhancement to the Canada workers benefit that our government has put into place since we came into power in 2015. It is very important fiscal policy; it is a very important taxation instrument, which assists low-income Canadians who are working. It encourages them to increase their hours of availability, increase their incomes and, because they are working so hard, move toward joining the middle class.

On dental care, one thing all parliamentarians quickly realize is that dental care is a precious item and that seniors especially need assistance with the cost of dental care. I have a wonderful relationship with the seniors in my riding. In a few weeks, I will start attending many barbecues and outings with the seniors in my community. I know, for instance, that most seniors do not have dental insurance. When they go to the dentist, the bill they get can set them back for the entire month. We know that seniors are generally on fixed incomes, and the vulnerable ones are particularly susceptible to one-off expenses, such as an expensive trip to the dentist.

Many people going into retirement do not have insurance coverage, and we know that we need to change that. Seniors should not need to worry about going to the dentist versus paying their energy bills and buying food. They will not need to worry about that starting this year.

Bill C-47 contains the enabling legislation that, once fully implemented, would provide dental coverage for up to nine million Canadians by 2025. This year, our government plans to start coverage for uninsured Canadians under 18, persons with disabilities and seniors who have annual family incomes of less than $90,000. Notably, there would be no copays for those with annual family incomes under $70,000. This measure of dental care for seniors is a game-changer for Canadians and their families, as well as for the over 20,000 seniors who reside in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, the many more thousands of seniors who reside in the city of Vaughan and, of course, the many millions who reside across Canada.

We all know that small businesses are the backbone of our communities. There are over 13,000 small and medium-sized businesses in the city of Vaughan. I am, and will always be, their biggest champion. The city of Vaughan is the largest economic engine in York Region, sharing over 40% of the GDP and employing hundreds of thousands of workers.

We must, as a government, cut the red tape that small businesses face and reduce their costs. We are doing that, as we have secured commitments from both Visa and Mastercard to lower fees for small businesses; we are also protecting reward points for millions of Canadian consumers. More than 90% of credit card-accepting businesses will see their interchange fees reduced by up to 27% from the existing average rate. These reductions are anticipated to save eligible small businesses in Canada approximately $1 billion over the next five years. For example, a small business charging using credit cards with interchange fees, say, on $300,000 could potentially save over $1,000 up to almost $1,500. That is real money back in their pockets.

To continue to grow the Canadian economy, we will introduce a suite of new investment tax credits designed to attract and accelerate investments in clean electricity, clean technology manufacturing, and clean hydrogen and nuclear, as well as to ensure that foreign direct investment comes to Canada and that domestic companies are investing in Canada and Canadian workers. Fundamentally, as I have said before in the House, I believe that when we look back in a few years to the decisions that parliamentarians make today, we will find that we were at a critical juncture in the ongoing transition in the world economy. We need to make sure that we make the right choices today to continue to grow our economy, raise the standard of living for all Canadians and ensure that all Canadians, including my kids, have a bright future. That is exactly what we are doing.

We know that, at some point in their lives, young Canadians and newcomers will turn their attention to purchasing a first home. A home is not just an investment. It is where people create memories of their families, their loved ones and their friends. A home is where people create futures. A measure that I have talked about within my community is opening a tax-free first home savings account, which could be done as of April 1; I encourage all individuals who are eligible to do so. This account takes the best features of the TFSA and RRSP and combines them into one, as I will now explain.

First, the contributions made into the tax-free home savings account are tax deductible, so you lower taxex payable today. Second, the contributions in the first home savings account grow tax-free, which is wonderful. Even more importantly, much like a TFSA, when going to purchase a first home, the contributions are removed on a tax-free basis. In the years to come, this will be a powerful tool and a powerful account for many Canadians when purchasing their first home, condo, townhouse or detached dwelling in the GTA or across the country. A maximum of $40,000 can be put into this account, with a maximum yearly contribution of $8,000. This is a powerful instrument to help Canadians purchase their first home.

In my remaining time, I want to add a few comments about where I think Canada is and where it is going. Fundamentally, as parliamentarians, we have a duty to represent the interests of our constituents and advocate for them. I like to say I am a strong local voice in Ottawa for the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge. We have to make choices, which is what governing is about. At this moment in time, we are making the right choices for our economy and for Canadians. We are making the right choices to grow and strengthen our middle class and help those working hard to join the middle class.

I will leave everyone with this last thought: I was at the Council of Europe last week, leading the Canadian delegation with a number of MPs and senators. In speaking to the Ukrainian delegation, which we met with several times, I asked what home was going to look like when they got back there. I will finish up—

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the constituents of Victoria, today to talk about Bill C-47, the budget implementation act.

I want to start by sharing a local concern. Organizations in my riding are reeling from the government's cuts to the Canada summer jobs program. This program is vital, not only for local organizations, non-profits, charities and small businesses, but also for young people, who get valuable skills and economic opportunities. This year, the government has cut the program, and it is not just a cut from our pandemic levels, but a $60-million cut from prepandemic levels. These cuts are having a huge impact on the ground in Victoria.

Local organizations received over $1.5 million in 2022, and this year's funding has gone down to $950,000. Last year, 113 organizations received funding, and this year only 66 will receive funding. That is 50 fewer community organizations benefiting from the program and 50 fewer opportunities for employment for young people across the country.

Organizations that have received funding, such as Capital Bike, are seeing cuts in the hours and number of jobs it has been awarded. It is reeling and uncertain of what it is going to do when it cannot offer students the hours they need to accept placements. The government talks a good game when it comes to supporting young people and local organizations, but its actions do not match its words. It needs to reverse these cuts to community organizations and young people across the country.

Canadians right now are living through an affordability crisis. Inflation is still too high, and it is getting harder for people in my community to afford groceries and find an affordable place to call home. One good job should be enough to pay the bills and raise a family, but while the cost of living goes up, rich CEOs and the ultra-wealthy are getting ahead, while families, seniors and young people are falling behind.

For the past eight years, the Liberal government has not been working for people in Canada. Under its watch, Canada has become more unaffordable.

This year's budget includes concrete, tangible affordability measures, which the NDP has fought hard for. They are measures that the Liberals have consistently voted against, but we were able to push them to deliver them now. One example of this is the NDP's dental care program.

For the past year, I have had seniors visiting my office to ask when they would be eligible for dental care. For far too long, financial barriers have prevented millions of people in our country, especially seniors, people with disabilities and young people, from accessing the oral health care they need. Thanks to the first phase of the Canadian dental care plan, close to a quarter of a million children have been able to get to the dentist because of this interim measure. This coming year, seniors, people living with a disability and children under 18 will be able to access this critical care.

It brings us one step closer to Tommy Douglas' dream of truly universal health care, where every Canadian would have access to the health care they need, when they need it.

Additionally, New Democrats have used our power in this Parliament to double the GST rebate. This means over $400 for a family with two children. Last fall, the NDP forced the government to double the GST rebate for millions of Canadians, putting hundreds of dollars back into Canadians' pockets at a time of high inflation. I am very pleased that, earlier this month, the House fast-tracked that new rebate.

I also want to highlight the important measures we have fought for to make life more affordable for students. I am proud to represent thousands of students who attend the University of Victoria and Camosun College. This budget increases Canada student grants by 40%, providing up to $4,200 for full-time students, and it raises the interest-free Canada student loan limit from $210 to $300 per week. This means students will have more financial support during and after their studies.

We must do more for graduate students. Today, May 1, graduate students have organized a walkout. They are calling on the government to invest in the next generation of leaders, who are doing research and are the people doing science in our country. They have had the same wage for the past 20 years. Tri-agency awards and grants have not increased, yet the cost of almost everything has gone through the roof.

Unfortunately, for anyone struggling with the housing crisis right now, this budget fails when it comes to building more affordable housing faster for Canadians. It fails for people who want to own a home. It fails for renters.

Victoria has some of the highest rents in the country. Under the Liberal government, the costs of both renting and owning have increased to unimaginable levels. The cost of owning a home in Victoria has ballooned. It would take a family earning over $150,000 almost 30 years to save to buy a home in my community. For renters, in 2015, when the Liberals took charge, the median cost of a one-bedroom unit was around $850 a month. Today, it has more than doubled. The average one-bedroom rental cost is a whopping $2,000 a month. It is $2,500 for a two-bedroom unit, and $3,200 for a three-bedroom unit.

How is anyone supposed to get by, never mind get ahead, when rent is eating so much of their monthly income? Every day, countless people in my community are unhoused, under-housed or afraid they will not be able to afford rent next month. Most of the families I speak to have given up on ever even owning a home or dreaming of such a thing.

Earlier this month, I met with housing experts, leaders in Victoria, who told me that the federal government needs to get back to playing an active role in delivering housing. The government needs to stop corporate landlords from treating the housing market like a stock market. Housing is a right. Unfortunately, this bill, when it comes to addressing this crisis, fails. The Liberals are out of touch on this issue, and people are struggling to find an affordable place to live.

I want to mention the tireless work of two of my colleagues: the hon. member for Nunavut and the hon. member for Vancouver East. They fought to ensure there was $4 billion in this budget for rural, urban and northern indigenous housing. While we know more is needed, without their fierce advocacy, we would not be taking this important first step toward for indigenous, by indigenous housing.

People in Victoria are also deeply concerned about the devastating impacts of the climate crisis. Here at home and around the world, tackling the climate crisis is an economic and moral imperative. My colleagues and I have fought for investments in this bill that represent just the first steps in creating a clean-energy economy and ensuring we are creating well-paying union jobs. This bill includes $83 billion for the clean-energy economy, including for clean hydrogen and clean tech, as well as $3 billion to support clean electricity.

I am proud that the NDP has forced the Liberals to invest in a green future and that we were able to ensure that these investments have strings attached for workers. We are forcing the Liberals to incentivize companies to raise wages and provide better working conditions for their workers, and we are ensuring that labour groups have a seat at the table when it comes to the Canada growth fund. However, we also know the government has to do much, much more.

One of the handouts the Liberals are giving to oil and gas companies is billions of dollars for carbon capture, utilization and storage. It is a technology that the IPCC has said is one of the most expensive and unproven at scale, yet the Liberals continue to make it a central part of their climate plan. They are listening to oil and gas lobbyists instead of listening to the science.

I am disappointed that the government continues to show no interest in tackling corporate greed and taxing the excess profits of big oil and gas. Unfortunately, we continue to see the Liberals hand out billions of dollars each year in tax and non-tax subsidies. As parliamentarians, we owe it to future generations to not only believe in climate change and talk about the climate crisis but also act like we are in a climate emergency, because that is what we are in, and invest in climate solutions.

To conclude, we will continue to use our power in this minority Parliament to put money back in the pockets of Canadians, make life more affordable and fight the climate crisis like we actually want to win. My NDP colleagues and I will continue to work hard every day for families, seniors and young people to create a country that leaves no one behind.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand up and speak to Bill C-47, the Liberals' budget bill. Certainly, I have had an opportunity to speak with my constituents with respect to the concerns that they have about this Liberal legislation. The thing that has been raised the most is that, going into the budget, they were told by the Liberal finance minister that there would be some fiscal restraint. Maybe for the first time in the Liberals' eight years in power, there would be a commitment to fiscal common sense. However, that certainly did not happen in this budget; we now see a $43-billion deficit. If that is the Liberals' definition of fiscal restraint, I would hate to see what happens when they turn on the taps and say that they are going to spend unreservedly.

When it comes to Canadians, the Liberals are now asking every single Canadian family to contribute an additional $4,300 to the Liberal government coffers to pay for their spending. I want Canadians across the country to have a different perspective on what the Liberals are asking them to do. I am asking Canadians to consider themselves shareholders in the corporation of Canada. Every single Canadian is a shareholder in this country. When the Liberals say they are taking on this debt so that Canadians do not have to, it is extremely misleading. The main funder of this corporation of Canada is the Canadian taxpayer. Therefore, if I am the Liberal Minister of Finance and I am asking Canadians to fund our $43-billion deficit spending with an additional $4,300 per family, as the shareholder of that company, the first question I am going to ask is this: “What is my return on investment? What is my ROI on an additional call-out for cash from the Liberal government?”

If the Liberal government has to explain to Canadians what their ROI is on that additional tax grab, it is a pretty tough sell. We Canadians have a $30-billion-plus Infrastructure Bank that has not built a single project. We have chaos at the airports. We cannot get a passport if we want one. People might not be able to get their questions on their tax returns answered by the CRA. The carbon tax is going up, and we are going to have skyrocketing inflation and food prices. We have lost the respect of our most trusted trading partners. We cannot fund our own military and defend ourselves or respond to crises around the world. Other than that, Canadians' investment is well spent with the Liberal government in the corporation of Canada.

How would any common-sense Canadian feel that this has been a good return on their investment? I would say that there is not a single Canadian who would say that the current Liberal government has been a good steward of Canadian tax dollars. I would say there is no government in Canadian history that has spent so much to achieve so little. I do not think there is a Canadian government in history that has spent so much on the bureaucracy and the public service to see it come to a state of such dysfunction. I do not think there is a Canadian government in history that has been so committed to taxing Canadians into submission.

I do not think there is any better example than the Liberals' carbon tax. At a time of 40-year record-high inflation and a struggling economy coming out of COVID and the pandemic, no other government in the world was increasing taxes through a carbon tax. Our number one trading partner, the United States, does not have a carbon tax; the carbon tax is putting us, our farmers, our ranchers, our food producers, our manufacturers and Canadian industry at a stark competitive disadvantage.

