Chrystia Freeland Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
Part 1 implements certain measures in respect of the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations by
(a) limiting the deductibility of net interest and financing expenses by certain corporations and trusts, consistent with certain Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Group of Twenty Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project recommendations;
(b) implementing hybrid mismatch rules consistent with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Group of Twenty Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project recommendations regarding cross-border tax avoidance structures that exploit differences in the income tax laws of two or more countries to produce “deduction/non-inclusion mismatches”;
(c) allowing expenditures incurred in the exploration and development of all lithium to qualify as Canadian exploration expenses and Canadian development expenses;
(d) ensuring that only genuine intergenerational business transfers are excluded from the anti-surplus stripping rule in section 84.1 of the Income Tax Act ;
(e) denying the dividend received deduction for dividends received by Canadian financial institutions on certain shares that are held as mark-to-market property;
(f) increasing the rate of the rural supplement for Climate Action Incentive payments (CAIP) from 10% to 20% for the 2023 and subsequent taxation years as well as referencing the 2016 census data for the purposes of the CAIP rural supplement eligibility for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years;
(g) providing a refundable investment tax credit to qualifying businesses for eligible carbon capture, utilization and storage equipment;
(h) providing a refundable investment tax credit to qualifying businesses for eligible clean technology equipment;
(i) introducing, under certain circumstances, labour requirements in relation to the new refundable investment tax credits for eligible carbon capture, utilization and storage equipment as well as eligible clean technology equipment;
(j) removing the requirement that credit unions derive no more than 10% of their revenue from sources other than certain specified sources;
(k) permitting a qualifying family member to acquire rights as successor of a holder of a Registered Disability Savings Plan following the death of that plan’s last remaining holder who was also a qualifying family member;
(l) implementing consequential changes of a technical nature to facilitate the operation of the existing rules for First Home Savings Accounts;
(m) introducing a tax of 2% on the net value of equity repurchases by certain Canadian corporations, trusts and partnerships whose equity is listed on a designated stock exchange;
(n) exempting certain fees from the refundable tax applicable to contributions under retirement compensation arrangements;
(o) introducing a technical amendment to the provision that authorizes the sharing of taxpayer information for the purposes of the Canadian Dental Care Plan;
(p) implementing a number of amendments to the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) as well as introducing a new penalty applicable to transactions subject to the GAAR and extending the normal reassessment period for the GAAR by three years in certain circumstances;
(q) facilitating the creation of employee ownership trusts;
(r) introducing specific anti-avoidance rules in relation to corporations referred to as substantive CCPCs; and
(s) extending the phase-out by three years, and expanding the eligible activities, in relation to the reduced tax rates for certain zero-emission technology manufacturers.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, 2001 .
Part 2 enacts the Digital Services Tax Act and its regulations. That Act provides for the implementation of an annual tax of 3% on certain types of digital services revenue earned by businesses that meet certain revenue thresholds. It sets out rules for the purposes of establishing liability for the tax and also sets out applicable reporting and filing requirements. To promote compliance with its provisions, that Act includes modern administration and enforcement provisions generally aligned with those found in other taxation statutes. Finally, this Part also makes related and consequential amendments to other texts to ensure proper implementation of the tax and cohesive and efficient administration by the Canada Revenue Agency.
Part 3 implements certain Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) measures by
(a) ensuring that an interest in a corporation that does not have its capital divided into shares is treated as a financial instrument for GST/HST purposes;
(b) ensuring that interest and dividend income from a closely related partnership is not included in the determination of whether a person is a de minimis financial institution for GST/HST purposes;
(c) ensuring that an election related to supplies made within a closely related group of persons that includes a financial institution may not be revoked on a retroactive basis without the permission of the Minister of National Revenue;
(d) making technical amendments to an election that allows electing members of a closely related group to treat certain supplies made between them as having been made for nil consideration;
(e) ensuring that certain supplies between the members of a closely related group are not inadvertently taxed under the imported taxable supply rules that apply to financial institutions;
(f) raising the income threshold for the requirement to file an information return by certain financial institutions;
(g) allowing up to seven years to assess the net tax adjustments owing by certain financial institutions in respect of the imported taxable supply rules;
(h) expanding the GST/HST exemption for services rendered to individuals by certain health care practitioners to include professional services rendered by psychotherapists and counselling therapists;
(i) providing relief in relation to the GST/HST treatment of payment card clearing services;
(j) allowing the joint venture election to be made in respect of the operation of a pipeline, rail terminal or truck terminal that is used for the transportation of oil, natural gas or related products;
(k) raising the input tax credit (ITC) documentation thresholds from $30 to $100 and from $150 to $500 and allowing billing agents to be treated as intermediaries for the purposes of the ITC information rules; and
(l) extending the 100% GST rebate in respect of new purpose-built rental housing to certain cooperative housing corporations.
It also implements an excise tax measure by creating a joint election mechanism to specify who is eligible to claim a rebate of excise tax for goods purchased by provinces for their own use.
Part 4 implements certain excise measures by
(a) allowing vaping product licensees to import packaged vaping products for stamping by the licensee and entry into the Canadian duty-paid market as of January 1, 2024;
(b) permitting all cannabis licensees to elect to remit excise duties on a quarterly rather than a monthly basis, starting from the quarter that began on April 1, 2023;
(c) amending the marking requirements for vaping products to ensure that the volume of the vaping substance is marked on the package;
(d) requiring that a person importing vaping products must be at least 18 years old; and
(e) introducing administrative penalties for certain infractions related to the vaping taxation framework.
Part 5 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Subdivision A of Division 1 of Part 5 amends Subdivision A of Division 16 of Part 6 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1 to clarify the scope of certain non-financial activities in which federal financial institutions may engage and to remove certain discrepancies between the English and French versions of that Act.
Subdivision B of Division 1 of Part 5 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act , the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to, among other things, permit federal financial institutions governed by those Acts to hold certain meetings by virtual means without having to obtain a court order and to permit voting during those meetings by virtual means.
Division 2 of Part 5 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things, provide a leave of absence of three days in the event of a pregnancy loss and modify certain provisions related to bereavement leave.
Division 3 of Part 5 enacts the Canada Water Agency Act . That Act establishes the Canada Water Agency, whose role is to assist the Minister of the Environment in exercising or performing that Minister’s powers, duties and functions in relation to fresh water. The Division also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 4 of Part 5 amends the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the making of regulations respecting fees or charges to be paid by tobacco and vaping product manufacturers for the purpose of recovering the costs incurred by His Majesty in right of Canada in relation to the carrying out of the purpose of that Act;
(b) provide for related administration and enforcement measures; and
(c) require information relating to the fees or charges to be made available to the public.
Division 5 of Part 5 amends the Canadian Payments Act to, among other things, provide that additional persons are entitled to be members of the Canadian Payments Association and clarify the composition of that Association’s Stakeholder Advisory Council.
Division 6 of Part 5 amends the Competition Act to, among other things,
(a) modernize the merger review regime, including by modifying certain notification rules, clarifying that Act’s application to labour markets, allowing the Competition Tribunal to consider the effect of changes in market share and the likelihood of coordination between competitors following a merger, extending the limitation period for mergers that were not the subject of a notification to the Commissioner of Competition and placing a temporary restraint on the completion of certain mergers until the Tribunal has disposed of any application for an interim order;
(b) improve the effectiveness of the provisions that address anti-competitive conduct, including by allowing the Commissioner to review the effects of past agreements and arrangements, ensuring that an order related to a refusal to deal may address a refusal to supply a means of diagnosis or repair and ensuring that representations of a product’s benefits for protecting or restoring the environment must be supported by adequate and proper tests and that representations of a business or business activity for protecting or restoring the environment must be supported by adequate and proper substantiation;
(c) strengthen the enforcement framework, including by creating new remedial orders, such as administrative monetary penalties, with respect to those collaborations that harm competition, by creating a civilly enforceable procedure to address non-compliance with certain provisions of that Act and by broadening the classes of persons who may bring private cases before the Tribunal and providing for the availability of monetary payments as a remedy in those cases; and
(d) provide for new procedures, such as the certification of agreements or arrangements related to protecting the environment and a remedial process for reprisal actions.
The Division also amends the Competition Tribunal Act to prevent the Competition Tribunal from awarding costs against His Majesty in right of Canada, except in specified circumstances.
Finally, the Division makes a consequential amendment to one other Act.
Division 7 of Part 5 amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act to exclude from their application prescribed public post-secondary educational institutions.
Subdivision A of Division 8 of Part 5 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that, if a person or entity referred to in section 5 of that Act has reasonable grounds to suspect possible sanctions evasion, the relevant information is reported to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada;
(b) add reporting requirements for persons and entities providing certain services in respect of private automatic banking machines;
(c) require declarations respecting money laundering, the financing of terrorist activities and sanctions evasion to be made in relation to the importation and exportation of goods; and
(d) authorize the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada to disclose designated information to the Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, subject to certain conditions.
It also amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1 in relation to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and makes consequential amendments to other Acts and a regulation.
Subdivision B of Division 8 of Part 5 amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) in certain circumstances, provide that a court may infer the knowledge or belief or recklessness required in relation to the offence of laundering proceeds of crime and specify that it is not necessary for the prosecutor to prove that the accused knew, believed they knew or was reckless as to the specific nature of the designated offence;
(b) remove, in the context of the special warrants and restraint order in relation to proceeds of crime, the requirement for the Attorney General to give an undertaking, as well as permit a judge to attach conditions to a special warrant for search and seizure of property that is proceeds of crime; and
(c) modify certain provisions relating to the production order for financial data to include elements specific to accounts associated with digital assets.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Seized Property Management Act and the Forfeited Property Sharing Regulations .
Division 9 of Part 5 retroactively amends section 42 of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to specify the payments about which information must be published on a Government of Canada website, as well as the information that must be published.
Division 10 of Part 5 amends the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act to increase the number of directors in the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, as well as to provide for consultation with the portion of the National Joint Council of the Public Service of Canada that represents employees when certain candidates are included on the list for proposed appointment as directors.
Division 11 of Part 5 enacts the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Act , which establishes the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, confers on the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities various responsibilities relating to public infrastructure and confers on the Minister of Housing various responsibilities relating to housing and the reduction and prevention of homelessness. The Division also makes consequential amendments to other Acts and repeals the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund Act .
Division 12 of Part 5 amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things, create a benefit of 15 weeks for claimants who are carrying out responsibilities related to
(a) the placement with the claimant of one or more children for the purpose of adoption; or
(b) the arrival of one or more new-born children of the claimant into the claimant’s care, in the case where the person who will be giving or gave birth to the child or children is not, or is not intended to be, a parent of the child or children.
The Division also amends the Canada Labour Code to create a leave of absence of up to 16 weeks for an employee to carry out such responsibilities.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
The House resumed from May 10 consideration of Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
The House will now proceed to the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-59.
The question is on Motion No. 1.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
I declare the motion defeated.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
I declare the motion carried.
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, Mental Health and Addictions; the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot, Carbon Pricing.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
Before we proceed, I wish to remind hon. members of the Speaker's ruling of Tuesday, January 30, regarding Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023. At the time, the Chair indicated that, pursuant to Standing Order 69.1, the question on the motion for the second reading would be divided to provide for separate votes on measures that were related to each other.
Furthermore, on November 8, 2017, at page 15145 of the Debates, Speaker Regan explained how the Chair intended to implement Standing Order 69.1. He stated, “The vote at third reading will be conducted in a similar way to the vote at second reading, assuming all of the identified elements are still part of the bill by the time it reaches that stage.”
Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 69.1 the question will be divided at the third reading stage as follows:
First, the measures in clauses 1 to 136, 138 to 143, 168 to 196, 209 to 216, and 278 to 317 appear in the 2023 budget. Since their purpose is to implement certain budget proposals, they would be grouped based on this unifying theme and voted on together.
Second, the measures that can be grouped under the theme of affordability, clauses 137, 144, and 231 to 272, will be subject to a different vote.
Clauses 197 to 208 and 342 to 365 will also be grouped for voting because they amend the Canada Labour Code.
Clauses 145 to 167, 217 and 218 will be subject to a separate vote because they relate to vaping products, cannabis and tobacco.
The remaining divisions of Bill C-59, consisting of clauses 219 to 230, 273 to 277, 318 and 319, 320 to 322 and 323 to 341, will each be voted on separately because they are not linked to any of the common themes mentioned earlier. In all, nine votes will be held.
I would like to remind members that when putting the question on groups of clauses for Bill C-59, I intend to follow a procedure similar to that outlined in Standing Order 76.1(8) for the putting of the question on amendments at report stage.
I thank hon. members for their attention.
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
moved that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the third time and passed.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the very important piece of legislation before us. It is what we call the fall economic statement, which was, yes, introduced in the fall. Unfortunately, because of Conservative delay tactics and their continuing to put forward amendments and having multiple people speak to it, we still have not even gotten to the place where we can pass the fall economic statement. However, I will say that a lot has happened since then, particularly with respect to inflation.
Members may recall that this particular piece of legislation came in at a time when inflation was still working its way downward but had not yet gotten into the range that the Bank of Canada dictates in its policy, which is within a range of 2% to 3%. We were seeing higher inflation. When I think back to when we were having these discussions in the fall, one of the things I think about is what Conservatives were saying about our budgetary measures at the time. They were saying that they were inflationary budgets. The Conservatives were saying to stop spending money because when the government spends money it is just adding to inflation. They said it over and over.
All the experts came out and said that actually the particular programs that the government was running in order to support Canadians were providing money to some of the most vulnerable people, the people who would be utilizing the money for basic necessities, and this was not going to contribute to impacting inflation. However, that did not matter to Conservatives because it was not feeding their narrative, so they continued on, marching along and talking about the supports that we were making for Canadians as something that was going to affect inflation and continue to drive it up.
We see today that the year-over-year inflationary rate is at 2.7%. This is the lowest it has been in three years. It has been within the range of 2% to 3% despite the fact that I know Conservatives were rooting for inflation to continue to rise because that would fit their political narrative, and they do not worry about the impact it has on Canadians. The Conservatives always just want the government to fail in any possible way it can, just so they can get a little political gain out of it, even if it means it comes at the expense of Canadians. We have seen inflation now, for four straight months in a row, within the target that the Bank of Canada sets, which is between 2% and 3%.
Conservatives were wrong. They were wrong when they said that investing in Canadians contributed to inflation, and they were wrong in predicting an outcome where those investments would actually drive inflation up. We knew that was going to be the case, because all the experts were saying it at the time, but what the Conservatives were doing is something that the member for Fredericton was talking about earlier. The Conservatives intentionally used and continue to use against Canadians the anxieties that Canadians feel. The Conservatives use those anxieties and turn them into a weapon against the very people that they are impacting, and they are doing it just for political gain. That is the only reason. It is the exact same reason that Conservatives say over and over that inflation is caused by the Prime Minister and the current government.
An hon. member
Yes, you got it.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, in reality, we know that inflation is something that is going on throughout the entire globe.
I know that the member for Saskatoon—University just ran back in here and sat down so he could heckle me. I challenge him to ask me a question, to actually think about a question that he can ask me when it comes time to do so, because I am looking forward to hearing what he has to say about what I am saying right now. I will, of course, respond to that question. What we heard is not only Conservatives being wrong—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
The member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin is rising on a point of order.
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB
Madam Speaker, the member has been here long enough, though he may not be here for much longer, and he knows that he cannot mention the presence of another member in the House, which he just did.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
The hon. member is quite correct. We do not reference members' absences or presences in the House, as is the practice in our Standing Orders.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, we know that Conservatives were wrong when they predicted inflation would go up as a result of the supports we were investing in for Canadians, and we know that they were also wrong when they tried to suggest that inflation was created by the current government, because inflation is something that is being seen throughout the world. It is something that was being seen in the United Kingdom, which had a much higher inflation rate than we do. It is something seen in the United States, which continues to have higher inflation than we do.
As a matter of fact, I got a real kick earlier, when we were debating the budget bill, out of how a member from the Conservatives got up and tried to make a witty joke by saying he does not know what Kraft Dinner has to do with Ukraine, as though he was trying to somehow suggest that there is no connection between the two. The rich irony is that there is something fundamentally connecting Kraft Dinner and Ukraine, which is the resources and the supplies.
The CEO of Kraft himself said that the supply constraints and probably wheat coming out of Ukraine were impacting the ability to keep food prices low, so I just find it absolutely remarkable that Conservatives believe what they are saying. I believe that they have convinced themselves to believe what they are saying, but the reality is that it is just not true. They were wrong when they suggested that investing in Canadians was going to lead to inflation, and they are wrong when they continue to try to make the point that inflation is something unique to Canada, but I think that the vast majority of Canadians understand this. I think that they understand what Conservatives are doing, how they are trying to utilize those specific anxieties against them and weaponize them.
We look at exactly what the measures are that Conservatives were objecting to, and they are the exact measures in the fall economic statement that Conservatives said would lead to inflation. It is things like strengthening the Competition Act to ensure that the Competition Bureau is empowered to hold grocers accountable and prioritize consumer interests. Just so Canadians understand, this is really important because in the United States, the largest grocery retailer owns or controls 11% of grocery sales, and that is Walmart. Do members know which is the largest one and what its percentage is in Canada?
An hon. member
Loblaw.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
That is right, Madam Speaker; it is Loblaw. Does my colleague know what the percentage is? He does not. It is 42%, so 42% of groceries in this country are controlled by Loblaw and their retail. With Loblaw and a couple of the other large grocery retailers, very quickly I see how we have created an oligopoly here. There is an oligopoly operating in our country when it comes to grocery sales.
It becomes very important to identify what is going on here and to put measures in place to ensure that they are properly dealt with, and that is exactly what we are doing. It is what Conservatives are against. They are very loud and have a lot to say when it comes to government spending, but they are absolutely silent when it comes to the profits that are being made by Loblaw, probably because the Leader of the Opposition's own chief campaign manager, Jenni Byrne, is an actual lobbyist for Loblaw.
The campaign manager of the very individual who is standing up trying to fight against lobbyists and saying lobbyists are useless is a lobbyist for Loblaw. She has a vested interest in ensuring that Loblaw keeps its prices high, so how can anybody actually listen to what the Leader of the Opposition, the member from Carleton, says, and actually think that he is being genuine in any regard when he suggests that he understands the impacts of the greedy corporations we are seeing, in particular the retail grocery giants and Loblaw, which I mentioned specifically?
A few of the other initiatives that are in this particular piece of legislation, the fall economic statement, include unlocking $20 billion in new financing to build 30,000 more apartments per year. Conservatives love to get up and talk about how no apartments have been built, apparently. However, I can tell members that, in my riding alone, we are now on the 13th affordable housing project that has been built in Kingston, in which the federal government has, in one way or another, been a partner.
I get a real kick out of it when I hear Conservatives go on and on about it. Meanwhile, when the Leader of the Opposition was the housing minister, he built a total of six units, not buildings, not duplexes, but six units. The number seemed so wildly low to me that I thought it was impossible, that somebody was doing something with the numbers, that there was no way that this could be real, until I realized that this information actually came forward from an Order Paper question that was tabled. That information is tabled and available for everybody to see: In the one year when the member for Carleton was the minister responsible for housing, he built a total of six units. Those six units happen to be in Quebec, if one goes and looks at the numbers. However, he built a total of six units throughout the entire country.
Another thing we have done, through the fall economic statement, is to launch the new tax-free first home savings account. This has helped over half a million Canadians start saving for their first home. We have supported seniors through the Canada pension plan, the guaranteed income supplement and old age security, all of which are indexed to inflation.
Canadians are not going to forget very easily how the Leader of the Opposition, when he was in government previously, raised old age security, the OAS, to 67 years old. If there is anybody out there who is in their early 60s and planning for their retirement, they should seriously give some thought to whom they want to elect as their next government and whether it is a former member of a government that has a track record of actually increasing old age security requirements from 65 years old to 67. In all likelihood, it is going to happen again.
Earlier tonight, when we heard Conservatives talking about how they “balanced” the budget in 2015, I guess that, from an accounting perspective, they did. However, let us look at what they did to get there. They increased old age security to 67. They closed veterans' offices, doing this all on the backs of veterans. They did a number of initiatives to “balance” the budget. They did it in that one year in 2015, if one actually accepts the fact that one would consider that a balanced budget.
People have to understand that, when Conservatives talk about balancing the budget, they are really talking about cuts. Out of every Conservative budget that was introduced between 1990 and present day, only two of them ran surpluses. There is that made-up surplus I just talked about from 2015. There was also another one that Stephen Harper had at the beginning of his term as prime minister, and that was because it was coming off the heels of Paul Martin's surplus that he had. This is factual. Those are the only two budgets that ran surpluses. The reason governments will run deficits is that, as long as one's economy is growing at a faster pace than one is taking on that debt, one is still in a very healthy position. It is why we continue to get AAA credit rating reports from independent third parties for the manner in which the government is spending and taxing.
It is why we continue to see, year over year, more investments made in Canadians. It really just comes down to whether one thinks that there is a role for government to play in ensuring that people have equal opportunities.
That is exactly what we see as a government, which is that at least people have to have a shot at being able to strive and get what they want and hope to get out of their career and their life.
There are a number of other issues in here. The other one I wanted to touch on was $10-a-day child care, which was another issue that was updated in the fall economic statement. This was a very important piece of legislation that brought in an opportunity to empower more people to get out into the workforce. We have already seen it. We did not have to go far in order to study it. All we had to do was look at what was happening in Quebec and how more people, more spouses and, in particular, more women were in the workforce as a result of $10-a-day child care. This is another advancement our government is continuing to push forward in the spirit of fairness, equality and opportunity for everybody.
I look forward to the question from the member for Saskatoon—University at this point. I am sure it will be great.
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
Madam Speaker, it is very telling that we have a Prime Minister who does not think about monetary policy. We have members of the government who obviously do not think about the long-term financial help of Canada. We have seen this over nine years. There is almost no one in Canada who thinks they are better off than they were in 2015.
Right now it is approaching midnight here in Ottawa, and this is a financial bill. Why is the finance minister not here? Instead, we have a backbencher leading the debate. How does he feel toward a finance minister that has indebted our—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
Before I let the hon. member finish, we have a point of order from the hon. member for Fredericton.
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Madam Speaker, the member for Saskatoon—University signalled the presence or non-presence of a member in the House, and he is not allowed to do that.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
I apologize for my distraction.
Order, please. I make the same comment I made to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, and I remind the hon. member for Saskatoon—University of that.
