Bill C-69

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024

Part 1 implements certain measures in respect of the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations by
(a) denying income tax deductions for expenses incurred with respect to non-compliant short-term rentals;
(b) exempting from taxation the international shipping income of certain Canadian resident companies;
(c) exempting from taxation any income of the trusts established under the First Nations Child and Family Services, Jordan’s Principle, and Trout Class Settlement Agreement;
(d) doubling the volunteer firefighters and search and rescue volunteers tax credits;
(e) extending the eligibility for the Canada child benefit in respect of a child for six months after the child’s death;
(f) increasing the cap on labour expenditures per eligible newsroom employee from $55,000 to $85,000 and increasing, for four years, the Canadian journalism labour tax credit rate from 25% to 35%;
(g) extending eligibility for the mineral exploration tax credit by one year;
(h) providing a refundable tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses in designated provinces by returning a portion of fuel charge proceeds from the province;
(i) providing a refundable investment tax credit to qualifying businesses for investments in certain clean hydrogen projects;
(j) providing a refundable investment tax credit to qualifying businesses for certain investments in clean technology manufacturing property;
(k) amending the definition “government assistance” to exclude bona fide concessional loans with reasonable repayment terms from public authorities;
(l) implementing a number of amendments to the alternative minimum tax;
(m) increasing the home buyers’ plan withdrawal limit from $35,000 to $60,000 and deferring the repayment period by three additional years;
(n) excluding the failure to report under the mandatory disclosure rules from the application of the section 238 penalty;
(o) introducing a $10-million capital gains exemption on the sale of a business to an employee ownership trust; and
(p) implementing a number of technical amendments to correct inconsistencies and to better align the law with its intended policy objectives.
Part 2 enacts the Global Minimum Tax Act , a regime based on the rules of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The global minimum tax regime will ensure that large multinational corporations are subject to a minimum effective tax rate of 15% on their profits wherever they do business. 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 amends the Excise Tax Act , the Excise Act , the Excise Act, 2001 , the Underused Housing Tax Act , the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and other related texts in order to implement certain measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Excise Tax Act by repealing the temporary relief for supplies of certain face masks or respirators and certain face shields from the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Excise Act , the Excise Act, 2001 and other related texts in order to implement changes to
(a) the federal excise duty framework for tobacco products by
(i) increasing the excise duty rates for tobacco products, including imposing a tax on inventories of cigarettes held by retailers and wholesalers,
(ii) changing the process by which brands of tobacco products for export are exempted from special excise duty and marking requirements,
(iii) allowing certain information to be shared for the administration or enforcement of the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act , and
(iv) requiring the filing of information returns in respect of tobacco excise stamps;
(b) the federal excise duty framework for vaping products by increasing the excise duty rates for vaping products; and
(c) the federal excise duty framework for alcohol by
(i) extending by two years the two per cent cap on the inflation adjustment on beer, spirits and wine excise duties, and
(ii) cutting by half for two years the excise duty rate on the first 15,000 hectolitres of beer brewed in Canada.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Underused Housing Tax Act and the Underused Housing Tax Regulations by, among other things,
(a) eliminating filing requirements for certain owners;
(b) reducing minimum penalties for failing to file a return; and
(c) introducing a new exemption for residential properties held as a place of residence or lodging for employees.
Division 4 of Part 3 amends the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act by providing authority, in certain circumstances, for the sharing of certain information amongst federal officials and for the public disclosure of certain information by the Minister of National Revenue.
Part 4 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1 to delay the repeal of the Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act for two years.
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the National Housing Act to increase the in-force limits for guarantees issued by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) in respect of mortgage-backed securities and Canada Mortgage Bonds and for mortgage default insurance provided by CMHC from the temporary $750 billion to the permanent $800 billion. It also amends the Borrowing Authority Act to avoid the double counting of liabilities related to Canada Mortgage Bonds that are guaranteed by the CMHC and have been purchased by the Minister of Finance, on behalf of the Government of Canada, in the calculation of the maximum amount of certain borrowings under that Act.
Division 3 of Part 4 authorizes the making of payments to the provinces for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2024 respecting a national program for providing food in schools.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Canada Student Loans Act and the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to expand eligibility for student loan forgiveness to early childhood educators, dentists, dental hygienists, pharmacists, midwives, teachers, social workers, psychologists, personal support workers and physiotherapists.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Canada Education Savings Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Minister responsible for that Act to open a registered education savings plan in respect of a child born after 2023 who is eligible for the payment of the Canada Learning Bond and is not the beneficiary under such a plan, so that the Minister may pay a Canada Learning Bond in respect of the child; and
(b) increase, from 20 to 30 years, the maximum age of a beneficiary under a registered education savings plan in respect of whom a Canada Learning Bond may be paid on application.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act .
Division 6 of Part 4 amends the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act to increase the maximum financial assistance that may be provided in respect of foreign states.
Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act to increase the amount of the payment that the Minister of Finance may provide to the International Monetary Fund in respect of Canada’s subscriptions. It also amends the International Development (Financial Institutions) Assistance Act and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Agreement Act to provide for new financial instruments that the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister of Finance, as the case may be, may use to provide financial assistance to the institutions referred to in those Acts.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the International Financial Assistance Act to, among other things, provide that foreign exchange losses in relation to programs referred to in that Act must be charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and provide for the making of payments to Development Finance Institute Canada (DFIC) Inc. in relation to programs referred to in that Act out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Export Development Act to lower the limit for total liabilities and obligations referred to in subsection 24(1) of that Act from $115 billion to $100 billion.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Financial Administration Act to broaden the application of subsection 85(2) of that Act to other Crown corporations.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the Financial Administration Act to require certain banks and other financial institutions to disclose prescribed information for federal payments accepted for deposit.
Division 12 of Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to enhance the Canada Health Transfer for qualifying provinces and territories.
Division 13 of Part 4 amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 to require that the Superintendent of Financial Institutions publish certain information relating to pension plan investments. It also amends the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act to require that plan administrators provide specified information by written notice to certain persons when they become members of a pooled registered pension plan.
Division 14 of Part 4 amends the Canada Pension Plan to, among other things,
(a) provide for a death benefit of $5,000 in cases where no other Canada Pension Plan benefit, with the exception of the orphan’s benefit, has been paid in respect of the deceased contributor’s contributions;
(b) create a new child’s benefit for dependent children aged 18 to 24 who are in part-time attendance at school;
(c) maintain eligibility for the disabled contributor’s child’s benefit if the disabled contributor reaches the age of 65;
(d) allow for the deeming of an application for a disabled contributor’s child’s benefit on behalf of a child to have been made at an earlier date under the Canada Pension Plan ’s incapacity provisions;
(e) preclude entitlement to a survivor’s pension if an individual has received a division of unadjusted pensionable earnings in respect of their deceased separated spouse; and
(f) clarify the determination of the payee of the disabled contributor’s child’s benefit.
It also makes a consequential amendment to the Canada Pension Plan Regulations .
Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act to provide for the payment of certain amounts into the Consolidated Revenue Fund by the Public Sector Pension Investment Board.
Division 16 of Part 4 enacts the Consumer-Driven Banking Act , which establishes a consumer-driven framework for individuals and small businesses to safely and securely share their data with the participating entities of their choice.
It also makes related amendments to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act to establish the position of Senior Deputy Commissioner for Consumer-Driven Banking who is responsible for consumer-driven banking matters and to provide for, among other things, the supervision of participating entities.
Division 17 of Part 4 amends the Bank Act to, among other things, clarify the definitions “deposit-type instrument” and “principal-protected note”.
Division 18 of Part 4 amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act to increase to $100,000,000 the maximum amount that expenditures made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to defray the expenses arising out of the operations of the Office may exceed the Office’s total assessments and revenues.
Division 19 of Part 4 amends the Bank of Canada Act to clarify that the Bank of Canada may enter into repurchase, reverse repurchase and buy-sellback agreements.
Division 20 of Part 4 amends the Canada Business Corporations Act to
(a) harmonize fines for a corporation guilty of an offence related to the collection or sending of information regarding individuals with significant control; and
(b) set separate fines and imprisonment terms on the basis of a summary conviction or a conviction on indictment for a director, officer or shareholder of a corporation guilty of an offence related to individuals with significant control.
Division 21 of Part 4 amends Parts I to III of the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) provide that a person who is paid remuneration by an employer is presumed to be their employee unless the contrary is proved by the employer;
(b) provide that if, in any proceeding other than a prosecution, an employer alleges that a person is not their employee, the burden of proof is on the employer; and
(c) prohibit an employer from treating an employee as if they were not their employee.
Finally, it also includes transitional provisions.