What makes it more frustrating for those Canadians who are being asked to contribute more to the Liberals' out-of-control spending is that the Liberal carbon tax has been proven to be a sham. The latest reports confirm that the Liberals have not met a single environmental emissions target they have set for themselves. Now the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed what we have pretty much known all along, which is that the carbon tax costs Canadians more than they get back from the Liberals' sham of a rebate. In fact, it is going to cost every Canadian family and certainly every Alberta family about $1,500 a year. What a surprise that Canadians are not better off paying a higher tax. I would ask the Liberal government to show me any tax that has made Canadians better off.

We knew this when the Liberals brought in the carbon tax rebate for farmers that was supposed to make farmers whole. It was going to be revenue-neutral. However, we have now seen the numbers, and farmers get about 15% back in the carbon tax rebate from Bill C-8. This is nothing new.

The Liberals have been telling Canadians for years that they get more money back than they pay in the carbon tax through rebates, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer made it glaringly clear that this is not the case. It is costing Canadians money. Rather than admit their mistake and say that the carbon tax is a scam, the Liberals are doubling down. They increased the carbon tax again on April 1, and on July 1, it will be imposed on Atlantic Canadians: happy Canada Day.

What the NDP-Liberal carbon tax coalition does not understand is that there are very real consequences to these types of decisions. For example, when the carbon tax is tripled by 2030, it will cost an average Canadian farm $150,000 a year in carbon taxes alone. It is going to put the financial viability of Canadian agriculture and agri-food in jeopardy. It makes us uncompetitive. We already had the most expensive harvest in Canadian history last year, and this is only going to add to those input costs.

For the average Canadian, the consequences are very simple. Higher carbon taxes mean higher production costs and higher prices at the grocery store. Every single Canadian is paying the price for the carbon tax coalition, and they are paying for it at the grocery store when they buy bread, pasta, fruit, vegetables, meat, milk and eggs. They are paying for it over and over again.

I had a constituent family with four kids tell me their grocery bill went up $700 a month. I do not know very many Canadian families that could afford that. Again, we are seeing the consequences of that when one out of five Canadian families is skipping meals because they cannot afford groceries. They cannot afford to put food on the table for their families. They are having to make that decision to pay their mortgage and their heat and power bills by skipping a meal.

We had the CEO of the Daily Bread Food Bank in Toronto come to the agriculture committee a couple of weeks ago. We were talking about food security. His comment was that their numbers in March quadrupled from what they would normally see in visitors to the food bank. He called the numbers they are seeing “startling” and “horrific”. He has been quoted as saying, “we are in a crisis. The Daily Food Bank and food banks [in Toronto] are at a breaking point”. There are very real consequences when we increase costs and taxes on Canadians and food production. The numbers we are seeing at the food bank are a direct consequence of that.

Canada's food price index is showing that groceries for a family of four are going to go up another $1,000 in 2023. Unfortunately, it is only going to get worse if the Liberal government continues with the policies it is imposing. A recent study that came out last week from Dalhousie University is bracing Canadians for even higher food prices. The study says that, by 2030, the average food price is going to go up 35%. Bread will go up 35%; dairy, 40%; fruit and vegetables, 29%; and meat, 45%. That is what may happen if the Liberals continue on this ideological policy drive that they are on. Increased carbon taxes are increasing production costs, regulation and red tape on transportation and supply chain, which means direct costs to Canadians.

The solution to higher food prices and higher food costs is simple, and one of the steps the Liberals could take is eliminating the carbon tax. It is not meeting any environmental targets that they are setting themselves, and it is certainly causing more pain than anything else. When the carbon tax is tripled, it may cost an average Alberta family $2,200 a year.

In conclusion, I ask the NDP-Liberal carbon tax coalition to reflect on the hurt and the pain they are putting on Canadians. In fact, the NDP used to be the party of Canadian farmers. I wonder why it has lost that support over the years. Maybe they should take some time to reflect on what happened.

We cannot support this budget. As Conservatives, we are going to stand up for Canadian families and affordability, not the ideological policy that is hurting Canadians.

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.

Second Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to debate Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, 2023. The budget shows our commitment to strong, sustainable economic growth while supporting the most vulnerable among us and moving toward a greener future for Canadians.

By investing in our physical and social infrastructure and by seizing the unprecedented opportunities at hand in clean energy and critical supply chains, Canada will become a world leader in the economy of tomorrow. That is exactly the vision we have as a federal government, and that is exactly what is reflected in our budget.

Before delving deeper into the budget implementation act, I want to take a step back and take stock of where we find ourselves after three tumultuous years, three years marked by a global pandemic, by war, by global economic instability, by supply chain breakdowns, the list goes on. Despite the proclamations of some in this chamber, I would like to speak today about where we are as a country and why we are privileged to be here in Canada, despite the tumultuous times that we have faced.

In fact, Canada is one of the best places to be in the world right now. As we sit in this chamber, Canada’s inflation rate is the lowest is has been since 2021, despite continued global inflationary pressures. In fact, Canada’s inflation rate has decreased consistently over the last nine months.

Our fiscal balance sheet remains by far the best among among G7 counties, with both the lowest debt and the lowest deficit. Our AAA credit rating was just recently reaffirmed. Our economic growth was the strongest of all G7 countries over the last year. Nearly 900,000 jobs have been created and the labour force participation of women is at an all-time high in our country. These are facts.

What I hear from Canadians in my community and throughout the country is that these tumultuous times are difficult, that the instability the world is seeing is impacting our economy, our political institutions and our lives, but that we need a responsible government, that we need responsible leadership and that Canadians are thankful for that leadership in us.

At a time of global economic and geopolitical instability, our government continues to focus on managing our finances responsibly while investing in the future of our country. That is what our budget does. Speaking of responsible management, I want to quickly mention the tentative agreement that was reached between the government and the public service union this morning. It is a balanced agreement that respects employees of the public service and the Canadian taxpayers who are funding it.

We are committed to protecting the collective bargaining process both now and in the future. That is why, in our budget, we have committed to introducing legislation this year to ban the use of replacement workers during a strike or lockout in order to protect that very important right. That is just one of the many measures in budget 2023 that invests in Canada's workforce, because we know that the only way to realize our ambitions for the economy of tomorrow is to invest in Canadian workers. Whether they work in auto manufacturing, construction, aerospace, smelting or fisheries, our workers will lead the just, green transition that we want. Our budget focuses on them.

This budget builds on the foundations our government has built over the past few years to make life more affordable and create well-paying jobs. I would like to highlight a few lesser-known measures in the budget about which Canadians may not yet have heard.

Let me begin with one measure that would significantly support small business owners across the country. For small businesses, we have reduced credit card transaction fees that allow them to reduce their costs and improve their bottom lines. This will make a huge difference.

For Canadians who need to borrow, cracking down on predatory lending by lowering the criminal interest rate by over 25% will make a real difference.

For consumers, we are tackling junk fees in this budget. Those are added costs that make our bills higher. From extra roaming fees to excessive baggage fees, tackling these will make a real difference.

For workers, imposing fair labour requirements for clean-tech workers and extending employment insurance support for seasonal workers will make a real difference. For people looking to enter the trades or the job market for the first time, our doubling of the tax credit for tools will make a real difference.

For first-time homebuyers, the brand-new tax-free home savings account will make a real difference for those looking to purchase a home. For consumers, we are implementing a right to repair instead of being forced to buy new products when we do not have to. We are going to ensure that Canadians can repair what they have already bought. That is going to make a real difference.

For students, increasing Canada student loan grants by 40% and broadening the waiving of the interest on student loans will make a real difference for young people across the country.

For the third of Canadians who do not have dental insurance, our new Canadian dental plan will make a real difference.

We know that to deliver on and maintain these achievements, we need to address the looming climate crisis head-on. That is why we made the green transition the pillar of our budget 2023.

Our government's recent decision to update the social cost of carbon further underscores our commitment to solving this problem. This measure quantifies what every one of us knows, which is that every tonne of greenhouse gas emissions causes not only environmental damage, but also economic damage. This is an essential tool for conducting evidence-based cost-benefit analyses.

Although significant progress has been made, there is still a lot of work to be done to meet the target we set for 2030, namely reducing emissions by at least 40% below 2005 levels and achieving net-zero emissions by the middle of the century.

That is why our budget is focused on building the green economy of tomorrow. Our budget acknowledges the global shift to clean energy and the need to reduce our dependence on dictatorships for critical supply chains.

Unlike the Conservatives, we understand that we need to address climate change head-on, and this budget reflects that urgency with historic investments in clean technology, green infrastructure and renewable energy projects.

The thing I find most interesting about the debate around the price on pollution is that Conservatives used to be advocates for market-driven mechanisms as a means to address economic and social issues. In fact, they were in favour of a price on pollution. However, the new Conservative opposition is of a completely different ilk. It has decided that a price on pollution is not the way to go; however, we do not know what its plan is.

Our price on pollution relies on the power of the market to drive behavioural change and incentives. We would think the Conservative Party would be in favour of that. However, instead of embracing this market-driven mechanism, Conservatives have been laser-focused on demonizing pollution pricing while putting nothing else forward. This is not simply about safeguarding our planet for future generations; it is also about seizing the moment in this global race to attract investments in clean technology. According to the International Energy Agency, the global market for clean-tech manufacturing alone will triple by 2030. That is $650 billion per year.

This is an immense opportunity for Canada, and the government is seizing that opportunity.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, given the results of the vote, I guess this is a more valuable speaking slot now.

It is my honour to rise to bring the voices of Chatham—Kent—Leamington and, on the issue of Bill C-47 today, the voices of all Canadians to this chamber on the budget implementation act. Perhaps the single most important task performed each year by this House is the debate and the passing of the allocation of federal funds, or more accurately and specifically I should say it is the spending of taxpayer dollars.

It is our solemn obligation to responsibly steward the Canadian economy, a responsibility abdicated by the government. Therefore, it falls to my colleagues and I, as His Majesty's loyal opposition, to oppose and protest the adoption of the proposed budget. I know it is a shock.

The legislation would continue the government's war on work. The raising of taxes would punish the hard work of Canadians by taking an ever greater portion of their hard-earned paycheques away from them, which, in conjunction of the inflationary spending of the government, has seen the cost of living dramatically rise. Today, one in five Canadians are skipping meals, and over a quarter of food banks have seen their use doubled from historical norms.

To further insult the hard work of Canadians, the grocery rebate contained within the legislation would not even cover half of the inflationary costs of groceries purchased by the average family of four, not that expanding the rebate is the solution. One cannot tax and spend one's way out an inflationary cycle. It is due to the actions of the government that Canadians are struggling, yet its ill conceived answer to the problem of runaway spending is to raise taxes. Is it not the height of irony to give back to Canadians' money that was ripped away from them by the tax increases? Is it not further insulting to pretend these proposed rebates would solve the rising cost of living, which the government's spending has partially created?

These rebates would not return to Canadians the money taken from them, let alone cover the rising cost of living, which has already driven many struggling Canadians over the edge, nor would it address the underlying drivers of this inflation, namely the spending itself.

There is a well known adage that you have to spend money to make money. It is straightforward and easy to understand. However, left unspoken in that simple phrase is the understanding that one needs to invest money wisely and to make a profit, yet while the government loves to spend the hard earned paycheques of Canadians, it does not know how to invest.

The government, at the behest of the Prime Minister, over his tenure, has burdened Canadians with more debt than every single one of his predecessors combined. If members want to look at an example of failure to invest properly, they can just look at the track record of the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

Despite all that spending, there is no plan in place to balance the budget or control the inflationary deficits, which have driven up the cost of goods and, now, the interest Canadians must pay. Current projections of the government itself predict nothing but deficits far into the future. The national debt is likely to reach $1.22 trillion this year. Breaking that down into something Canadians can easily understand, that is nearly $81,000 per household in Canada. The cost of paying the interest on Canada's debt has nearly doubled since 2021 to a projected cost of $43.9 billion.

Again, despite all that spending, Canadians are worse off today than ever. The dream of home ownership has all but died for young Canadians, as nine in 10 believe they will never own a home. The minimum down payment on the average home has more than doubled across Canada under the government. The average cost of a mortgage has gone from $1,400 to more than $3,100. In 2015, the cost to rent a one-bedroom apartment was, on average, $973. Today it is $1,760. Prior to the Prime Minister taking office, the average Canadian only needed to spend 39% of their paycheque to make monthly payments on their house. Today, that number has risen to 62%.

By every objective measurement, things are more expensive, and Canadians are taking home less. Despite that fact, the proposed budget would only continue down the path of more spending while taking more and more from hard-working Canadians.

Returning to the issue of home ownership, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has stated that more than three and a half million new homes must be constructed before affordability can be restored. Conservatives demanded that the government include a provision in the budget to remove government gatekeepers to free up land and speed up building permits. However, as with every other common-sense proposal, the government turned a deaf ear to the plight of Canadians.

The government has even ignored its own promises and commitments. The Minister of Finance promised in this chamber one year ago that the government was “absolutely determined that our debt-to-GDP ratio must continue to decline. Our deficits must continue to be reduced....This is our fiscal anchor. This is a line we shall not cross. It will ensure that our finances remain sustainable.” Here we are a year later, and the Prime Minister has crossed that red line.