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
Madam Speaker, I am not saying that the finance minister is here or not here. What I am asking is why this member is leading the debate for the government versus the actual finance minister. This is very telling in terms of why we are in so much trouble.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, for starters, monetary policy is something that is done by a central bank. Fiscal policy is done by a government. Maybe the member should just Google those terms so he knows what he is talking about in the future.
When he asks about who is leading the debate, he makes it sound as though this is the first time we have talked about this. This is the fall economic statement. We have debated it.
An hon. member
It is summer.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
He is right: It is summer. Madam Speaker, that is because the Conservatives will not let this debate collapse. They just keep dragging it on and on. The finance minister has spoken to the bill, probably on more than one occasion. He suggests I am the lead on this when we have been debating it for nine months.
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Madam Speaker, I am glad to see the member holding back what he really thinks in the House. Yes, like the member, I am very disappointed that we are actually standing in the House of Commons in May debating the fall economic statement. It is unbelievably outrageous, and maybe we will still be debating it next fall if the Conservatives decide to do that. Who knows?
My question for the member is actually quite serious. He talked about housing. One concern I had with the fall economic statement and that I share with all my colleagues within the NDP is about the lack of commitment to helping with indigenous, Métis and Inuit housing, especially in northern communities, especially in Nunavut.
My colleague from Nunavut has stood in the House many times and asked why the government has not committed meaningfully to territorial funding for housing when we know that the crisis is desperate in her community. Why did we not see more in the fall economic statement with regard to indigenous housing?
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for that very serious question. I think it is a fair question, and an angle that, quite frankly, the government should be pushed on because there is always more that we can do.
There is the northern housing plan, and I might have the name wrong, but perhaps that is not enough. Perhaps this member thinks that it needs to go further, and perhaps there is validity in that claim. However, it is important to reflect on the fact that we are building a lot of housing throughout the country.
I used to be a mayor of a city in Ontario, and I could not have ever thought of the federal government coming to a municipality and saying, “Let's make a deal” and completely leaving the province out of it. That was unheard of in my time in local government. However, we have a Minister of Housing who is literally going around the country to different communities and saying, “I don't even want to talk to the province. How do I make a deal with you directly?”
However, the member's question was more about indigenous communities, and I completely accept that. Perhaps we should be doing more, and I encourage her to continue to stand up to challenge the government to do more in that regard.
Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023Government Orders
St. Catharines Ontario
Liberal
Chris Bittle LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing
Madam Speaker, we have been at this for a while. I have been listening a lot, and all I have been hearing from the other side are slogans and not actual answers to things. It is getting so ridiculous that one member decided to read purported emails from his constituents and angrily brought it over to slam it on our desk, but it was edited. He was reading an edited email. He was not even reading his own constituent's writing.
I was wondering if the hon. member could speak to the ridiculousness of the sloganeering that the Conservatives are offering. They are not even offering real answers.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, it goes to what I was saying during my speech, which is that Conservatives are taking people's anxieties, turning them into a weapon and then using it against them. They are trying to convince Canadians that inflation is completely driven by the government and that spending more money on people through budget measures is going to drive up inflation even further, but only the opposite in both of those regards has proven to be true.
Conservatives are really good with their slogans, but they are not so good when they switch from having to rhyme off three things to four things because inevitably one of them misses at least one of them, except for a few key ones that are really good. They have been practising a lot, but the rest of them keep missing one. Although they are good with their slogans, it is not doing anything for Canadians.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, let us be clear that a Conservative government would axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Let us bring it home.
I have a very specific question for the member, and I hope we will get an answer for it. He has promised an answer. Everyone has heard him say that he is going to give us an answer. In what year does he believe the budget should be balanced, if ever?
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, on the first part, I want to congratulate the member because he is one of the members who can get all four of those out perfectly. He did not lose eye contact and did not show that he may be forgetting one. It was very well done.
To answer his question, I would ask him this: In what year did Brian Mulroney balance the budget? In what year did Stephen Harper balance the budget?
An hon. member
Oh, oh!
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, I am answering his question.
For growing economies, we know that, as long as our growth is outpacing our deficit, we are in a fiscally responsible position, and that is the reality.
They are laughing right now, but they should talk to Stephen Harper because that is all he did, or Brian Mulroney. It is exactly what they did. They never balanced a budget. They balanced one budget in 2015, apparently, by slashing veteran services, and then they had another surplus in 2007 on the heels of Paul Martin's surplus. However, the reality is, and this is exactly what Conservatives do because they know that, as long as our economy is outgrowing our deficit, we are in a fiscally responsible place.
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Madam Speaker, it is very simple: axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. That is the answer, and I am sorry—
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
This is not a conversation.
The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Madam Speaker, I understand that the member does not like hearing the slogans, because the Conservatives are, as he said, very good at communicating with Canadians.
My question is very simple. In what year will this magical budget balance itself?
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, she was not successful, because she gave one and then she had to look down. She could learn a lot from the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, because his delivery was really good.
I go back to exactly what I said before, which is that what matters the most is how the economy is performing in relation to the deficit that is projected. That is what matters the most. Conservative prime ministers have known that. Conservative premiers know that. Everybody has always operated in that manner.
If what the member is saying was true, then one would think that these fiscally responsible Conservative prime ministers all throughout Brian Mulroney's time and all throughout Stephen Harper's time would have just done exactly what the Conservatives are saying, but they did not.
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Madam Speaker, I understand consent was sought and given for me to split my time. Therefore, I would ask to split my time with the hon. member from Saskatoon—Grasswood.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Madam Speaker, while we are discussing what we renamed the SES, the summer economic statement, Canadians are experiencing the worst cost of living crisis in 40 years, due to a lack of affordable housing, the carbon tax, and record-smashing food bank use and grocery prices. Canadians have always had common sense. When Canadians look at their own expenses, they budget. They stretch dollars. They choose whether they go on vacation or whether the kids go to after-school activities. They go to a grocery store and have to budget what they are buying. They have to look at practical solutions to everyday challenges with resilience and resourcefulness.
However, common sense is like deodorant; the ones who need it the most never use it. With respect to this level of government, Canadians are shaking their heads in disbelief because of the lack of common sense on the opposite side of the aisle. This is the greatest country in the world. We have great people, innovative minds, great institutions and hard workers. We have resilience. Canadians invented peanut butter, the zipper, the Ski-Doo and the Sea-Doo, but common-sense approaches have become rare commodities.
In 2015, among the Liberal campaign promises was the promise to help the middle class and those looking to join it, as well as tax cuts for the middle class. What do we see now? We see more people who are out of the middle class. We see tax increases. The carbon tax alone went up 23% on April 1. More people are finding themselves out of the middle class, and more people are finding themselves taxed, as we have a government that lacks common sense.
Look at what the government could do if it looked at the basics. Let us say a dozen people went into the woods to try to start a community. What would be the first things they would do? They would build shelter. They would hunt and find food. The community would make sure it had a place to look after the children and one another, that everyone would be well looked after.
After nine years under the government, more Canadians than ever before are finding that rent has doubled, mortgage payments have doubled and the amount needed for a down payment has doubled. They are finding that grocery prices are $700 more this year alone. Groceries have gone up 24% over the last four years. Look at the cost of heating one's home. All prices for farmers growing their crops have gone up. The government's common sense has just disappeared. Let us look at some examples of its lack of common sense.
The government borrowed $400 billion back in the day when the Prime Minister said that interest rates were at historic lows. When we borrowed $400 billion, the government borrowed it over the short term. The government did not look ahead 20 or 25 years as a family would when looking at a mortgage. The government looked at the short term.
Now the debt is coming up for renewal. Do members know how much the renewal is going to cost us just in 2025? It is going to cost $12 billion, because the government did not have the common sense to look at long-term loans to look after Canadians' money. I wonder how many water bombers we could have bought and had fully crewed to be operating in B.C. right now to look after forest fighters.
Look at NATO and NORAD. They are our trusted allies. NATO and NORAD have asked us for years to contribute our 2%. We even passed a resolution in the House to do so, but we have not contributed. Because of that, we do not have a seat at the table. What happens to international security if we are not at the table? We will also not be at the table when it comes to international trade because our trading partners will work only with partners who work with them for security.
What is happening up north right now? The fact is that we do not have a base. We cannot even land an F-35 fighter in the north right now in Canada? We have jets being purchased, but it has taken 10 years. Remember when we said that the F-35 was too much? The Prime Minister said we were not going to buy it, and nine years later, of course, we are buying it for how many billions more? However, we cannot even land the thing in the north. Finland is buying half as many F-35s as we are, and it has already built a runway to land in the north to defend the northern border.
We talk about icebreakers in the north. We have one barely functioning icebreaker. Do members know how many icebreakers Russia has in the north right now? It has sixteen. Do members know how many China has? It has forty. We did not have the common sense to put any money toward our security or the north, which we really need in order to play our part in NORAD and NATO, on behalf of our allies in the U.S. and, of course, just for our security.
We have talked about drugs in hospitals. We are saying that smoking crack at a hospital or bringing in a weapon should be outlawed. More importantly, I visited Millhaven maximum security prison in Kingston only two weeks ago; three inmates there were high on drugs.
After nine years, we have mergers and more mergers under the government. We talk about competition. Part of the bill is about competition. However, under the government's watch, the merger of HSBC and RBC was approved. Because of that, mortgage rates have gone up. HSBC used to have a mortgage rate that was 1% lower than RBC's offering. Right now, that is costing the average taxpayer, who has a $500,000 mortgage, $300 more a month because that merger was approved.
We had WestJet buy Sunwing. Only a couple of months later, it was announced that Sunwing was going to shut down. There is only one competitor in the west. Sometimes it is Air Canada; most of the time it is WestJet. We had Rogers buy Shaw. What happened two months ago? It was announced that cellphone prices were to go up nine dollars a month. When we look for competition, it is not there.
The bill would bring in some aspects of competition. Thanks to the Competition Bureau, and dare I say, some amendments by the NDP, we are going to look at ensuring that we have no mergers approved that have a market share of over 30%. At the end of the day, the government has approved more mergers.
Open banking is probably the closest thing we can have to actual competition coming to one of our oligopolies right now. Open banking in Canada would open up the doors for Canadians to bring them financial freedom. One example is this: If Canadians have a Wealthsimple account, they have to screen scrape and find different ways to get through it. The government makes it really difficult for people to try to use a new banking app. This app right now pays Canadians 5% on their cash balance daily. What is the average bank interest rate right now? It is 0.2%. I think if someone had $10,000, over 10 years, they could make $100. Competition is freedom for Canadians. Open banking was not in the fall economic statement or in the new budget, to make that a reality for Canadians.
We are talking about no common sense. The government has hired 100,000 employees, a 40% increase since 2015. However, it takes 58 days to get an email back from CRA, compared with 43 days in 2015. Someone should try getting a passport. There has been no efficiency. There is more government and less efficiency.
On housing, the $4.4-billion housing accelerator has not built one home. We have a lack of skilled trades. Here is my favourite stat from last year, as we are talking about no common sense. We brought 1.3 million immigrants to Canada, new Canadians, permanent residents and TR. Do members know many home builders we brought last year? It was 4,300, and we wonder why we have a housing shortage.
We need immigration. Our birth rates are extremely low. We need people to come in, but when we are looking at immigration, let us make sure we are also looking at building homes first, so we have a place for people to go and house prices do not go sky-high. We even had the member for Winnipeg North say that MAID has saved lives. That was a statement used. There is no common sense.
Another one of my favourite examples is that the government has cut the budget to the Information Commissioner at a time when access to information is at an all-time low. The Ethics Commissioner had their salary cut when the workload has never been higher. Common sense is not common. Canadians have common sense, but the government does not.
It will only be in electing a common-sense Conservative government that we once again restore common sense to Canada and to Canadians. Of course, we will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. We are also going to create competition for a change, for my home, for everyone's home, for our home. Let us bring common sense home.
Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023Government Orders
Fredericton New Brunswick
Liberal
Jenica Atwin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services
Madam Speaker, I greatly thank my colleague for his rousing speech this evening.
I am sure this is on the minds of all members in this chamber: When will the member treat us to another homemade rap video? I would really love to see that.
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Madam Speaker, we cannot always flaunt our skills. We say it is thanks to the speNDP helping the government “jiggle jiggle”.
We have so much more we can do in the government, and I think, slogans or not, the main thing we want to do here is work on behalf of Canadians. Canadians are screaming for change. They are screaming for a government that is going to look after them to ensure that they have housing and a good standard of living. No matter what our skill sets are, we will work on behalf of Canadians.
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Madam Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague on his speech. I certainly did not agree with some of the content, but the volume was there.
Over and over again, he talked about common sense, finding solutions and what we need to do to make Canada better, and I think all of us in this place have that goal. We are all trying to find ways to make Canada better for Canadians. Obviously, we do not always see that in the same way, but that is the goal that we are all here trying to achieve.
From my perspective, I think that my constituents want me to work collaboratively and find ways for solutions. That is why the NDP will often work with the government to bring things such as dental care or pharmacare forward. One of the things that really upset me last week was that I was on the health committee that travelled around the country to look at solutions to the toxic drug crisis we are facing in Canada, and shockingly, when we were in Calgary meeting with people who use drugs and people who help folks who are trying to get off drugs and trying to rehabilitate, no Conservatives came. Not a single Conservative showed up to learn from experts, to learn from medical experts or to learn from people who work in this field. It is shocking, and I wonder how he finds that to be a common-sense solution.
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Madam Speaker, I come from Belleville, Ontario, and we are at the centre of an opiate crisis right now. We have a major overdose epidemic. In the last three months, we had 240 overdoses. We had 13 in two hours. We had 23 in two days. As an MP, I have been working with the former Liberal member, the mayor of Belleville, Ontario. I have been working with and talking to community groups and those who are addicted and struggling, as well as police, paramedics and our hospitals.
The problem we have is twofold. We talk about how the NDP has supported the government with bail reform, and the police are saying it does not work. The NDP has supported, especially in B.C., decriminalization, and these community groups are saying that does not work. One of the first things we can do is ensure we give the tools to the police and the community groups that make sure that the criminals who are dealing drugs go to jail and stay in jail, and that those who need help in treatment of addiction get the treatment of addiction so we can bring our loved ones home drug-free.
However, most importantly, the NDP can defeat the government and call an election so we can have these issues come to the open, and we could bring a government back to Canadians that would fix these issues once and for all.
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Madam Speaker, that was a very passionate speech. I think the Conservatives have made their stance on the carbon tax abundantly clear. It sank in a few months ago that they do not want it. They want to abolish it. Fortunately, it does not apply in Quebec.
This tax is meant to fight climate change. If the carbon tax goes away, how exactly will the Conservatives fight climate change?
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Madam Speaker, we believe in having Canadians create technology that would solve some of these issues.
The big example we have is Ontario, where 20 years ago we had coal-fired gas plants firing up all our electricity, and the provincial government at the time decided to change all of those plants to natural gas plants. I remember when I was a kid growing up, we had smog and poor weather advisories, and those do not exist anymore because the plants were eliminated. We talk about what we can do to replace them. A lot of Canadians do not know that we burn coal in the east coast to fire 80% of our electricity. That is still coal use. Our biggest export to China is coal, so if we just replaced coal with LNG and then gave it to the world, which is screaming for it, as it is burning coal, that would do way more than the government's doing, which is really nothing, for the environment.
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Madam Speaker, before I get into my speech, I just want to say this. Last week, we lost Darren Dutchyshen. He was only 57 years old. He anchored TSN SportsCentre for decades. Darren was bigger than life. As a former broadcaster, I competed against him in Saskatoon. Darren was the pride and joy of Porcupine Plain, Saskatchewan. To see an individual come from a very small community in this country and make it to the top, the voice of SportsCentre, speaks a lot about Darren Dutchyshen.
I just wanted to say to all the TSN family that it has been a rough week for all the broadcasters in this country. It has been a tough week for us because Darren was, as I said, bigger than life and gone at 57 years of age, which is way too young. We are with him and his family and all of those here tonight. I just wanted to say that, being a former sportscaster. Darren actually came through STV. He competed against me and did very well. He went on to Edmonton, and then made his career for good in the city of Toronto.
It seems funny tonight that I am standing here on the fall economic statement, nine months later in the House, yet the Liberals are blaming the Conservatives for the nine months. They are in charge of the agenda. They could have moved this long before May 21. It is ridiculous. Here we are tonight, May 21, talking about the fall economic statement, which happened eight to nine months ago.
We all know that we are facing a crisis across this country. It is an affordability crisis. It is an inflation crisis and a housing crisis. By the way, tonight was the first time I have heard, in over two years, the Liberals admit that they are at fault for the housing crisis in this country. That is the first step. They have known they have blown the housing industry in the last three years. They have only been in government nine years, but tonight was the first time I listened to a number of MPs who said that they are at fault for the country's dismal housing situation. That is the first time we have heard it. They know it. That is why they are reeling in this country, being 20 points behind in the polls. They have finally listened. They have not done the job for the last nine years, and the public knows it.
We know the root of the crisis. It is the Prime Minister. We heard from the Deputy Prime Minister and their Liberal-NDP government. It is the reckless spending, the red tape, the carbon tax. I heard today that inflation is down to 2.7. The Bank of Canada is still at a big rate, if one goes and borrows money. It is 5%, 6% and 7%. In fact, if one wants a used car, it is 9% and 10%. These rates should have been down long before now. They were going to come down in December or February. They were going to come down in April. We are now hearing that they might not come down. Maybe it will be September. It could be at the end of the year, 2024. These guys across the aisle are flushing money out as fast as they can. They did not need to have a deficit of $39.5 billion this year. There was no need for that.
The families, the small business owners, the single parents, the young graduates who are going to graduate in May and June, and so many others, are struggling today to get by. Do we know what this budget is going to do? To make it worse, this year, $414 billion of Canada's $1.4 trillion in debt will all be refinanced. What did I say about when these guys were spending money at 1.5% and maybe 2%? The interest rates are now at 5%, 6% and 7%, so they go refinance this. The costs are ballooning for all Canadians after nine years of the Prime Minister and nine years of the Liberal-NDP government.
Rent and mortgage payments have doubled across the country. Interest payments, like I mentioned, are sky-high and are not coming down. The cost of living everywhere continues to rise, coast to coast. For two years, Canadians have been suffering from the highest levels of inflation we have seen in decades. We have talked all night long about groceries. Someone goes into the grocery store and gets a bag of groceries. If they are lucky, it is well over $100, and that does not include meat.
The cost of gas is so high. We have encouraged the government to take the taxes off starting now and through to August, to give families a chance to go on a summer trip. However, the government has raised the tax all over this country, and gas is expensive. I think it is going to go to $2 this summer. Right now in Ottawa, it is $1.65. In B.C., it is $1.90 and going up.
The damage that the Prime Minister has done is being felt across the country. I am going to read what some people who have contacted our office through mailers have said. A number of constituents have responded to us. I am going to name them, though I will not name their last names for confidentiality.
Amanda tells me that she is 25 years old. She cannot afford a house today. She and her boyfriend are both professionals but cannot afford a down payment. That is the story. Canadians need a lot of money down now if they going to buy a home in Saskatchewan worth $300,000 plus. Tim and Tanya say that the cost of living is a crisis. They are moving into their 70s and are deeply concerned. Emma says that the current government is a real embarrassment and that our country has a terrible debt issue right now. Elaine has noticed people are starting to lose their homes due to the high interest rates. Luke says that we have big problems with housing, rental prices, rising interest rates and mortgage rates.
However, the one that got me came from Samantha, who wrote to me saying that she is a student, and the rent in Saskatoon has gone up $500 this year. Where is she going to get the extra money? That is a problem we are seeing: students faced with a big increase in rent.
There is another thing that really disturbs me in my province right now because we provide the food for the world. We in Saskatchewan are so proud of our producers who are putting in the crops right now. We have had some rain, which has been good. We are proud of our farmers in Saskatchewan.
What I am not proud of, because of nine years of Liberal neglect, is needing food banks in every community. Small towns are running out of food on their shelves. In Saskatoon alone, there are the head office of Nutrien potash, K+S Potash, and BHP potash, the biggest producers in the world, and 23,000 people a month are visiting our food bank. Let us think of that: 23,000 people a month in a population of less than 300,000. It is disturbing.
I blame the Liberal government for it. It has not done its job in the last nine years. Now it is panicking with about 12 to 18 months left in the mandate that it has. It is even worse with all the long-term consequences, all of the deficit spending and all of the debt we have. I really also worry about the social programs. We are paying more today on debt than we are for health transfers to each of our provinces and our territories.
The federal government will spend over $54 billion servicing the federal debt. That is more than the federal government spends on health care with its transfers. The number is only going to go up. The Prime Minister spends more and more. In saying that, I am disappointed that we are talking about the fall economic plan, as I mentioned, nine months later. It is up to the government to move fast.
I was proud tonight to talk about Darren Dutchyshen.
I was also proud to represent Saskatoon—Grasswood, which will soon be called “Saskatoon South”, as we will not vote for the disastrous Liberal-NDP government.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech.
There were a lot of numbers in his speech, which is great. He shared one number that I liked. He talked about the polls and said that the Liberal Party was 20 points behind the Conservative Party in the polls. What he may have forgotten to mention is that there is a place in Canada called Quebec, where the Conservative Party is not first or second, but third in the polls.
My question is quite simple. Is that because the Conservatives see Quebec as a province like the others, or do the Conservatives see Quebec as a distinct society, a nation? Do the Conservatives have anything to offer Quebec that is different from what they have to offer the other provinces?
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Madam Speaker, yes, as Conservatives, we have a lot of work to do to get votes in Quebec. We know that. We have a good section in Quebec City. We have about 10 Conservatives from that province. We have a great base, but more needs to happen. We understand that. We have some great MPs here. We want more in 2025, if we go to the polls, and I think we can get more. Right now, the polls are very good in Quebec. However, as we know, when we flip the switch, anything can happen during an election time. We have not forgotten about Quebec, and we will be there in 2025.
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Madam Speaker, through you to my colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood, he mentioned the fact that gas prices are going up dramatically this summer, yet that dramatic increase will be totally independent and unaffected by government taxation. What is happening is that the oil and gas companies are once again going to gouge consumers. Every time they unilaterally raise the price of gas by tens of cents on long weekends and over the summer months, Conservatives are absolutely silent, even though the impact of that price gouging far outweighs the impact of any government taxes.