Division 22 of Part 4 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things, set out certain employer obligations relating to policies respecting work-related communication and clarify certain employee rights and employer obligations relating to terminations of employment. It also includes transitional provisions.
Division 23 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to extend, until October 24, 2026, the duration of the measure that increases the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period to certain seasonal workers.
Division 24 of Part 4 amends section 61 of An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages in order to add a reference to subsections 18(1.1) and (1.2) of the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act in subsection 19(1) of that Act, which An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages enacts.
Division 25 of Part 4 authorizes a corporation that is to be incorporated as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Canada Development Investment Corporation to provide loan guarantees as part of an Indigenous loan guarantee program and authorizes the payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund by the Minister of Finance of amounts that are required in respect of those guarantees.
Division 26 of Part 4 authorizes the payment of up to $1.3 million to entities or individuals involved in the government’s engagement in a pilot project for the creation of a Red Dress Alert.
Division 27 of Part 4 provides that the subsidiary of VIA Rail Canada Inc. incorporated with the corporate name VIA HFR - VIA TGF Inc. is, as of the date of its incorporation, an agent of His Majesty in right of Canada and may enter into contracts, agreements and other arrangements with His Majesty as though it were not such an agent.
Division 28 of Part 4 amends the Impact Assessment Act , in response to the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of that Act, to, among other things,
(a) align the preamble and purpose provision with the primary objective of that Act, which is to prevent or mitigate significant adverse effects within federal jurisdiction — and significant direct or incidental adverse effects — that may be caused by the carrying out of physical activities;
(b) replace the definition “effects within federal jurisdiction” with “adverse effects within federal jurisdiction” and, in doing so,
(i) restrict the definition to non-negligible adverse changes,
(ii) limit transboundary changes to those involving the pollution of transboundary waters and the marine environment, and
(iii) include, in respect of federal works or undertakings and activities carried out on federal lands, non-negligible adverse changes to the environment or to health, social and economic conditions;
(c) ensure that the impact assessment process applies only to those physical activities that may cause adverse effects within federal jurisdiction or direct or incidental adverse effects;
(d) ensure that, in deciding if an impact assessment of a designated project is required, one factor that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada must take into account is whether another means exists that would permit a jurisdiction to address those effects;
(e) amend the final decision-making provisions to provide for an initial determination as to whether the adverse effects within federal jurisdiction and the direct or incidental adverse effects are likely to be, to some extent, significant, and then, if so, provide for a determination as to whether those effects are justified in the public interest; and
(f) improve cooperation tools to better harmonize the impact assessment process with the processes for assessing effects that are followed by provincial and Indigenous jurisdictions.
Finally, it also includes transitional provisions.
Division 29 of Part 4 amends the Judges Act to increase the number of salaries authorized for judges of superior courts other than appeal courts. It also reduces in a corresponding manner the number of salaries authorized for judges of provincial unified family courts.
Division 30 of Part 4 amends the Tax Court of Canada Act to provide that, if a party to a proceeding under the general procedure of the Tax Court of Canada is not an individual, that party must be represented by counsel, except under special circumstances.
Division 31 of Part 4 amends the Food and Drugs Act to, among other things, authorize the Minister of Health to
(a) establish rules for the purpose of preventing, managing or controlling the risk of injury to health from the use of therapeutic products, other than the intended use, or the risk of adverse effects on human beings, animals or the environment from the use of a drug intended for an animal;
(b) exempt any food, therapeutic product, person or activity from the application of certain provisions of that Act or its regulations; and
(c) deem, on the basis of decisions of, information or documents produced by, a foreign regulatory authority, that certain requirements of that Act or its regulations are met in respect of a therapeutic product or food.
Finally, it also includes a transitional provision.
Division 32 of Part 4 amends the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act to authorize the provision of customs information to the Minister responsible for that Act for the purpose of the administration and enforcement of that Act and to authorize that Minister to disclose information to other federal ministers for certain purposes.
Division 33 of Part 4 amends the Criminal Code to broaden the criminal interest rate offence to prohibit a person from offering to enter into an agreement or arrangement to receive interest at a criminal rate and from advertising an offer to enter into an agreement or arrangement that provides for the receipt of interest at a criminal rate. It also repeals the provision that requires the consent of the Attorney General prior to commencing proceedings related to the offence.
Division 34 of Part 4 contains measures that are related to money laundering, terrorist financing and sanctions evasion and other measures.
Subdivision A of Division 34 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things,
(a) permit information sharing between reporting entities for the purpose of detecting and deterring money laundering, terrorist financing and sanctions evasion;
(b) authorize, subject to certain conditions, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) to disclose certain information to provincial and territorial civil forfeiture offices and to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration;
(c) authorize FINTRAC to publicize additional information pertaining to violations of that Act; and
(d) extend the application of that Act to cheque cashing businesses.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Cross-border Currency and Monetary Instruments Reporting Regulations .
Subdivision B of Division 34 amends the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act to allow provincial or superior court judges, a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction or a judge as defined in section 552 of the Criminal Code to grant on application by a Canada Revenue Agency official the authorization to use device or investigative technique, or procedure or otherwise do any thing provided in a warrant, for purposes of tax investigations.
Subdivision C of Division 34 amends the Criminal Code to provide for an order to keep an account open or active and for a production order to require the production of documents or data that are in a person’s possession or control on dates specified in an order that fall within the 60-day period after the day on which it is made.
Division 35 of Part 4 amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create new offences in respect of motor vehicle theft, including an offence concerning the possession or the distribution of an electronic device suitable for committing theft of a motor vehicle, and in respect of criminal organizations; and
(b) add, as an aggravating factor, evidence that an offender involved a person under the age of 18 years in the commission of an offence.
It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 36 of Part 4 amends the Radiocommunication Act to, among other things, prohibit the manufacture, import, distribution, lease, offer for sale, sale or possession of certain devices specified by the Minister of Industry. It also amends that Act to establish as an offence or a violation the contravention of that prohibition.
Division 37 of Part 4 amends the Telecommunications Act to, among other things, require telecommunications service providers to provide their subscribers with a self-service mechanism that allows them to cancel their contract for telecommunications services or modify their telecommunications service plan and to inform those subscribers before the expiry of their fixed-term contract, as well as in other specified circumstances, of other service plans that those providers offer. It also amends that Act to prohibit the charging of certain fees.
Division 38 of Part 4 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that the Correctional Service of Canada is responsible for implementing any arrangement — approved by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness — entered into by the Commissioner of Corrections and the Canada Border Services Agency with respect to the support that the Service may provide to the Agency to assist in the exercise of certain powers or the performance of certain duties and functions;
(b) control the access of the inmates of a penitentiary to a designated immigrant station adjacent to the penitentiary and the access of the immigration detainees of a designated immigrant station to a penitentiary adjacent to the station; and
(c) provide that, in exigent circumstances, staff members of the Service may provide additional support to detention enforcement officers of the Agency to assist them in the exercise of certain powers or the performance of certain duties and functions.
It also amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to define the term “immigrant station”, to provide that an area of a penitentiary may be an immigrant station only if it is designated under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to set out the circumstances under which a person detained under that Act may be detained in a designated immigrant station.
Finally, it provides for the repeal of those amendments on a specified date and includes a transitional provision.
Division 39 of Part 4 contains measures related to public debt and the borrowing of money.
Subdivision A of Division 39 amends the Financial Administration Act to clarify that certain regulations and directions do not apply to contracts related to the borrowing of money entered into by the Minister of Finance.
Subdivision B of Division 39 amends the Borrowing Authority Act to increase the maximum amount of certain borrowings.
Division 40 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act , the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to require certain financial institutions to make available information respecting diversity among directors and members of senior management.
Division 41 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act , the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to extend the period during which federal financial institutions governed by those Acts may carry on business.
Division 42 of Part 4 amends the Federal Courts Act to provide that the Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear applications for judicial review of decisions of the Social Security Tribunal on the extension of time to make a request for review or reconsideration under the Canada Disability Benefit Act . It also amends the Tax Court of Canada Act and the Department of Employment and Social Development Act to, among other things, provide the Tribunal with jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions made under the Canada Disability Benefit Act and require that matters related to income raised in those appeals be referred to the Tax Court of Canada.
Division 43 of Part 4 amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to repeal provisions related to the ministerial power to exempt supervised consumption sites from the application of that Act. It also amends that Act to allow for the making of regulations respecting authorizations for supervised consumption and drug checking services and includes transitional provisions.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly happy to engage in our final moments here in this chamber tonight, addressing the very important Bill C-69, which is our budget implementation bill.