I have three commercial harbours in my riding. People in Chatham-Kent—Leamington understand that an anchor is not supposed to float. It is supposed to hold and remain fast, not float within a year of being uttered. It begs this question. What in this budget will be like that anchor, and we will be standing here a year from now describing that? What is going to float away over the next 12 months despite there being ample room to cut back on unnecessary spending?

Despite the pandemic being virtually over, government spending is still up $120 billion compared to prepandemic levels. In 2019, our program spending was $323 billion. The spending for this year by the government is projected to be $447 billion. Once again, it must be said that the government spends, it does not invest, all the while raising taxes as its unsustainable expenses continue to restrict and deny the well-being and future opportunities to our children and grandchildren.

From the work at the agricultural committee, we have heard from expert witnesses how food insecurity is a growing crisis. The typical disposal income spending for food in Canada has historically been around 9% of disposable income. It is now upward, closer to 14%.

Testifying at committee, Chief Byron Louis expressed how first nations communities had been devastated by the rising cost of food. Even first nations communities that are comparatively close to the Canada-U.S. border are having trouble, with many having to resort to food banks just to feed their families. It has even been more challenging for those who live in remote or northern regions. As costs continue to rise unabated, these communities will only have a harder time of it. It is an abdication of duty to allow this to continue.

The solution is simple. Reckless spending that the government refuses to address, let alone reduce, must stop. How can we continue to allow our children to go hungry in one of the wealthiest nations in the globe? Can we call ourselves a truly democratic nation if we let the most vulnerable go hungry? Where is the accountability? Simply ignoring the financial problems crippling Canadians will not make them go away.

As a farmer, I cannot begin to express how frustrating it is to hear that our children are going hungry because their parents cannot afford groceries. We produce more than enough food in Canada to feed Canada. It is the actions of government, the current government, that have seen the proliferation of food insecurity across our great nation.

It is abundantly clear that this food insecurity seen across Canada is the result of rising costs, not an inability of farmers or our food value system to provide. Instead, farmers are raising costs as a result of more taxes, the impact of the carbon tax on transportation and the rampant inflation affecting every input. Canadians are being priced out of their own grocery stores. It is a travesty and it must not be allowed to happen.

It cannot be stressed enough that Canadians are living in desperation, skipping meals, living in their parents' basements, unable to drive to work, falling into depression and even considering suicide because they cannot afford the bills imposed upon them over the past eight long years. This budget makes all those pressures, all those pains and all those costs even worse. This proposed budget cannot and should not be approved for the sake of every Canadian.

The House resumed from April 27 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.

Bill C-47—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, in a debate on Bill C-47, I confine myself to the contents of the bill. Much of the minister's speech and much of the debate in this place did not pertain to the budget itself. I am not criticizing any rulings or trying to get new rulings from the Speaker in terms of relevance, but Bill C-47 is in fact 429 pages of disparate pieces of legislative changes, and I have to say that I find nothing within Bill C-47 with which I disagree and much within the budget with which I disagree. I plan to vote for Bill C-47.

I wonder if the minister has any comments on how we are to proceed with fairly skeletal plans for changes to the Canada Elections Act to protect privacy information.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate what many members on this side of the House have been saying.

Constituents in the riding of Provencher are very concerned with the increased cost of living, and we have seen the government put a disproportionate amount of emphasis in this bill, Bill C-47, on environmental spending and green spending, which is something that needs to be debated more rigorously.

We also know the government has chosen to take $13 billion of taxpayer money and commit it to Volkswagen for an apparent green initiative. My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources, who tabled this motion. Many of these initiatives are going to require the mining of critical minerals and other minerals in order for them to be successful here in Canada. Is he prepared to move legislation forward that would remove some of the regulations and roadblocks his government has set up that make mining in Canada virtually impossible?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government is now moving to guillotine debate on its own budget bill, and there is really no reason to do it. The Standing Committee on Finance is already considering the budget bill at committee and has been for many days.

The only reason to do this is to completely shut down debate on a bill that many members, both in the Conservative Party and I am sure other political parties, want to debate to bring forward issues of concern from their ridings. I know people in my riding are extremely concerned about the cost of living crisis that this inflationary budget will only make worse as the government pours more gasoline on to the inflation fire. The Liberals have no plan whatsoever to actually balance a budget in any future budget year that is available in the document right now.

There was no reason to do this; the finance committee is already seized with the matter. It is already considering Bill C-47. The only reason to do this is to slam shut debate in the House of commons once again.

I will remind members that this government passed only one government bill to the next stage last week, Bill C-27. There were more private members' bills passed last week, and I am sure it will happen this week. This government has completely mismanaged the clock. It even has evening sittings and cannot pass government legislation on time.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

The Canada Business Corporations Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by commenting on the time allocation that was just imposed on us.

I just want to remind my colleagues in the House that the Standing Committee on Finance is already doing a pre-study of Bill C-47. It is progressing very well. Work is moving forward. We are sitting until midnight. This allows my colleagues who want to speak to Bill C-47 to do so. There was no need for the government to impose time allocation. This infringes on the rights of members of Parliament in the House. It is shameful.

What does my hon. colleague think of this?

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

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

Madam Speaker, regional flights are very expensive and with the increase in the cost of fuel, ticket prices have continued to increase over the past few years. Instead of proposing measures to make regional flights more affordable, Bill C‑47 is making them more expensive with a significant increase in the air travellers security tax for both international and regional flights. Prices will therefore increase.

What does my hon. colleague think about that? Would it not make sense to at least exempt regional flights from the tax increase?

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

Madam Speaker, we were expecting the government to use Bill C‑47 to eliminate the EI deficit that accumulated during the pandemic, but it did not. The Employment Insurance Act requires the EI fund to break even over a seven-year period. Ultimately, workers will have to pay off $17 billion through their premiums to wipe out the deficit.

The government covered all of the other pandemic-related deficits, but not this one. As my colleague from Montcalm said a few moments ago, in the Chrétien and Martin eras, the government took $57 billion from the fund.

Does my hon. colleague consider it fair to leave workers on the hook for this deficit?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know whether the government is investing based on events, but the passage of Bill C-47 will not be an event. To clarify, I would say this.

The government boasts about having invested a lot of money during the pandemic. However, had it taken the necessary precautions, it probably could have spent a lot less money.

We likely would have been able to save the lives of more people in long-term care if the national PPE stockpile had not been completely depleted and if we had had masks to protect the personal support workers who had to work in two or three different facilities to be able to make ends meet at the end of the year, because the federal government has been making cuts to health care transfers for 30 years. The chronic underfunding of health care weakened the system, which led to anomalies during the pandemic.

Yes, there is an obligation to make one-time investments, but if we want to make our health care systems strong again, then we need to make long-term structural investments to get results.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have a question for my colleague.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will resume second reading debate on Bill C-42, regarding the Canada Business Corporations Act.

On Monday, we will continue to debate Bill C-47, the budget implementation act.

On Wednesday, we will commence report stage debate of Bill S-5, regarding the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Tuesday and Thursday will both be opposition days. In order to assist the Table, I will ask my friend, the hon. Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, to confirm their designation following my statement.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-47, especially since I have here with me the Minister of National Revenue, who came just to hear my speech, as well as two of my loyal squires.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All right. Thank you.

My third, more technical, question is on dental care.

Bill C‑47 specifies that people covered by a private dental care plan—for example, union members covered by group insurance—are indeed excluded from the federal dental insurance program. Therefore, Bill C‑47 seems to send the message to unionized Canadians that they are not eligible for the Canadian dental benefit. Is that correct?

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

Thank you very much. My next question is regarding employment insurance, EI.

Bill C‑47 does propose some measures, but if you ask me, the most important one is not in there. During the pandemic, there were tremendous deficits and the government stepped in. One of the deficits brought on by the pandemic was in the EI fund, and we are asking the government to take charge of that deficit so that workers do not end up footing the bill with their premiums.

By law, the EI fund must be balanced every seven years. Given that Bill C‑47 does not include any such provision, can we infer that the government is choosing to pass on the bill for the pandemic EI deficit to those who pay into EI—the workers? Is that accurate?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My next question pertains to the former Bill C‑208, which dealt with the intergenerational transfer of small businesses. This bill came from the opposition. As we know, the purpose of the bill was to stop hurting family transfers by making it no less profitable for a business owner to sell to their children or family members than to a stranger.

The bill received royal assent, but the government then refused to implement it. Wayne Easter was chair of the Standing Committee on Finance at the time. The committee convened during the summer with the aim of reminding the government that it had to implement the bill. The government then said it would do so. However, many family farms and businesses in Quebec are still waiting to make these transfers because the Canada Revenue Agency has not yet directed accountants and lawyers on how to proceed. This has been going on for two years.

During last month's in‑camera meeting, we heard presentations on the budget's legislative proposals, which seemed to include a new law that would replace the old provisions and finally get the ball rolling. I couldn't believe my eyes, however, when I looked through the hundreds of pages in Bill C‑47 and saw that it was nowhere to be found.

Obviously, I'm not going to ask you any questions about the political choices at play here. I'll save those for the Minister of Finance when she decides to appear before the committee. That being said, are there any technical reasons that can explain why the implementation of former Bill C‑208 is not included in Bill C‑47? The bill received royal assent two years ago, the government has committed to implementing it, and we know from the budget documents that the bill is ready.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by sharing, as I usually do, what I like about the bill we are debating this afternoon, in this case, Bill C-47, which would implement some measures that were in the budget, many that would benefit people in my community.

I would like to share two examples.

The first is dental care, which is part 4, division 29. Bill C-47 takes meaningful steps to advance the new Canada dental care plan specifically by introducing the dental care measures act. The measures in Bill C-47 move toward dental coverage, starting for those who need it most, including uninsured Canadians under 18, people with disabilities and seniors who have a family income of less than $90,000. Those with average annual family incomes under $70,000 would have their dental visit covered by the federal government without any out-of-pocket costs.

Second, there is a provision to lower the criminal rate of interest, which is in part 4, division 34. Bill C-47 would amend the Criminal Code to cut the maximum allowable rate of interest to 35% from 47%, at least for alternative lenders, like EasyFinancial, for example. It is a positive step forward that I support, but, sadly, it does not include all companies like this, specifically, predatory payday lenders. Money Mart, for example, would still be exempt from this new rate cap. However, it is a step in the right direction.

In light of constructive measures like these, I intend on supporting Bill C-47.

I recognize this is in contrast to how I voted on the budget as a whole, which was against. Therefore, I would like share more, with the rest of my time, on why this was the case. In brief, it is because the budget does not meet the moment we are in.

I will start with housing, and the words of the Office of the Federal Housing Advocate, an advocate whose role was created by the federal government. It 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.”

Tim Richter from the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness said, “It’s clear that the federal government does not see the scale and urgency of these crises, and have offered no solutions.”

When I look at my community, the housing crisis has and will continue to define us. The number of people living unsheltered has at least tripled since 2018, as encampments continue to grow across our community. When we look at the cost of rent and homes, in 2022 compared to 2005, house prices had gone up 275%, while wages had only gone up by 42%. However, in this budget, there is almost no new investments in housing, and the one investment that was made, an important one in indigenous housing, is back-loaded, meaning the funding will not begin until future years.

There is also nothing to address the commodification of the housing market to move us back toward homes being places for people to live and not commodities for investors to trade. There is so much the federal government can and should be doing on this front.

One example of a sensible, simple measure I proposed is to end the tax exemptions for large, corporate investors, real estate investment trusts and direct the minimum of $285 million of revenue that this would generate to build the affordable housing that we need.

Next is on mental health. I will read the words of Margaret Eaton, National CEO of the Canadian Mental Health Association. She says, “The budget is out of touch with the reality of Canadians’ well-being and their ability to afford mental health services. I believe that the government has missed the mark, and that there will be deep human and economic costs to pay.” I feel the same way, and that is reflected in the stories I hear from people and organizations in my community.

Very specifically, the governing party ran on a campaign that included dedicated mental health funds. In fact, there were $4.5 billion, to be called the Canada mental health transfer, yet there has been some kind of a magic trick, because that has just disappeared in the time since, including again in this budget. At a time when people in my community need that support now more than ever we cannot separate the housing crisis from the reality of the mental health services that people need.

Third, when it comes to reducing poverty, one of the most effective ways to do that is to ensure we lift people with disabilities out of poverty. In fact, we could cut poverty by 40% if we followed through on promises for which the disability community have advocated, and that is to introduce the Canada disability benefit. Again, in this year's budget, the federal government chose not to do it.

We know that when the federal government is serious about moving ahead with a policy, it does not start with legislation in the way it did with the disability benefit; it starts with funding. It is what it did with child care, and it is what it is not doing here. It is unfortunate that we will continue to see people with disabilities living in legislated poverty because of this budget. The governing party chose to not move ahead with that as quickly as it should. Neither did the Liberals introduce an emergency response benefit for people living with disabilities.

When it comes to the arts community, I would like to share another quote with the members:

[Budget 2023] does not offer a vision for how Canada’s arts, culture, and heritage sector can contribute to the fight against existential challenges of our time....We are...disappointed there is no new funding announced...for critical areas like [modernization initiatives]...supporting repatriation...or helping create new Indigenous museums or cultural centres.

This is from the BC Museums Association. It reflects concerns in my community also, including organizations like the KW Symphony and Centre in the Square, which need all levels of government to step up. When demand has not returned to prepandemic levels, we need to be continuing to support arts and culture organizations across the country. Instead, in this budget, if it is not a festival or a federally owned national museum, there is nothing here.