Why do Conservatives give a free ride to the oil and gas companies that are gouging consumers? Interestingly, under a Conservative government, the U.K. put in place an excess profits tax and then took those revenues from the oil and gas companies and drove them into affordability measures to help average folks. However, these Conservatives continually give the oil and gas giants a totally free ride. Why is that?
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Madam Speaker, it is simple. Canadians want us to cut the tax. Whether it is the carbon tax or the gas tax, they are paying too much right now. I used to drive to B.C., but I cannot afford to anymore, to be honest. I mentioned that the gas prices there are over two dollars, but that socialist provincial government will get its reward this year when it gets kicked out of office once and for all by a new Conservative government.
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Madam Speaker, my colleague is very proud of Saskatchewan agriculture, the farmers and ranchers in Saskatchewan and the potash industry there.
One thing that disappointed me in the fall economic statement is that the Liberals keep talking about removing the GST from homebuilding. If they really want to make life affordable, why are they still charging the GST on top of the carbon tax? It is one thing that the carbon tax raises the price of everything, but to put the GST on top of a tax, which is a tax on a tax, is like a double gut punch. It increases the cost of fuel, lumber, home heating and natural gas. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has now said that the GST charged on the carbon tax cost Canadians $400 million last year. What is the impact on my colleague's constituents with respect to a tax on a tax?
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Madam Speaker, the impact has been great. Two Boston Pizzas have closed in the last month. Why is that? It is because of tax on a tax. Seven to eight restaurants, in the last three months, have come to my office to show me the carbon tax bill and the GST bill. For many of these restaurants, it was $1,300 or $1,400 a month in the cold months of January, February and March. That is a staff member they could have kept on. Instead, with the carbon tax and the GST, they simply have to let people go, or better yet, shut down altogether.
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Madam Speaker, are the final two minutes of this Tuesday supposed to be the highlight of the show? Were we meant to save the best for last? If so, I think I am going to disappoint a lot of people, given how little time I have left.
To begin, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to split my time.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
I have received notice from all recognized parties that they are in agreement with this request.
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to split his time?
Some hon. members
Agreed.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has one minute.
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Madam Speaker, I say hello to Liberal illusionism and hello to Canadian junk progressivism. This budgetary smokescreen hides Ottawa's two main obsessions: using our money to support the oil and gas companies despite fine pseudo-environmental speeches that sound good at social gatherings, and invading the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. We know that the oil companies will be getting $30.3 billion in subsidies in the form of tax credits, meaning that taxpayers will be paying oil companies to pollute less when they do not need that money.
There is also the creation of a federal department of municipal affairs called the department of housing, infrastructure and communities, which signals more interference, more fights and more delays, even though the housing crisis calls for swift action.
I will use my last two seconds to say that we are voting against this bill.
The House resumed from May 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the third time and passed.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here this evening to finally give this speech, which I have been looking forward to doing for quite some time. I would like to start by saying that there are some good measures in Bill C‑59. As everyone knows, this is an omnibus bill. It would have been terrible to not have anything to sink our teeth into. Of these good measures, I have identified a few that I think are worth highlighting in the House.
First, Bill C‑59 seeks to make it more difficult to use tax havens by cracking down on two schemes. The Bloc Québécois has wanted to crack down on tax havens for a long time. It is not perfect, but the government is nevertheless tackling two schemes, specifically interest deductibility between subsidiaries and hybrid mismatch arrangements. This measure was recommended by the OECD working group on tax evasion.
One of the schemes involving tax havens is the creation of financing subsidiaries. Simply put, the primary function of a subsidiary in a tax haven is to lend to the Canadian parent company. The interest paid by the Canadian company is thus diverted to a tax haven where it is essentially not taxed. That is the loophole that Bill C‑59 aims to close. This is a good measure. As for the implementation of rules on hybrid mismatch arrangements, this is consistent with the OECD and the Group of Twenty base erosion and profit shifting project recommendations regarding cross-border tax avoidance structures.
This bill also picks up on the idea of Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act regarding mental health services, which was sponsored by my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester and passed unanimously at second reading. The Bloc Québécois supports that bill. Quebec is a pioneer in psychotherapy legislation and has inspired several provinces, like Ontario, to regulate psychotherapy. Anyone who wishes to offer psychotherapy services in Quebec and who is not a doctor or psychologist must obtain a licence from the Ordre des psychologues du Québec. However, the different tax treatment afforded to the various professional associations is unfair. For doctors and psychologists, psychotherapy falls within their scope of practice and is therefore not taxable, but all other categories of professionals must charge tax on the services they provide. The bill would address this unfairness and would come as a welcome change, given the growing need for mental health services. The bill also includes a review of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. At first glance, this is a small step in the right direction.
In the House, if a bill is good for Quebec, then the Bloc Québécois votes in favour of it. If a bill is bad for Quebec, then my colleagues and I vote against it. As I said in the beginning, there are some good things about Bill C‑59, but mostly it is a bad bill. That is why the Bloc Québécois will be voting against it. Bill C‑59 is an omnibus bill that is almost 550 pages long. It sets out 60 different measures and amends or creates 31 laws and regulations. I would like to remind the House that there are some good things in the bill but that the Bloc Québécois will be opposing it at second reading because of two measures.
There are two things that the Bloc Québécois still does not like about the bill. That will not change, regardless of the political party sitting on the other side of the House. The first thing is that this is the umpteenth time the federal government has tried to infringe on provincial jurisdictions. The second thing is the subsidies that the government is giving to oil companies at Quebeckers' expense. This bill gives $30.3 billion in subsidies to oil companies in the form of tax credits. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change is telling us that his government has put an end to oil subsidies, but he should have read his government's bill because that is not what it says. We are talking about $30.3. billion that is being taken out of taxpayers' pockets and given as a gift to oil companies so that they can pollute less, when they obviously do not need that money. One thing is certain, I highly doubt that the official opposition will do much to oppose that, even if it is “wacko”, as they say.
Another crazy idea in this bill is the creation of a federal department of municipal affairs called the department of housing, infrastructure and communities, which will lead to more federal attempts at interference, more endless discussions and more delays, when the housing crisis requires swift action.
On top of these two very bad measures, the government made no attempt to address the Bloc Québécois' priorities, priorities that reflected the real and urgent needs of Quebeckers. When my colleagues and I are on the ground, in our ridings, we connect with our constituents and take calls every day at our offices. People talk to us about these needs.
Worse yet, in response to Quebec's requests, the federal government decided once again to disregard provincial jurisdictions. Housing, local infrastructure, land use, municipal affairs: none of that falls under federal jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, Bill C‑59 creates the department of housing, infrastructure and communities. By creating a designated department, Bill C‑59 gives the minister the capacity to interfere even more. This department will allow the federal government to impose even more conditions on the provinces and municipalities and, of course, make the delays even worse.
Former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau tried a similar stunt when he created the department of urban affairs in 1971, and it failed miserably. To prevent the federal government from meddling in municipal affairs, the Quebec government amended its Act respecting the Ministère du Conseil exécutif to prohibit municipalities, RCMs, school boards and crown corporations from dealing directly with Ottawa. That law remains in effect.
The department of urban affairs caused endless bickering between the federal government and the provinces for its entire existence and never managed to deliver anything useful. It was finally shut down in 1979, which was good for Quebeckers, under pressure from a certain PQ government led by René Lévesque.
Despite this disastrous experiment, the federal government is trying something similar today. After the national housing strategy was announced, it took more than three years for an agreement to be signed between Quebec and Ottawa. Just recently, the federal government refused to give $900 million to Quebec to create housing, with no strings attached. It is hard to imagine that negotiations will be streamlined under a new department.
The picture is not much brighter if we look at the other federal parties. The government is essentially proposing more and more centralization. The Conservatives display the same centralizing tendency, only they are also threatening to cut investments if housing construction targets are not met. This is a disturbing trend among all the federalist parties in the House.
It will come as no surprise to learn that we will not support the creation of a department whose main mission is to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions. We will not support Bill C‑59 either. The Bloc Québécois will continue to oppose all forms of federal interference in Quebec's jurisdictions for as long as it takes, for one very simple but exceedingly important reason: Quebec never has been and never will be dictated to by the federal government.
Once again, we have proof that this government, this institution, the federal Parliament, does not respect the Quebec nation. It will not respect the Quebec nation until the people of Quebec decide to create a true nation with all the tools needed to achieve Quebec's sovereignty and independence.
When that time comes, we will congratulate them on creating a new department of no consequence to us.
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to reassure my colleague. Our agreements with the Government of Quebec are going very well.
Last week, I had the opportunity to visit the riding of our colleague from Salaberry—Suroît to make an announcement regarding housing. The provincial MNA for the riding, Claude Reid, was also there, as was the mayor. It was a great announcement about social housing. At the same time, we have made a plethora of other announcements.
Does my colleague not think that is a good thing?
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, what I have to say is that it is great if an announcement was made with my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît, who I always refer to as my treasured whip.
When I am told that the federal government is working hand in hand with the Government of Quebec, then I want to know why the federal government is funding the court challenge against a law that was passed by the Quebec National Assembly. The federal government cannot tell me that it is working hand in hand with the Government of Quebec when it is challenging one of Quebec's laws and funding a court challenge of that law. It is impossible.
When the Government of Quebec asks for $1 billion to cover the costs associated with taking in asylum seekers and the federal government does not answer the call, then the federal government cannot tell me that it is working hand in hand with Quebec. When the federal government challenges Bill 96, a French language law that was passed by the Quebec National Assembly, using Quebeckers' tax dollars, then it cannot tell me that it is working hand in hand with the Government of Quebec. The day we work hand in hand will be the day when we are sitting side by side at the United Nations, each in our own seat.
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean. I also have a treasured whip, but not the same one.
According to my colleague, the federalist parties—whether the governing party or the Conservative Party on this side—have supposedly not been advocating for Quebec. As he said, the people of Quebec will decide. I think he is in the wrong Parliament. I think that if he wants to ask the people of Quebec to undo the Canada we know today, he should run for the National Assembly.
Partisan comments aside, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about including registered massage therapists in Bill C-59.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, the bill is 550 pages long and my colleague zeroed in on something very specific. I thank my colleague for asking that question, but I will come back to what he said.
Am I in the wrong Parliament? No, I am not. If he wants to fight for a united Canada, I strongly suggest that he run for the National Assembly. Now, since Quebeckers voted 32 members of the Bloc Québécois into the House of Commons, no one can dispute the legitimacy of our postion in the House, just as I will never dispute the legitimacy of members of the other parties who are seated here in the House. Democracy has spoken.
If Quebeckers did not have a sovereignist option in Ottawa, then only one vision of this issue would be presented in the House. That is unthinkable. Democracy is representation. I represent the people of my riding who put their trust in me. I thank them every day and I thank them again this evening. As for massage therapists, I will talk to my colleague about that in the antechamber.
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
The hon. member for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation on a point of order.
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Mr. Speaker, I made the wrong choice during the first vote. I therefore seek the unanimous consent of the House to have my vote recorded as a “nay”. An agreement was reached with the whips.
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
I received notice from all recognized parties that they are in agreement with this request.
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to change his vote?
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member who just finished his speech. I would like to say at the outset that the number of Quebeckers already registered for the NDP's dental care program is in the hundreds of thousands. We also know that thousands of Quebeckers are getting their NDP dental care card every week. I think that is extremely important.
Pharmacare is another topic of discussion. All of the major unions in Quebec say that they view the NDP's pharmacare bill, Bill C‑64, in a very positive light. It is important to mention these two things. The NDP is the one proposing measures in the House to improve the daily lives of people across Canada. That is extremely important.
We are supportive of the fall economic statement, Bill C-59. I will talk about some of the measures the NDP has inserted into it, but I will start by saying that this is not an NDP budget.
Of all the governments in the country, the two most popular are the government of British Columbia and the government of Manitoba, and they are two NDP governments. They have both been very effective. The Manitoba NDP government is new, but it is extraordinarily popular. This is because the NDP really knows that the essence of good stewardship, of managing a democratic government, is ensuring that it is not the rich who are taken care of but, rather, regular folks. We have formed government provincially, of course, in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia. All those governments have been governments that have made a difference in the lives of people.
The simple reason the two most popular governments in the country right now are NDP governments is the financial statements that are issued by the federal ministry of finance. As members well know, the federal ministry of finance is not a hotbed of social democrats or democratic socialists, but it does publish the fiscal period returns. If members look through them, and I hope they do before the end of the evening, they will see that, over the last 40 years, the best governments, in terms of managing money, paying down debt, expanding education services, expanding housing services and expanding health care systems have been, systematically, over the last 40 years, NDP governments. That is why the two most popular governments in the country right now are NDP governments. It is because the NDP is not beholden to lobbyists.
The corporate Conservatives are run by lobbyists. Their national executive is run by lobbyists. There are lobbyists permeating the Conservative headquarters. The Conservative caucus and the campaign team are all lobbyists for the corporate sector. When the Conservatives were in government we could see how badly they performed. They do not understand the issue of stewardship. The infamous Harper tax haven treaties have bled over $30 billion, each and every year over the last 17 years, out of this country. That is $30 billion that could have been used for health care and housing. It could have been used for a variety of services for veterans, seniors and youth. It could have lowered post-secondary education costs. It could have made a big difference, but that was not what the Conservatives chose to do.
The Liberals, when they came to power, kept many of the tax breaks that had been given to the richest of Canadians, the wealthiest of Canadians, who have never paid their fair share, and the most profitable corporations. The NDP's approach is different, which is why the fiscal period returns to the federal ministry of finance show conclusively that the NDP and NDP governments are the best at managing money.
This is not an NDP budget, by any means. There are elements that the NDP forced into the budget that would make a difference in the lives of working people. The reason we are supporting it is the amendments we have achieved, in the same way that we brought dental care to Canadians. There are two million who have signed up already, including 100,000 seniors. There are many who are, for the first time in their lives, getting access to dental care, and this is just in the first two weeks of this new NDP program. NDP dental care is making a difference.
Earlier tonight, we moved the pharmacare bill to the health committee, which is where it should go. I am looking forward to those hearings over the next couple of days. People have been waiting for decades to have pharmacare added to our health care program and our health care strength in this country.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall in this House, as I am sure you have a great depth of historical memory, that 60 years ago in this House of Commons, just a few feet from this temporary house in the West Block, in Centre Block, Tommy Douglas, as the founding leader of the NDP, brought forward universal health care, which was viciously fought against by Conservatives at the time, who did not want to see people getting health care. However, it was a minority Parliament and Tommy Douglas was able to successfully deliver universal health care to Canadians.
Tommy Douglas always thought that we needed to make sure that health care was available from the tip of our heads right to the soles of our feet. He always envisaged that we would move to pharmacare, that we would move to dental care and that Canadians would have access to the full range of health care services that all other countries with universal health care enjoyed. Fortunately, we have the member for Burnaby South as our leader who feels the same way, and this has been a hallmark of NDP leaders over the decades. Every time there has been a minority Parliament, the NDP has stepped up as the worker bees of Parliament, as the adults in the room. We have gotten things done that have made a difference for Canadians, from universal health care to a whole range of other things like the Canada pension plan, employment insurance and all those things that make a difference in people's lives. All of them come thanks to the NDP, because that is our role in Parliament.
Therefore, when we look at the fall economic statement, we can see already that NDP stamp that makes a difference, but unlike the corporate Conservatives and the lobbyist Liberals, we do not believe in spending enormous amounts of money on the wealthy, on the pampered and on big corporations. We do not believe in funding massively the corporate sector. We believe in negotiating with the corporate sector. The reason we are pressing so hard for pharmacare is that countries that have universal pharmacare are able to have the bulk-purchasing negotiating power that forces down the price of drugs. New Zealand is a great example, where there is a reduction of 90% in the cost of certain medications because the New Zealand government was able to say to the pharmaceutical companies that if they wanted to come into that market, they would have to pay New Zealand's price. Currently, with the patchwork of plans that the corporate Conservatives and the lobbyist Liberals have put into place over decades, it is the pharmaceutical company executives who decide what the prices are, and that has to change.
The fall economic statement does contain some measures that we believe would make a difference. First off, we believe firmly in starting to adjust a taxation system that has become profoundly unjust and unequal. We have said that when we look at the infamous Harper tax haven treaties that cost us $30 billion a year, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and we look at the range of other loopholes that exist, it is important to take steps to ensure that those loopholes are closed. The real taxation rate for Canada's largest corporations is single digits because of the loopholes. Because of the corporate executives' ability to write off and because of their ability to take money overseas where they do not have to pay taxes on it, their real taxation rate is in the single digits, less than 10%.
Why not ask Canadians what their taxation rate is? Middle-class Canadians pay their taxes expecting that they will get services and supports in return, but instead, under the Harper regime, we saw that the Conservatives slashed services to those taxpayers who had paid money into the federal government and they gave that money away. They gave it to tax havens. They gave it to the banks. Unbelievably, the Harper regime gave $160 billion to the banking sector so that the banks could prop up executive bonuses and corporate dividends.
The Conservatives have never apologized for that, and Liberals have never apologized for the $750 billion, again, in liquidity supports that they offered to the banking sector just a few years ago. It took 96 hours to provide $750 billion in liquidity supports. Between the two, the corporate coalition of Liberals and Conservatives, over the past 15 years, has given, unbelievably, in current dollars, over a trillion dollars in liquidity supports to the banking sector to prop up dividends and profits and executive bonuses.
We look at the health care problems that we are experiencing, the housing crisis and other problems that exist. We had, today, the member for Nunavut, who is an extraordinary member of Parliament, asking about day care that is not being adequately funded in Iqaluit, yet for Liberals and Conservatives, between them, giving a trillion dollars to the banking sector is no problem.
We can look at the tax havens over the last 15 years. That is half a trillion dollars. That is $30 billion a pop, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, given away to overseas tax havens without a penny of return to Canadians, yet we look at people with disabilities. Half of those who have to go to food banks to make ends meet, half of those who are sleeping outside in the parks and main streets of our country, are people with disabilities. They are not getting what they need in terms of support, but between Liberals and Conservatives, the corporate coalition, for 15 years, half a trillion dollars went to offshore tax havens.
We can look at oil and gas CEOs. Between both the Harper Conservatives and the current Liberal government, over the last 15 years, we have seen $100 billion given to oil and gas CEOs. There is a ton of money that goes to the wrong places in this country. That is why NDP MPs are here fighting on behalf of Canadians, delivering on pharmacare and affordable housing, finally. We had to push the Liberals hard on that over the last couple of years.
We are delivering on dental care, anti-scab legislation, a clean energy strategy and all those things, because, as worker bees in Parliament, we believe firmly that the investments need to happen with families and regular people right across this country, not the rich and the pampered. That is where the corporate Conservatives love to spend tons of money. That is where we have seen, sadly, the Liberal government spend tons of money. We believe that money needs to go to regular people.
When we look at this fall economic statement, there is a first step. Again, the NDP pushed hard for that. We finally will get an annual tax of 3% on types of digital services. This is earned by larger companies with more than $1.1 billion in revenue. This is an important step that we support. Again, is this an NDP budget? No. Does it take an important first step? Yes, it does.
As for the investments in housing, the apartment construction loan program, $15 billion, and the affordable housing fund over the next three years for non-profit and co-op and social housing, we support those as well. In fact, the member for Vancouver East fought hard and so did the member for Nunavut, to make a difference in terms of housing.
I do need to mention the anti-scab legislation for a moment and the work of my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who did a remarkable job in making sure that, finally, replacement workers will be banned at the federal level, and Parliament will be called upon to get a final vote on that in the coming weeks. This is vitally important.
The NDP MPs work as a team. Our leader is the member from Burnaby South. We have made an enormous difference in this Parliament. We made an enormous difference in the last Parliament. We will recall, at the height of the COVID crisis, that it was the NDP that was pushing the government, fortunately in a Parliament where I think it is fair to say that all parties did work together, to invest more than $40 billion to ensure that people, families, people with disabilities, seniors and students were taken care of. Small businesses actually had the wherewithal to keep that shingle out as part of their small business by some rent relief.
All of those things came as a result of the NDP fighting hard on behalf of people. There have been two consecutive minority Parliaments where the NDP has made a difference.
Let me get to the crux of what is in Bill C-59 that we can support. The amendments that were brought originally by the member for Burnaby South, the leader of the NDP, would finally enhance the Competition Bureau. This is fundamentally important. We have had no consumer protection in this country. The corporate sector, the lobbyists, have really been paramount. We have seen, over the decades, how successive Liberal and Conservative governments have refused to do anything to enhance consumer protection.
The member for Burnaby South, the national leader of the NDP, brought forward enhancements to the Competition Act that would ensure that we can crack down on food price gouging and gas price gouging that we are seeing. It has happened with impunity because the Competition Bureau has not had the tools to take action against it. Members will recall that the member for Burnaby South tabled a bill in this regard. The NDP fought hard. We negotiated hard. We did our work as the worker bees in Parliament.
As a result of that, many of the enhancements to the Competition Act are now in this legislation. This is important because despite the protestations of the member for Carleton, who tries to pretend that putting a price on pollution has led to the difficulties and challenges around the rise in food prices, we know that most Canadians understand, unlike the member for Carleton, that it is actually food price gouging that has taken place. We are seeing massive profits in the grocery industry. We are seeing record CEO bonuses.
We have a Conservative Party that is absolutely inundated with lobbyists. Lobbyists run its national party and run its campaign team. This is no surprise because of all the corporate Conservatives have done. Their past track record is giving massive amounts of money to the corporate sector, without ever asking for anything in return. It is like they are not even trying to get any benefits for Canadians. They just hand it out. There were the infamous Harper tax haven treaties, $30 billion each and every year handed over to the wealthiest of Canadians in the corporate sector, and they never asked for a thing in return.
The role the NDP plays in Parliament is so important because the Competition Act amendments that we brought in would mean that we could start cracking down on the egregious food price gouging Canadians are experiencing when they go to the grocery store, and gas price gouging. Just a few weeks ago, my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni signalled this. I know my colleagues in British Columbia, like my colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay, can attest to this. The prices in British Columbia all of a sudden skyrocketed by 30¢ a litre. There was no explanation because the companies can do that now. They can do gas price gouging.
The companies do this when we have peak season in terms of travel in British Columbia. It is a beautiful province. We like to get around in British Columbia. The gas companies can gouge with impunity because the Conservatives have allowed them to do this and the Liberals have allowed them to do this. Finally, with these enhancements, the Competition Bureau and the Competition Act would be able to crack down on this gas price gouging that has inflicted so much pain on British Columbians and Canadians right across this country.