As I prepared what I was going to share this evening, I thought a lot about our wonderful staff members here in the House of Commons who have been supporting us tonight. I thought about our lobby teams who do so much for us, and I also thought about my own team, both in the riding of Fredericton and right here on the Hill. I would just like to take this moment to congratulate them and to thank them for all that they do on behalf of constituents across the country.

This got me thinking. I have a wonderful intern in my office right now. She is actually visiting us from Michigan, studying our Westminster parliamentary system and comparing it to the American system that she is used to. She interviewed me today. She asked me a bunch of questions about my personal journey into this place, and about various policies and the process that I undertake.

She also asked me a very interesting question. It gave me a minute of pause. She asked me what the biggest issue would be for Canadians 10 years from now. It made me pause for a second because I thought it very much depends on perception, absolutely. It depends on what kind of Canada we want, what kind of efforts we are going to be putting into what this future looks like. It certainly also depends on the policies and investments of today that could create that future of tomorrow.

The Canada I want to see is one that is inclusive and diverse, one that focuses on equity and justice for all, one that has Canada leading in the green economy, one that respects environmental sustainability, one that has affordable and accessible housing as a human right, and one that ensures safety and security for all.

I think it is safe to say that we can all dream about this kind of Canada, but it is about what we do in this place right now as members of Parliament that sets up this future for the next generation. I think about my two children at home and what kind of world I want to bring them up in.

I refuse to paint a picture of Canada that is devoid of the hope and the energy that is truly reflective of Canadian ambition, of our tradition of hard work and resiliency. Conservatives may chastise me by suggesting I take off my rose-coloured glasses and hop on the nation-bashing bandwagon, but I will not do that. No one is saying that Canadians have never had it so good.

We know there are challenges right across this country. We know that the climate change impacts, geopolitical events, supply chain pressures, a cost-of-living crisis and general everyday struggles have only compounded post pandemic. We know that the word “unprecedented” has, unfortunately, been used an unprecedented amount of times in the last couple of years.

This does not mean that we turtle. It does not mean that we bury our heads in the sand or worse, that we retreat to the angry corners of the Internet to point fingers and to scapegoat our fears against the most vulnerable in society. Unfortunately, this is the direction that Conservatives have chosen. The Leader of the Opposition smiles while our country burns so that he can claim to be the great saviour, like Dances with Wolves, swooping in to rescue poor Canadians from the boogeyman.

Canadians do not need a saviour. They do not need to be talked down to or to be patronized. They do not need to be misled. They need solutions. They need evidence-based policy. They need investments. They need support. Most of all, I think that they need each other.

The Canada that I envision in 10 years would also see co-operation, unity, an atmosphere of civil dialogue where we can set aside our perceived differences to find a common ground that truly binds us. I hear none of this from the Leader of the Opposition. I hear a lot of “me”, I hear a lot of “I” and a lot of what he thinks is best or supposedly what is “common sense”, even when it makes no sense at all.

Bill C-69 is about setting the stage for a bright future for Canadians. It is about fairness. It is about strategic initiatives that respond to the difficult realities faced by Canadians. It is about transforming, for example, our housing system, empowering renters and homeowners, building stock, incentivizing development, and using the creativity and innovation that we know is what defines Canadians across this country.

Fredericton has benefited from these really important policies around housing, for example, the rapid housing initiative, the housing accelerator fund, and green and inclusive infrastructure programs. We are also home to the now famous 12 Neighbours tiny home project by entrepreneur and philanthropist extraordinaire Marcel LeBrun, who has built 99 new homes for those in need, with the help of the federal government. These are good news stories that make a real difference in people's lives, but Conservatives do not want to talk about that.

This budget bill is also about economic growth and productivity. The IMF and the OECD project that Canada will have the strongest economic growth in the G7 on average by 2025. This is good news again.

Bill C-69 looks to invest in the technologies, incentives and supports critical to increasing innovation, attracting more private investment and backing up our workforce. We are doing this by improving access to training and reskilling programs, increased funding for youth employment and skills strategy programs. This is what investing in the future looks like. It brings me hope. We do not have to be pessimistic in this place. I think it is incumbent upon all of us to be optimistic, to lay that path forward for Canadians to come along with us, together, not to divide us, not to draw those lines in the sand I am seeing far too often in this place, but in working together. That, to me, is what Bill C-69 is all about, and I am very proud to support it.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to stand in the House and to contribute to the debate today on Bill C-69, the budget implementation act for budget 2024, which is focused on ensuring fairness for every generation. It is another building block to help future generations and is based on supporting the promise that all Canadians should have a fair chance to build a good, middle-class life and to do as well as their parents, if not better.

Today, too many young Canadians feel as though the deck is stacked against them, and the reward of secure, prosperous, comfortable middle-class life remains out of reach. Budget 2024 presents our plan to fix that. We will build a Canada that works better for everyone, no matter where or when they were born, and we are going to do that by building more affordable homes. We will make life cost less, and we will grow the economy in a way that is shared by all because our country works best when our economy is growing and when more opportunities exist for every generation.

Today, I would like to talk about the housing pillar of budget 2024 and the elements of Bill C-69 that support the effort to make homes more affordable to more Canadians.

For generations, one of the fundamental, foundational promises of Canada's middle-class dream was that if one worked hard and saved money, one could afford a home. However, for today's young adults, this promise is under threat. Rising rents are making it hard to find an affordable place to call home, and rising home prices are keeping homes out of reach for many first-time buyers, especially in my home province of British Columbia, and in Richmond, B.C.

On April 12, the government released our ambitious housing plan, “solving the housing crisis: Canada's housing plan”, which is supported by new investments from the budget. Budget 2024 and Canada's housing plan lay out the government's bold strategy to unlock 3.87 million new homes by 2031, which includes a minimum of two million net new homes beyond what was already expected to be built. The plan will enable more apartments and affordable housing to be built across the country, while protecting the stock of affordable housing and protecting renters from unfair practices.

When it comes to Bill C-69, the federal government is taking action to help Canadians buy and stay in their homes while also curbing investor activity that drives up the cost and decreases the availability of housing. Homes are for Canadians to live in, not speculative assets for investors, so we would crack down on non-compliant short-term rentals. The operation of non-compliant short-term rentals is helping to keep too many homes off the market. The 2023 fall economic statement proposed tax changes to incentivize the return of non-compliant short-term rentals to the long-term market and to support the work of provinces and territories that have restricted short-term rentals.