Last, is with respect to climate. I will quote the UN Secretary General, António Guterres, who said, “the truly dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing the production of fossil fuels. Investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness.”

Even so, in this budget, at a time when the governing party says time and again it is committing to phasing out so-called unabated fossil fuel subsidies, it has introduced four new ones, including funding for drilling in the Arctic for more oil. At a time when we know we need to move with urgency to address the climate crisis we are facing, does it not make sense that we start by not subsidizing the very sector most responsible for the crisis at a time when its profits are over $38 billion among the five largest oil and gas companies across the country?

Julia Levin, the associate director of national climate at Environmental Defence, said:

Rather than finally delivering on the government’s promise to end fossil fuel subsidies, this budget throws more fuel on the fire by funneling even more public dollars into false solutions that serve to prop up the fossil fuel industry. Carbon capture and hydrogen are great for greenwashing oil and gas, but they won’t deliver meaningful emissions reductions.

She knows as well as I do that this is exactly what we need at this point in this critical decade when we have a chance to keep global average temperatures below 1.5°C.

I want to encourage all my colleagues here to push for measures that would address these significant gaps that I know are priorities, not only for people in Kitchener and in Waterloo Region but right across the country, when it comes to addressing the housing crisis, mental health, lifting up people with disabilities, investing in the arts and addressing the climate crisis that we are in, while also being mindful that there are important measures in Bill C-47 that we all should be supporting.

[Galen Countryman]

That's a very good question.

The government decided to table a bill expeditiously for those two things that are in Bill C-46. Then, as you know, it included the very same provisions in Bill C-47. The government will have to determine, based on which one passes first, how it will adjust how each one will take effect. If Bill C-46 does get royal assent before Bill C-47, then Bill C-47 will need to be adjusted accordingly to reflect that.

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

Thank you very much.

I just wanted to come back to division 8. I'm frankly surprised that there aren't any coordinating amendments, given that Bill C-46 was tabled well prior to Bill C-47.

I'm wondering what the decision-making process was around not including coordinating amendments, in the event that Bill C-46 passes expeditiously.

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

Thank you very much.

If Bill C‑47 goes forward, it will be implemented for 2024‑2025 payments. However, if these changes were implemented for the 2023‑2024 fiscal year, payments to provinces would decrease for Quebec and increase for Manitoba. Is that right? Would there be other consequences, for example, for Prince Edward Island or elsewhere in the Maritimes?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in this House and speak to budget 2023 and, more important, Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

The budget this year comes at a time when Canada had the fastest-growing economy in the G7 last year and is projected to be the second-fastest-growing this year and when we have near record-low unemployment rate, having created an additional 865,000 jobs compared to what it was before the pandemic. However, we know those lofty numbers do not mean much for a lot of Canadians who are struggling right now. We have had high inflation since last year, peaking in September at 8.1%. It is now down to about 4.3%, but that has come as a result of the work of the Governor of the Bank of Canada in raising interest rates. We know that many Canadians right now are struggling with the high cost of living.

That is why the budget would make some important investments to help many folks with affordability measures. Key to this is a new grocery rebate, which would help 11 million low-to-modest-income Canadians with up to $467 per couple to help with the rising cost of food. For students right now, as of April 1 of this year, we have eliminated all interest on student loans and we have increased the Canada student grants by 40%. We are also creating a new project and expanding a project to create automatic tax filing for Canadians, because we know it is really important for Canadians to file their taxes so they can get some of the benefits that I was just speaking about.

This budget would also make historic investments in health care: almost $200 billion over 10 years, which would be key for areas like mine, where access to a family health practitioner is a very big challenge. We are also expanding Canada's dental care program for families earning under $90,000. Last year, we started it with children 12 and under. This year, it would be for Canadians who are 18 and under and those over the age of 65. There are also some very important investments that would be made to tackle the opioid epidemic, which has struck B.C. very hard.

There are also some major investments in this budget in creating the good jobs of today and the good jobs of tomorrow. We know the world is rapidly transitioning to a cleaner economy, and that is why this budget would make significant investments in supporting renewable electricity projects right across the country, not just for the private sector, but also working with Crown corporations and provinces to do that.

There are new tax credits for clean hydrogen. I know this is going to be very important for companies in my riding like Quantum Technology, which is involved in projects for the purification and liquefaction of hydrogen. There are also some major investments being made in zero-emissions manufacturing. With the creation of new funds like the Canada growth fund, we would be able to crowd in private capital for projects just like the one that was announced last week with Volkswagen, to create a massive new battery-manufacturing plant in Canada.

Because it is National Tourism Week this week, I would be remiss if I did not mention that this budget would make some significant down payments on the launch of Canada's new tourism growth strategy. There is over $100 million that would go toward the regional development agencies to support local projects. There would be about $50 million going to Destination Canada to attract international events to Canada, and there would be investments made to speed up the operations at airports, including investments in improving the protection of passenger rights.

With that, I will turn to the budget implementation act, which is where the rubber hits the road on a lot of these measures.

I mentioned passenger rights. Right now, we have a backlog of about 30,000 people who are waiting for their cases of delayed flights or cancelled flights to be adjudicated. We would change the process that we utilize for this by switching the onus so that it is not on the travellers to prove that they should be refunded, but on the airline itself to prove that they should not. This would greatly speed up the process and get passengers the refunds they deserve.

As I am a British Columbia MP, there are a couple of areas of this implementation act that are very important to me. The issue of money laundering in B.C. has really been put in the spotlight with the Cullen commission, which the Province of British Columbia commissioned and which delivered its report relatively recently. This report highlights many of the vulnerabilities that we have in Canada in tackling money laundering.

Canada has the dubious distinction of being a haven for this, a process called snow-washing. It is because we have a system without the necessary checks in it and a very well-respected financial system. This budget implementation act would make some very important changes to help us better control this challenge. In particular, it would criminalize the operation of unregistered money services businesses; it would create an ability to freeze and seize virtual assets with suspected links to crime; it would improve the financial intelligence, information sharing and strategic analysis of FINTRAC; and it would create a new offence for structuring financial transactions to avoid FINTRAC reporting. Importantly, a commitment has been made to implement all of the recommendations that are listed by the Cullen commission.

These measures also dovetail to other measures that we are currently debating in this House. We introduced Bill C-42 to create a national beneficial ownership registry so we will know who are the people behind a lot of the numbered companies, which are sometimes using this to evade paying taxes, evade sanctions or do money laundering. Importantly, this system would work very closely with beneficial ownership registries that the provinces are implementing, where the vast majority of companies are incorporated. There is also a commitment made in this budget to work with provinces and territories to look at things like unexplained wealth orders, which would greatly enhance the tools that law enforcement has to be able to locate and seize assets that could be from proceeds of crime.

As I am a coastal MP, there are a number of measures in this budget that I was very happy to see, particularly the new vessel remediation fund and changes to the abandoned boats program. This measure was introduced in 2017 by my former colleague Bernadette Jordan, and it created a fund to clean up boats that had sunk to the bottom of the ocean and were polluting the ocean. This was incredibly important and actually removed a lot of boats from waters around my riding. However, we need to go a step further, because it is much more effective to take those boats out of the water before they sink rather than having to clean them up once they have already sunk.

In the budget implementation act, we are establishing a new vessel remediation fund, which would be boat owner-financed, to provide the resources so we can do some of this very important work. There would be the creation of an allowance for financing of preventative measures, such as voluntary vessel disposal activities, so that vessels at risk of becoming dilapidated, wrecked or abandoned can access funding to repair, secure, move or dismantle and sell them. This is very important because it would save a lot money, reduce the amount of pollution we are seeing in the bottom of our oceans and help a lot of folks I know in my riding, like Don MacKenzie, who, out of the goodness of his own heart, has taken it upon himself to clean these boats up.

I want to talk about something that I think we can all agree on in this House, and that is changes to the alcohol excise tax. As of April 1 this year, the alcohol escalator tax was supposed to increase by over 6%. Through measures that have been introduced in the budget implementation act, we have capped this at 2%. I know this will be a hugely important measure for the breweries in my riding, over a dozen, to be able to provide their products at a cost that is much lower than it would have been. It is really important that we do things like this and support small businesses, which, like all Canadians, are facing rising costs.

The last thing I will mention is that there is a commitment in the budget this year to lower the credit card swipe fees. There is an agreement with Visa and Mastercard to lower credit swipe fees by 27%. This would save businesses thousands of dollars. It is a really important measure to support small businesses in Canada, so they, in turn, do not have to pass on some of the additional costs they would face as a result of those credit card swipe fees.

With that, I would encourage all members of this House to vote in favour of this important piece of legislation so we can make some of these great changes and put them into effect.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to focus on something pretty fundamental. It is the difference between the budget, which I did not vote for because it failed to address the climate crisis, failed to address mental health issues and puts more money into fossil fuels, and this bill, Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, in which to my surprise, having read 429 pages, I did not find anything I wanted to vote against.

Yes, the change to the Income Tax Act that would allow CRA to share data to allow dental care to happen is part of Bill C-47, but a whole number of budget measures are not mentioned here. I wonder if, as an experienced parliamentarian, the member can help others, in this educational moment, to understand the difference between voting against the budget, which I did, and voting for Bill C-47, which I surprised myself by finding I am going to vote for.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise on Bill C-47.

First, I want to thank members here in the chamber and those who are not for supporting Bill C-248, my private member's bill on the Ojibway national urban park, which passed almost unanimously. I thank members for that.

It is good to talk about how this place can work. I have worked, at the industry committee, on a couple of Conservative bills, one from the member of Essex, and I am glad that this Parliament is continuing, because that work will continue. However, if we do not support the budget bill, it is very clear what happens. As I hear from many members from all political sides, what they say in the chamber and sometimes in public is not the same thing as we hear in private. They are glad we are not going to an election for a lot of reasons, and they will talk about that quite openly because the consequence would be losing all private members' legislation.

I have worked with a couple of Conservative members, in particular, on their private member's bill, which are quite good. They are excellent, and a good step forward in making a difference for Canadians. One is on affordability and one is on interoperability with regard to sharing information on farming and other things. Lastly, there is one related to tax incentives, which is important for a number of reasons.

I think it is important to note, as I start to think about why I am supporting this bill, that there are some things I do not like in a bill and there are things I do like in a bill. That has been the same for me in this place for over 20 years for any government that has come forward. It does not matter which one it has been, whether it was Jean Chrétien's when I first got here or, most recently, that of the member for Papineau, the current Prime Minister. There are certain things I do like and certain things I do not like in a bill. However, overall, I am pretty proud of the NDP being able to use this opportunity to get things passed that were defeated in the previous Parliament, whether it is dental care or more housing initiatives.

They are not all of the things we wanted and asked for, and we wanted other things to go with them, but we are 25 members moving this country forward. Also, imagine going through another election during a pandemic with no results and it costing hundreds of millions of dollars. The Speaker would have to go through another election for the Speaker position, and we would have all the rigamarole to get the House back in operating form, for probably a regular scenario like we have here.

I have seen in this chamber other political parties get a lot less or not do anything. I remember that during the Harper minority years, the Liberals supported Harper over 100 times without an amendment. Over 100 times they supported the government de facto, letting it operate as a majority government without any challenges. During that time, Harper brought in the HST, a new tax on consumers, and even taxed hospital parking lots, which are no longer taxed. I could go on with a bunch of things that happened with no resistance whatsoever from the Liberals at that time. We sat next to each other in the old chamber, and I remember asking why they were not doing anything about it. They said they did not want to be bothered right now. We bother because we have to fight for things.

When I got here, there were only 14 New Democrats, and we played our role, as anybody in opposition, in trying to hold the government to account for a lot of reasons, such as making change and so forth. Then, when Jack Layton joined us, there was a real change in where we were. With where we stand today, we want to make propositions as well as be in opposition. That is what Jack instilled in many of the members here today.

With the culture we now work in on a regular basis, we look at this as an opportunity to get what Tommy Douglas wanted. Tommy Douglas wanted eye care, dental care and pharmacare as part of the full package, and that is part of what drove us as New Democrats. It was the understanding that our freedom, our sense of well-being and our health are so critically important, not only to us and our families but also to the economy and society, that they should be the number one things protected. That is one of the reasons Tommy Douglas was voted the number one Canadian, with the population supporting him as Canada's favourite Canadian.

We are now realizing a part of that dream that never came to fruition. It is important to recognize that each province does have some elements of dental care and some elements that are stronger than others. However, this is not across the whole country from coast to coast to coast.

In the area I represent, I have a lot of child poverty and a lot of single mothers. A lot of people, including my own hygienist, do not have dental coverage. These things are wrong because they affect human health, everything from one's heart to wellness to how one feels as a person. This is all preventable.

This is money that goes back in the economy. Yes, it does cost the government money and there is a cost and expenditure there, but it is not a tax cut, which is something the Conservatives and the Liberals have done in the past. In fact, Stéphane Dion was arguing with I think Michael Ignatieff at the time about tax cuts not going deep enough and fast enough.

When there are a lot of U.S. corporations and taxes on worldwide profits, some of our industries send money back to Washington. Instead of doing that, I would rather invest in dental care, as an example, because it saves jobs and lowers the cost of jobs in Canada for foreign investment and other investment.