These are two important elements that are part of this bill, and it is why we are supporting it.
I wanted to give a shout-out to my colleague from London—Fanshawe. She presented a private member's bill waiving the GST on counselling and psychotherapy. The NDP has also put that into this bill. That would make a difference for all those who need counselling and psychotherapy. Those who have experience with mental illness, mental challenges and mental health know how important it is to be able to pay for those services. This is another innovation that would make a difference.
The NDP has achieved a lot to improve the bill, and we will support it.
Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023Government Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight one of the aspects that is very important for us to take into consideration. The Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister made reference to it in presenting the budget, and that was the degree to which we are getting direct foreign investment. If one takes a look at the first three quarters of last year, we were number one on a per capita basis in the G7 and, in fact, the G20. When a worldwide comparison is done, I believe we were somewhere around number three.
Foreign investment does matter. It creates all forms of jobs and opportunities. I wonder whether the member could provide some thoughts on that particular issue.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite.
I would suggest that what the NDP believes in is stimulating investment here at home. This is something we believe very strongly in. It is the partnering of public investment and private investment. This is something we have lost sight of over the last few decades. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has pointed out that the infrastructure deficit in this country is now approaching a quarter of a trillion dollars, for sewage plants, bridges, roads that need to be reconstructed, schools and hospitals.
After the Second World War, there was a fair taxation system that asked the rich to pay their fair share and asked the profitable corporations to pay a certain level of tax. As a result of that, we were able to build a society that had massive infrastructure and allowed us to build schools, roads and hospitals. We have moved away from that. It was eroded by Conservatives, including the Harper Conservatives, and was unfortunately not picked up by the Liberals. After the 2015 election, they should have put in place a fair tax system that would have allowed for the public investments, partnering with private investments, to have allowed our economy to really take off.
These are all reasons why an NDP government would be the best choice for Canada.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, there is much in my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby's speech that I want to support, but I was particularly drawn to his reminiscences, believe it or not, of a better time that I think of quite often: the degree of co-operation that happened in this place during COVID.
I distinctly remember the work we did. There were all of the finance critics from every party, including me for the Green Party and the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby representing the NDP as finance critic. The member for Carleton was, at the time, finance critic, but he is doing something different now.
We all met on a regular basis with a former colleague, the hon. Bill Morneau, who was minister of finance. We met every other week. We brought news from the ground of what was not working for our businesses locally, and what was working. As we could not vote in this place, every bit of the $80 billion in emergency spending to help Canadians was passed unanimously every time.
I want to stop for a moment and thank all of our colleagues for the ability to pull together to help Canadians in crisis. Please, let us do it again.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is a good friend, for raising that point.
It is true that during COVID we saw the best of parliamentarianism in this country. All members of Parliament were working together. We will recall that we did not have the virtual Parliament to start. We had a scant number of MPs in the House because of social distancing. At the same time, we were able to agree on a variety of supports that made a big difference in the lives of Canadians.
I would suggest, and I think my colleague would agree with me, that the climate crisis now calls upon that same level of co-operation. We need to work together. There are the wildfires in northern Canada. The fire season is starting earlier than ever. In British Columbia, we lived through the heat dome that killed 600 people, including 60 people in my riding. Atmospheric rivers have cut off portions of Canada from other portions of Canada. There is absolutely no doubt that the climate crisis is at hand. We all need to work together, and I would hope that we would find a renewed sense of co-operation among all members of Parliament to combat this crisis that requires a degree of co-operation never seen before in our country's history.
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
It is interesting to hear my hon. colleague speak, because even during question period today, his leader rose and talked about greedy CEOs. He got quite a reaction, because it is fairly well known that, despite the fact that the NDP leader constantly speaks about Loblaw and the connections that he makes, his brother is lobbying on behalf of Metro.
NDP members, particularly their leader, take shot after shot at the Liberal Party. Then what do they do? They vote with the Liberals time after time. They have not seen a single solitary thing, in my view, that the Liberals themselves have not taken credit for. At what point will the member start providing the opposition that I have seen him provide in the House to the Liberals, in the form of tangible opposition, and by that I mean voting against them when they are providing poor governance?
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, I think the member errs in one respect. I go to Kamloops quite often, and I know that the people of Kamloops now are benefiting from the NDP's dental care program. In fact the member should be talking with his constituents. There are hundreds of them who have already received the support in Kamloops, which is wonderful.
Now, of course, I would hope that the member would vote for the NDP pharmacare plan, because there are about 18,000 people in his riding who would benefit from the diabetes medication and about 25,000 people in his riding who would benefit from the contraception.
However, when the member says that we vote with the Liberals, I think it is actually the contrary: When we are talking about pharmacare, dental care and anti-scab legislation, the Liberals have been forced to vote with us, and I think that is a very good thing.
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Uqaqtittiji, my colleague's intervention was excellent.
I will ask the member about the Competition Act and Bill C-59, particularly because it is the NDP that is the only party that is fighting corporate greed. I would like to give a specific example.
I am a member of the indigenous and northern affairs committee, and it was my motion that got the North West Company, a grocery company that is subsidized by the Liberal government, to offer subsidies to alleviate poverty. However, instead of using the subsidy to alleviate poverty, the North West Company is helping to feed corporate greed. For example, the CEO, Dan McConnell, would not answer my questions regarding his salary, his benefits or the bonuses that he gets. Instead, he said that he would give me the responses in written form, which he has now provided. That CEO, in 2023, earned $765,000 and in the same year received a bonus of just over $1 million.
How would the Competition Act and Bill C-59 help to address that kind of corporate greed?
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Nunavut, who is an extraordinary voice for Nunavut, for northern Canada and for indigenous peoples. She brings so much to the floor of the House of Commons and has been such a remarkable fighter for her constituents and for people right across this land.
It is appalling to me to hear these figures. The member is talking about nearly $1.8 million dollars paid in salary and bonuses to the CEO of a company that has been part of what can only be described as massive food price gouging in northern Canada and Nunavut. I have been to Nunavut, and I have seen the prices, which are unbelievable for any regular family to try to afford to put food on the table. If it were not for country food, people simply would not be able to survive. This is why it is so important to have NDP MPs in the House, and ultimately to have an NDP government.
Simply, Liberals and Conservatives will never take on the corporate CEOs who gouge Canadians. NDP MPs and an NDP government will.
Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023Government Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be able to address the issue of budgetary measures, because I like to think there is a lot of contrast, a big difference, between Conservatives and Liberals. Maybe one of the ways I can highlight the difference is to talk about some of the things that a caring government does.
I can say that, virtually from the very beginning, in 2015, the government in essence recognized the valuable role Canada's middle class and those people aspiring to be a part of it play in giving us a healthier and stronger economy. All the way through there were tax breaks to the middle class, enhancements to child care programs and increases to the guaranteed income supplement, programs that literally lifted hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty. Carried into a worldwide pandemic, we were developing programs to support Canadians at a time when the government may have needed to step up.
Fast-forward to what we see today. I believe, when we do a comparison, we get a really good contrast in terms of what type of government we have and what type of government we would see if, heaven forbid, Conservatives were to win the next election. I think of the types of programs and investments we have put in that demonstrate very clearly that we want to have an economy that works for all Canadians. We recognize the importance of fairness. Think of generation X and the millennials, and the issues they have to face.
The budget we are talking about today is really and truly a reflection of what the values of Canadians are and what their expectations are of the national government. We know this because the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and my colleagues within caucus who work within their constituencies are bringing the feedback that is so critically important here to Ottawa so that the budget reflects the interests of the constituents we represent. I do not say that lightly, because I believe it is a reflection of what we have been told as parliamentarians. That is why what we see in this budget and have seen over the last couple of years is serious investments in people in a very real and tangible way.
It is interesting to look at who it is the leader of the Conservative Party is talking to. Contrast that with who it is the Prime Minister is talking to. I have made reference to some of the events that have taken place in my home province of Manitoba. Just last week, the Prime Minister was in The Maples in Winnipeg. We were talking about the budget and how, in this budget, we would be spending money to support 400,000-plus children in all regions of the country by ensuring there would be a nutritional program for children who need food when they are going into the classroom.
We were at a school with the provincial minister of education, who was a former principal, from what I understand. It was a great opportunity to be in front of children, child care providers, teachers and educators to see first-hand the benefits of providing nutritional foods. The Province of Manitoba also saw the value of the program and is investing, I believe, about $30 million itself.
What our constituents want to see is governments working together, which is what we saw just last week with respect to the national food program for children. It is hard for a child to learn on an empty stomach. It is an issue that has existed for many years. When I was first elected in 1988, as I made reference to in my comments, Sharon Carstairs was talking, as a former teacher herself, about how difficult it was for a child to learn on an empty stomach.
The government is actually delivering on a program that is going to have a real, tangible impact. The Prime Minister is working with the provincial minister, highlighting and amplifying how valuable that program is going to be. We listen to the Conservatives, and they do not support the program. It is unfortunate, but it is not the only thing.
We invested $198 billion over 10 years in health care for future generations. I would tell every member of Parliament to talk to their constituents. We love our health care system. This is a commitment from the Prime Minister and the government to ensure that we have quality health care. We talk about mental health care and long-term health care. We talk about all sorts of needs to be met, with family doctors and so forth, and this is materializing in a substantive way.
It was not that long ago, a number of months ago, that the Prime Minister was at the Grace hospital with the premier of the province, who was saying how Ottawa's financial contributions were going to make a tangible difference in terms of staffing, whether doctors or nurses, as well as wait times and so forth. As a government, not only did we commit the billions of dollars to preserve the health care that Canadians love, but we also made health care agreements with the different provinces and territories. There has to be a higher sense of financial accountability. Canadians have an expectation. Again, the Conservative Party opposes it; Conservatives believe that Ottawa does not need to play a role in health care. We saw that during the Harper years, when the current leader was part of that cabinet.
Last year, the Prime Minister was with me in Tyndall Park, where—
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for allowing me to make this little special request to the members of the House.
I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House to change the votes from the members for Calgary Midnapore, Perth—Wellington and King—Vaughan, which were votes against the amendment to Motion No. 39, to votes in favour.
I would also ask to add a vote against the main motion from the member for Perth—Wellington.
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
I have received notice from all recognized parties that they are in agreement with this request.
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members
Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
It is agreed.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, we should think of the progressive programs that the government has put in place over the years, including in the current budget, to support Canadians, as well as why the Conservative Party continuously and consistently votes against those programs.
I referred to health care and $10-a-day child care. In Tyndall Park, the Prime Minister talked with child care workers about the benefits of that particular program. All provinces are on board, working with the federal government.
We can talk about housing. The Prime Minister, again not that long ago, was in Manitoba with not only the premier but also the mayor of Winnipeg. They talked about investing hundreds of millions of dollars, recognizing the important role that the government plays in providing housing. The leader of the Conservative Party was minister of housing; we barely need two hands to count the number of houses that were built when he was in that role. He built six units.
At the end of the day, as a government, we are working on building a substantial number of houses. Over the next number of years, it is going to total close to four million homes. The Conservatives will laugh at the premiers, the mayors and the other municipalities that are working with the government, but at the end of the day—
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
Order.
I know it seems at times that we are having a conversation here, but the hon. member for Winnipeg North has the floor, so I will ask the chamber to listen attentively to the hon. parliamentary secretary.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, time goes by really quickly here. I am trying to demonstrate to my friends across the way that, whether it is with health care, child care, housing, a national food program, pharmacare, a dental program or the first-ever disability benefit, the government is taking progressive measures to support Canadians and to support constituents across the country in all regions.
However, the Conservative Party consistently votes against these.
Its members do not quite understand that, to build a strong, healthy economy, we need to support Canadians. Over the years, including in the budget, we have brought forward programs to do just that. We brought in programs to support individuals, whether they are seniors, people with disabilities or many others. At the end of the day, what do we hear from the Conservatives? They constantly vote “no”. They go around the country saying how Canada is broken.
It was not that long ago that there was an extreme right group the leader of the Conservative Party actually met with. It was the Diagolon group. These are the individuals the Conservative Party is actually listening to—
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo is rising on a point of order.
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, I understand that sometimes the rhetoric and hyperbole can go a little bit awry here, but at the end of the day, the parliamentary secretary is suggesting something very serious when he says that the member for Carleton met with people from an organization that has espoused hateful language and—
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
I appreciate the conversation tonight, but that is descending into debate, so the hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I suspect that a number of Conservative members might be a little upset with the fact that their leader actually met with that group. He actually went into the trailer and met with members here on Parliament Hill. This is not a disputable issue. At the end of the day, that is fine for the MAGA right Conservatives, that far-right element.
I would suggest that the Conservative Party is more like the former Reform Party than it is conservative. Members do not need to believe me. Listen to what former prime ministers have said. Joe Clark said that he never left the Conservative Party; the Conservative party left him. Kim Campbell has said all sorts of unparliamentary words about today's Conservative Party, especially with respect to the leader. Even Brian Mulroney was very critical of the Conservative Party. He said it is not a progressive party any longer. That aspect was amputated. Do not just listen to me. This is what people within the progressive conservative movement have been saying about the Conservative Party today. It is not a conservative party; it is a far right party like the Reform Party.
I talked about the social programs. There are many different progressive social programs that we have brought forward, but I want to emphasize them from an economic point of view. To have a healthy country, we need a healthy economy. We can take a look at the economy and what we have been able to accomplish by working with Canadians, by working with other entities. I would suggest to members that it goes so much further than what Stephen Harper ever did. We can take a look at the job numbers as an example. In 10 years, almost a million jobs were created under Stephen Harper. When it comes to our government, we are talking about over two million jobs after eight and a half years.
When I think of jobs and opportunities, at the end of the day, one of the most powerful messages that was in the budget document was the fact that Canada, on a per capita basis, has more foreign direct investment than any other country in the G7 or the G20. If we want to look at it from a worldwide perspective, we are number three.
Why do people around the world look at Canada as a place to invest their money? I would suggest that it is due to a number of factors. In Canada, the government has actually signed off on more free trade agreements than any other government has. That is a fact. As a result of such things, by recognizing the value of trade and the value of receiving foreign investment, we have actually hit significant records, unlike the Conservatives, who oppose government involvement in investments.
I would tell my Conservative friends to look at the battery industry. We can talk about Stellantis, Honda and Volkswagen. The current government, working with Doug Ford in this particular case, has actually had substantial investment in an industry that was virtually non-existent in the past. It will be providing tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs into the future. These will be good, middle-class jobs. They will be green jobs. This is having an impact. From being absolutely nowhere in the world in regard to EV battery production, Canada is now in the top two or three in the world, in terms of that sort of production. This is something that is making a difference.
Even on economic matters, the Conservatives are offside. They do not support the Volkswagen investment. Even though Doug Ford recognizes its value, today's Conservative reformers do not support that. It was the same thing with Stellantis, and now the Conservatives are out there criticizing the Honda investment. I understand that it will be Honda's largest investment in North America. When we talk about the Volkswagen battery plant, in terms of size, it will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200 football fields. It will be the largest manufacturing plant in Canada, possibly even in North America.
When Stephen Harper was prime minister, we literally lost tens of thousands, going into over 100,000, manufacturing jobs. This is a government that is bringing back manufacturing jobs. These are the types of things that, as a government, we have been proactive in dealing with.
We recognize that there are issues that Canadians are facing. When we look at things such as inflation, inflation is something that is happening around the world. Even though Canada, in comparison to other countries, is doing relatively well, as a government we were focused on inflation. Back in June 2022, the inflation rate was over 8%. Today, it is at 2.7% and it has been at a far better rate over the last few months, to give us reason to believe and have hope that we will actually see the interest rates go down. We understand the affordability issue. We understand why it is so important that we make sure that Canada continues to have that AAA credit rating, unlike what the Conservatives try to say to Canadians.
Consistently, they try to give the false impression that Canada is broken. If they genuinely believe that Canada is broken, by God, that would mean the world is broken, because, at the end of the day, when one contrasts Canada's overall performance over the last nine years, I would challenge them to show what G7 country has done better, what G20 country has done better. It is because we support Canadians in a tangible way, lifting Canadians out of poverty, providing investments in apprenticeship programs, ensuring that there is a healthy economy and building infrastructure.
No government in Canada's history has spent more real dollars in infrastructure builds than this government has. We understand the importance of a healthy infrastructure, a healthy economy, investing in people. That is the way in which we will be able to grow Canada, and Canada has been growing as a direct result. It is a country that we believe in. Not only do we say it, but we also invest in it, in many different ways, not just through social programming, by having the backs of Canadians and supporting them, but also by developing a stronger, healthier economy, while at the same time recognizing that, yes, the economy matters but so does the environment. That is why it is so important that we keep having the price on pollution and that we do not buy into the misinformation that the Conservatives put out on the price on pollution.
Quite frankly, more constituents of mine actually receive more money through their rebates than they pay in the carbon tax. That is a fact that has been highlighted on many occasions. There is still much more to do, and we will continue to work day in and day out in the different regions of the country to improve and have a fairer and healthier country.
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, I typically say, but on this occasion I rise with the difficult task of pointing out just what this member has done. He has spoken about a far-right group, and I am reading from a Global News story that talked about sexually assaulting the spouse of a member of the House. The member across the way just compared the leader of His Majesty's opposition to that group, when the leader of His Majesty's opposition himself called them “odious” and “losers”.
Made aware of disgusting comments made, I am not even going to use this man's name. This person, who continually carries water for a Prime Minister who invited a Nazi into this House, who said that a woman experienced it differently, who has done all sorts of things, who pressured the first indigenous attorney general in this country's history into obstructing justice, has the audacity to do that. He should be ashamed. He should apologize and withdraw right now.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I will try to get a copy so the member can actually respond to one of the news articles on it. It seems that the Conservative Party is a little sensitive to the fact that I made reference to Diagolon and the fact that the leader of the Conservative Party actually went out to a trailer to meet with them and have discussions.
I am saying the leader of the Conservative Party did it. If he did not do it, then maybe the member should be a little more clear on that particular point. Did the leader not go out to the rally? If the member is offended, he should not be offended at me, he should be offended at the leader of the Conservative Party, who chooses the company he keeps. If the leader is consulting with the far right, if he is starting to adopt policies from the far right, do not blame me, blame the leader of the Conservative Party. Obviously the member is very upset about it. I will see if I can find the information and provide it to him directly.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the Liberal government letting the member for Winnipeg North speak. It is not often that we get a chance to hear him in the House.
I simply wanted to remind everyone that, at the height of the pandemic, when a major social crisis was happening, the member for Carleton went to visit the protesters who were illegally occupying downtown Ottawa, threatening our democracy and threatening this Parliament. He even went to hand out coffee and donuts to them.
Two weeks ago, members of his party, the Conservative Party, met with protesters who are questioning women's right to control their own bodies and the right to abortion here in Canada. Then we learned that, a few weeks ago, the leader of the official opposition stopped by to meet with members of a far-right group, taking the time to chat with them and shake their hands. I would like him to remind us, just for clarity, what the group's name is.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, the short answer is Diagolon, but I warn the member that the Conservatives are very sensitive on this issue because they do not want to be called out on it. However, the leader of the Conservatives has met with them, talked with them and gone to their trailer. Look at the protests out here during the pandemic and who was out there shaking hands, having a dinner and so forth.
I am just reminding members across the way of the degree in which the Conservative Party has gone so far to the right. It is not just me saying this. That is the reason I made reference to Progressive Conservative prime ministers. It is not just me and it is not Liberals. It is other individuals who have noticed the Conservative Party is a reform party. It is a very far-right party. Take a look at their voting pattern. Take a look the types of posts they put on their social media. Take a look at the behaviours and what we witness day in, day out inside the House. It all amplifies the fact that the Conservatives have taken a far-right turn.
Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023Government Orders
Parkdale—High Park Ontario
Liberal
Arif Virani LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, on the speech given by my colleague and juxtaposing that with what I learned in a previous role when I sat on the Emergencies Act committee for this Parliament, what we learned about that far-right extremist group is that a weapons cache was found at the Coutts border crossing and the logo for the Diagolon group was found at that weapons cache. In fact, members of that group were charged with conspiracy to commit murder against RCMP officers.
What I find most troubling about this lack of judgment on the part of the Leader of the Opposition is he purports to stand for law and order and law enforcement officials and yet is meeting with, quite intentionally, people who have now been charged with conspiring to kill law enforcement officials. I wonder if the member could comment on that juxtaposition.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's contribution. It highlights something I have said.
I would like to remind my colleagues of these quotes, and if they do not have the actual quotes, I am more than happy to provide them. I would like to refer to individuals like former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, who, in essence, said that the Conservative Party today has “amputated” progressiveness out of the Conservative Party. There is no progressive nature to the Conservative Party. We have individuals like Joe Clark, a former Conservative prime minister, who said that he never left the Conservative Party; the Conservative Party left him. We have Kim Campbell. Some of the words she used I cannot repeat, but she was referring to the leader of the Conservative Party.
Members do not have to believe me. They can listen to what Progressive Conservatives have been saying. Look at the behaviour. Listen to what the leader of the Conservative Party is saying. Look at the people he is actually meeting with, and the role that they are playing inside the chamber.
It draws me to the conclusion that it is and has become a far-right, extreme party in the House of Commons. There is enough out there to clearly demonstrate that this is, in fact, the case.
Scot Davidson Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Mr. Speaker, this is supposed to be a debate on the budget. We can see the Liberal Party is dragging us into its goofy debate about far-right extremists and everything else. It is very disappointing. I am going to allow the member for Winnipeg North to refocus. I am going to talk about how upside-down things are in my riding.
The member spoke about the carbon tax, and we know the carbon tax disproportionately affects rural Canadians. My riding of York—Simcoe, of all things, has been classified as Toronto. We have a first nation in the middle of Lake Simcoe, 70 miles from Toronto, where we cannot even see the CN Tower, that does not get the rural top-up.
The member talked about announcements. It was funny that government members were in my riding to announce money for Lake Simcoe, but the only thing they came for was to let people know that they can possibly apply for money. The government is all talk, no action. People in York—Simcoe have had enough of this.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize all sorts of wonderful things that have been happening. Last week, the Prime Minister announced a $1.6-billion investment in Port Colborne, Niagara, that will strengthen Honda's EV supply chain. We are a government that understands where future green jobs are going to be and how we can contribute to creating better opportunities and good-quality jobs.