Bill C-69 proposes those amendments to the Income Tax Act, which would deny income tax deductions for short-term rentals operated in provinces and municipalities that have prohibited such activities or where short-term rentals operators are not compliant with the applicable provincial or municipal orders. This measure would induce owners of short-term rentals to return their properties to the long-term market and would unlock more housing supply for Canadians to live in.

The extension of the foreign buyer ban on Canadian housing now is to address increasing affordability concerns in cities across the country due to foreign money coming into Canada to buy up residential real estate. The government introduced a two-year ban on the purchase of residential property by foreign investors, which went into effect on January 1, 2023, to help further curb speculative foreign investments that reduce the supply of homes for Canadians to live in.

The government announced that it intends to extend the ban on foreign buying of Canadian homes by an additional two years. As confirmed in budget 2024, Bill C-69 proposes to amend legislation to extend the restrictions on foreign investment in Canadian housing, established under the Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act, to January 1, 2027. Foreign commercial enterprises and people who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents would continue to be prohibited from purchasing residential property in Canada.

Regarding the issue of underused housing tax refinements, as part of the 2023 fall economic statement, the government proposed several changes to the underused housing tax, or the UHT. Canadians and other stakeholders were invited to share their views on these proposals, and the amendments included in Bill C-69 take into account the feedback received. These changes would do the following: eliminate the UHT filing requirement for entities that are substantially or entirely Canadian; reduce the minimum non-filing penalties from $5,000 to $1,000 for individuals, and from $10,000 to $2,000 for corporations; introduce a new employee-accommodation exemption that would be available in areas of Canada that are rural or otherwise not densely populated; and, finally, make several technical changes to ensure that UHT applies in accordance with the policy intent. These proposed amendments aim to facilitate compliance while ensuring that the tax continues to apply as intended, and that is to discourage having non-resident, non-Canadian-owned residential property sitting vacant and off the market.

When it comes to enhancing the home buyers' plan to help Canadians buy their first home while at the same time we increase supply, the federal government is also enhancing the tax-free savings plans that help young prospective buyers save for a down payment. Support to help first-time buyers save must keep pace with market prices. That is why the government launched the tax-free first home savings account in 2023. To great success, more than 750,000 Canadians have already opened an account to save for their first down payment.

That is also why, through budget 2024, we propose to enhance the home buyers' plan. To effect that enhancement, Bill C-69 proposes to amend the Income Tax Act to increase the home buyers' plan withdrawal limit from $35,000 to $60,000, enabling first-time homebuyers to use the tax benefits of an RRSP to save up to $25,000 more for their down payment or, if they are in a partnership, $50,000 and almost $120,000 toward their first down payment. The newly increased limit would be effective since the budget was tabled on April 16. Bill C-69 also proposes to temporarily extend the grace period, during which homeowners are not required to repay their home buyers' plan withdrawals to their RRSP by an additional three years.

Of the two million net new homes I mentioned earlier, we estimate that the recent policy actions taken in Canada's housing plan in budget 2024 and in fall 2023 would support a minimum of 1.2 million net new homes. Budget 2024 investments for increasing the supply of affordable homes are necessary and timely, and they are part of the investments we are making for the prosperity of every generation. We will build more homes. We will make life cost less. We will invest in our small businesses. We will grow our economy in a way that works for everyone, and I encourage all hon. members to support this bill.

[The Clerk]

In the past when a meeting was suspended, 106(4) requests had been accepted in order to have a meeting between two suspended meetings. That's happened in the past, and this is a precedent that has happened, as I just said. That's the advice I gave to the chair, and that's why he called meeting 143, while meeting 142 was suspended.

The committee's directorate had a discussion when this happened and decided to change the way they were going to deal with the situation, and they no longer permit having a new meeting, while the meeting is suspended—between two suspensions.

The committee's directorate is where all the committee clerks work, including management and the logistics officer. It's the entire directorate that we work for.

The directorate, my managers, decided this would change. They told me to inform the chair that meeting 143 would be removed and would be replaced with the resumption of meeting 142 in order for the chair to fulfill the request of Standing Order 106(4) to let the committee decide what it wanted to do—if it wanted to discuss the subject of Standing Order 106(4) or resume the debate of Bill C-69, which we were in.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join and participate in today's debate in support of Bill C-69.

This legislation would advance many of the government's key priorities in budget 2024, “Fairness for Every Generation”. Budget 2024 is our government's plan to build a Canada that works for every generation, where younger generations can get ahead, where their hard work completely pays off, and where they can buy or rent a home of their own. It is our plan to ensure that everyone has a fair chance at a good, middle-class life.

The government is working to implement this bill quickly, because Canadians deserve bold investments in housing, in a stronger social safety net and in economic growth that creates good-paying jobs.

Bill C‑69 will have a positive impact across the country, and I am already optimistic about the impact in my riding, London West. With budget 2024 and Bill C‑69, we are taking action to ensure fairness for every generation and to drive the kind of economic growth that will ensure every generation can reach its full potential. We are aiming for nothing less. I would now like to talk about some of the measures we are putting forward to achieve that goal.

Our government understands that more needs to be done to build more homes faster and make housing more affordable. I am delighted to see that we are quickly moving forward with the bold measures that are in Bill C-69. For example, we are enhancing the homebuyers' plan to help first-time homebuyers at a time when saving for a down payment is more difficult. More specifically, we are increasing the withdrawal limit from $35,000 to $60,000 and temporarily adding three years to the grace period before homebuyers are required to start making their repayments to an RRSP.

We are also cracking down on short-term rentals by denying income tax deductions on income earned from short-term rentals that do not comply with the provincial or local restrictions. By doing so, we are unlocking more homes for Canadians to live in, because that is what Canadian homes should be for. They are for Canadians to live in. Also, to ensure that these homes are available for Canadians to live in and not used as a speculative asset class for foreign investors, we are banning foreign buyers of Canadian homes for an additional two years. This means that the ban will now be extended until January 1, 2027.

The government is also taking action to make life more affordable for Canadians. For example, Bill C‑69 amends the Telecommunications Act, making it easier to find better Internet, home phone and cell phone services.

We are making amendments that will give Canadians more flexibility to renew or switch plans, with a clear understanding of the choices and services that will best suit their needs. We will also launch a consumer-driven banking framework, also known as open banking or consumer-directed finance, to provide Canadians and small businesses with safe and secure access to a wider range of financial services and products.

Another way we are making life more affordable is by giving law enforcement agencies the tools they need to protect Canadians from auto theft. We will also introduce more serious criminal offences related to auto theft as well as new restrictions on the possession and distribution of devices used to steal vehicles.

I am also particularly proud of the measure that would benefit many firefighters and search and rescue volunteers. We are going to double the volunteer firefighters tax credit, and the search and rescue volunteers tax credit as well. These credits would go from $3,000 up to $6,000 in recognition of the essential roles and the sacrifices that the volunteers make to keep Canadians safe. These are volunteers who are Canadian heroes and they deserve all the recognition.

Budget 2024 is also about growing Canada's economy. In Bill C-69, we are including many measures that would do exactly that. We would grow Canada's economy by further advancing indigenous economic participation through the indigenous loan guarantee program. Thanks to the creation of this program, indigenous communities across Canada would be able to share in Canada's prosperity and benefit from new opportunities ahead.

This new loan program, with up to $5 billion in loan guarantees, will unlock access to capital for indigenous communities to create economic opportunities and support their economic development priorities as well.

We are moving forward with investment tax credits that are designed to boost investment and secure Canada's competitiveness while supporting our country's goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.

In budget 2024, the government recently announced the next steps in our plan to attract significant investment to Canada. These investments will help us create good-paying jobs in Canada and accelerate the development and deployment of clean energy and clean technology.

More specifically, in Bill C-69, we are also going to deliver two investment tax credits, the up-to-40% clean hydrogen and the 30% clean technology manufacturing investment tax credits. Passing these two tax credits into law means that we are going to secure a cleaner and more prosperous future for Canadians today and tomorrow by securing more private investment in our country.