Earlier in the debate today, we talked about the Volkswagen plant that is coming in. I have been after a national auto policy and I do not want to see one-offs. I would rather see a strategic investment, especially when it comes to batteries and the platinum age of auto, which we are in right now. In the calculations to do the deal here is the cost of labour. When we look at the productivity of Unifor and other labour organizations in the auto sector, yes, their wages and benefits are a little higher, but they also produce significantly more and better than their counterparts.

On top of that, when there are programs with subsidies going to the worker instead of the corporation, we control those subsidies and those subsidies are not going off to other countries. They are staying here and are investing in people. Those people with those subsidies are better off regarding production and making sure we can be economically viable.

There is also the social justice argument, which should be a no-brainer. How anybody in this chamber can accept dental benefits for their own children but deny others the same thing is beyond me. I do not understand how they can come to this place and check that at door every single time. We know we get a privilege benefit from the taxpayers, but we tell them they cannot have that. By the way, we still have not fixed eye care. We do not have that either. That is wrong. We should lead by example, and leading by example means providing things that would be fair and balanced.

Coming from the border town of Windsor, Ontario, in Essex County, where we have to compete against American jobs every single day, I know from talking to executives that they want health care in this country because they know it means a lower production cost for their workers in the United States, Mexico and other places. It means less turnover and less loss of skills and abilities. Especially with an unemployment rate now of 4% to 5% and having a problem attracting workers, this is key. That is what dental care adds to the equation. It will also bring better stability at the bargaining table.

The government needs to get on this and help negotiate a settlement agreement for its workers, because we are not going to see any value in keeping the public service out right now. It is not going to pay off whatsoever, and the government needs to change that.

The point is that, yes, there is a surface cost to paying for Canadians to get dental care for themselves and their families, but it is an investment back in them, our communities and our economy versus a net loss. That is one of the reasons I will support this budget. It is going to complete at least one chapter of Tommy Douglas's dream.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is about the amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. In my opinion, they are a step backwards because they will encourage oil companies to take their time before addressing climate change. Let me explain. The carbon tax that large emitters pay is used to fund green projects in the province where it was collected. Right now, if the oil companies don't propose any green projects, they lose that money at the end of the year. Yet, Bill C‑47 invites them to take their time. If this bill passes, the money will be set aside for future use. Therefore, oil companies will not have to put a project in place in the same year. I would like confirmation of that.

I remind you that, if municipalities do not use the carbon tax money for infrastructure in the current year, they lose it. With Bill C‑47, this would not be the case for oil companies. I would like you to confirm that.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget.

I represent a riding with one of the highest child poverty rates in the country. Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have consistently left parts of the country like mine, northern Manitoba, behind, preferring to stand with their billionaire friends than communities like the one I come from, and communities in our region. I think in many ways this budget reflects that.

We have seen the slow pace at which the Liberals move when it comes to helping people verus the zeal that comes with standing with the billionaire class. Liberals have been in power for eight years, and it took New Democrats to force them to expand health care services and finally move to provide dental care services for millions of Canadians. New Democrats have made this call for years and now many seniors and young people will finally get access to the dental care they need.

We also know Canadians are struggling to put food on the table for their families in a way we have not seen in a generation. The reality is the current government is not doing enough. We know the GST rebate that will be sent to families will provide immediate relief for Canadians, and that is also something that is there because of the work of New Democrats. Let us be clear. If Liberals had it their way, none of these supports would have been included. While there is still more work to be done to deliver for the working class, if it were not for elected New Democrats in Parliament this budget would have been much worse.

Let us talk about what is not in the budget. New Democrats forced the government to help people, but we know there is so much more that must be done. Without this pressure by New Democrats, this budget would not have provided Canadians any sort of help, and they should know that New Democrats will always fight to get results for them.

One area that is very concerning is the lack of urgent significant investment in indigenous housing. The $4 billion over seven years for a co-developed urban, rural and northern indigenous strategy, starting in 2024-25, is not enough. We know that Liberals did not even want to put this much money in the budget, and it is outrageous that the money will only start flowing in the next fiscal year. Indigenous communities, first nations and Métis communities, like the ones I represent, need action now. The infrastructure gap facing first nations is at least $30 billion, and we suspect that number is much higher. The $4 billion over seven years is barely a drop in the bucket and will not do enough to end the inhumane conditions the current government, and governments before it, have forced indigenous peoples to live in.

When we talk about the housing crisis facing indigenous communities, let us be clear as to what we are talking about. In places like Shamattawa, Cross Lake and Tataskweyak, we are talking about dilapidated, overcrowded homes, with 12 people or even more to a house, with holes in the walls, mould in the corners and heating that does not work in some of the harshest climates in the country. If members of the House think that the amount of money in this budget for indigenous housing is sufficient, it is because they have never set foot on a first nation.

It is shameful that the government had to be pulled kicking and screaming to make even these small investments, and I challenge any sitting member who defends the indefensible to come to northern Manitoba, to visit Nunavut, to visit first nations in northern Ontario. The money is barely a drop in the bucket. It is no surprise coming from the Liberal government. It could not even budget for indigenous housing in its platform. It literally had no money for indigenous housing, the most extreme housing crisis in our country, in its platform. When people show us who they are, we should believe them.

The current government will continue to pay lip service to these commitments and do less than the bare minimum. Yes, it might say all the right things, throw in the word “reconciliation” a few times, but I have suspected for a long time that when it comes to indigenous peoples the government is satisfied making Canadians in cities feel comfortable, rather than making the real systemic change that would allow indigenous peoples and indigenous communities to actually have the right to secure and safe housing. We need real systemic change.

A great example of how the government is satisfied to tinker around the edges without materially improving the lives of people is how they are dealing with the Canada Infrastructure Bank, a Crown corporation.

To rewind a bit, over a year ago, I proposed legislation that would help communities like the ones I represent, first nations, Métis and northern communities, to access over $35 billion to take on the devastating impacts of the climate crisis in their communities. The Canada Infrastructure Bank, since its inception, has been an abysmal failure for Canadians but a success for the billionaire class. In our bill, we worked to fix that, and a lot of our solutions actually made it into this budget.

We called for the Canada Infrastructure Bank to prioritize the needs of northern and indigenous communities. At the time, the Liberals voted against that, but it is now in the budget. We called for the Canada Infrastructure Bank to prioritize funding projects that help us deal with the climate crisis. At the time, the Liberals voted against it, but it is now in the budget. We also called to end the corporate giveaway led by the Canada Infrastructure Bank by removing its privatization capacity. The Liberals voted against it. Curiously, this did not make it into the budget.

We see this repeatedly throughout the budget any time we deal with corporate profits. In 2021, as the richest companies in the country had record profits, they managed to push their tax rate lower, avoiding $30 billion in taxes.

The government knows about these loopholes. We have called on it numerous times to close them, because the reality is that the problem is getting worse. As Dr. DT Cochrane from Canadians for Tax Fairness pointed out, in the decade before the pandemic, “Canadian corporations claimed about eight cents of every dollar as pre-tax profit.” In 2021, that number was 12¢, which is unsurprising. Every time a for-profit corporation gets a hold of a dollar, it is compelled to siphon as much profit as possible.

What is equally unsurprising is that the Liberals refuse to do anything about it. If New Democrats were in power, we would bring in an excess profit tax to make sure that billionaires pay their fair share. It really highlights the issue with the Liberal Party and its repeated, utter refusal to do anything that upsets the status quo or upsets the capital class and the Liberals' rich and powerful friends.

This is why we are unsurprised that the budget is woefully inadequate when it comes to combatting the climate crisis. For the 2023-24 period, only $14 billion is allocated to climate-related spending efforts. This is insultingly low when compared with the 2% of the GDP we need to address the scale and magnitude of the climate emergency. Most of the spending in the Liberal budget is in the form of tax breaks and subsidies to corporations rather than direct investments in proven emissions reduction projects.

If we could solve the climate crisis through tax breaks to wealthy corporations, it would have already been done. Members can believe me on this: That is literally Liberals' only solution, which they try again and again.

We need to be real. The climate crisis is nothing to take lightly. Canadians need a plan that will funnel funds into publicly owned sustainable energy projects to reduce our carbon emissions in the long term. Such investments could be made in public transit, renewable energy projects and infrastructure that makes sense and protects our communities. What we have instead is the continued billion-dollar giveaway to big oil.

Why are the Liberals more concerned with preserving subsidies for big oil, which made record profits this year, than investing in a sustainable, green economy that will save lives? The government has always said the right things when it comes to the environment. It is an expert at greenwashing. Unfortunately, the government has always done the complete opposite. Continued support for the oil and gas sector hinders our progress towards a sustainable, low-carbon future.

I want to be clear on this: A New Democrat climate policy would involve investing public money in public carbon emissions reduction plans, such as public transit, decarbonized energy grids and renewable energy alternatives. This would be done at a much higher rate than is done in this budget, which carries with it an incalculable loss for future generations. The truth is that the current Liberal government lacks the imagination and, most importantly, the political will to seriously tackle the climate crisis head-on.

In closing, New Democrats are proud that we forced the Liberals to make some investments that would make a real difference to the people across the country. However, there is so much more that needs to be done, particularly when it comes to the most marginalized communities—

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

Thank you very much.

In the latest budget plan, the government is announcing large sums of money—$80 billion over 10 years—to support the energy transition and the green shift. Bill C‑47 gives us a worrisome idea of how the government intends to manage some of this money. Through legislative changes, the government wants to create two institutions that will be responsible for administering the money that the government plans to invest. This means that the money will no longer be controlled by Parliament and that unelected officials will be able to choose the projects they want to support without being accountable to anyone. We are also very concerned about the lack of clear criteria.

Do you have an answer that may reassure us?

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

Okay. We would appreciate a written answer.

Last Wednesday, the House fast-tracked Bill C‑46 after the report stage. Part of that bill includes an additional $2 billion in health funding for the provinces, with no strings attached. Now, this additional funding is also in Bill C‑47. If Bill C-47 is not amended to remove that portion, it would mean that the $2 billion in Bill C‑46 would be in addition to the $2 billion in Bill C‑47. Is that right?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to all the senior officials. Thank you for being here to answer our questions.

There are some very interesting exchanges this morning. I thank Mrs. Chatel for asking you about the fight against tax evasion and tax avoidance. We need to do more, and I also hope that Canada will do everything possible to fight this effectively by following international standards.

On Tuesday, I asked your colleagues to follow up with you on a question about division 31 of Bill C‑47, which enacts the Royal Styles and Titles Act, 2023. I thought it was quite odd that they would hide a reference to “Charles the Third, by the Grace of God” in a bill hundreds of pages long, near the end, in division 31.

Since I was not in Parliament the last time this happened, I asked your colleagues to pass on my question to you: How was this done last time? Was it hidden at the end of a budget implementation bill?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague stated, we keep repeating the same thing, but, there is no mention of regional flights in Bill C‑47.

Regional flights are out of reach. There has been a considerable increase in the price of fuel, and the price of flights continues to increase. Bill C‑47 would significantly increase the air travel security charge for both international and regional flights.

I want to talk about airports. When talking about regional flights, we must first talk about regional airports, and I would like to talk about the Val‑D'Or airport in particular. We have been asking for money for this airport, but have had no response from the minister. We keep repeating the same thing.

This airport is important for aviation safety. It is a hub for northern Quebec, and keeping it operating smoothly is actually a matter of life or death. There is nothing for the regions in this budget.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a point of order.

I acknowledge all the senior officials who are here and thank them for joining us.

In committee, we have recently been discussing the possibility of sending parts of Bill C‑47 to other committees for study. I would like to call on the Liberals, in this case Mr. Beech, who represents the government in this context, and ask him if he will propose to us by next Tuesday what parts of the bill will be assigned to other committees and what committees those are. If so, we look forward to that proposal. If not, we could work on a proposal.

I would also like to remind the folks at the Department of Finance that we asked for clarification on the Canada growth fund a few weeks ago. We wanted a breakdown of the budget by province and by sector. On the committee's behalf, the clerk sent a reminder to the department and received an acknowledgement, but we are still anxiously awaiting that data.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 86 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, April 20, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss the subject matter of Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, divisions 1 to 9, 32 to 34 and 37.

I will remind members that divisions other than those in part 4 will be studied at a subsequent meeting.

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

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of the floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. I remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as well as we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Members, we have 22 great officials with us today, as I understand it. I'd love to read out all their names and their titles and everything they do, but that would take a great deal of time, so they have chosen a spokesperson. Mr. Countryman is going to be speaking on behalf of the team of officials.

Just before we get to that, I do see a hand up.

MP Ste-Marie, go ahead.

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.

The House resumed from April 25 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.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-47, budget implementation act, 2023, No. 1.

I want to start, first, by explaining that Canada has probably been the most successful country coming out of COVID in the last two years. In the last year, we have seen the best and strongest economic growth in the G7, which is quite impressive.

Canadians had created 1.2 million jobs prior to the pandemic. Now we have recaptured that 1.2 million, and Canadians have created another 830,000 jobs. That is over two million jobs in the last five years. I would say that is very impressive.

Yes, we are facing inflation, which is a challenge the world is facing, but in the last month inflation has come down from 8% to 4.2%. The banks and economists are saying we are going to be down to about 3% by September. That is quite impressive as well.

We know there are challenges. We know the banks raised the interest rate, which is putting more pressure on individuals and Canadians, yet the unemployment rate is at a record low, which is extremely important.