I would say 85% of my speech was talking about the progressive aspects of our budget, whether it is health care or housing, and the list goes on. I also mentioned the many economic strengths we have been putting into the budget to build upon Canada, create more jobs and make a healthier country overall.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be sharing my time with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, who, I am sure, will happily rise and comment about how proud he is to represent people from his riding.
Now, after 20 minutes of absolute fiction from the member for Winnipeg North, I thought I would continue with a bit of fiction that describes, so well, Bill C-59 and Liberal financing. It is by Hemingway, from The Sun Also Rises. It goes like this. “How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked. “Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.”
That is exactly the Liberal government.
There is another great line, which is not fiction. I wish it were fiction, but it is not. It is actually from the Prime Minister himself. It is a great line: “The budget will balance itself.” Does everyone remember that? What do we get with the Liberal Prime Minister saying that the budget will balance itself? We end up with $1.4 trillion in debt. That is $93,000 for every single household in Canada; $3,400 per year, per household, just for interest on the Liberal debt.
We think about it like the GST. It is 5% on everything purchased. People go out to a restaurant, have a beer or go to a Blue Jays game. Perhaps they would go to the Edmonton Oilers game, but not the Vancouver Canucks game because they are gone. They pay 5% tax on the ticket. This year, we expect the GST is going to raise about $52 billion. The equivalent of every single penny of the GST collected is going to go solely to the interest on the debt. It will not go toward health care or toward any of the fantasy things the member for Winnipeg North brings up; it is just for interest.
The interest on the debt next year is going to be so bad that the GST will actually have to rise to almost 6% just to cover the interest. That is more than we give for health care to the provinces and more than we give to defence. Over the next five years of the budget, it is going to be $338 billion of interest payments.
Do members remember the Prime Minister, when questioned about interest costs, condescendingly saying to Glen McGregor, “Interest rates are at historic lows Glen”? Guess what? Interest rates are not at historic lows, and the Liberals, when they actually had a chance to lock in those interest rates that supposedly were at the historic low, did not. The Liberals actually borrowed vast sums, almost a half a trillion dollars, on a short-term basis. This debt is coming due, and the government is going to have to refinance, so instead of paying 0.25% on that $454 billion, it is going to be a lot more. Billions of dollars are added every year, just in interest.
Let us imagine that someone who is buying a house is at the bank, and they are negotiating a mortgage. A bank officer tells them that he has an all-time low for interest rates and that they can lock it in for a long time at 1%, and the customer says that they are going to roll the dice because they do not think the rates are going to go up. Then, boom, all of a sudden, they would end up with 5% to 8% when they renew. People would not do that. No one would be foolish enough to do that, but that is what the Liberal government has done. It has just basically said that it does not want a long-term, locked-in rate and it is going to roll the dice. Then what happens? We end up with massive increases.
What could we actually buy with that $338 billion that the government is going to pay just in interest costs alone for the next five years? The government could buy 5,600 ArriveCAN apps, not at the $80,000 it was originally going to be, but at the $60 million that the government paid for it. It could buy 17,000 contracts with GC Strategies to develop apps and to not actually do any work on them. The government could do a half a million studies from contractors such as KPMG to advise the government on how to cut back on contracts from the government. The government famously paid KPMG $670,000 to provide advice on how to cut back on contracts to people like those at KPMG. It could buy 42,000 luxury barns, like the $8-million barn it put up at the Governor General's property.
Do members remember the Liberal cabinet spending $1.3 million on three luxury getaways to talk about the affordability crisis? The Liberals could actually afford 260,000 of their luxury getaways to discuss the affordability crisis. They could buy 37 million nights at the $9,000-a-night luxury plaza where the Prime Minister took his Christmas vacation, but was just staying with friends like every other Canadian.
Now, I say some of these things just to show how ridiculous this spending is, but in real terms, we could actually build, with that $338 billion, just on interest, a new hospital for the 100 largest cities in Canada. So, basically, for every city with more than 35,000 people, we could actually build a brand new $3.5-billion hospital. We could increase health care transfers to the provinces by about 700%. We could buy 482,000 houses across the country at the current average house price of $700,000. Instead, it is going to interest, but that is okay, the budget will balance itself and “interest rates are at historic lows, Glen”. We do not have to worry about it. We could actually afford 800% of the current outlay that all Canadians are paying on pharmaceuticals, not a fake pharmacare plan of the Liberal government, for contraceptive and diabetic medication. That is not pharmacare; that is two items. The government could actually pay for everything with just 12% of what it is paying on interest right now.
Now, I want to get to Bill C-59 itself, the fall economic statement, with just a couple quick items from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. This is from his highlights. He says, “Revisions to the...economic outlook and fiscal developments...lower the outlook for the budgetary balance by [$19] billion.” So, the PBO is saying that things are getting worse by $19 billion.
He goes on to say, “Government announced [$23] billion in new spending that was partially offset by [$3] billion in 'refocusing”. So, lots of added spending.
The fall economic statement claims to expand the budget commitment to “refocus government spending, with the goal to identify an additional $2.4 billion in savings” over a four-year period. Now, that is out of $465 billion a year in revenues, about half a trillion a year, and costs about a $2.5-trillion spending budget over the five years. The Liberals are going to save $2 billion, including half a billion this year, even though it is money that they are saying now is not needed, but it went through the Treasury Board process as needed.
He continues, “There is currently little information available on the status of the $15.4 billion in Budget 2023 spending reviews” and savings announced by the government. “Further, there is currently no publicly available information related to the $3.6 billion spending to be reallocated in 2023-24.”
Now, one of the things the government has promised to cut back on in this $3 billion is outside consulting. Of course, if members remember, in 2015, as the member for Winnipeg North, I am sure, will tell us, the Liberals promised to cut back on outside contracting, consulting. What has happened instead is that it has ballooned to $21 billion, including, as I mentioned, $670,000 to KPMG to advise the government on how to stop spending so much money on companies like KPMG.
I have a couple other favourites that the Liberals spent money on through outside contracting. They gave Deloitte a quarter of a million dollars to give a four-page report saying not to buy sophisticated IT security equipment from despotic regimes. They paid a quarter of a million dollars also to Deloitte for a fairness study on an RFP for a security contract for something that they sole-sourced under government policy. There are 50,000 people in the public service whose job is to make sure that the contracts are fair, but they decided they had to give money to Deloitte.
It is clear the government has no clue what it is doing with the economy. It is clear it has no clue what it is doing with the budget. The budgets will not balance themselves. A Conservative government, however, will balance them.
Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023Government Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Canada does have a AAA credit rating from more than one credit agency, which is better than other G7 countries. When we take a look at our debt-to-GDP ratio, it is the lowest of the G7 countries. We continue to recognize how important it is to invest in Canadians, something which the Conservatives do not invest in.
The Conservative Party actually voted in favour of our spending billions of dollars in supports during the pandemic for small businesses. Does the Conservative Party regret that support?
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. I will not say “my friend” because after his disgraceful speech earlier, I do not know if I will ever be able to call him that again.
I will say a couple of things. First, we do not have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio. We have the lowest net, but that includes if the government were planning on raiding the CPP. The truth is that we do not have the lowest; Germany actually does. The government should stop misinforming Canadians.
Second, regarding spending, at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Revenue Canada told us it begged the government to leave fencing for all of the money being given out. We heard from Bill Morneau. Instead, the government made a political decision to override the finance minister and CRA on protecting Canadians.
What happened was that we ended up with the Auditor General's saying that about $27 billion, at the bare minimum, of taxpayers' money went to companies and individuals that did not qualify for the money. That is the result of the government's playing politics instead of following the advice of the then finance minister or the Canada Revenue Agency, for political reasons.
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I always enjoy listening to my colleague speak. I have learned a lot from him. He is actually the person who went through every line of the budget one year, did some addition and realized that the government had gotten its own numbers wrong. If only the government were as scrupulous as its critics with its army of workers. I commend the member for being somebody who really cares about the numbers and is prepared to get into the minutiae.
If the member could distill one point that he wishes the NDP-Liberal government would just figure out as far as missing the mark when it comes to the budget and the fall economic statement, what would it be?
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, if I could distill one thing for the government, it would be for it to understand that the budget does not balance itself, and that Canadians will have to pay for its errors and overspending.
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Mr. Speaker, there is something in the bill we were debating tonight about tax evasion, but there is nothing in here about the tax avoidance that goes on legally every year and that costs us billions of dollars. I could go on about Vancouver mining companies that do not pay any taxes in Canada. They should pay hundreds of millions of dollars of taxes, but they have a post office box in Luxembourg.
Can the member comment on why we need to cut down on tax avoidance measures, make them illegal and bring the money back to the people of Canada, where it belongs?
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, the member and I have a bit of a philosophical difference, and maybe it is just the wording. If I invest in an RRSP, like many Canadians do, or a TFSA, it is a form of tax avoidance. Companies will do what they can to reduce their taxes. If the member is suggesting that we need to close loopholes to avoid taxes not being paid legally, I agree with that a hundred per cent.
I also agree with my colleague that we need to make our tax code a lot simpler and more straightforward. We need to reform the tax system. We have to have a very fair but competitive tax program in Canada. Capital is very fluid. We do not want to have a system like we see right now where, despite what the members opposite are saying, we actually have a net outflow of investment capital from Canada. We do need a simpler, fairer tax code.
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. It really is a pleasure. I always joke that I am not sure how a kid from North Kamloops ended up in the House of Commons, but here I am.
Before I begin, I want to recognize some people from my riding. The first is Bruce Barrett. Mr. Barrett, as I called him, was my art teacher at Westsyde Secondary School. I just saw that he has passed away. Bruce Barrett had a very gentle heart. I did not get to know him well, but I knew him to be a very good person. I send my condolences to his family. May perpetual light shine upon him.
I also want to recognize the life of Pearl Bostock. I went to high school with some of Pearl's grandchildren. I see that she has recently passed away. I send my deepest condolences to her family. May perpetual light shine upon her.
Lastly, I want to recognize the life of Marlene Campbell. I went to kindergarten with Marlene's son. To this day, I would often call her Mrs. Campbell because I had trouble calling her by her first name. I was in her daughter's wedding party. I have known her for over 40 years. I still have not come to grips with the fact that she recently passed on, and there are some lessons that she taught me that I am going to touch upon in this speech. I offer my condolences to her husband, Bruce, to her daughters, Claire and Joan, and to sons, Matthew, Luke and John. May perpetual light shine upon her.
I was speaking about Mrs. Campbell, and one of the things that I learned from her, and sometimes we would agree and sometimes we would disagree, was the value of simplicity, frugality and transparency. I walked into her house a couple of years ago, and I said that it felt like I was back in 1986 because the house was exactly the same.
There is a part of me that thinks government should be like that. Why does government have to be flashy? The whole point of the government is to get the job done. If the government is actually getting the job done, we should not need a 400-page document, and it really looks like a mini phone book now, telling us how great the government is, that we have never had it so good.
This is a government that is creating board after board, tribunal after tribunal, making government bigger and bigger. I believe the public service has grown by 42%. However, is the passport service any better? Is immigration any better? The former immigration minister and now housing minister lost track of what, a million people? Is he a potential leadership candidate? He lost track of all of these people, and with this inflation, not only in finances, but with government just building upon government.
Perhaps the question we have to ask ourselves is not why we are spending but how we should be spending efficiently. The reason I say that is because I have frontline government workers that come to me day after day, it feels like, saying that they get told from the top, but nobody talks to them about efficiency. They are actually being told to cut because the government has promised so much.
We chuckled when the member across the way talked about building four million houses. This is a government that cannot even plant two billion trees. Planting a tree is a problem. Staying out of the penalty box with the Ethics Commissioner is a problem. They cannot even do that. They cannot plant a tree. They are actually double counting. I filled in at a committee, and the government was double counting from two different programs to make it look like it was meeting different targets in planting trees. These are not the lessons of simplicity and frugality.
The government can extol its programs all it wants and say something is a success. I received a letter from a dentist who services my family saying to hold on a second when it comes to dental care. He said this is not what we think it is. In fact, I would love to bring the letter to the House. Perhaps I could bring it to the House to give it to the member for Winnipeg North. We could table it. Liberals are so confident that dental care is the be all and end all.
What about the people who cannot find child care services? What about that? Unlike Mrs. Campbell, the government does not fashion itself on simplicity, transparency and frugality. In fact, it is a government that said it would be open by default, yet all it does is attempt to obfuscate when the going gets tough.
Members can look at ArriveCAN, where Liberal friends got rich, and they do not want people to know that. They are fine spending money, but more concretely, these Liberals are fine spending our money, Canadian's money and my family's money, the tax money.
I love pasta as much as the next person. I will admit it. My mom makes the best gnocchi out there. For those who do not know, gnocchi is a little dumpling. She makes them by hand using two fingers and they are hand rolled. They are very labour intensive because each one literally needs to be hand rolled. I like pasta. I would like to think I even make a mean carbonara.
Here, what do we have? A private business, presumably making a profit, and the government is giving it $1.7 million for 10 jobs. It looks great. It wants to save the riding, so they are giving $1.7 million for 10 jobs. The government calls that an investment. The NDP will do cartwheels talking about corporate bailouts and corporate giveaways, and then will vote with the government on the line items that enable that very giving. I like pasta, and there is a lot of pasta to be bought. I do not know why the government is saying, to perhaps four to five families, that every dollar they pay in taxes will go to the tune of $170,000 per job.
Let us talk about these auto contracts the government loves to talk about. There are some estimates that we are subsidizing to the tune of $1 million a job. I drive an electric car. I drive it, but what I am seeing is that demand is going down. I really like my vehicle. I do, but demand is going down, and they are saying they are investing. I have made some bad investments in my day, and when the stock went down, we suffered from it.
This budget talks about protecting farmers from the cost of climate change. If Liberals want to do something for farmers, they could pass Bill C-234 in its original form, rather than obfuscating and the member for Winnipeg North telling us we have never had it so good.
At what point will the government wake up and realize the budget does not balance itself, that it has doubled the debt, and now with interest rates being double, and in some cases triple, Canadians are hurting. Its members talk about school programs. How many students are going hungry because of their policies? I could go on for hours about this. I could go on for hours about what the member from Winnipeg said, but I am going to move a motion, seconded by the member for Edmonton West. It is an amendment to the motion.
I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:
“Bill C-59, an Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Finance for the purpose of reconsidering all of its clauses with the view to amend the bill so as to give Canadians a break this summer by eliminating the carbon tax, the federal fuel tax, and GST on gasoline and diesel.”
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
The amendment is in order.
Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023Government Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the “Reform Party” across the way talking about investing in jobs and their opposition to it. We can talk about Stellantis, Volkswagen and Honda, directly and indirectly creating tens of thousands of jobs. There is government subsidy that is going there, and it is not only federal government subsidy but also a provincial subsidy coming from Doug Ford, who is a Progressive Conservative.
Does the member believe that Doug Ford should also be criticized? If he is criticizing the federal government, and the “Reform Party” across the way does not support this investment, would the member then be consistent and say that Doug Ford was wrong also?
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, the member talks about criticism; I will criticize that member. I rose in questions and answers and pointed out to him something that was disgusting; a disgusting fringe group of individuals said something awful about a member. If the Liberals want to heckle me, they can go right ahead. If they want to talk about sexual assault of the spouse of a member of the House and then equate that group with any member of the House, it is disgusting. If somebody threatened that member and his spouse, I would be standing right with him. The fact that he would not apologize and withdraw is disgusting, and I will criticize that day after day. He should stand now and apologize.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
On that particular point that the member has raised, I would ask for unanimous consent to table a document that shows exactly what I was saying. It is a news report, and if the member would like to read it, I am sure he might have a change of opinion.
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
I am already hearing a number of noes.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for giving a speech in the House so late at night and sharing his insight with us. I am eager for my colleagues to listen to the questions that I am asking and to stop bickering back and forth.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
I will back up a bit, because I did not hear what the question was. The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona can start from the beginning.
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, my colleague started his speech this evening by talking about how the Liberal budget was a 420-page document that was a bit of an advertisement. That brought to mind something I remembered from when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. I went back and looked, and the 2015 budget was 518 pages long, and it did not address climate change. It did not address many of those issues that are top of mind for so many Canadians now.
My colleague also talked about the idea that dental care was not important. With 60,000 people already registered for the dental care program and hundreds of seniors in his riding who are already benefiting from the NDP dental care program, it seems quite shocking to me that he is using his opportunity to speak in the House of Commons to be, not just dishonest, but not very kind to his—
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
Order.
We cannot be calling one another dishonest. I am going to ask the hon. member to back up, retract that and maybe find another word.
The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I should not have said that. The information that he was sharing with us was maybe not as accurate as it could have been, and I definitely would retract the idea that he meant to do that. I am sure it was a failure of understanding on his part. Could he talk about why dental care is important to the seniors in his constituency, why he thinks that we do not all deserve dental care and why we should not all have access to those services?
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to fund so many different things.
I do not know if my colleague heard what I spoke about right at the beginning, perhaps she came in late, with respect to receiving the information from my dentist that this is not as advertised.
This is something that, in my view, is completely and overly bureaucratic and does not accomplish what it sets out to do. It would be wonderful if this program did what it actually said it did. The member wants to have this laudable point and contribute to dental care, yet consistently votes with a government that has doubled the debt and now Canadians are lined up at the food banks. I am not sure how she can reconcile that with the point of view that the NDP is fighting for the working class and the poor.
Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023Government Orders
Mississauga—Erin Mills Ontario
Liberal
Iqra Khalid LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue
Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the very hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.
I am very pleased to rise today to speak about Bill C-59, which would deliver on key measures from the 2023 fall economic statement to advance the government's economic plan to make life more affordable, build more homes and build an economy that works for everyone. This is an economic statement that is about fairness, not just fairness for today, but fairness for generations to come.
I have been continuing to work with my constituents over these past eight years as a member of Parliament. I have a very active youth council of dynamic members who keep me updated on what is important to them in this generation. I have a very active women's council that keeps me updated on what is important for them to make sure that they are thriving within our country. I have attended thousands of events over these past number of years to ensure that I am listening to what Canadians want. I have had stakeholder meetings to listen to what people have to say, to take in that feedback and to make sure we are using it to make good policy.
Over these past eight years, I would put to the House that we have made very good, solid, sound policy. I say this because I have heard from constituents about those needs. Canadians are the backbone of our economy and when we empower Canadians we are strengthening our economy and that is what the fall economic statement is really all about and what we have done over these past number of years in government is all about.
I will share a couple of examples with the House. For example, Lisa, who is on my women's council, has a start-up with respect to the environment. She works around the world to ensure that we are representing Canada with a global framework to build sustainable development to make sure that we are fighting climate change.
Another person on my women's council is Huma, who is starting a second career by going into college at this late stage in her life.
There is a member of my youth council who is now studying in med school and is trying to get into law school.
Mechatronics is a growing industry—
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I love that people are heckling. I am trying to get my point across for my constituents. If it is okay, guys, can you just settle down for a second? You will have your time with questions and answers. Is that okay?
An hon. member
What, are you the Speaker now?
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
A little bit. Thank you. I appreciate that.
I was talking about Fardeen, who is an engineering student studying mechatronics—
An hon. member
Oh, oh!
The Acting Speaker Karen Vecchio
I am really enjoying this time. I feel like I am at home with my children. This is lovely. However, if we could just come back and listen to the hon. member speak for her last few minutes, that would be wonderful.
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Madam Speaker, I really appreciate you in that chair.
As I was saying, Fardeen, who is studying mechatronics engineering in that STEM field has great ideas about innovation and how he is going to build Canada's economy to do better for our next generation. The reality is that the framework and how the Canadian economy is working today is changing. Young people are not following those traditional paths in how we normally had jobs. The gig economy is real. How young Canadians are working is very different from how my parents worked. We have to take into account all of that as we are building a better and stronger economy for Canadians in the future. When we talk about Canadians being the backbone of our country and our economy, we have to really make sure that we are establishing that foundation, strengthening that foundation. By strengthening Canadians, we strengthen the whole country.
I can tell members that I have read hundreds and hundreds of personal emails from my own constituents who have told me how $10-a-day child care has impacted their lives so significantly. It has allowed people to join the economy. I can tell members about how our youth employment strategy has impacted young people in my constituency who have taken advantage of it, who have been able to transition from school into the workforce. I can tell members how the Canada summer jobs program has created, in my riding, over 400 jobs every single year, not only to support young people, but also to ensure that small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, are doing well, that they are able to thrive over the summer, while also building that relationship with our next generation of workers within our communities. I can tell members about the countless efforts that seniors in my community have made to connect with us to ensure that the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement that they receive are comparable to their living costs.
Having heard all of that feedback, I can tell members that the fall economic statement is a step in that right direction, to make sure that we are strengthening the foundation of Canada, strengthening the people of Canada. When we strengthen our people, we strengthen who we are, not just as a country on the international stage, where we have one of the best economies in the G7, where we have one of the lowest inflation rates in the G7, but also internally to ensure that we are creating new jobs.
We have created two million new jobs over these past eight years. That is nothing to sneeze at. The plan is working. That plan is to strengthen who we are as Canadians. When seniors in my riding told me that we need to strengthen our dental plan, that we need to make sure that we have access to dental care, that was a consultation I was more than happy to advocate for. When Afia, from a not-for-profit on my women's council, came to me and said that they needed a youth nutrition program in our schools to make sure that kids do not go hungry, to give them the best that they can have, I was more than happy to advocate for that, and successfully.
We have a job to do as a government. We are not in the business of making money. We are not in the business of austerity. We see that Canadians are struggling. Canadians are the strongest part of our economy, individually, our middle class, our youth, women, seniors, our amazing workers, tech support, nurses and health care workers. When we strengthen them, we strengthen our country. That is what the fall economic statement has been about. That is what our budget 2024 is about. That is what we have been doing over these past eight years to strengthen Canada and be a competitor on the world stage. Do members know what that has done? It has made sure that Canada is competitive. We have the most trade agreements across the world with G7 nations.
This is historically the best time for people in my riding to be able to invest, not just here in Canada, but across the world. We have seen so much investment come directly into Canada, and it is because we invest in Canadians. It is because we are investing into what the future of our country is going to look like. We are not about slogans. We are not about cuts. We are not about austerity. I am proud to stand up and support the fall economic statement and proud of the work that this government has done over these past eight years.
Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023Government Orders
Toronto—Danforth Ontario
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting for me to hear the member talk about her youth councils and the women's councils and all the people who are bringing their advice forward. I am wondering what they are telling her about the importance of programs like the national child care program and the national school food program, and what they are sharing with her as their thoughts about what would happen to their families if these programs were cut.