To wrap up, with budget 2024, our government is putting forward a plan to deliver fairness for every generation in Canada. We are introducing measures to give everyone a fair chance at a middle-class life here in Canada.

As discussed, we are moving forward in Bill C-69 with measures that are going to make housing more affordable, make our communities safer and continue to grow Canada's economy while creating clean and good jobs. All Canadians will greatly benefit from the measures that are included in Bill C-69. I am already eager to see the multiple benefits that are going to happen for the Londoners of London West.

Bill C-69 is a good bill, and I invite all of my colleagues to join me and vote in favour of this important legislation for Canada's future.

It is a shame that there are members of the House who have already indicated that they will not be voting for this budget. This means that they are voting against the food program that we have put forward for children, as well as the dental care for seniors and for young children. They are voting against Canadians, basically. It is a shame.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight to participate in the debate on Bill C-69. The debate has been treated by some speakers as a debate on the whole budget. That is fair enough as it is the budget implementation bill. I certainly appreciated very much the remarks by my colleague, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, moments ago, who focused on some aspects of Bill C-69 and the budget that I will not be able to address in my remarks.

In the time I have available, I want to dive deeply into one part of Bill C-69. For those who are observing tonight's debate, perhaps I can just back up and say that this is what is called an omnibus budget bill. It is exactly the kind of bill that, in the 2015 election platform by the Liberals, they said they would not be using. It is an omnibus budget bill in that it deals with many aspects of things that are in the budget, and particularly a reference in the budget to the court case on impact assessment legislation.

What is tucked into a bill that is over 400 pages is, from page 555 to page 581, a section I do not believe should be in there. I will be very clear from the start that it is a rewriting of substantial sections of the Impact Assessment Act. The irony is probably not lost on people who have tracked the debate on environmental assessment in this country that when the Liberals brought in repairs to the environmental assessment legislation that they had promised would be done in the election platform of 2015, that bill was also called Bill C-69.

I voted against that bill. I will be voting against this one too. This speech is my effort to try to persuade government members, and particularly the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Justice, to rethink things and to pull what is called part 4, division 28, of Bill C-69 and instead bring in what was promised in 2015, repairing what had happened to our impact assessment legislation, which is usually called environmental assessment legislation in this country.

I do not have much time to set this out, so forgive me for taking the time it takes to explain it. In 1975, this country held its first federal environmental assessment, ironically, of the Wreck Cove hydro project in my home province of Nova Scotia, on my home island of Cape Breton Island, and I attended those hearings. The federal government at that time was operating under something called the environmental assessment review process, a guidelines order by order in council to the federal cabinet. It set out basically that when the federal government did something, the federal government reviewed its own actions.

There is no question of constitutionality because the federal government was reviewing its own actions. The rule under the guidelines order was that if it was on federal land, involved federal money or permits given under certain kinds of acts, one had to have an environmental assessment. That general formulation went into the drafting in the late 1980s, under the government of the late Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, of an environmental assessment process that again started with the four corners of federal jurisdiction, including whether something is on federal land and involving federal money. It evolved into something called the law list permits, which were given under various acts.

The whole scheme worked very well. It evolved. There were many amendments over the years. It had a five-year review process. By the time 2012 rolled around, one could talk to almost anyone in the industry about it and hear the same thing. It was predictable. With the Mining Association of Canada, for instance, I remember the CEO, Pierre Gratton, asking why the Conservatives were trying to wreck the act now. He said that we had just finally made it right and liked the way it worked.

A federal environmental assessment act was brought in under Brian Mulroney and enacted under former prime minister Jean Chrétien. It had evolved over the years. In the spring of 2012, in an omnibus budget bill called Bill C-38, the government of former prime minister Stephen Harper set out to destroy the legislation. It was repealed in its entirety and was replaced with something called CEAA, 2012.

At the same time, it also went after the pieces of legislation that triggered environmental assessment, the law list sections, the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and so on.

To fast-forward, in the election of 2015, the Liberals promised in the platform to repair and fix what had been done by Harper to environmental assessment, to the Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In 2016 and 2017, various ministers went to work. The current Minister of Public Safety, who was the then minister of fisheries, actually did fix the Fisheries Act. He got it back to what it had been before and even improved it. The former minister of transport, our former colleague, the Hon. Marc Garneau, really fixed the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Somehow or other, our former minister of environment, Catherine McKenna, was persuaded, I believe by officials in her department, not to fix it. The single biggest change that was made, besides repealing the Environmental Assessment Act, was to ditch the criteria that tethered environmental assessment to areas of federal jurisdiction if it was on federal land, involved federal money or under a permit given by the federal government.

Instead, Stephen Harper's government created something called the “designated projects” list, which could be anything the ministers thought they wanted to put on the list. It was project-based but not decision-based, and it could be anything, at the minister's discretion. That was CEAA 2012. It meant we went from having 5,000 to 6,000 federal projects a year reviewed, and they were mostly paper reviews that went quickly, to fewer than 100 reviewed every year. We can see perhaps the attraction for people in the civil service to not go back to actually reviewing the federal projects every single year and to keep it to fewer than 100.

Somehow, the federal government, under former minister Catherine McKenna, put forward Bill C-69 and decided to reject the advice of the expert environmental assessment panel, under the former chair of BAPE Johanne Gélinas. It kept the key elements Stephen Harper had put in place, which was that the Environmental Assessment Agency was no longer responsible for many assessments, and regulatory bodies such as the National Energy Board, now the Canada Energy Regulator, the offshore petroleum boards or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would do their environmental assessments separately. It also got rid of the idea that we are tethered strongly to federal jurisdiction. It remained discretionary. That is why I voted against Bill C-69..

Former Alberta premier Jason Kenney said that this was the anti-pipeline act. I said that it was completely discretionary to the minister in a different government and that it was the pro-pipeline act. Where is the rooting to federal jurisdiction? Where is the commitment to review everything the federal government does to make sure we have considered its environmental impacts? Those were all thrown out the window. I may have been the only one in the pro-environmental assessment community, although I do not think I was the only one, who actually cheered on October 13, 2023, when the Supreme Court of Canada said that the designated projects list was actually ultra vires the federal government. It would just ask a minister to say what project they want on a list, but it was not rooted in federal jurisdiction the way it had been from 1975, under a guidelines order, to 1993, when it became law, right up until 2012 and Bill C-38 when Harper repealed it.

Then, for some crazy reason, and I use the word “crazy” advisedly because I do not know the reason and I am not referring to anyone in particular, the Liberals decided to keep the designated project list, which is the part that the reference in the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada said was ultra vires the federal government and now stuffed in an omnibus budget bill that we were told we would never see. We get amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act that keep the designated projects list.

I do not think this new version in Bill C-69 is going to get Supreme Court of Canada approval. I know it will not get environmental assessments for projects across this country that need to be assessed. It will not get environmental assessment for Highway 413. It will not get environmental assessment for things that are squarely within federal jurisdiction. What it will do is be a quick and dirty fix that only goes to the finance committee for study.

With that, I will close my opening remarks with what I can only describe as disgust.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

The motion as a whole reads.... I'll just go through it so that people watching will understand what we're doing. Basically, it was a Liberal motion to program out the rest of our meetings through to the end of this session, which is probably going to be around the third week of June. They put forward a motion that.... Ironically, this motion was given to Mr. Davies the night before it was introduced at committee but it was not given to Mr. Hallan, so it was a surprise to us when this motion was dropped.

In fact, it's interesting to hear the Liberals talk about hearing witnesses because we had half of the public servants at the finance committee here the moment that Mr. Turnbull dropped this motion that resulted in this filibuster. It's a bit rich to say that we're holding up hearing from witnesses when they started this whole debacle in the first place. In any event, it is what it is. We have now this programming motion in front of us. I'm just going to go through it because I think it's important that people understand and that they're grounded in what it is that we're discussing.

It says:

As relates to the committee's future business, it be agreed that:

i. the committee dedicate its meeting on Thursday May 9th, 2024, to hearing from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, and officials, on the subject matter study of Bill C-69....