What we have seen as well with unemployment is the fact that we brought forward the learning and child care program. We have seen a lot more women joining the workforce, which has shown us at a record high of 85.7% of women between 25 and 55 years of age participating in the workforce.

This budget targets inflation relief, strengthening public health care and dental care, the clean economy, and of course, maintaining our lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.

The grocery rebate is directly helping 11 million Canadians. It is extremely important. A family of four is receiving about $467. Single Canadians are receiving about $234, and seniors are receiving $225. That is for low-income Canadians who are receiving the GST, of course.

For students, we are increasing the student grant by 40% and raising the interest-free Canada student loan limit so we can be of help on that end as well.

There have been various programs for seniors. I just mentioned the grocery rebate for those with low incomes. We also increased the OAS and GIS, which will grow by 30% by 2027-28. That is about $20 billion a year in increases, so that is direct support for seniors to ensure they are able to enjoy their retirement.

In the riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, there have also been investments, like in the Beaverbank Kinsac Lions Club, which received $25,000 for upgrades. Also, the Sackville Seniors Advisory Council received $25,000 for programming. Those are direct investments into the riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

On the housing front, which is extremely important, for first-time homebuyers, young people, there is a new tax-free savings account, which will allow them to save $40,000 tax-free over, I believe, about seven years. This is tax-free going in and tax-free coming out for first-time homebuyers, which will be a very good investment and definitely a major help to young people.

It is also creating more flexibility around existing mortgages by extending amortization payments, adjusting the payment schedule or even authorizing lump sum payments. In the riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, there have been some successful housing projects in the Chezzetcook area, the Lake Echo area and the Preston area.

Under the economy, industry and competitiveness for the green economy, which is a focus of our government, there are tax credits that will entice, invite, encourage and build on green electricity. We will see a 15% tax rebate on clean electricity. We will also see up to 30% in tax credits for machinery or equipment used for manufacturing or processing clean technology. The cleanest, hydrogen, will get up to a 40% rebate, which is encouraging. We know that Canadians will move forward on those major initiatives.

Through the Canada Infrastructure Bank, we have invested up to $20 billion for major projects in electricity and clean growth, and for those in Ontario, we have seen a major project, which is a game-changer, in the Volkswagen battery manufacturing, which will be an asset for the workers and people in Ontario.

I will quote the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters: “CME welcomes #Budget2023 and the initial steps it takes to respond to the US Inflation Reduction Act...drive net zero transitions, improve labour shortages, and alleviate and supply chain disruptions.” That will also be an asset.

There are also industry-targeted investments we have for our space industry, our forestry industry and our tourism industry. We know our tourism industry took a major hit during COVID. We need to support our communities, so they can have more ways of attracting more tourists to their communities and also invest in bringing more international investment in conventions and events in our regions.

With that, of course, I cannot go without mentioning the investment in Michelin, the tire plant in Nova Scotia. It has three plants, of course, and the Bridgewater one is where they are going to modernize and also create innovative technology for tires to be more efficient, including the electric vehicle tires. Of course, they will cut on emissions, which will mean more jobs and a reduction to the environmental footprint of our economy.

We have also seen some reductions and savings, of up to $15 billion over five years, by reducing spending on consulting firms. There will be a 3% reduction for each department right across the government and $6 billion in savings over six years through the realignment of former announcements.

I do need to touch on a couple of key things. Health care is extremely important in Nova Scotia. We had been receiving $3.5 billion over 10 years. Now, we will be receiving $5 billion, which is $1.5 million, or a third, more. That would be very helpfully invested in home care, long-term care, dental care, oral health care, major doctors and nurses, and also in promoting initiatives to bring them to rural and remote communities.

Our workers are very important, and one of the things I want to talk about is the doubling of the tradespeople tool deduction from $500 to $1,000. I have heard many tradespeople tell me that was something they wanted. Also, I think a very important initiative is the employer ownership trusts, which mean there would be tax changes to allow private owners to sell to their employees the shares in the business, which would make them directly engaged in the challenges, but also the profits as well.

Our student work placement program is creating quality work-integrated learning opportunities. I will share with members that there is an announcement we had in Nova Scotia not so long ago of the Nova Scotia Apprenticeship Agency's START program, which sees many students who are learning on the ground as well as in their institutions.

There are many other investments, of course. The one I want to talk about is the investment in veterans to reduce backlogs once again. We already reduced the backlogs by 70%. We want to bring that down to 0. Also, we will continue to support our veterans through various services. There are some investments in my riding, of course. The Royal Canadian Legion branch in Waverley would receive $159,000 for a roof replacement, and the one in Eastern Passage would receive over $21,000 for renovations as well.

There is lots of investment, of course, in Atlantic Canada, in the Coast Guard, the ferry services, protecting our fresh waters and the Atlantic loop, which would help Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and others.

In closing, very importantly, I want to thank the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister. I also want to thank all Canadians who contributed to the success of this budget, because it is a budget for Canada.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is something quite interesting in Bill C-47 that has passed under the radar because it is hidden in a pile of measures. In division 31 of the bill, which is in part 4 and on page 325, the government introduces a measure that has absolutely nothing to do with the budget. It is asking us to recognize Charles the Third as King of Canada through an amendment to the Royal Style and Titles Act. It is not clear what that has to do with anything.

Furthermore, currently, any time a government makes an order in council appointment, as is the case here, that individual may be called before a parliamentary committee to verify their qualifications. My question for my colleague is this. Does he think that Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, should be called before a committee to verify his qualifications?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-47, the budget implementation act.

Before I begin my speech, I hope my colleagues will humour me while I take a brief moment to wish my daughter, Maddie, a very happy 16th birthday.

There is a lot in this bill, of course, and I want to start by providing a few words about dental care, which is the most significant, optimistic and powerful policies contained within this legislation. I hear all the time from seniors, young families and people who do not have dental insurance and cannot afford to get their teeth fixed. They are so excited to see dental care finally coming in this bill, and it cannot come soon enough. It is the most significant expansion of public health care in a generation. It is going to make a difference for some nine million Canadians, including folks in Skeena—Bulkley Valley in the beautiful northwest of British Columbia, which is the area I am so proud to represent.

Today I want to focus on the portions of Bill C-47 that deal with air passenger rights. As the NDP's transport critic, this has been my preoccupation over the past year or so. It is something we studied at the transport committee and it is something the Minister of Transport has chosen to slip into this budget implementation act in order to, what he claims, finally fix air passenger rights in this country.

The Liberals brought in their air passenger protection legislation back in 2019. The former minister of transport brought it in to great fanfare. He claimed that it was going to be a world-leading approach and that air passengers were finally going to have a government that would have their backs, yet what we have seen over the past four years has been anything but world-leading.

We have seen thousands of Canadians put in extraordinarily difficult situations by the big airlines. We have seen passengers sleeping on airport floors. We have seen families having to miss much-awaited vacations and trips. We have seen people out thousands of dollars. This system the Liberals claimed was going to be world-leading and was going to have air passengers' backs has really left people in a lurch.

What we see before us in Bill C-47 is the government's third attempt at fixing this problem. Of course, this problem exists because the big airlines make commercial decisions that delay and cancel flights and leave passengers picking up the slack. What we have seen in other parts of the world, particularly in the European Union, are effective approaches that get passengers compensation when that happens, and yet the approach we have seen here in Canada has not succeeded in protecting air passenger rights.

In fact, right now there are over 44,000 complaints before the Canadian Transportation Agency. Who are these folks? These are the most determined air travellers. I say “determined” because they have the fortitude to navigate not one but two complaint processes. Under the Liberals' current system, not only does a passenger need to complain to the airline and wait 30 days for a response, but when the airline almost inevitably declines their claim for compensation, they need to file a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency and then wait in line while this very complex bureaucratic and expensive process runs its course. Right now the wait time to proceed through that complaint process is over a year and a half.

As I said, the transport committee has been studying this issue. We heard from the leading consumer advocates working on air passenger rights in this country. We heard from all sorts of witnesses and put together a report with a whole host of recommendations aimed at finally bringing Canada's air passenger protection regime up to the standards set by the European Union.

I also had a chance, about a month ago, to table in this place a private member's bill, Bill C-327, the strengthening air passenger protection act, which aims to lay out in legislation precisely which changes are required to create a robust regime of air passenger protections in this country. Then the Minister of Transport brought forward his proposed changes, this third attempt at fixing air passenger protections.

I want to start by giving credit where credit is due. There are a couple of things in this new approach that have been called for fairly consistently by advocates and by me through my private member's bill. One is increases to the fines within the legislation that can be levied against airlines that continue to break the rules and not award compensation as they should. There are other pieces in the legislation, particularly around delayed baggage, that have also been called for, so there are a couple of things the minister got right.

One of the key concerns with Canada's current system is a loophole that exists in the Canadian Transportation Act. Unlike the European system which sets out a very simple two-category classification system for flight disruptions, our system has three categories. In Europe, disruptions, which are cancellations or delays, are considered either ordinary disruptions, such as things that fall within the reasonable influence of the carrier, or extraordinary disruptions, things like major weather events, acts of terrorism or recalls by the airplane manufacturer. Nobody is suggesting that airlines should be held accountable for factors entirely outside of their influence, but we have been seeing airlines deny compensation for factors within their influence that cause delays and cancellations, such as making sure they have enough crew to fly the flights, ensuring the aircraft are properly maintained, and ensuring their computer system is working properly.

This bill was intended to fix that. Everyone knows this loophole exists. It has been a matter of much conversation and debate. The minister claims to have fixed this loophole in the legislation that is before us. I do not see it. When I look at the section of the Canadian Transportation Act where this loophole exists, I see those same three categories.

The category that is particularly problematic here in Canada is the category of disruptions that are within an airline's control but are required for safety reasons. When we are talking about companies that fly passengers around in aluminum tubes at 30,000 feet, I think pretty much everything related to that industry is related to safety. The issue here is that airlines are making decisions within their sphere of influence that are causing real hardships for air passengers. In those cases, passengers should be compensated and treated well.

There are other things in Bill C-47 around air passenger rights that are very concerning. I had a chance to speak to this earlier today. One aspect is essentially a gag order on passengers who pursue complaints through the Canadian Transportation Agency. It states:

All matters related to the process of dealing with a complaint shall be kept confidential, unless the complainant and the carrier otherwise agree”.

If Canadian air passengers file a complaint with the CTA , go through its resolution process and are not happy with how they are treated or the outcome, this legislation is going to prevent them from talking about it. If the minister is truly proud of this system he has put forward, why is he silencing the people who will be using it? It is incredible.

We are at a point now where the minister has claimed to have closed the loophole. He and I have had this conversation. He said that a lot of it will be forthcoming in regulations, which we have not yet seen, sort of like the answer to my questions will be self-evident over the next rise. He is empowering the CTA with a tremendous amount of discretion over this process instead of making the changes in the legislation itself. That is the process we wanted to see, yet what we see falls well short of that mark.

Another issue we see is with respect to transparency and the amount of information the CTA provides. We think the amount of compensation paid through this complaint process should be part of the disclosure. That is something we will be working on when it comes to amending this bill.

I will end with this. Canadians deserve real protections that are easy to navigate and get them their compensation. That is what we will keep fighting for.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to a subject that could have been a source of hope for Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet, but that is not the case.

Sadly, this discussion is just a formality, since the costly and socialist NDP-Liberal coalition has control over the government for the next few years. In fact, that is how things will stay until the Conservatives are in power and give Canadians hope of regaining control over their wallets.

Until then, we can rise in the House, as I am doing, to criticize the mismanagement of public funds and oppose things that make no sense, such as budget 2023 tabled by the Government of Canada on March 28.

This discussion is important because it allows us to highlight the concerns of my Conservative colleagues, as well as the proposals being made on our side of the House to provide real help to people who are struggling because the Liberals do not understand the stress Canadians are under. If they really understood, they would have proposed a budget that made sense.

I am speaking here in a rather sombre economic context, namely Bill C‑47, the budget for 2023. It is hard to overlook the record rates of inflation we have been enduring in the past few months. I have been talking about this here in the House of Commons for three years now. The Minister of Finance told me that this was just a temporary situation, but, unlike her, I have always believed that we are dealing with structural inflation.

Structural inflation is caused solely by an abnormally rapid increase in the quantity of currency in relation to the country's volume of production. Since 2015, Canadians have been subjected to reckless Liberal tax policies which have led to a significant increase in government spending, at a time when that was not what the economy needed at all. The Liberals injected money into sectors that were doing well. Indeed, in my riding, entrepreneurs were telling me that they were taking the money because it was being offered to them, even though they did not need it. No one understood why the government was spending so much. Today, the result is clear. Inflation always catches up with the culprits.

I thought that the budget would include some fiscal restraint and a target year to achieve a balanced budget, but no. There was talk of 2027, but not anymore. The Liberals have completely eliminated “balanced budget” from their vocabulary. A return to balance seems all but impossible now. They think that money grows on trees. They open the tap and money flows out by the bucketful. Except that, in reality, in the real world, that is not how things work. The Liberals should review the principle of cause and effect. The cause is printing money to excess. The effect is inflation being where it is, the worst in 40 years.