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Mr. Speaker, that is just it. We have to listen to what people want. When we talk to youth, their main concerns are affordability, housing and climate change. Our policies in the fall economic statement reflect that.
I have had hundreds of conversations over this year with my constituents to talk about exactly how we can strengthen our communities. That listening exercise, and then transferring it into policy, very much like the national school food program, is so important because it helps us build stronger communities and ultimately build a stronger Canada.
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Mr. Speaker, today is the eighth birthday of my niece Ola, so I would like to wish her a happy birthday. Ola is going to inherit more debt than any other generation, as this young Canadian. I was wondering if my colleague across the way could tell Ola in what year the Liberal Party plans to balance the budget.
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Reform Party member for asking that question. As I said in my speech, and I am hoping that the member would have listened, it is about making investments into our future. It is not about cuts. It is not about austerity. It is not about axing and taxing or whatever those fancy slogans are that are coming out from that party. It is about believing in the ability, the talent, and the perseverance of our young people to ensure that they have what is needed for them to be successful today, for years to come and for generations to come.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I always find it rather amusing when the Conservatives ask questions about balancing the budget. When Harper was prime minister, they ran deficits eight out of nine years. In the ninth year, they balanced the budget, but only because they urgently sold federal shares in General Motors.
However, I would remind my colleague, who was talking about young people and the future, that we are in the midst of a major housing crisis. A national strategy was created, but seven years on, it does not seem to have worked very well, despite the $40 billion spent. About $40 billion is left in this national housing strategy fund.
Does she not agree with us that we should invest in non-profit housing first, in social housing that is truly affordable for our young people?
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's raising this important issue, that we do need to build more homes. We are making those investments. In fact, we are on track to ensure that Canadians have the homes that they need in order to live in an affordable community. At the same time, we also need to make sure that Canadians, especially young people, have the living wage and the support systems to ensure that they can live in a safe and supportive community. We have made significant investments through our housing strategy. We are going to continue to build housing for our young people, and, at the same time, we are going to tackle issues of affordability for all Canadians and especially our young people.
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
Mr. Speaker, I just want to let the member clarify a comment that she made. She actually said this is the best historical time ever in Canada, but by every indication, this is one of the toughest, hardest times ever. I think the member just misspoke. Can the member clarify if she actually thinks this is the best historical time ever for Canada, in 2024?
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Mr. Speaker, this is a time for Canada to grow. We have established amazing international trade agreements. Whether it is with the Pacific nations, the CPTPP, CETA or the renegotiated NAFTA, we have laid the foundation. We have seen the biggest growth of direct investment into Canada, whether by Honda or by so many other organizations that are coming in, such as Volkswagen or Stellantis. Ultimately, there are businesses in my riding that have seen growth themselves, which they tell me anecdotally, and I can see the growth because we are making the investments in the right place.
I am not sure why the member and his party are so against investing in Canadians. Canadians matter.
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure and an honour to rise in the House. I want to give a shout-out to my family, including my daughters, back home in the city of Vaughan. My daughters should all be sleeping because they have school in the morning. I wish them a wonderful day tomorrow.
Before I get into my formal remarks, I will give an example that personifies how we are doing the right thing to grow our economy in this beautiful country and also invest confidently in Canadians and Canadian families, and that is the recent announcement by Honda to invest $15 billion into the Canadian auto sector and the development of electric vehicles, along with the manufacturing plants.
Last week, I was able to join the Premier of Ontario, the Prime Minister, ministers across the board and many of my hon. colleagues of the House for an announcement of $1.6 billion from a Japanese company, Asahi Kasei, to develop separators for electric vehicles. This will create thousands of jobs in the Port Colborne area of Ontario and provide bright futures for families there, something that we believe in. Confident governments and countries invest in their citizens.
A few days later, I was able to visit Vellore Corners Dentistry, Dr. Elena Panovski and her staff, to talk about the Canada dental care plan. This dentist sent out a flyer in my neighbourhood and many neighbourhoods in the city of Vaughan, telling patients that if they are eligible for the Canada dental care plan, they should go to her clinic. The dentist had also put up a billboard along a major regional road in the city. I visited the clinic and met Peter, an 80-year-old senior citizen in my riding, someone who came to this country and worked hard. He had his Sun Life Canadian dental care plan card with him and was at the dentist thanks to the program that we have implemented. That is awesome. That is progress.
We were sent here to do what is right for our citizens. In fact, as of today, over 90,000 seniors have gone to dental care providers across this country. If we do not all clap about that, I do not know what we are going to clap about. Members on the other side are not clapping. Over two million eligible seniors have signed up, have been approved and will receive their cards. Why is that important? It is important because the day I arrived here in 2015, one of the programs that I knew would make a difference in the lives of literally millions of Canadians was a dental care program, and that is what we have done.
We have done so much: the Canada child benefit, raising personal income tax rates on the wealthiest, cutting taxes for the middle class, raising the basic personal expenditure amount, signing free trade deals with countries around the world and being at the table, and we will continue to do so.
This bill will implement important and fiscally responsible measures from the 2023 fall economic statement that support our government's efforts to build more homes faster, make life more affordable and create more good jobs. Our government is working to create a better future for all generations, and Bill C‑59 is essential to making that goal a reality.
With Canada's housing plan and the 2024 budget, we are taking numerous steps to help increase the supply of housing with the goal of reducing the high costs Canadians face. Bill C‑59 promises to support those efforts by helping increase the supply of rental housing in Canada. About one-third of all Canadians rent their homes, but the number of available rental units has failed to keep pace with demand.
Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, which received royal assent on December 15, 2023, and the federal component of the HST on the cost of newly purpose-built rental housing introduced a 100% rebate on the GST. Bill C-59 would extend the eligibility for the GST rental rebate to co-operative housing corporations that provide long-term rental accommodation. Our objective, as a government, is to incentivize the construction of even more rental units, and that is what is happening in the Canadian housing market.
We know that our growing, vibrant communities also require critical infrastructure, like public transit, modern water systems and community centres, which is all infrastructure that Canadians depend on daily in their lives. That is why Bill C-59 would establish the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities in the federal lead for improving housing outcomes and enhancing the public infrastructure.
The cost of living is weighing heavily on household budgets. Bill C‑59 would make life more affordable by strengthening competition to help stabilize prices in Canada. We have heard public concerns about increasing corporate concentration and the power of private sector giants.
Complementing the changes introduced in Bill C-56, which I mentioned a few moments ago, Bill C-59's suite of amendments to the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act would provide Canadians with more modern and effective competition laws.
As everyone knows in this House, I love capitalism and wealth creation, which lead to higher standards of living, but what I do not like is corporate concentration and measures that are introduced that are anti-competitive by organizations and companies, and that is why we need guardrails. That is why it is smart for us to introduce amendments to the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act, which the opposite party had ignored for the years that it was in power, and it can remain in opposition for many more years.
Together, these amendments would represent generational changes to Canada's competition regime. More competition means lower prices, more innovative products and services and more choices for Canadians in where they take their business. The amendments are designed to empower the Competition Bureau to better serve the public in its role as watchdog and advocate dynamic markets.
Bill C-59 would further modernize merger reviews and position the Competition Bureau to better detect and address killer acquisitions and other anti-competitive mergers. The legislation would also support Canadians' right to repair by preventing manufacturers from refusing to provide the means of repair of devices and products in an anti-competitive manner.
Our plan is also focused on Canadians' well-being. Therapy and counselling play a critical role in the lives and mental health of millions of people in Canada, but they can also be costly. To ensure that Canadians can get the help they need, our government is taking the necessary steps to make these essential services more accessible and affordable. Bill C‑59 would eliminate the GST and HST from psychotherapy and counselling therapy.
Our government is also taking care of young families. EI parental or maternity benefits provide essential support to new parents. The legislation would bring in a 15-week shareable EI benefit and amend the Canada Labour Code so that adoptive parents who work in federally regulated sectors have the job protection they need while receiving the new benefit. The legislation would go even further by creating new paid leave for federally regulated employees with a view to supporting families in the event of a miscarriage.
Turning now to Canada's fiscal position, we do know that Canada's deficit-to-GDP ratio is number one in the G7 and G20: we have the lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Our net debt-to-GDP ratio is also in the mid-30s range, which is top-notch. We are one of the few countries in the world with an AAA credit rating. These ratings were affirmed and confirmed after the budget was delivered by the rating agencies, one of which I spent several years working for, and covered many sectors that we talked about in this wonderful House, which continue to employ hundreds of thousands of Canadians and continue to grow our economy.
It has been an honour to rise in this House and, again, I wish all the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge a wonderful Thursday morning and wonderful and safe travels to work.
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, in the hon. member's speech, he said that he loves capitalism. I believe those were his exact words. He loves capitalism, yet he knows that the Liberal Party has veered sharply to the left, so far to the left now that I think it can be accurately said that the Liberal Party is a party of socialists.
He knows, and he knows very well, that socialism and capitalism cannot coexist. When one looks at the Liberal government's record of allowing large companies to merge, of huge subsidies of billions, or tens of billions, of dollars, this guy asks us to believe that he is a capitalist.
If he is such a capitalist, why is he in a party like the Liberal Party, which has now gone socialist big time?
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his hyperbole. I do have a lot of respect for the member for Abbotsford. I have enjoyed many conversations with the hon. member, and I thank him for some of the contributions he has made, including on CETA and so forth. I would obviously disagree with the premise of his question. I do love wealth creation. I love job creation. I believe in forming and strengthening our social safety net, and that is what we have done as a government.
We made the choice to do the Canada child benefit, $10-a-day day care, the Canada workers benefit and a Canadian dental care plan. Those are choices I fully support. That is how one creates a strong economy and a strong social net, so that we lift all Canadians and we bring all Canadians forward, as we continue to make this country the best country in which to live, raise a family, invest and work.
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, continuing on this theme of talking about the economy, I was recently at committee, and one of my Conservative colleagues asked what I felt was a really good question of the competition commissioner. He asked if the government has ever blocked a corporate merger in Canadian history. The answer was no.
Despite having this competition commissioner and having these ideas around the importance of competition and the importance of stamping out anti-competitive behaviour, not a single corporate merger has been blocked or denied by the federal government.
I would ask him why that is, when we know that corporate concentration and anti-competitive behaviour are two of the driving factors behind the affordability crisis we are seeing. We are seeing these monopolies and oligopolies that are gouging Canadians every single day. The government can put a stop to that. Why does it not?
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Mr. Speaker, the first thing I would like to point out to the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is that we did, as a government, make the more than $70-million investment into Prince Rupert, into the water system and the infrastructure there. I know that I advocated for that. I know that he represents that riding. That was the city that I was born and raised in. Again, this is our government investing in infrastructure and in Canadians.
With regard to corporate concentration in Canada, there are many reasons why there is such a high degree of corporate concentration, of course, and we could have a great discussion on that front, but we did make changes to the efficiencies defence within the Competition Act. Those are the technical terms, where the Competition Bureau and the Competition Act will have much more teeth to block mergers and acquisitions or consolidations within the sector when they are not in the best interest of Canadian consumers.
Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023Government Orders
Niagara Centre Ontario
Liberal
Vance Badawey LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, last week, it was a pleasure to be in my hometown of Port Colborne, Ontario, along with the Prime Minister and the Premier of Ontario, making a $1.6-billion announcement by Asahi Kasei, a company that is going to strengthen the Honda supply chain, not only in Ontario, but also across the country. This is a game-changer for the Niagara region. It is a game-changer economically. It is putting people to work, as well as strengthening the Niagara Port trade corridor.
My question to the member is with respect to supply chains. How does this announcement, and how do the actions by the government, strengthen our supply chains, as well as provide an integration of our supply chains, not only here domestically, but also binationally, and equally as important, internationally?
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member for Niagara Centre not only is a colleague and a dear friend, but also is a great advocate for the wine industry for the Great Lakes, which is an economic driver of his area. He was a huge advocate in attracting this multi-billion dollar investment to Port Colborne. The hon. member actually served as the mayor in that area as well, so congratulations to that member.
With regard to the supply chain, it was our government that put in place a supply chain task force. It is our government, through the Minister of Labour, that is working with the railways to ensure we continue to have a smooth transportation sector and that is continuing to make those critical investments, including in the national trade and corridors fund, which the member is well versed in as well.
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time tonight.
What we heard from the last few speakers blows my mind. It is unbelievable the mental gymnastics one has to do to figure out the current NDP-Liberal government. We have a member who stated that, right now, in 2024, it is the best historic time ever. Do members believe that?
The people watching at home should ask themselves if they are better off today or if they were better off in 2015. The vast majority of Canadians are feeling the disastrous impacts of the current federal government. There are countless examples of incompetency and outright fraud, and to have members proclaim that this is the best time ever is bizarre. It is wacko. What part of our country believes this is the best time ever? It is an unbelievable statement when we look at all the suffering and hurt that is unfortunately in our country because of the Liberal-NDP policies.
Think of the inflation the NDP-Liberal government has caused with its reckless overspending. The Prime Minister has added more debt to our federal government than all other prime ministers combined. This is the best time ever for the Liberals.
Then, we hear from another member who, in answering a question from another member, brags about the nepotism of helping to get funding for a water treatment plant. The government brags about this corporate welfare that goes on to every corner of Canada, with billions of dollars here and there, and somehow, the Liberal Party still believes this is the best historic time ever.
I have to correct the record. I did bring the receipts, and I brought some emails from real Canadians in my riding who do not believe this is the best historic time ever, as the Liberal-NDP government proclaims. It is one of the darkest times in our country's history. There is suffering. We just read in the Food Banks annual report that 25% of adults are needing to access the food bank. Tell them that this is the best historic time ever.
Tell that to a family who has just renewed their mortgage. Maybe they took the Prime Minister at his word that interest rates would stay low. Now, their mortgage has doubled. Why did that mortgage double? It was the interest rates. Why did the interest rates go up? The NDP-Liberal government has been printing money and has been spending at a pace that is chasing up the price of everything. We warned the government over three years ago that this reckless path would lead to a dead end, and I am fearful of that dead end coming too soon.
This is a government that does not live within its means. A household has to manage its finances in a way that it is not going further in debt with every paycheque. Unfortunately, for nine long years, the federal government has added more debt and more spending that has ballooned the government. There are 40% more bureaucrats working in Canada. For the Canadians who are relying on services from the government, do they think this is the best historic time ever for our country? I doubt it.
There is more pain out there. Unfortunately, this is a track record we have seen over and over again around the world when governments get in trouble and start printing money. When Ottawa prints an extra dollar of money, the result is that the dollar in one's pants is worth less. The quantitative easing the government has done has driven up the price. Also, when one sprays money in every corner of the country, chasing fewer goods, it is math and economics that prices will rise. That is what we are experiencing today in Canada, unfortunately.
In a moment, in the best time ever, historically in Canada, we have an NDP-Liberal government that has a majority. It has enough seats in the House that it can carry on in whatever fashion it would like within the rules. It has found itself in some trouble.
This is the fall economic statement. Typically, we have October, November and December in fall. Then we are into winter: December, January, February, March. No, that is spring: March, April, May. We are almost in the summer, and the mismanagement of Parliament is at the feet of the incompetent government. The bill is about the fall economic statement, and we are almost in the fall. The mismanagement of the House is what is most embarrassing for the government.
Let us get back to Canadians, and let us hear from them. We have a few more weeks of this session, and once we wrap up, I would encourage members to go out, knock on some doors and talk to real Canadians. They can talk to people, pick up the phone. I am sure there are callbacks waiting in members' offices or emails from regular Canadians who do not feel that this is the most historic, best time in Canada. I am going to share some of the emails I have received.
Gail wrote in and said, “Hi, thank you for voting for ordinary Canadians. I hope more representatives are added to your side in the next election. Please continue all that you can to halt this rampant government spending and to work towards a balanced budget for the sake of integrity and the benefits of all Canadians. Thank you.”
I thank Gail for emailing. Gail represents many Canadians who are watching in disbelief as the government continues to blow money and rack up debt that we all know has to be paid back. The future generations are going to have to pay that debt. Every dollar that we collect from GST across Canada goes to banks and bondholders, not services. It just services the debt. It does not even pay it down, and that is a disgrace.
Randy wrote in. He said, “Good morning. As you are my MP for the Saskatoon area, I would like to make my voice heard. I'm really opposed to our Prime Minister's new budget and the mounting debt to my grandchild. The idea that [the Prime Minister] thinks it's okay to raise taxes to accommodate his spending habits is an abomination and an affront to me personally. Please keep the pressure on the federal Liberals. I can't even imagine what it will take to fix this country once the Liberals are voted out. Good luck. I'm praying for change. Regards and blessings, Randy.”
I would tell Randy to not fear too much. The Conservatives do have a plan. We have a simple plan that would axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. That is what we would do as a government. I will walk through some of those plans. I know we are going to hear more about our plans in the platform, but this is a good indication of how we are going to dig ourselves out of this hole.
The Conservatives would axe the tax. The carbon tax is a tax on anything that moves, and we have seen the disastrous effect of tripling the carbon tax. Everything costs more, because everything needs to be trucked and hauled to us. When exporting goods from Canada, we pay that carbon tax as well. It drives up the cost. The carbon tax drives up the cost of the transportation, the food that the farmers are producing and even the retail operations.
The Conservatives would axe the tax and make everything more affordable. We would build the homes. We would get the bureaucrats out of the way. We would get rid of the gatekeepers and build those homes so Canadians have a chance of home ownership, not rental forever. We would fix the budget by bringing in a law that is pay-as-you-go; for every dollar of spending, we have to find a dollar of savings. That is just a common-sense Conservative solution.
We would stop the crime. There is too much crime in our streets. The repeat violent offenders who are out on bail are conducting many of the violent crimes in our communities. If we changed the bail system back to what we had before this disaster in government, we would be better off.
Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023Government Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member talks about the passage of Bill C-59 and blames the government. What the member does not tell people who are listening is that the Conservative Party focused a great deal of attention on filibustering and preventing legislation from passing. This is one of those pieces of legislation, and their tactics were just demonstrated by yet another amendment to it. However, the member believes, or tries to give the false impression, that the government is not able to pass the bill, when it is allowing for opposition to continue in this fashion to prevent legislation from passing. Interestingly enough, this particular legislation would allow for the top-up of the rebate to be doubled for rural areas.
I am wondering why the Conservative Party chooses to filibuster all legislation and then tries to blame the government for not passing legislation, yet its members cry when we bring in time allocation.
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
Mr. Speaker, I had a very low opinion before tonight of the member who asked me the question, and after tonight, I do not respect him at all.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, it is really unfortunate that the member would have that kind of attitude. I think it is very low of the member, but it is up to him to decide whether he wants to answer questions. The Conservative Party continues to mislead Canadians consistently, and the best example of that is the price on pollution. The Conservative Party tries to tell Canadians that they are paying more, when the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that more than 80% are receiving more money back in the rebates than they are paying in the tax.
My question to the member is this: Why are the Conservative Party and the leader of the Conservative Party being so dishonest and misleading Canadians?
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
With respect to the “dishonest” terminology, I would rather that members not use that kind of terminology.
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
Mr. Speaker, that is okay. No one respects that man either.
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, it feels like perhaps it is the hour, but things are getting a bit testy, and I thought I would take this in a different direction, because bills like the one before us are always a mixed bag. There is stuff in them that some folks support, and there is stuff in them that some folks really oppose.
I am wondering whether my colleague can just pick one thing from Bill C-59, the bill that we are debating, that he supports and that he thinks would take our country in the right direction. Can he tell us what it is?
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
Mr. Speaker, the best thing I can say about Bill C-59 is that it gets us a day closer to the election that will change the government and save Canada from the reckless NDP-Liberal coalition government that is wrecking our country. We have a plan that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget, stop the crime and save Canada. We will make Canada the greatest country that we all love so much, the country that was so much better before the Prime Minister was elected.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I wonder, if my colleague from Saskatoon—University looks back over the last nine years, what is the legacy of the current government: two million people visiting food banks, out-of-control debt; out-of-control crime, out-of-control spending, and out of control ethics violations? What does he think the legacy of the current government will be?
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
Mr. Speaker, I think those are all terrible things that the government is going to be known for. I think it is the debt, though. One cannot pile on more debt than every other prime minister combined. What comes next? We have all experienced the nineties and the eighties. All political stripes overspent, then interest rates were jacked up, and it hurt ordinary Canadians. That is the legacy of the government. It is giving the next generation no hope for the future.
Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON
Mr. Speaker, if you will indulge me for a minute of my four minutes, I offer condolences to my Aunt Freddie and my cousins and their children on the passing of my Uncle Phil earlier this evening, and to my dad and his sisters, for whom he was their older brother. He was a very generous man. He worked very hard. He gave to his community and to his church community. He was loved by his family and he loved his family. He loved Canada and he will be missed.
In the short time I have, I am going to really focus on one aspect of what I was going to speak about as we look at Bill C-59, the fall economic statement from last November. Of course, we have had the federal budget since, and it has only compounded the cost of living issues and housing issues that we are seeing across Canada. Therefore, let me focus on something that I hear so often from constituents in my community and that weighs very heavy on their minds. It is the interest rate increases that have resulted as a consequence of the inflationary spending, the inflationary taxes and the inflationary deficits of the NDP-Liberal government.
Whether it is the $20 billion of inflationary spending that was piled on in the fall economic statement or the $50 billion that was piled on in the recent budget, that has an impact. We know from the report from Scotiabank that 2% of interest rate increases can be attributed to government overspending, and other banks have made the same comment. The CIBC made the same cautionary warning prior to the recent budget.
Flamborough—Glanbrook is on the western edge of the GTA, surrounding the city of Hamilton. It is made up of very fast-growing communities, where people have fled the GTA to buy a house for a more affordable amount than what they could get in Toronto or Mississauga. Communities like Waterdown, Binbrook, Elfrida and Hannon are where first-time homeowners, often young families, new Canadians or even seniors who are looking to retire on modest savings, have seen these alarming rate increases. I hear this from the mortgage brokers. I hear this from constituents. It is an absolute gut punch to see those interest rate increases that have resulted from the policies of the Liberal-NDP government.