Now, I just want to say that I know Mr. Turnbull made the point a moment ago that the Minister of Finance came already for an hour. However, this is his motion, so he clearly wants her to come here again. He can't say that he doesn't because the first thing in his motion calls for the Minister of Finance to come to this committee. Am I not right? That's what it says. I don't know why he's now saying that he doesn't want her to be here. It's very strange. Maybe he'll vote against his own motion now.

Then it says:

ii. the committee dedicate its regular meetings on May 9th, 21st, 23rd, 28th and 30th, 2024, to consideration of the subject matter study of Bill C-69....

Now, I think it's important to also mention to people watching that Bill C-69 actually isn't even here at this committee. It's still in the House of Commons, interestingly, because the Liberals can't seem to manage their legislative affairs. We're actually debating a programming motion about a bill that this committee isn't even seized with. Go figure. We're the ones who are blamed for delaying it, but it's still in the House. In fact, to get it out of the House and to committee, they had to bring forward a motion to cut off debate today. Of course, the NDP voted with them again.

I don't know why the NDP keeps carrying water for the Liberals. I mean, I can understand, you know.... They signed a supply and confidence agreement, but what's interesting is that they vote with the Liberals on almost everything. In fact, Mr. Davies voted with them to shut down our Standing Order 106(4) motion on Friday, which was just to study money laundering. Why is the NDP voting with the Liberals to stop studying money laundering? I don't understand it, Mr. Chair. I do remember there was a time when the NDP was actually an opposition party, when they had substantial leaders, like Jack Layton—may he rest in peace—and Tom Mulcair, who would grill Prime Minister Harper relentlessly in question period. However, they're not that party anymore. They've become sycophants for the Liberals, and I don't really understand why. Anyway, the great political minds in the NDP party, I guess, think that this is somehow a good idea.

Then comes my subamendment. It says that, on the week of the 28th, one meeting be dedicated to hearing from the minister for two hours and one meeting be dedicated to hear from Mark Carney for three hours, and that clause-by-clause not begin until the aforementioned witnesses appear for the requested times.

On the subject of the Minister of Finance, one of the reasons.... I want to touch on this issue of money laundering as well, and it is relevant, I assure you, Mr. Chair. If you bear with me for a few minutes, I'm going to make sure that this committee and its members understand exactly how money laundering is relevant to the Minister of Finance appearing at this committee, which is why it's in my subamendment.

The reason is very simple. The Minister of Finance wrote a letter to you, Mr. Chair, on October 6, 2023. Let's see: November, December, January, February, March, April and May. It was over seven months ago that she wrote a letter to the Honourable Peter Fonseca, P.C., M.P., chair of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Dear Mr. Fonseca:

I am writing to request your assistance with the fourth five-year parliamentary review of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA).

Pursuant to section 72 of [that Act], a committee of Parliament is to conduct a review of the Act's administration and operation every five years. This legislative requirement helps to ensure that the PCMLTFA remains dynamic and responsive to emerging money laundering and terrorist financing threats—

That is very serious business, Mr. Chair.

—and is consistent with evolving international standards aimed at combating those crimes.

That was seven months ago. Then she wrote:

The last review of [the Act] was completed in November 2018.

By my count, that's more than five years. We have a statutory obligation to review this legislation after five years, and now we're in the sixth year—seven months after the minister wrote the letter to this committee.

It says that:

The PCMLTFA does not designate a specific committee of Parliament to undertake the review. I am requesting that the Standing Committee on Finance conduct the review.

After conducting the review, the Committee would be required to submit a report to Parliament recommending any changes to the PCMLTFA or its administration. I suggest the review of the PCMLTFA be initiated this fall—

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly want to echo some of the comments from my colleagues. I would be happy to sit in a late sitting tonight if we were speaking with witnesses, but to sit in another filibuster is not why I put my name forward as a member of Parliament. It is not what my constituents are asking me to do, especially in these final weeks of the sitting session.

To ensure that I remain relevant, I'll be very clear. Mr. Carney is welcome to come to the committee. If the Conservatives would like to put his name forward as a witness, that's their choice, but as a private citizen.... I have not heard a single argument in these very painful hours that we've been in a filibuster that supports why we should bring a private citizen to this committee.

My colleague Mr. Turnbull referenced that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance was at committee on May 9 and she did answer our questions on the BIA.

I want to highlight and reiterate just very quickly a couple of the points Mr. Turnbull made on some of the key social programs and health programs that I know my constituents want to see moving forward. It is incredibly important: the continuation of child care and the expansion of spots; the national school food program—this is so important for children, for families, and this is food security—and pharmacare with contraceptive supports and diabetes supports.

One of the things that I haven't heard spoken about enough is how important the diabetes medication supports are in a preventative sense. Indeed, it can ensure that someone in the early stages of this chronic disease process is able to be stabilized and to not move to the much more invasive and difficult aspects of diabetes, if they have access to the necessary medications and testing tools.

To hold up these these important programs in a filibuster when we really need to have witnesses before committee who will once again continue to speak about how important this is, I don't believe is a good use of our resources.

I want to spend a few moments to speak about the housing initiatives, because I hear so often in the House about how important housing is to Canadians, and I agree that it is. I'm very proud of the work the Liberal government is doing to ensure we address this problem. Within this budget implementation act—and again, these are the things that we should be debating—is the availability of public lands for home plans: to be able to build on Canada Post properties, National Defence lands and in office buildings. This is something that I have heard the Conservative opposition members speak about over and over. It's in our budget. Let's talk about it.

We're building more rental apartments. Again, it's something that we hear about over and over in debate, both in the House and in committee. There's $15 billion in new loan funding for the apartment construction loan program. That could bring a total of 131,000 new homes by 2031. Let's talk about that.

We're launching the Canada builds initiative, a team Canada approach to building more affordable homes for the middle class on underutilized lands across the country. This program brings forward federal low-cost loans with provincial and territorial investments to scale up construction—again, a solid program that can expand the availability of housing for middle-class Canadians.

We're providing a $400-million top-up to the $4-billion housing accelerator fund. This program is in my community of St. John's East. It's incredibly important. It is welcomed by the community. My constituents want to see us move forward on this program.

We're launching a $1.5-billion Canada rental protection fund to protect and grow the stock of affordable housing in Canada, and providing $1 billion for the affordable housing fund to build affordable homes and launch a permanent rapid housing stream—again, very important. This is also part of homelessness prevention by having homes available along a continuum of need from true homelessness to market investment and investing an additional $1.3 billion in Reaching Home Canada. That is the Canadian homelessness program.

Yes, we have to do so much to help the most vulnerable in our community to have a respectable place to call home. Let's talk about that. Let's look through the important allocation of funds within the budget so we can ensure that we have the rollout of supports for all Canadians across the country.

I can continue. There's streamlining foreign credential recognition for construction sectors, working to narrow the housing gap in indigenous communities and incentivizing Canada's educational institutions to build more housing for students. We heard this through the FES. We heard it in the pre-budget consultation. We hear it from our constituents—at least, I hear it from my constituents. I hear it in the House continually. I hear it in committee. We need to address housing concerns.

This is a robust plan to help all Canadians have a place to call home. I plead with opposition members to let us have a vote. Let's end the debate on the subamendment. Let's move to the work that Canadians have sent us to this important House of Commons, this Parliament, to do. It's the work of ensuring that we meet the needs of all Canadians.

I refuse to take up another 20 minutes just reading notes, but I absolutely ask my opposition colleagues to stop this. Let's get back to the work we are here to do. I'm happy to sit with witnesses. I'm happy to do what needs to be done to move this budget forward, but this filibuster needs to stop.

Thank you.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

It's really great to get back to what I was saying. I was just talking about the good-faith attempt we made to work with the Conservatives to come up with an agenda for this committee that would move us through May and June in an orderly fashion to accomplish all the things we had on our agenda, including some of the studies that were before the committee but haven't been completed. That included, obviously, the first order of priority, which is the budget implementation act.