The Liberals have plunged Canadians into an inflationary abyss. The Prime Minister has caused the highest rate of inflation in 40 years by doubling the national debt and increasing our debt more than any other prime minister in the history of Canada. What are the consequences? The cost of living for ordinary Canadians is rising. The cost of groceries is skyrocketing, as is the cost of gas. According to a recent poll, 74% of Quebeckers say that they are struggling to pay for their daily expenses such as groceries, gas and necessities. We are talking about workers who get up every morning to go to work so they can put food on the table for their families. We are talking about hard-working people who did everything they were told to do. They are no longer able to make ends meet because the Liberals have been totally irresponsible with the public purse for the past eight years. Furthermore, these workers' paycheques are shrinking because all the money goes to taxes, and now they are being told that this budget will represent $4,200 in additional costs for every household in Canada. Honestly.

I know that the Liberals are going to tell me about their grocery rebate, so let us talk about it. It is only a marketing ploy, because the grocery rebate is nothing more that the doubling of the GST. They should stop presenting it as a revolutionary idea. There is nothing new about it.

As we can see, there are numerous problems with this budget. The important thing to take away from this budget is that workers have been left behind, and they are not being compensated for their work. The Conservatives want to make work pay again by cutting taxes.

As for workers being left behind, I do not have to go very far to see a concrete example. I need only think of the workers at the Olymel plant in the riding of my colleague and friend from Beauce. These workers will be out of a job in the next few months, since the company has announced that it is closing the largest hog slaughterhouse and meat processing plant in Quebec. We are talking about 1,000 jobs lost in a municipality of 2,000 people. Once again, the government is in no hurry to act. Worse still, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food cannot be bothered to even mention it. It just goes to show that the Liberals are not there when Canadians need them.

In addition to the Liberal war on labour, there is also the issue of critical minerals. This issue is important in my riding. I am thinking particularly of the need to add phosphate to the list of critical minerals as soon as possible. I have been asking for this for a number of years in the House, as well as at the Standing Committee on International Trade, of which I am a member.

That is why I was anxious to see what the government was proposing in this budget for critical minerals. A passage on page 92 states, “In the past year, the federal government has taken action to fast-track the assessment of mining, energy, and other major projects”.

I would like to clarify that I hope the government does not really believe what it is saying there. Let us think about GNL. The government did not send a strong signal on this project. Hundreds of billions of dollars in investment projects were lost under the Liberal government because of its lack of leadership and because of Canadian taxation and Canadian regulations, which are not conducive to a good investment climate.

In the section of the budget that deals with major projects, there is $1.3 billion in funding over six years starting in 2022-23 for major project assessments and $10.6 million in funding to help critical minerals companies get permits and approvals. Sometimes the Liberals take us for fools. How can we trust the Liberals when it comes to meeting a deadline? This six-year time frame is far too long, and we know it will take longer than six years. The possibility of mining critical minerals like phosphate and the feasibility of using them in batteries will end long before that.

We need to give a helping hand to projects that are already well under way and that have already received authorization, such as Arianne Phosphate in Saguenay. We are a long way from that because, as I said before, the budget makes no mention at all of phosphate. We know how much it is needed for lithium iron phosphate batteries, which have many advantages, such as their longer life span, better charge efficiency and lightweight nature. Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean is home to the Arianne Phosphate mining company, which has one of the largest deposits of phosphate in Canada. The phosphate is also very high quality.

As I said, I am a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, where I have often had the opportunity to talk about the usefulness of critical minerals in the economy. The findings of studies on batteries, particularly for electric vehicles, are always the same. In Canada, there is a real problem with regard to the cost and the time between discovery, extraction and production. Canada is currently extracting critical minerals for the new battery economy, but it is exporting them abroad for the manufacturing of finished products. How is it that Canada has still not developed a battery manufacturing chain, given all of Quebec's electrical expertise? I think that a big part of the answer lies in Canada's tax competitiveness and the government's top-down regulations.

In sum, this budget fails workers in every sector. Canadians are sick of being bribed with one-off cheques. We need to address the source of the problem instead of handing out cheques here and there. This waste of public money needs to stop. Canadians have had it with watching their money being thrown out the window by the Liberals. Week after week, we keep learning more about scandals involving taxpayers' money. Just look at the huge contract awarded to McKinsey. The government gave $120 million to consulting firms, representing $1,500 an hour in fees.

Time is running out, so let me say that a Conservative government will put Canadians first by stopping unnecessary spending and waste and by lowering taxes. Let us bring back common sense—

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.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about Bill C-47, the budget implementation bill.

In theory, it is a budget implementation bill. We would expect such a bill to contain budget measures. In reality, that is not exactly the case, because this bill that we are currently seized with is a 430-page bill that amends 59 acts. That is a lot. It is a big bill that the government has decided to cram with as much stuff as possible so that the House does not have time to debate and study it properly.

It is a shame, because there is a lot in this bill that we would have liked to debate. There are a lot of things we would have liked to study, but unfortunately, the bill is so big that it is difficult to do that job properly. It is also unfortunate that it is not simply about the budget. Rather, it is a bill that deals with a bunch of other matters.

If we at least had the opportunity to discuss the budget, and only the budget, that would have been fine. There is much to say about the federal budget. As some of my colleagues have already mentioned, the Bloc Québécois had very specific requests for the federal budget that unfortunately were not answered.

For starters, there was the issue of increasing health transfers, which is critically important. Everyone agrees that there is not enough money, not enough funding for the provinces' health care systems. For example, we would like the federal government to fund 35% of system costs. That is not the agreement that was reached with the provinces. The agreements with the Quebec government were disappointing. Even the Quebec government said that it signed the agreement with a knife to its throat. It is a shame, because it is reflected in the budget. A pleasant surprise would have been nice, but we did not get one.

We would have liked to see an increase in old age security starting at age 65. We are faced with a staggering increase in the cost of living. Everyone is struggling, everyone is having a harder go of it, but workers have an advantage over retirees. They can go to their boss and ask for a little more money because it costs more to feed their family and to get to work. Retirees do not have that power, and the government should have listened to them.

When I walk around my constituency, I get told the same thing every day. Seniors tell me that it is insulting to receive pension increases of $1, $1.10, or $1.50 a month. What are they going to do with that? It makes absolutely no difference in their lives, and they feel like they are being laughed at. That is what the federal government is doing to our seniors, and it is really sad to see. The message it is sending is that they are not important.

The Bloc Québécois also expected to see the employment insurance reform that the Liberal government has been promising for years. There is no sign of it yet, but they tell us it is coming. This government has been in office for almost eight years, but the much-touted EI reform has still not happened. However, there were consultations. We saw lots of consultations but not a lot of results. Unemployed workers are getting impatient. Regional workers who are grappling with the spring gap are getting really impatient.

What it comes down to is that this government is not interested in anything the Bloc Québécois requests, because it has an agreement with the NDP to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Consider the dental care plan, a matter that falls squarely within the authority of the National Assembly of Quebec, since health is exclusively a provincial domain. The federal government waded right in, with the NDP at its side.

That is how we ended up with a budget that does not make any sense and that does not meet the needs of Quebec, that does not meet people's needs. What is worse, as I said before, the Liberals are taking advantage of this opportunity to include a number of measures in the bill that have nothing to do with the budget.

Speaking of measures that have nothing to do with the budget, we got a big surprise when reading division 31 of part 4 of the bill, which is found on page 325. It states that we recognize Charles III as King of Canada by amending the royal titles. This is a budget implementation bill. Do we need to recognize Charles III as the new King of Canada for the budget to work? Is the King is costing us too much money? Is that why the government decided to include that in the budget implementation bill? I do not really understand what that is doing in there.

The Liberals did not mention this at all in the budget speech. Not a word was said about Charles III. It seems as though the government was trying to pull the wool over our eyes. It made sure that there would be no debate about the monarchy. The Liberals know that there are members on the other side of the House who do not like the monarchy and who do not identify with it. Most of the population is opposed to the monarchy in Canada. The Liberals therefore hid that somewhere in the 430 pages of the budget so that no one would talk about it. Unfortunately for the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois is here to talk about it and to say that people do not agree with this and that it is not going to fly.

The ascension of King Charles III should not be formalized in this bill. It should be done in a separate bill so we can have a debate about it as a society. A provision on Canada's head of state has been buried somewhere in the 430 pages of the budget. One would almost think that the Liberals are ashamed to be monarchists or to be part of a monarchy. I can think of no other reason why they would bury this in the budget. It does not make sense. A provision about the head of state is buried at the bottom of the budget. Personally, I would like to be proud of my head of state. I would put it at the forefront and explain how important it is to me. Unfortunately, I am not proud that my country is a monarchy or that it is governed by the Liberal Party.

There are other things in this bill that I find quite relevant and that I would like to discuss. Once again, they are mentioned in the budget, but I do not really understand what they have to do with the budget. These are measures for passengers. It is sad, because it would have been really good to talk about these issues. During the pandemic, it was evident that there was a major problem with rules protecting passengers in this country. The government admitted it, even though it was in denial for so long. Its air passenger bill of rights was a complete failure. The government said that it was because of the pandemic, but, ultimately, the same problems occur season after season. It has nothing at all to do with the pandemic. It is because of the government's incompetence and failure to listen. When the government came out with the air passenger bill of rights, it did not listen and did not do the work properly.

The government is now trying to fix things. That is a good thing, but this deserved a completely separate bill, outside of the framework of the budget, so the matter could have been discussed properly. I hope that we will have the opportunity to discuss this in detail instead of talking about it for just a few minutes along with the other 430 pages.

A drastic change needs to be made for passenger rights. I understand that the government wants to address the issue, but this needs to be taken seriously. We welcome the changes. Sadly, I do not have a lot of time to talk about this during my speech. I would have liked to talk about it for 10 or 20 minutes, even half an hour. We could have invited witnesses to committee to discuss this and see how we might do more to help passengers. This would have enabled the government to introduce a better bill to better protect passengers.

Unfortunately, all I can say is that I am glad the burden of proof has been reversed. The bill ensures that the airlines will have to cover some of the cost of dealing with complaints. The agency's decisions will be more transparent. Carriers will be forced to respond to people more quickly. These are all good things. The compensation categories are staying the same, but under the bill, passengers will be entitled to compensation for any flight delay or cancellation. These are good things, but why were they not introduced in a separate bill?

Why did the minister end up hastily organizing a press conference one morning to make this announcement? Since people might have missed a small item about air passenger rights in this huge 430-page bill, the minister made his announcement at a last-minute solo press conference. He would have liked people to talk about it, but his government did not have the time for it, so he hoped that this would do the trick.

That is sad, because the government does not do its job properly. Its work is shoddy and half-baked, and we will live with the consequences for many years. When addressing such an important matter, the government needs to take it seriously and do it right by introducing a real bill so we can have a real debate and find a lasting solution. Then we would not have the same problems we experienced with the passengers' bill of rights that was implemented by the government and by former minister Marc Garneau in 2019. There was a whole host of predictable problems that could not be corrected.

I hope that the government will listen to us and do the right thing as we move forward.

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

Thank you.

Since Bill C‑208 was introduced, we have been getting calls every week from owners of farming businesses and family farms who are postponing transferring their businesses to their children so as not to be penalized from a tax perspective.

I now understand that the rules concerning these transfers do not appear in the current implementation bill, but that could be the case in the fall.

Thank you for your answer, even if it doesn't make me happy.

I am going to come back to a subject addressed earlier, the duplication of the GST credit adopted in Bill C‑46, also called the “grocery rebate”, which is better from a marketing perspective.

Assuming that Bill C‑47 is adopted by the end of the parliamentary session, how would Bill C‑46 speed up payment of this GST cheque?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm eager to see this important international 15% minimum income tax measure implemented, so I thank Ms. Chatel for raising this issue.

Obviously, I also thank the Biden administration for proposing it to the international bodies.

Regarding Bill C‑47, the implementation bill, do the rules governing the transfer of family businesses appear in the first three parts or in the fourth?

[Gervais Coulombe]

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

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

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Bill C-47 introduces a crackdown on predatory lending by bringing the criminal rate of interest from the equivalent of 47% annually down to 35% annually.

How will this measure help Canadians avoid crippling debt cycles? Can you please explain that?

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-47.

First, I would like to salute my constituents in Thérèse‑De Blainville. I have not done that in a while. I salute them because when I am not here in the House, it is always a pleasure to meet up with them back home to talk about the challenges they face and see all the work they are doing every day for the community. It is wonderful.

Among other things, these days, I make a point of visiting seniors in their homes to talk about their concerns in the current economic context. This relates to the budget, of course. Seniors are as worried as everyone else about inflation.

They are also worried about being able to afford housing, which is very important. Seniors may have gained a nest egg by selling their home, but now that they are living in a residence, they are exhausting the little bit of money they have left. Some of them are worried, while others are even thinking of moving and are anxious about finding affordable housing.

Seniors are also concerned about their health. They asked me what is going on with the Canada health transfers. All that is to say that their concerns are real.

I would remind the House that the Bloc Québécois voted against the budget. We explained to seniors why we voted against it. Bill C‑47 is a translation of the budget. As my colleague was saying, this omnibus bill is more than 400 pages long and fixes 59 pieces of legislation. It is so complex, it makes my head spin. The government promised it would no longer introduce huge bills like this one that make us lose focus.

What is more, Bill C‑47 paves the way to recognizing King Charles III, which is rather mind-boggling. What a circus. I did not need to tell everyone I meet about this, because it is significant. This is what the government is focusing on when there are bigger fish to fry.