We had the report earlier in May from the Bank of Canada, which predicted the very steep incline we are going to see in the next few years in mortgage payments. If it is a variable mortgage, the prediction is for a median monthly payment increase of up to 60%. If it is a fixed mortgage that someone is renewing, the median monthly payment could be increased by up to 20%. That has a devastating impact on household budgets, and that is, again, the consequence of these inflationary policies and the spending by the current government.
In my final few moments, I will just say that hope is on the way. The common-sense Conservative government would cap the spending, fix the budget and axe the tax so that these people in my communities and across Canada could actually afford their mortgage payments, or it is not impacting their rents, so hope is on the way.
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
It being midnight, pursuant to the order made on Wednesday, February 28, this House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 12 a.m.)
The House resumed from May 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.
Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023Government Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, when we came to Parliament this morning, we had anticipated that we would be able to talk about some of the needs that Canadians have, and what we see day after day coming from the official opposition are ways in which it can prevent the government from passing important legislation.
It is interesting. Right now, we are dealing with Bill C-59, which is the fall economic statement. I would like the members of the Conservative Party to start looking in a few mirrors, and they would see that they are not reflecting something that Canadians truly want to see take place. As opposed to the Conservative Party's wanting to have a proactive chamber that helps, assists and supports Canadians, they want to prevent virtually any and all legislation from passing. The only way in which the government can get the Conservatives onside with legislation, where they will actually look at any form of seeing it go through without great opposition to it, is if they are shamed into doing it. If the Conservatives are not shamed into doing the responsible thing, more often than not what we will see is a Conservative Party that will do whatever it takes in order to prevent legislation from passing, and we see that in many different forms. We saw some of that even earlier today, when the Conservatives' focus was more on the issue of character assassination than on dealing with the important issues.
What would Bill C-59 do, as an example? One would think that the Conservatives would be a bit more sympathetic to the needs of rural Canadians. Within this legislation, we have the doubling of the top-up for the rebate. That is within the legislation. This legislation should have passed late last year. It is interesting that the Conservatives will stand up and say that we cannot pass legislation and, at the end of the day, it is the Conservative Party that has not realized what Canadians expect of an opposition party in a minority situation.
At the end of the day, we recognize the importance of Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. We recognize the importance of generation X and the millennials and the needs that they actually have. Whether it is the budget or the fall economic statement, which we are debating today, the Conservatives, day after day, continue to do what they can to prevent the legislation from passing, as opposed to a government that understands and brings forward legislation that is truly reflective of the values and the needs of Canadians.
I have had the opportunity here and there to add some thoughts in regard to that issue and how we bring forward a budget or the budget implementation bill in the manner in which it is brought forward. We have a Liberal caucus with members of Parliament who consistently are in the communities we represent, often bringing ministers into the constituencies, not only where we represent but even beyond that, so we can funnel back into Ottawa the ideas and the thoughts that we are hearing from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Therefore, when people look at the important legislation, like budget implementation acts or budget bills in general, people will see that they are a reflection of what we have been told when talking to Canadians and the different stakeholders throughout the country.
That is one of the reasons why we find, more often than not, that Conservatives will actually avoid talking about the substance of the legislation in many ways. They try to cheapen the policy debates and discussions that we have inside the chamber in favour of talking about things like, let us say, bumper stickers and the ideas that they have going forward into the next election. How often do we hear the Conservatives saying they are going to axe the tax? That is it. That is their number one bumper sticker.
We had a party annual general meeting in downtown Winnipeg this past weekend, and I was on one of the MP panels. I was asked a question about how I, as a member of Parliament, would respond to the Conservative Party's simple message of axing the tax. In responding, I said that people need to realize that as a Liberal government, we talk about how we care about Canadians. We talk about things like the dental plan and the pharmacare plan. We talk about the first-ever disability program. We talk about how we are investing in housing. Liberals talk about caring for people. We talk about caring; the Conservatives talk about cutting. If I was to try to amplify that to my constituents, I would be emphasizing the contrast: Conservatives cut; Liberals care. That, to me, is the contrast that we need to say to Canadians is very real and very tangible. I do not say that lightly.
We negotiated with the different provinces about the issue of child care. As an example, going into a federal election, we had a number of signed agreements, and the Conservative Party said it was going to rip up those agreements. Conservatives did not support the child care program. Shortly after the election, we continued to push the issue of child care. At the end of the day, every province and territory came on board. As a direct result, we have a national child care program, as a result of this government. It is reflective of what we were hearing, not only at the doors during the election, but also in between elections. That is a message, as I said, that we brought here to Ottawa. That is how we formulate budgets and fall economic statements. The Conservatives do not support the child care program that we have put forward. They do not support $10-a-day child care. We saw that in terms of going in and going out of the last federal election, because they said they would rip it up. When I spoke to Liberals in the province of Manitoba, that was the type of thing that I talked about. We need to talk about that contrast.
When the Conservative Party says it is going to axe the tax, what it wants to do is misrepresent the facts. There is a rebate. There is a doubling of the top-up rebate for rural Manitobans and rural Canadians. That is there. They are not receiving that because the Conservatives refuse to pass Bill C-59, the fall economic statement. Take a look at the amendment the Conservatives proposed. I think this is the bill where they proposed to delete the short title or some silly thing like that. Why? It is not only because they want to be able to hear me speak more on the issue. It is because they do not want the bill to pass.
There are other aspects within the legislation and within budgetary measures. Let us do the contrast. Let us talk about the misinformation and that whole doubling of the top-up for the rebates. It is a major issue. It is about the environment. It is about getting more money in the pockets of 80% of Canadians, but that is not the messaging that the Conservatives talk about. Even though it is the truth, it is not the messaging. Instead, they say they are going to get rid of the price on pollution or the carbon tax; they are going to kill the carbon tax. Not all provinces have the carbon tax. There is British Columbia, as well as the Province of Quebec; that is a fairly significant percentage of the population in Canada. For those that do, like my home province of Manitoba, 80% of the constituents in Winnipeg North will receive more money as a direct result of the price on pollution. What does that really mean? Sure, there is a carbon tax component to it, but there is also the carbon rebate, and 80%-plus of my constituents are going to receive more money back through the rebate than they are actually paying out in the tax. Why have the program? It is time that polluters paid.
There is a certain element there that we need to amplify, in terms of how we care about the environment and the Conservatives do not. They do not have an idea. They used to. In fact, 95% of the Conservative Party that is sitting over there today, in the last federal election, knocked on doors with a Conservative platform. Inside that platform, if people read it, they will see that the Conservatives actually supported a carbon tax. It was the Conservative Party and its former leader, not the leader before this leader, but the leader before this leader's leader, Erin O'Toole. When Erin O'Toole was the leader, it was a part of his election platform. In his election platform, he went around telling Canadians he was going to have a price on pollution or he was going to put in a carbon tax, but that has changed.
Let us take a look at other things where we can contrast the Government of Canada and the Liberal Party with what the opposition is actually saying. We have a dental care program, which started off with children. Legislation was brought in to support that, whether it was the economic statements or the budget statements, and we appreciate the support that comes from the New Democrats on this, as they have been very strong advocates.
At the end of the day, the dental program is a program that is helping a lot of children. When I spoke on the legislation dealing with this, I can recall talking about how this program would help prevent children from having to go into emergency because of dental-related issues and not getting those issues dealt with. This is going to enable so many more children to get the type of dental services they need, at least in part. The Conservatives opposed that.
We expanded the dental program. The dental program is now also for those 65 and over. I believe that is what it is at right now, and for individuals with disabilities. It is all being rolled out. We are talking about thousands of people who have already benefited from this particular program, and the Conservatives are going to take it all away.
These are the types of examples that I use when I talk about how Liberals care and Conservatives cut. That is the reality.
I cited a couple of examples. I could have talked about housing-related issues and the initiatives the Liberal government has taken. I would challenge any member opposite to tell me another national government that has done more in terms of supporting Canada's housing industry. I can save them the research and tell them, quite frankly, that it has not happened. The government has led the way in working with municipalities, provincial governments, non-profit groups and indigenous people in ensuring that we have a better future with respect to housing and the crisis that we are having to face. Contrast that to the cuts that the Conservative Party is proposing. These are the types of things that really matter to Canadians.
We are aware of the concerns in regards to affordability. When the world was facing inflation, throughout, Canada did reasonably, actually some would argue exceptionally, well in comparison to the G7 countries or even the G20 countries. We did exceptionally well, but we still hit, I believe in June 2022, just over 8%, and it caused a great deal of pain and concern across the country. We reinforced the importance of the Bank of Canada. At the time, the Conservatives were critical of the Bank of Canada. They do not see what is happening around the world and the impact, yet they jump up so easy like jelly beans, and they yell and blame and say how Canada is broken. In reality, they should do a comparison to other countries around the world. From the point of being over 8% back in the summer of 2022 to today, we have now had four consecutive months of reasonable inflation, and it is going down. I think it is down to 2.7%, which is going to help Canadians. It will hopefully lead the way to getting some sort of interest relief in the coming months. However, they try to give a false impression, which is what Conservatives do all the time, but Canada is not broken. Compared to other countries around the world, we are doing well, but we need to continue to improve where we can.
Putting this budget implementation to the side, we can look, from my perspective, at one of the most powerful statements from the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister, which was when she talked about foreign investment coming into Canada. Canada, on a per capita basis, is number one in the G7, and of all the countries in the world, we were number three on foreign direct investment in the first three quarters of 2023. There is a reason for that.
An hon. member
Oh, oh!
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I was just heckled, and it was not parliamentary.
However, I would tell members that we are creating opportunities that would not be there if the government was not prepared to get involved. I am thinking about the tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs, green jobs, dealing with things such as Volkswagen, Honda and Stellantis, and that is just here in Ontario, in eastern Canada. This industry is being highly motivated to expand because of, in part, the Douglas Ford provincial government, which is a Progressive Conservative government, and I underline the word “progressive” as opposed to the Conservative reform we have here in Ottawa. Working with the government, we are creating those types of opportunities because we are committed to working for Canadians and to having their backs, building a stronger, healthier economy. We have a government that genuinely cares and that is not focused, like the Conservatives are, on cuts.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Winnipeg North on his inaugural speech in the House. I laugh because he talks so much about delaying legislation, but I do not think anyone has delayed more legislation in the history of the House than the member has with the amount of time he takes up when speaking.
The member talked about foreign direct investment. Today, at the government operations and estimates committee, also known as the mighty OGGO, we heard testimony that one of the problems Canada is facing is that for every dollar of foreign direct investment, we are seeing two dollars to three dollars flee the country in divestment. I wonder if the member opposite can tell us what the Liberals are doing that has damaged the country so badly that for every penny coming in, the government is scaring three pennies out of the country.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, one has to always be somewhat careful when talking about statistics. Let me give an example. Stephen Harper was prime minister for 10 years of government, and just under a million or maybe a million jobs were created. We have created over 2.1 million jobs in the same amount of time that Stephen Harper did. That is more than double in the same amount of time as Stephen Harper had in government. That is a pretty important stat, I would suggest.
It is also important to ask why. If we are number one on a per-capita basis in the first three months last year, there has to be a reason. I would suggest that, at least in part, it is because Canada is recognized as a real leader when it comes to trade. No other government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements with countries than this government. We see the value and the benefits of trade. The Conservatives, on the other hand, were the only ones who voted against the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, interestingly enough.
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-59 includes more than $12 billion for carbon capture by western oil companies. It also includes $18 billion to help oil companies buy nuclear power plants, known as small modular reactors, to replace the natural gas used to heat the oil sands with polluted water, so that they can save the gas and export it instead, particularly through the Coastal GasLink pipeline.
Bill C‑59 gives the oil industry about $30 billion. Is that the Liberals' environmental plan?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, one thing we have recognized since 2015 is that we need to, as an economy, look at ways to build greener jobs and to make those types of investments. The Government of Canada has done astronomical work in being successful at doing that, in terms of investing money. In working with different levels of government and with different stakeholders, there are so many examples I could give to demonstrate that.
Having said that, there are things today that we need to at least respect, to continue to develop and to work on going forward. When we look at the oil and natural gas industry, I believe we are in fact on the right track. We provided a lot of subsidies, for example, for orphaned wells, cleaning up the environment. Do Bloc members consider cleaning up the environment and dealing with orphaned wells a subsidy? If so, would they then say that we should not be cleaning up orphaned wells? I think it is healthy for the environment to do that and to invest in that sort of thing.
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I heard the member mention many investments. I am happy to talk about housing at all times. There is a rapid housing initiative breaking ground in Richmond, British Columbia, and I would like to know if the member can talk a bit more about what the impacts of housing investments will be across Canada.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I started to talk about how important it is, as members of Parliament, that we get a sense of what is happening in our communities and that we bring those concerns here to Ottawa. I appreciate that it is exactly what the member has done on the issue of housing. As a result, what we see is a government that is looking at not only supporting one area but also supporting a multitude of areas where we recognize housing as being an issue.
We need to work in our communities to bring in programs such as the accelerator fund. We need to be able to ensure there is affordable housing. We need to ensure there is infrastructure being built. We do this, in good part, by working with the different levels of government and by looking at communities, like the City of Winnipeg, which I think is investing around $122 million to help the city to look at zoning and look at ways in which it can make modifications to hopefully build homes faster.
The government is looking at ways we can use federal land banks to build homes faster and looking at ways we can provide purpose-built rentals that are GST-free so that more apartments can be built. These are the types of things being done because we have members like the one who just asked the question and raised this very important issue.
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned orphaned wells. When a company goes under, I can understand potentially helping communities clean that up. However, I am curious why the government decided to give out money to companies that are actually making record profits right now and that could be cleaning up their own orphaned wells and why it has also refused to put in the conditions that would make polluters pay. Making polluters pay is a principle the government should stand behind, but instead, it actually pays polluters. It hands out billions of dollars to profitable oil and gas companies. The government is not getting support for the oil and gas industry right. It is buying pipelines, handing out fossil fuel subsidies and missing every single target.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I probably do not have enough time to answer the question in the detail I would like, with regard to having a price on pollution and so forth, but I will pick up on the point about orphaned wells. We all need to recognize that there are orphaned wells and that it is very damaging to our environment. These wells have been there for generations. It is a question of whether we collectively, here in Ottawa, want to take some sort of action that is going to ensure that those orphaned wells are being addressed. If that means the federal government needs to be able to contribute in order to make that a reality, I think it is money well spent. There does need to be a higher sense of accountability from some of our oil companies. I have full confidence in our ministers, whether it is the natural resources minister or the Minister of Environment, to ensure there is a higher sense of accountability going forward on issues such as orphaned wells and the ways in which we can continue to diminish emissions.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I thought the member for Victoria said “Orson Welles”, and I found a quote from Orson Welles on politics, which reminds me of the member for Winnipeg North: “I have all the equipment to be a politician. Total shamelessness.” I think that is my colleague across the way.
Coming back to the actual issue being debated, Bill C-59, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, in his commentary about the fall economic statement, commented about the lack of transparency from the Liberal government being a concern. One issue I have noticed in the departmental results, which are part of the estimates process, which is eventually part of the statement, is that we see various departments such as the Department of Indigenous Services did not have 67% of its goals set for its priorities. For Veterans Affairs, it was 70%, and for Environment, it was 40%. I wonder if the member could comment on the lack of transparency from his own government on this important issue.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question but I am going to deviate from it and talk about how important it is that the Conservatives actually reflect on just why it is that they feel the particular piece of legislation before us should never see the light of day. They continue to filibuster it endlessly, and I am very grateful that we have some opposition parties that recognize the importance of getting the legislation through the House so Canadians could benefit by its passage.
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise tonight to talk about the fall economic statement. I came in here actually prepared to talk about the question of privilege. I am shocked that the government would shut down debate in the House on a question of privilege over the partisan activities of the Speaker. Our House of Commons, our institution, is being discredited and undermined by the Chair, the Speaker of the House of Commons. We have to continue to have a fulsome discussion on that, so I am disappointed that the government would use its power to force debate on Bill C-59, the fall economic statement. Last time I looked, it was May 27, and here we are talking in the summer about the fall economic statement from 2023.
I am going to be splitting my time with the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.
As Conservatives, we have said all along that we want to make sure that we build the homes, axe the tax, fix the budget and stop the crime. The government has no intention of doing any of that. We know that housing in this country is in a desperate situation, that in the nine years under the Liberal-NDP coalition, the cost of rent has doubled, the cost of mortgages has doubled and the number of housing starts is below that of what we did in 1976.
We say we want to axe the tax, and that is very important to my riding. I was just meeting with some cattle producers from Manitoba, including from my riding, and they were telling me over and over again that every time they have to pay the carbon tax, every time the carbon tax is hidden in all the supplies they buy, it all trickles down, and that means that they are getting less and paying to the government more. Of course when they sell their cattle, for which right now, thankfully, the price is at record highs, people are complaining about the price of beef on the store shelf.
One has to remember that the coolers that store shelves have their beef in are often powered through thermal electricity or natural gas, We know that this adds an extra cost to the price of beef. We know that in the transportation of that beef from the farm to the packer and from the processor to the retailer, it all gets added in and consumers are paying more. Of course, they cannot afford it.
We are going to fix the budget because the government continues to run up huge national debt and larger-than-ever deficits that are actually going to hurt each and every one of us. We know that the Governor of the Bank of Canada has said that this has not been helpful in controlling inflation. It has not been helpful in its being able to bring down interest rates. Of course every time we have a Trudeau as prime minister, we pay record-high interest rates.
With my first farm, which I bought back in 1984 under the former Trudeau, the interest rate on my mortgage was 21%, which was pretty high and pretty impossible, almost, for a 19-year-old young farmer to get going. I had to eat that at the bank because of the out-of-control spending by the Liberal government at the time, from 1980 to 1984. Our young people today are paying the cost because of out-of-control spending and little care for the economic performance of the country under the Liberal-NDP coalition.
Of course, we have to stop the crime. The government has, for nine years, ignored the plight of Canadians who are dealing with increasing criminal activity, including violent crime, which has gone up by over 32% across the country, including in my riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and including in the city of Winnipeg, where the member for Winnipeg North resides.
We see, over and over again, repeat offenders generating 90% of the crimes that are being committed against Canadians. We want safer communities, and that is why as Conservatives under the leadership of our leader, the member for Carleton, we will implement jail, not bail, and keep violent repeat offenders, those who are perpetrating crimes, behind bars and actually reduce crime across the country.
As members know, I am the shadow minister for national defence. I am very concerned by the way the government has ignored our Canadian Armed Forces and how it has gone from a proud, honoured institution to where it is now, again, in a decade of darkness, which occurred, of course, under the Chrétien era. We are living that again. Members and veterans of the armed forces have told me that they are actually in a decade of disaster because of the dithering and delays being carried out by the current government.
We know for a fact that the world has gotten much more dangerous. We know, and it is not just because of Russia's invasion in Ukraine, that we are seeing increased sabre-rattling by the Kremlin with NATO members in the Baltic region, which we just witnessed this past week with its redrawing of boundaries along Estonia and Russia and between Finland, Sweden and other Baltic nations with Russia. That type of aggression and provocation by President Vladimir Putin and his kleptocrats in Moscow continues to undermine our security.
We know that the Communist regime in Beijing and the People's Liberation Army continue to sabre-rattle with Taiwan. The rhetoric coming out of Beijing this past week after the inauguration of Taiwan's new president was deplorable. We know that its ongoing aggression against the Philippines in the South China Sea and around the Second Thomas Shoal continues to undermine security co-operation and peace and prosperity within that region. We know that Japan, South Korea and other Indo-Pacific countries are more and more concerned about China's growing disturbances in the region.
We know that the government has failed to make the investments in the Canadian Armed Forces to meet our NATO target, and the Washington Summit is coming up. There has been a lot of concern expressed by our allies, especially since the defence policy update came out, that there is no plan to meet the NATO target.
The Minister of National Defence has said that the Canadian Armed Forces is in a death spiral. He has said that our equipment is worn out and unsustainable. At committee today, the Minister of National Defence said that our Victoria-class submarines are no longer serviceable. We know that the greatest proliferation of weapons systems in this country outside of air-breathing missiles, which are hypersonic; intercontinental ballistic missiles; and the advancement of more cruise missiles and drones, outside of that domain, the next biggest growing proliferation of weapons is submarines. The best way to defend against a submarine is to have a submarine, and the minister is saying today, essentially, that we no longer have serviceable submarines to defend Canada in our maritime approaches.
We have to make sure that we are standing up for our troops. The minister said that we are short 6,700 housing units. We hear stories of members of our Canadian Armed Forces living rough. They are living in cars, tents and campers. They are couch-surfing in places like Halifax, Esquimalt and Toronto. We know that they need to have proper housing.
We cannot recruit because the government, under the NDP-Liberal coalition, has not put the troops first and foremost in its minds, making sure they get the kit they need. The government will say that it gave a recent raise, but in giving that raise it also increased the rent of military housing. We actually passed a motion here just two weeks ago calling on the government to reverse that decision. Of course, the Minister of National Defence and the Liberals voted against it. This has affected our recruitment capabilities, and that is why we are still short 16,000 troops.
We know that readiness continues to be undermined. All of us remember Gen. Andrew Leslie, a former army commander who was also the whip for the Liberals for some time. He has come out and stated that he is “not aware of any other [NATO] army, which will be deploying troops to the front line of a possible confrontation with Russia, who are not 100 per cent trained according to a variety of battle test standards.”
He is saying that the defence policy update, the most recent budget by the Liberals and the main estimates that we are dealing with at committee have undermined our overall readiness. We are now at only 61% standing ready. We are not training our troops like we are supposed to be at CFB Wainwright in Alberta before we deploy to places like Latvia. We are no longer doing fighter pilot training in this country. We have farmed that out to places like the United States and Italy. We do not have base training here. We do not even have enough pilots in the Canadian Air Force to fly our current fleet of fighter jets.
I would just say that based upon the comments we heard just this past week from multiple U.S. senators and from the ambassador, Canada is an outlier in NATO. Eighteen percent of the countries will meet the 2%, and 13% have a plan to get to 2% within the next couple of years. Canada is the only country that will never make it, and that is because we have a Prime Minister who actually said that we will never be at 2%.
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, in Bill C‑59, the government is creating a new department, the department of housing, infrastructure and communities. None of those areas fall under federal jurisdiction. This means the minister can interfere more, impose conditions on the provinces and municipalities, and cause more bickering and delays.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau already tried this in 1971. He created a similar department, and it was a total failure. During the department's existence, there was nothing but bickering until it was shut down in 1979.
Does my colleague agree that when the Liberals do the same thing over and over again, it really seems like a farce?