The Conservatives withheld support for that. That's fine. It's their prerogative to do so, but for them to come to committee and suggest that I somehow table-dropped a motion.... The motion I brought to committee was exactly what we had discussed in our previous meeting, so it wasn't a big surprise. Everybody knew what priorities we had identified. I think the Conservatives knew very quickly that they were in the minority in the membership of this committee. That's why we're in a filibuster today.

The Conservatives put forward an amendment and then a subamendment. The subamendment is what we're debating now. It is exactly what the Conservatives are avoiding a vote on. Really, what we're doing here is listening to five and a half hours—I guess it's now going on six and a half hours just today—of a filibuster from the Conservatives. I'm just pointing out what it is for anybody who's still paying attention and still has the patience to pay attention to these committee proceedings. I hope they are paying attention.

In reality, the Conservatives know the vote isn't going to go their way on the subamendment. Therefore, they're holding this committee hostage by continuing to talk ad infinitum. What we heard from MP Chambers earlier was him reading, for over an hour, the transcript from a podcast of Mark Carney on The Herle Burly. We had him reading that into the record, which is certainly not the most creative filibuster I've ever heard by far. Anyway, I guess some Conservatives lack imagination. That's okay.

In reality, all we want to do is get down to business on the budget implementation act. Why? In my view, that's what the 142,000 members of my community want to see me working on. The budget implementation act entails key supports for Canadians.

Conservatives are citing.... One of their members here did a kind of drive-by, insulting me and then leaving the committee room. It was Mr. Jivani. I would invite him to come back and continue the conversation.

What's interesting is that he talked about food banks and food bank lineups. We hear the Conservatives every day in the House of Commons citing food bank lineups as if they truly care about the people in those lineups. We're putting forward a national school food program, which is going to feed 400,000 children across Canada over the next five years. That's a billion dollars of investment.

How can the Conservatives, while sitting there, literally filibustering and blocking important work on the budget implementation act, tell me they actually care about people in food bank lineups? They're blocking real support for Canadians, such as dental care, additional child care spaces, pharmacare, the national school food program and the Canada disability benefit. These are key supports for those very families they say they care about.

I find it a bit rich. It's hard for me to accept them at face value when they're sitting here, spouting stuff off as if they really care about Canadian families. I don't believe it. It's just misleading. I don't know how I can interpret that as authentic and genuine commitment for their constituents.

I know my constituents care about a national school food program. They care about the clean technology manufacturing and clean hydrogen tax credits. They care about the Canada carbon rebate for small business. They care about enhancing the homebuyers' plan and extending the ban on foreign investment in Canadian housing by two years. They care about the Canada Education Savings Act and the automatic enrolment we're putting forward in the BIA, as well as many of the other things that are included in the BIA.

What's interesting, though, just to go back to last week, which was our constituency week.... I understand the Conservatives wanted to put forward a Standing Order 106(4) to call an emergency meeting. What's interesting is that I had indicated to the Conservatives in the previous week that I was more than open and that our whole side of the committee here, in terms of Liberal members, was open to studying anti-money laundering.

They used valuable committee resources and then came and got upset because they tripped themselves up. Their Standing Order 106(4) motion was during a week that we had previously suspended a meeting, so they ended up having to continue their filibuster on Mr. Morantz's subamendment. They didn't like that, of course. They, again, tried to flip it around—flip the script—and blame the Liberal members.

In reality, the budget implementation act has numerous significant measures to enhance combatting money laundering. I note that several of my colleagues have already read into the record portions of the BIA that deal specifically with anti-money laundering. I won't go into depth on that. However, I do feel that it's important to point out the fact that Conservatives say they want to study anti-money laundering, yet they're blocking the budget implementation act and the study of that budget bill includes anti-money laundering measures that are really significant.

We've also indicated that we would happily study that after we finish the work on the BIA. That's not good enough for them either. Not only are they blocking essential work on anti-money laundering through the BIA, but they're also not willing to concede that we're being reasonable and working in good faith, saying that we're willing to have meetings on anti-money laundering if the Conservatives want to continue work on that topic. We're more than happy to do that. Why? It's because we have a record that, every single year and every single FES and budget bill, there have been additional measures on anti-money laundering. Our government feels confident that we're moving forward and that we take those issues seriously. There are things that we can continue to study and offer solutions and measures on to continue to combat money laundering, which is a serious topic.

I just think it's a bit rich that Conservatives are sitting there claiming that we're essentially not.... They basically claim that we're blocking our own BIA, when the truth is that the Conservatives are filibustering on their own subamendment. That's what's challenging for me to accept.

I'm just pointing out what is, honestly, before the committee. To me, this is eating into valuable committee time and resources that could be dedicated to hearing key witnesses on the budget implementation act.

I had a member from the Conservatives say earlier—I think it was MP Hallan—that he had criticism, critiques and questions for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. She already appeared at this committee and took questions for an hour from the members of this committee on the BIA. It doesn't quite jibe—what the Conservatives have said here at committee today and the actual truth, which is that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance has already answered significant questions that have come from opposition parties. I think that's important. We felt it certainly was important that the minister come and answer those questions.

I think the other thing for me is this: When you have members who read the transcripts of a podcast into the record, whether they're related to the subamendment or not, it just shows that they're intent on wasting time and that they're not really interested in studying affordability. They're not really interested in dealing with any of the issues that they say they want to deal with, considering that the budget implementation act deals with affordability issues and anti-money laundering.

We've said that if you want to invite Mark Carney as a witness, go ahead. I understand that their interest is purely partisan.

I think MP Davies when he was here covered that quite well in demonstrating that Conservatives have said from the beginning that they only want to have Mr. Carney come to committee for their partisan purposes. They want to speculate on his intentions, and I just don't see.... Fine, invite him, but working him into a motion clearly has an alternative motive that I think is an abuse of parliamentary power and we shouldn't be doing that unless there's a good reason to do so. We have seen in the past Conservatives use a summons and try to summons private citizens to committee. I think we should only do that in very limited circumstances.

From my perspective—it would be really great—if Conservatives really want to get down to business on anti-money laundering, or any host of other issues that they've cited, then why don't we vote on the subamendment and why won't Conservatives allow us to vote here today on the subamendment that they put forward? Is it because they know they are going to lose that vote, or is it that they just don't really want to get to the study of the budget implementation act?

It's pretty clear to me that they don't want to study the budget implementation act at all, because if they did we could be using the valuable time and resources we have this week to hear from witnesses, which would be, I think, valuable.

I have 300 witnesses I bet would be willing to come before this committee and speak to the national school food program and the importance of it across Canada, not to mention many other witnesses for many of the other measures that are included in the budget implementation act. I think it would serve our constituents well if we were actually doing the work that this committee is tasked with doing, which is actually studying the budget that's before this committee.

I would say let's get to a vote. I don't have high hopes for the Conservatives allowing that to happen because of the obstruction that we have seen throughout this committee and many other committees. I know that it's not just this committee that they are obstructing. We saw it on the sustainable jobs act. We have seen it on the updates to the Atlantic accords. We have seen it in very many other circumstances.

Since I have been here since 2019, I have seen many a Conservative filibuster. They don't want to get down to the work of this committee even though in good faith we have said, yes, let's study AML after we finish the budget implementation act. That's not good enough. They want to have it their way, and they don't want to do the work that is, I would say, the top priority of a finance committee, which is to study the budget implementation act.

Okay, I'll leave it there, Chair. Thanks very much.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is another example of a positive initiative that is not in Bill C-69, but it is in the budget. It is important funding. We do not have a friendship centre in Waterloo Region. It is something that indigenous leaders have been calling for, both in terms of land and funding to build, and it is certainly an important measure that is in the budget.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to the budget and Bill C-69, as well, which implements some of its measures. When I think about folks in my community, the long and short of it, in my view, is that this budget just does not meet the moment that we are in. If anything, it just seems to be a similar story again where the government over-promises and under-delivers or, in some cases, breaks promises altogether.