The Bloc Québécois has always said that it is here to stand up for and promote the interests of Quebeckers. We will vote in favour of what is good for them, and we will vote against what is not good for them. If that happens to be good for all Canadians, then that is good as well.

My approach to analyzing the budget is based on the definition of social safety net. A government that has a vision, that claims to be democratic, progressive and supportive of workers, should have made sure to correct certain inequities in its budget.

What is the social safety net? I am not going to give an introductory course on the subject. I am sure that people know that the social safety net is a set of social programs and public services that offer support to citizens. Two of those social programs fall exclusively under the federal government's jurisdiction. They are old age security for seniors and the employment insurance system for workers.

There is nothing in this budget about old age security. It simply maintains the discrimination that was created in the previous budget by increasing old age security only for those over the age of 75. What is the difference between a 73-year-old senior and a 75-year-old senior? There is no justification for it.

Rather than investing in jurisdictions that are in no way its responsibility, the federal government should spend money to strengthen its social programs.

With regard to seniors, Canada ranks near the bottom of all OECD countries in terms of income protection for seniors. This social safety net needs to be strengthened, and yet no mercy is being shown.

This is all to say nothing of the broken promises regarding the EI system. We have lost count of them. There is no excuse for the government's failure to state its intention in the budget to reform employment insurance once and for all. It needs to be modernized in line with the current labour market. It needs to be brought up to date and out of the last century. An employment insurance system acts as an economic stabilizer. It needs to guarantee workers who lose their jobs a minimum income that allows them to weather the storm.

The government claimed many times during the pandemic that it would take too long to reform employment insurance, saying that the EI system had too many flaws, that it was full of holes. There are a number of players involved. The government promised, virtually hand on heart, to reform EI. We are not asking for this just for the fun of it. We are asking for it because it is necessary. What does the government not understand about that?

I have said it before and I will say it again. Will the government have the courage to reform the employment insurance program, given that it knows exactly what needs to be done, or will it shamefully abandon all of the workers who pay into the EI fund?

Only 40% of workers manage to qualify for EI because the eligibility criteria are discriminatory, particularly against women and young people, most of whom hold non-standard jobs.

The EI system does not cover self-employed workers. We saw that during the pandemic in the arts, entertainment and cultural sectors, which depends heavily on those workers. The government promised to correct those shortcomings. The Prime Minister even promised to do so last summer. What is stopping the government from taking action? Is it going to use the economic situation as an excuse?

On the one hand, the government is saying that all is well, that the unemployment rate is at a record low, that there is a labour shortage and that it will not reform the system. On the other hand, the government is saying that there is a risk of a recession and that now is not the time to reform the program. That does not make any sense. The government is twisting and dodging to avoid the issue. The time to reform the EI program is now, when we are not in a period of crisis.

I think the minister has free rein to do that. She needs to have that free rein. Members of her caucus are affected; they are dealing with the fallout from flaws in the system as well. She has all the solutions in hand. We invite her, we urge her, to introduce a bill that proposes new criteria to guarantee that workers, people in the regions and workers in seasonal industries can access this social safety net. That is what needs to happen. It would have been nice to hear the government stand up and strongly advocate for what we believe to be most fundamental, and that is ensuring equity and fairness.

In closing, public services are fundamental to ensuring equity in a strong state. Robust, high-quality public services rely on decent working conditions for employees. On that note, I would like to emphasize that we support and stand with the federal employees who are currently fighting for decent working conditions in the public service.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to come back to a question I asked Mr. Mercille in the briefing. I would just like to get a confirmation, again.

There are companies here in Quebec and in Canada that have huge servers connected to very high speed fibre that lease their computing and data transfer capacity. That is their work.

They contacted us because some of their clients are outside Canada. Some of them are engaged in mining cryptocurrency. The changes to the GST as they are worded don't seem to consider those transactions to be business activities that would allow them to deduct their GST on inputs, and that would force them to bear the burden of the tax even in cases where their sale is for export.

Could you confirm that if Bill C‑47 is not amended, that will in fact be the case?

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

Okay. Maybe I'll have better luck this time.

Mr. Mercille, at the briefing you gave us concerning the notice of ways and means, for which I thank you again, I asked a question about regional flights. As you know, those flights are expensive. The price of fuel keeps going up.

However Bill C‑47 provides for a substantial increase in the airport security tax. That tax is going to apply both to international flights and to regional flights that depart from an airport where security measures are in place. This means that no exemption from the tax is provided for regional flights.

Can you confirm that I have understood the answer I received correctly?

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

Good morning, Mr. Chair.

I would like to say hello to my colleagues and thank all the senior officials for being with us to answer our questions.

I have numerous questions. Unfortunately, in preparing them, I didn't distinguish between the parts of Bill C‑47. If any of my questions happen to relate to part 4, I apologize in advance.

In fact, I am going to start with a question about part 4, so you can pass it on to your colleagues who will answer it later, at an upcoming meeting. It concerns division 31, which makes “Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada.”

I would like your colleagues to be able to check the section of the equivalent legislation, as it was worded the last time. I imagine we go back to the era of Queen Elizabeth II and the clause was submitted to Parliament in an omnibus budget implementation bill, toward the end of the bill. I would therefore like your colleagues to prepare an answer to my question for the next meeting. I would appreciate it.

My first question concerns both part 1 and part 4. Last Wednesday, we adopted Bill C‑46 at all stages. We have therefore doubled the amount of the GST credit, which we are calling the “grocery rebate”, even though groceries are not taxable, and the $2 billion in health transfers to the provinces.

Bill C‑46 was adopted at all stages on Wednesday. Bill C‑47, which provides for the same amounts, was introduced in the House of Commons on Thursday.

If Bill C‑47 is adopted without being amended, for example by removing those parts, we are going to find ourselves with two GST credits and an additional $2 billion for the provinces.

Is that correct?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call to order meeting number 85 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, April 20, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss the subject matter of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

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

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

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation, those on Zoom, have the choice at the bottom of your screen of the floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

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

Members and witnesses, in today's meeting, we will be focused on parts 1 to 3 of the bill.

We have a number of officials with us from the ministry of finance—I believe nine. That's what I've been told. I will list those officials who are with us, and maybe one of those officials or a number of them could just give us a brief overview of parts 1 to 3 in the questions they will be answering today from the members.

We have Gervais Coulombe, who is senior director, excise taxation and legislation, sales tax division, tax policy branch; and Andrew Donelle, senior director, deferred income plans.

We also have Lindsay Gwyer, a former colleague of MP Chambers at law school. She is the director general, legislation, tax legislation division, tax policy branch.

There will be no preferred treatment here, please, MP Chambers.

Furthermore, we have Pierre Leblanc, director general, personal income tax division, tax policy branch; Warren Light, expert adviser, sales tax division, tax policy branch; Mark Maxson, director of employment and education, personal income tax division, tax policy branch; Pierre Mercille, director general, sales tax legislation, sales tax division, tax policy branch; Amanda Riddell, director of real property and financial institutions, sales tax division, tax policy branch; and lastly, Kevin Shoom, senior director, international taxation and special projects.

We want to thank you all for being with us here today.

If somebody would like to make a few remarks with regard to parts 1, 2 and 3, we would appreciate that.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

I am very happy to rise today to talk about Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, and other measures.

With our made-in Canada plan, the 2023 budget will put money in the pockets of Canadians, helping them meet the challenges of today and tomorrow while building a safer, more sustainable and affordable Canada for Canadians across the country.

The key measures of the budget implementation act include providing for automatic advance payments of the Canada workers benefit; doubling the tradespeople’s tools deduction; enhancing registered education savings plans; banning animal testing in the cosmetics industry; strengthening Canada’s supply chains and trade corridors; and, among other things, continuing our efforts to support Ukraine by taking action against Russia.

Once again, our government has introduced a responsible and inclusive budget. It is a budget that is responsive to the needs of all Canadians. It is a budget that takes into account the climate emergency and the need to take action today to guarantee the future of our children and grandchildren.

I am pleased to see that the budget will improve the lives of Canadians across the country. In particular, there is the new grocery rebate, which will put up to an extra $467 in the pockets of eligible families of four so that they can continue to eat properly. This new rebate will help 11 million Canadians who need it the most.

This measure is in addition to the relief we quickly put in place last year, including doubling the GST credit, which is highly appreciated; introducing a new quarterly benefit for Canadian workers of up to $2,400 for low-income families and families earning minimum wage; providing a $500 top-up to the Canada housing benefit for low-income renters; reducing child care costs across the country; providing the Canada child benefit, which amounts up to $7,000 this year; and introducing a climate action incentive to be paid into the bank accounts of eligible Canadians. These are examples of real measures aimed at supporting Canadian families.

What can I say about dental care costs? Thanks to our new program, we will have a direct impact on the health of Canadians of all ages. Although some here in the House still underestimate the importance of good dental health, we are aware of the positive impact it has on people’s lives. Good teeth help build self-esteem. A nice smile is always the best calling card.

Oral medicine tells us that some dental and periodontal diseases can have broader consequences such as cardiovascular and lung problems, digestive disorders, and pregnancy- and diabetes-related complications, among others. This program shows that we can do a lot for Canadians when we decide to work together toward a common goal.

Back home in Châteauguay—Lacolle, more than 330 children under the age of 12 have already benefited from the expansion of the program in Quebec. We also want to work with the Quebec government to improve access to dental care for other vulnerable populations.

The 2023 budget proposes other important measures to help Canadians financially. In particular, it cracks down on junk fees, including unexpected, hidden and additional fees, to continue to ensure that businesses are transparent with prices and to make life more affordable for Canadians. The budget also proposes automatic tax filing for low-income Canadians so that more people can have access to all the benefits and support to which they are entitled.

Let us talk about two measures in Bill C-47 that are extremely relevant for citizens in my riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle. The first is the doubling of the tradespeople’s tools deduction. This increase in the maximum deduction for tradespeople’s tools from $500 to $1,000 is very important as a support to tradespeople. We need to encourage our contractors and subcontractors so that they can build and renovate houses and commercial buildings. This deduction offsets the increase in the cost of tools and represents our recognition of the importance of tradespeople’s work.

The second measure is the automatic advance payment of the Canada workers benefit. We propose automatic advance payments of the Canada workers benefit for workers who were entitled to the payment the previous year, starting in July 2023 for the 2023 tax year. It is very important to help workers with their current cash flow before next year’s tax season. Workers will receive a minimum entitlement for the year through advance payments based on the income reported in their tax return for the previous year, and any additional entitlement for the year will be paid when they file their tax return for the current year. This measure This measure will provide, in three advance payments, up to $714 in total for a single worker and up to $1,231 in total for a family.

The 2023 budget invests in the future of Canadians, but it is also aimed at ensuring the future of the planet. Our made-in-Canada plan will make it possible to develop a clean economy, fight climate change and create quality jobs and careers for today and for future generations.

If I had the time, I could talk about the new tax credits for clean investments that will support Canadian companies that manufacture clean technologies, such as electric vehicles, or that process the critical minerals key to the manufacture of solar panels.

However, I will conclude by mentioning another very important measure in the budget implementation bill for Canadians, who are very concerned about animal welfare. I am talking about the measure prohibiting animal testing for cosmetics. This measure will amend the Food and Drugs Act to prohibit the testing of cosmetics on animals in Canada. It will also prohibit the sale of cosmetics relying on data derived from animal testing to establish the safety of the product, subject to certain exceptions. Lastly, it will prohibit deceptive or misleading labelling concerning animal testing for cosmetics.

Budget 2023 is a prudent and realistic budget. Bill C-47 will help ensure that we continue to make progress on things that matter to Canadians, namely, building a clean, healthy economy that can bring prosperity, middle-class jobs and greater vibrancy to communities across the country. By focusing on a green, healthy and clean economy, the budget responds to the concerns of many Canadians, especially those in Châteauguay—Lacolle.

The House resumed from April 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, despite the size and intent of Bill C‑47, there is nothing in it for seniors or housing. There is no long-term solution to fix the underfunding of health care and no sign of EI reform.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

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 Bil 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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I echo my hon. colleague's statements. The next nine of the 10 weeks the House will be sitting is a long time away from families, and our families do sacrifice a lot, which is a really important point to emphasize. He and I could have a longer discussion about the Ethics Commissioner. We are both very anxious to see that important position filled, and I am sure he and I could work together on that.

With respect to the business of the House, tomorrow morning we are going to start second reading of Bill C-47, the budget implementation act.

On Monday, Tuesday and Thursday of next week, we will continue with debate of the budget bill.

On Wednesday, we will call Bill C-13, concerning the Official Languages Act, at report stage and third reading.

On Friday, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-42 regarding the Canada Business Corporations Act.

Finally, there have been discussions among all parties and if you seek it, I am certain you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order, or usual practice of the House:

(a) on Thursday, May 4, 2023, when the House adjourns, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, May 8, 2023, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1), provided that, for the purposes of any standing order, it shall have deemed to have sat on Friday, May 5, 2023;

(b) on Thursday, May 18, 2023, when the House adjourns, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, May 29, 2023, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 24(1) and 28(2), provided that, for the purposes of any standing order, it shall have been deemed to have sat on Friday, May 19, 2023; and

(c) any standing, standing joint, special, and special joint committees, as well as their subcommittees, shall not be empowered to sit on both Fridays.

Ways and Means

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

moved that Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the first time and printed.

(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)