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that everything the Liberals have done on housing has been a joke. They have not built any new homes. We have seen that housing starts across this country have failed. They continue to reward gatekeepers rather than getting them out of the way. They refuse to work with provinces, and they continue to tread on provincial jurisdiction. The one place where they can actually make investments is in military housing on military bases, which is on federal land. They have not done that.
In the budget that we have before us right now, the government says that we are short 6,700 houses. The government has built only 38 military homes in the last two years, and the budget has zero dollars for military homes. In the forecast for the next budget, under the DPU, there are zero dollars for building military housing. We know that, going forward in the next five years, the government has only $8 million to build houses. How would $8 million over five years build 6,700 homes? We will be lucky if it builds 20 houses. It is a joke.
Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023Government Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the member could reflect on his comments. He said that we have not used military land to build houses. There was something called Kapyong barracks in the city of Winnipeg that he may want to reflect on. That was on military land.
He talks about a government that is not investing in housing. That is mind-blowing in terms of the degree to which we have invested in housing. He also said that we do not work with other governments. I cannot believe the member said that, as we have had so many announcements with municipalities and provinces. Where has the member been sleeping? There has been an incredible amount of work and cooperation that we have been getting from different levels of government.
Why should Canadians believe what the member is saying if he is so factually incorrect in a very short answer?
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see Kapyong barracks under the control of Treaty No. 1, because I know the first nation will get houses built. It will be doing it on its own without any assistance from the federal government. It can do it under its own rules and regulations and build the homes.
That is what we are seeing right across this country, including in places like Vancouver. The government continues to reward gatekeepers rather than get them out of the way. Despite all of the announcements the government has made, and it makes great announcements, the government has not built one single home. I actually used one of the government's announcements to build a really nice paper home, and that is about the only home that the government has been able to build, thanks to my hard work and its piece of paper.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague brought up the issue around crime. Last month was the tragic one-year anniversary of a young mother and her young child being murdered on the streets of Edmonton by a man who had just been released on bail after assaulting a young girl and another person while he was out on parole after stabbing someone randomly and charged with attempted murder. He was out on parole after also trying to stab someone to death while also out on bail on four different violent assault charges.
The Liberals introduced Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, soft-on-crime bills. I wonder whether the member could perhaps give some feedback on why he thinks the Liberal government is prioritizing the rights of criminals instead of innocent victims.
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I just have to express my sympathies to the family that lost its loved ones in that murder. The government has never put victims first. It has always stood up for the criminal, and it is trying to reduce the number of incarcerations. We know that those who work at Corrections Canada do great work in making sure that we are kept safe and that people who are incarcerated are getting the support and help they need to reintegrate into society when they have served their sentence.
However, the government continues to do bail instead of jail, and that has undermined our country. It has made us more unsafe, and our communities are being terrorized by repeat violent offenders whom the Liberal-NDP coalition continues to put on our streets instead of behind bars.
Marc Dalton Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
Mr. Speaker, the budget impacts people, as do the decisions being made here by the Liberals and the NDP. They impact everyone in this nation, and it is not for the great, at all. The Governor of the Bank of Canada, who was appointed by the Liberals, said that this is “the worst budget since...1982”. Why would he say that?
I can tell members that the people I am talking to on the streets, in their homes and at their businesses are having a tough time. I think of Tyler. He bought a place and was paying $1,600 a month for his mortgage. Now that he has had to renew, it is costing him $4,000. He has no choice but to sell his home.
I think of Candice, who told me that she cannot afford to buy new clothes for her kids. Even signing up for sports is a challenge. That is just because of how much more difficult things have become financially for millions of Canadians.
I think of Shafi, who showed me on his app what his payments are now. He is a worker at Seaspan in North Vancouver. He told me that his mortgage has gone up astronomically. It is now $7,528. He says he has no freedom. He is working seven days a week, 10 hours a day and cannot give his body a rest, or he will lose his home. He said that it is not a fancy home, about 30 or 40 years old. However, the consequences of the Liberals' out-of-control spending is being felt.
It was not that long ago that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance asked what the problem was with borrowing money as it is pretty much free. The interest rate was at 0.25%. Now it has gone up to 5% or 6%, and the Bank of Canada rates are being passed on to the people who are renewing their mortgages. Those who were first affected, immediately affected, were those who had variable rates, but those who now have to renew their mortgage are having to make really tough decisions as to what to do.
I know in British Columbia, 37,000 people moved to Alberta because of the cost of living, the cost of housing, the cost of gas and the cost of everything. They are finding it very hard. That has a lot to do with the Liberals, supported by the federal NDP, and the decisions of the B.C. NDP government under David Eby. It is tough. People only have so much disposable income and only so many hours of the day to be able to work.
I talked to one lady, who has a business, at an event with the Rotary last week. She said that she has never seen it so bad. Her clientele is shrinking, and it is much worse now than it was even under COVID, as people do not have that income.
Conservatives have brought forward a motion to axe the tax and give Canadians a break over the summertime. The NDP and the Liberals have voted that down. In B.C., gas is hovering about or just below $2 a litre. That is money that is a very scarce commodity at this point with the cost of housing and everything else.
Let us not forget the tremendous increases we have seen over the past few years with inflation in the cost of food. As well, people are not going to restaurants like they used to. A restaurant near where I live here in Ottawa just closed. It has been there for many years and it just does not have the clientele anymore. It is because people do not have the disposable income that they used to have.
I have gone on a number of visits to work sites throughout British Columbia where the leader of the Conservative Party has spoken. There are blue-collar workers there. The response from them is that they are very attentive because of the Conservative plan. Our leader is aware of and is speaking to the issues they are facing.
I was on Vancouver Island, and I was talking to a gentleman. He actually was a cabinet minister under a previous B.C. NDP government. He now has a Conservative membership, and not only does he have a Conservative membership, but he is also on the board. He said that the NDP has totally left the working-class people. It has become so woke on issues, and it is not talking about the bread-and-butter issues Canadians are facing.
Ahmed Yousef was the Liberal candidate I ran against in the last election. He recently told me he will be voting for me in this election. He says the Liberals have just lost it. They have gone so far in their mismanagement, in their spending and in the decisions they are making, that the candidate I just ran against will be voting for me.
A previous president in my riding told me a few days ago that he will be writing a cheque for the riding association. Why is that? He says this is not the Liberal Party of Chrétien or of Martin. This is a Liberal government that has gone right off the rails. It has gone right off the rails economically and right off the rails considering where Canadians are at.
The Canadian standard of living is going down. If we look at the numbers for past years, our per capita income is going down as opposed to going up. We are now at, I believe, two-thirds of what the per capita income is in the United States. Why is this? A lot of this is because of the bad decisions made by Liberal and NDP members, and poor priorities. One example is waste. They have been a tremendous basket case for waste.
I think of the TransCanada pipeline. This was a pipeline going from Alberta to the coast, and it was under the private sector. It was not going to cost taxpayers anything. However, through delays and everything else, Kinder Morgan was going to be paying about $7 billion to have it done. It sold its share, and the Liberals have now spent approaching $35 billion to $40 billion of taxpayers' money to get a pipeline through. It should have cost taxpayers nothing. All of that is taxpayers' money.
This sort of thing impacts us. We are spending as much in interest on servicing the debt as we are on health care. We are spending more than we are on national defence. That waste and that overspending has led to increased deficits and debt, which means we have less money to put toward things that are important to Canadians, and we have to service the debt.
One thing is for sure. Conservatives will be voting against the fall economic statement as well as the budget, and I hope the other parties will as well.
Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023Government Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, the member, in his very last thought, really shows a contrast. The Conservatives are going to vote against the fall economic statement, and they are going to vote against the budget. The Conservatives are all about cuts, and let us be very clear that, as the Liberal Party of Canada continues to show clearly that we care and provide substantial supports to Canadians in all regions of the country, all the Conservatives want to do is put on their bumper sticker “We cut”. Whether it is taxes or the programs that are going to help seniors get medications and dental care, these are the types of programs they are going to be cutting.
The question is this: Does the member feel confident? He was bold to say he was going to vote against these budgets. Does he feel confident that his constituents feel comfortable in him providing these types of cuts?
Marc Dalton Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
Madam Speaker, what the Liberals are about is increases, such as increases to the food banks, where in one month we saw two million visits, and now we have more than 1 million people going to the food banks. Why is that? It is because they are not only incompetent in their fiscal management, but also destroying our economy with their anti-resource drive. There has been a loss of jobs and a loss of investment happening across the nation.
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Madam Speaker, on the question of cutting things, we are being told by our constituents that the thing they want cut is the number of Liberal government seats, but the reality of what people are telling us is that the costs are significant and the carbon tax is really brutal. As the government, in its budget, continues to want to increase it, I am hearing from my constituents about cutting the carbon tax. Is that something my colleague is hearing about with the challenges of a redistribution wealth scheme versus an environmental plan?
Marc Dalton Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
Madam Speaker, certainly the residents in my community, and across British Columbia and Canada, are saying they have had enough of this carbon tax, and they want to axe the tax. I cannot say how many people are phoning my office or meeting me and saying that they were voting for the NDP, or were voting for the Liberals, and they are not doing it again because of their poor management. The carbon tax is a case in point. If one looks at the facts and they realize that things are not working, they change their way of going.
There is a carbon tax, and we are against that because it is not working. It is not a climate plan; it is a tax plan.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
From what I understand, there has been consensus among the parties for unanimous consent for me to present the questions on the Order Paper. If we can get that affirmed, I will do that.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.
Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time.
I am glad to have the chance to rise to share more about why Greens cannot support this amendment, but we will continue to support Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, despite its imperfections.
Let us be clear: The amendment is essentially saying not to move forward with Bill C-59 at all in its entirety and, instead, to just repeal the carbon tax under the guise that this would help people across the country deal with issues with respect to the unaffordability of day-to-day life. Well, we cannot support the amendment, because repealing the carbon tax will not do any good for the vast majority of Canadians who are having a difficult time with the cost of living. There is a reason for that.
There is a lot of talk of food banks in this place, but has any parliamentarian taken a look at what food banks are actually calling for? For example, what was the Daily Bread Food Bank calling for in its pre-budget submission? It actually has three recommendations, and all three call for increasing and moving quickly to put in place the Canada disability benefit. This would provide support to people with disabilities, who are disproportionately living in poverty across the country. Forty per cent of people living in poverty are people with disabilities. Groups such as the Daily Bread Food Bank have been joining in solidarity with the disability community to call on the government to put in place a Canada disability benefit that would bring people with disabilities above the poverty line. There is no mention of that in the amendment, which would just get rid of everything else that is in the fall economic statement. Not only that, but repealing the carbon tax would mean removing the rebates that go with it, which leave lower-income Canadians in my community better off; it is true.
The carbon tax went up two cents a litre last year, and rebates went up along with it. The pure profits of the oil and gas industry in the same period of time went up 18¢ a litre. There were no rebates for any Canadian on that gouging, and that is not just the total profits, it is only the increase. It went up from around 26¢ a litre to around 42¢ a litre or so. This gouging of Canadians is leading to the $38 billion a year in profits in 2022 alone for the five largest oil and gas companies operating in Canada. This is after share repurchases and dividends are all issued. It is why folks such as myself and others have been calling to put in place a windfall profit tax on the excess profits of the oil and gas industry, the way many other jurisdictions already have all around the world.
In fact, the government put in place a windfall profit tax on another sector already. In the midst of the pandemic, banks and life insurance companies had an extra 15% tax on profits over a billion dollars. It has been done before in this country. We could do the same when it comes to the oil and gas industry, and if we did, we could use those dollars to invest in real solutions to help address the unaffordability of day-to-day life for Canadians who need this the most. For example, we could increase service and reduce fares for public transit across the country; we could make it cheaper and provide more incentives for Canadians who want to retrofit their homes. These are the kinds of measures that would actually help address affordability. Repealing the carbon tax will not do anything to help Canadians who are struggling with day-to-day life.
On the subject of the fall economic statement itself, while it is imperfect, Greens have been supporting it; it includes many measures that will help folks in my community and others across the country. The first I would like to talk about is when it comes to making psychotherapy and counselling services more affordable. There was a long-held promise and commitment that was followed through on in Bill C-59 to remove GST and HST from those services. It is a small measure that would make it more affordable for Canadians across the country to access mental health services.
I would expect all parliamentarians in this place to agree that we need to do more to make mental health services available. Admittedly, the government actually committed $4.5 billion in the last election campaign for mental health transfers. The Liberals have not followed through on that, but they did put in place this measure to remove GST and HST from psychotherapy services. It is an important, good measure that, as Greens, we want to see made available to Canadians as soon as possible.
There are also really important tax credits that would help bring along support for renewable energy across the country. There are tax credits that would benefit companies in my community, such as VCT Group, which is designing and building the future of solar energy. In fact, in conversations I have had with VCT Group executives over the last year, they have shared with me directly how contracts that they would like to see move ahead are being held back because these tax credits are not yet in place; prospective customers of theirs do not have the business case to move ahead unless they see them in place. Even with the tax credits, the payback period for certain projects is still particularly long, but there are far more potential customers of theirs who would be open to moving ahead should we see Bill C-59 and the clean manufacturing tax credit included in it move ahead. This is one reason Greens have been so keen to finally get to the end of the day when it comes to getting Bill C-59 passed.
Again, this is the fall economic statement. We are in the late spring months now and have yet to see it move through. We are keen to see measures like this moved ahead. In fact, it was at committee where Greens even tried to improve on this to have that tax credit. As it stands right now, these tax credits are only available if both the manufacturing happens in Canada and the equipment is exclusively used in Canada. As Greens, we attempted to amend the bill at committee to allow for solar-powered lawnmowers, for example. A company in my community called Swap Robotics manufactures those. However, they are used in Canada only half the year, and they are used in Florida half the year. Because they are used outside Canada half the year, companies such as Swap Robotics would not be eligible for that tax credit. As Greens, we would have liked to see that expanded further. We were not successful with that at committee. However, what is in the fall economic statement is still an important and good measure; we are still going to support it.
I would like to close, though, with the one piece of Bill C-59 that we are most concerned about, and that is another fossil fuel subsidy. It is a massive tax credit for a false climate solution called “carbon capture and storage”. The tax credits in Bill C-59, which have been rolled out for the last three years, amount to $5.7 billion. All this could be redirected, for example, to actually funding the Canada disability benefit and to building public transit infrastructure; instead, it is being wasted on this false solution technology that, more often than not, emits more carbon than it captures around the world. In closing, I will read a quote from Environmental Defence back in 2021. These are the words of Julia Levin, warning the government not to create the tax credits it did create, including in Bill C-59. She said:
Carbon capture is being used as a Trojan horse by oil and gas executives to continue, and even expand, fossil fuel production. It’s a dangerous distraction driven by the same polluters who created the climate emergency. The Government of Canada should not use any kind of financial support or tax incentive to prop up false climate solutions that only serve to delay the necessary transition off of fossil fuels.
I could not agree more with Ms. Levin. Climate scientists around the world have been warning us to get our dollars focused on the most efficient use of funds. There is certainly not such as focus with this subsidy to carbon capture and storage. However, on balance, Bill C-59 has measures that we need to see move ahead, and Greens will be supporting it.
Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023Government Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, the member referenced at the end that there are many benefits within the legislation and that those benefits would help Canadians, yet we have seen the discussions and the debates through second reading, now third reading, and at committee stage. In third reading alone, we are actually debating an amendment to third reading of the bill. There is no reason we should not have been able to get the bill passed long ago; until the legislation passes, the delay is denying people the benefits and supports that would be there. Could the member provide his thoughts regarding the fact that we are actually debating an amendment to the legislation at third reading, which again is meant to postpone its ultimate passage, and it is the fall economic statement?
Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary knows, the amendment in front of us is, of course, not a substantive amendment. It is one of the tactics that is available to parties in this place, in this case, to delay legislation.
I would also point out that it is the governing side that has the legislative power and calendar to set the agenda of the House. Greens' view is that we would have liked to see the fall economic statement move along more quickly and earlier. We can empathize with the fact that there are various delay tactics being put in place to slow the legislation down. However, we would also encourage the governing side to ensure that, when they have the legislative calendar available to them, they do what they can to move ahead important pieces of legislation. This is of course one of them. It certainly is a bit odd that we are this late into the spring and still talking about the fall economic statement. Our interest would be for parties to come together, agree on legislation that could move ahead and ensure that this happens.
Denis Trudel Bloc Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I really enjoy working with him. We often see each other in committee meetings. I thank him for his work.
He said some different things, but I agree with him on the fact that carbon capture is not really a way to fight climate change.
Canada has a bad track record, as members have mentioned today. One member referred to a study by Carbon Brief that shows that Canada has been the worst polluter in the world per capita since 1850. That is a big deal. The Liberals continue to make investments. According to an International Monetary Fund study, the government has directly and indirectly invested $38 billion U.S. in support to the oil industry.
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Carbon capture is not effective. The government needs to stop investing in the oil industry. That is for certain. The carbon tax is one worthwhile measure. What are two or three other measures that a Green Party government would put in place to fight climate change?
Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, first of all, we agree with the Bloc Québécois on the fact that the government needs to eliminate all oil subsidies, including those pertaining to carbon capture and storage.
As a Green Party government, we would be much more ambitious. We would move more quickly and take this issue more seriously. We are in a climate crisis. That means that we need to make significant investments in public transportation. We need to electrify our grid across the country and we need to eliminate all oil subsidies.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Madam Speaker, I have to believe that my hon. colleague is sincere when he talks about false climate solutions. I mostly agree with him, but there is an issue I have to bring up. The Auditor General, through her office, has the commissioner of the environment. One of his most recent reports commented that about $7.4 billion of government money was spent on the net zero accelerator initiative with no oversight, no due diligence before the money was given out and no ability to track if any carbon emissions were reduced with this spending.
If he is sincere about his belief in ending the false climate solutions, will he commit to voting against future initiatives such as this instead of voting for them, as he has in the past?
Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, I can start by saying that I appreciate the member for Edmonton West's bringing up something we agree on, which is how poorly rolled out the net zero accelerator fund is. I raised that at committee. What is a qualitative GHG reduction? It does not make any sense at all. That $7 billion could have gone towards true climate solutions. It is disappointing that it has not.
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Madam Speaker, because this bill is time allocated, I will use my time to dedicate my opposition to this hot mess of inflationary and ineffective spending to Kelly Pascoe, who was the subject of a Calgary Herald article four days ago with the headline, “'You just can’t afford to be a single parent anymore': Working mom struggles to afford necessities”. In the article, Kelly talks about how her rent has almost doubled and she cannot afford to pay for groceries anymore.
Everybody here is talking in academic terms, but Kelly is living the reality of irresponsible deficit, hot mess, inflationary spending and we have to oppose this. Whenever the Prime Minister and the Liberals get up and talk about actual solutions to Kelly's problems, they talk in academic terms. They do not talk about getting food for her kids, the music lessons she cannot afford anymore or the fact she is trying to find a roommate to potentially live in a basement suite.
This mess that people are actually considering voting for is making the lives of people like Kelly a million times worse. The fact the government has not done anything at all to address their out-of-control waste on things like the arrive scam app, the We Charity scandal and the billions on consultants, and it does not even know how much it is spending on consultants, means that Kelly has to pay for that. I want to say this. The Prime Minister said years ago that the government was taking on all of the spending so that Canadians did not have to. Now Kelly has pay for this.
I think it is atrocious that my time has been curtailed by the Liberals and the NDP on this speech. However, I would say to Kelly that I see her, that everybody on this side of the House sees her and that we will stand up, oppose and do everything we can to ensure that people like her who work hard, and she works hard with her own small business cleaning houses, have that dream of affordability and are able to live a life free and full of prosperity once again. I have hope that we can get there, but this one is for Kelly and I will oppose this bill.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
It being 7:50 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, May 9, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the amendment.
If a member participating in person wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, May 28, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.
The House resumed from May 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.
The Speaker Greg Fergus
It being 3:15 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo to the motion for third reading of Bill C-59.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Speaker Greg Fergus
I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69.1, the question is on clauses 1 to 136, 138 to 143, 168 to 196, 209 to 216, and 278 to 317, regarding measures appearing in the 2023 budget.
If a member participating in person wishes that these clauses be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
(The House divided on clauses 1 to 136, 138 to 143, 168 to 196, 209 to 216, and 278 to 317, which were agreed to on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
I declare clauses 1 to 136, 138 to 143, 168 to 196, 209 to 216, and 278 to 317, regarding measures appearing in the 2023 budget, carried.
The next question is on clauses 137, 144, and 231 to 272, regarding measures related to affordability.
If a member participating in person wishes that all the clauses be carried or carried on division, or if a member from a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
(The House divided on clauses 137, 144 and 232 to 272, which were agreed to on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
I declare clauses 137, 144, and 231 to 272 regarding measures related to affordability carried.
The next question is on clauses 197 to 208 and 342 to 365 regarding amendments to the Canada Labour Code.
If a member participating in person wishes that the clauses be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
I declare clauses 197 to 208 and 342 to 365 regarding amendments to the Canada Labour Code carried.
The next question is on clauses 145 to 167, 217 and 218 regarding measures related to vaping products, cannabis and tobacco.
If a member participating in person wishes that the clauses be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
(The House divided on clauses 145 to 167, 217 and 218, which were agreed to on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
I declare clauses 145 to 167, 217 and 218, regarding measures related to vaping products, cannabis and tobacco, carried.
The next question is on clauses 219 to 230 of the bill.
If a member participating in person wishes that these clauses be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
(The House divided on clauses 219 to 230, which were agreed to on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
I declare clauses 219 to 230 carried.
The next question is on clauses 273 to 277 of the bill.
If a member participating in person wishes that these clauses be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
(The House divided on clauses 273 to 277, which were agreed to on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
I declare clauses 273 to 277 carried.
The next question is on clauses 318 and 319 of the bill.
If a member participating in person wishes that these clauses be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
I declare clauses 318 and 319 carried.
The next question is on clauses 320 to 322.
If a member participating in person wishes that the clauses be carried or carried on division, or if a member from a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
(The House divided on clauses 320 to 322, which were agreed to on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
I declare clauses 320 to 322 carried.
The next question is on clauses 323 to 341 of the bill.
If a member participating in person wishes that these clauses be carried or carried on division, or if a member from a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
(The House divided on clauses 323 to 341, which were agreed to on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
I declare clauses 323 to 341 carried.
The House has agreed to the entirety of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, at third reading stage.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