I would like to start with a couple of items that I appreciate and that will help folks in my community. First, it is important to point out that there are good measures in the implementation bill. One example is that there is a provision included to deny income tax deductions for non-compliant short-term rentals. It was first announced in the fall economic statement. It is a really important measure to move ahead with as we look to address the housing crisis and remove various incentives that are in place for those who are actually removing rental units from the housing market. Second, for parents who are mourning the loss of a child, there is a provision in the bill that will extend the Canada child benefit for six months after a child's death. This is the least that the federal government can do to support parents in such a difficult, unimaginable time.

On the whole, though, when taking a step back to look at the budget and Bill C-69, I am concerned that it just does not follow through on the big promises that the government made. First, there is the promise about the Canada disability benefit. The promise made in 2021 in the Liberal platform was that “this new benefit will reduce poverty among persons with disabilities in the same manner as the Guaranteed Income Supplement and the Canada Child Benefit.” Those are both programs in the tens of billions of dollars a year. Instead, what is proposed in the budget is nothing that the disability community has called for and not what the government had promised. The maximum amount being proposed, $200 a month, is far too little to actually reduce levels of poverty among folks with disabilities. I will point out that 40% of people living in poverty across the country are people with disabilities. I have since asked at committee for the minister to table a list of people with disabilities who would be lifted out of poverty as a result of what is proposed in the budget. I have yet to get that list.

I am also still waiting for a list of people with disabilities who asked for what was proposed in the budget. We were told that it would take three years to wait for consultations from the disability community. I am waiting for a list of people with disabilities and organizations that serve people with disabilities who asked for this $200 a month and asked for the Canada disability benefit to be delivered through the disability tax credit.

Second, this is an incredibly burdensome tax credit to apply for and receive. That flies in the face of the requirement in section 11(f) of the Canada Disability Benefit Act, which is an amendment that I was successful in securing; it requires the benefit to be barrier-free. It remains my concern that what is being proposed in budget 2024 actually contravenes the Canada Disability Benefit Act, because the delivery of the Canada disability benefit is required to be barrier-free. However, the disability tax credit has an incredibly burdensome application process.

Third, the benefit itself is not even proposed to start until July 2025, leaving people with disabilities at the exact same level of poverty as they are in right now. As of that point, they will get an extra six dollars a day or so. As Krista Carr at Inclusion Canada put it, “Our disappointment cannot be overstated.... This benefit was supposed to lift persons with disabilities out of poverty, not merely make them marginally less poor than they already are.”

Another promise the government made in this budget was for tax fairness. The simplest place to start, if we are going to talk about tax fairness, would be an excess profit tax on the largest oil and gas companies in the country. In 2022, the top five biggest companies in Canada made $38 billion in profits after they paid shareholders $29 billion in increased dividends and share repurchases. The government already introduced, in the pandemic, an excess profit tax on banks and life insurance companies. It called it the Canada recovery dividend.

I proposed in Motion No. 92 for the government to do the same thing and apply it to oil and gas companies. It has been advocated for by groups like Environmental Defence, the David Suzuki Foundation, Climate Action Network Canada and Canadians for Tax Fairness because it is a reasonable measure. With a one-time tax on profits, even just 15% of those profits over a billion dollars, it would generate $4.2 billion that could be used to help Canadians with day-to-day life, to help incentivize more public transit, reduced fares and increased service.

It could help with incentives for home energy retrofits as folks in Ontario and my community continue to wait for the new version of the greener homes grant program, for example. What did we get in this budget? We got whispers that it was in the budget a few weeks before it came out, but the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers had 30 meetings with the federal government in the three months before the budget came out and Pathways Alliance had another 23 meetings in the months before the budget came out. I guess their lobbying blitz was successful, for them at least, for their corporate greed, while the windfall profit tax is nowhere to be seen. However, when it comes to our children's future, when it comes to being serious about the climate crisis and at least making sure that these companies pay some measure of additional tax if they are going to gouge us at the pumps, it is nowhere to be found.

The budget promised to make housing affordable. What does it deliver? There is a plan that counts, in its projections, 800,000 new homes that are going to be built as a result of other levels of government being impressed with the government and there is a reduction in funding for non-profits that want to build the deeply affordable housing we need. I am really concerned about the rapid housing initiative, for example, and this is true for MPs across the country who have non-profits in their communities that want to build affordable housing. The stock of social housing in this country is down to 3.5%. It is the lowest in the G7. If we doubled social housing, we would still just be middle of the pack. When it comes to the rapid housing initiative, it used to be $750 million a year. As of this year, it looks like this budget is proposing only $100 million in total right across the country.

The budget also promised to fix the Impact Assessment Act. What did it deliver? It delivered a complete renouncing of federal jurisdiction over nationally significant greenhouse gas emissions of major projects, for example, like Highway 413 in Ontario that the Ontario government currently plans to move ahead with.

Here is what 14 leading environmental NGOs, including West Coast Environmental Law, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, and Greenpeace had to say about what is in this bill, “The Supreme Court said Canada should have explained when and how GHG emissions become a matter of national concern. The federal government should seize that opportunity, not abandon its responsibilities to Canadians and the environment.” I know my colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, will have more to say about this.

There are also some items in this bill I am not going to have time to get into that were not promised at all, including a plan to expand immigration detention into federal prisons being panned by former Liberal cabinet ministers. On the whole, though, the government needs to do more to follow through on the big promises it makes. It is true that whether it is young people thinking about their climate future or folks with disabilities, we are going to need far more organizing to get the budget and the legislation that we need.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Response to Order Paper Question No. 2221

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Simcoe North on May 8, respecting the government's response to Order Paper Question No. 2221 and the testimony of the Department of Finance on the subject matter of Bill C-69, the budget implementation bill. Question No. 2221 asks for information about overpayments for the Canada child benefit. The member acknowledged in his intervention that the government did respond to significant parts of his written question. However, the government was unable to respond to a sub-element of the member's question, and I will quote that part. The question states:

...collected from taxpayers who received overpayments following or due to death of a child; and (b) what is the amount of money represented by the overpayments in (a)(i) and (a)(ii)?

There is a simple and straightforward response to this. The Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, has an identifying code for why a child has become ineligible for the Canada child benefit. However, CRA does not have the reason codes for the overpayment. The reason for this is that the CRA does not have the information about a child's death, but the CRA cannot determine the reason for an overpayment or a recovery and how that relates to the child's death. The death of a child could form one piece of potentially multiple pieces that would result in an overpayment.

The question posed by the member on May 7 at the finance committee was about cancelled eligibility for the Canada child benefit and was not requesting information about overpayments. These are two different questions. In conclusion, the specific information sought in Question No. 2221 relates to overpayments. The answer provided to the member reflects the data available in the CRA systems relating to overpayments in the manner requested by the member. Where there were limitations to the provision of data, a rationale for the limitation was provided in response to the member.

As you can see, Madam Speaker, there was no intent to mislead the member or the House in the government's response to Question No. 2221. Moreover, information the member referred to in his intervention from testimony at the finance committee on May 7 differs from the information provided in response to Question No. 2221 since they are different questions. As I have previously stated in the House, the government can only answer the question posed in the Order Paper Question. It cannot assume that a member is making a different question. I can confirm that the government's response to Question No. 2221 was accurate, and we stand by it. A question was posed through the Order Paper process. The government responded to the precise question accurately and within timelines established in the Standing Orders. This matter does not in any way affect the member's rights or privileges in discharging his parliamentary duties.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to lead off second reading debate for His Majesty's loyal opposition on Bill C-69, the NDP and Liberals' budget implementation bill. I am disappointed that there will be so few Conservatives allowed to speak on this bill. That being said, we will deal with it at a later date in committee. I know the House will be shocked to learn that I will be voting against this budget bill, and I will tell members why.

As the opposition critic for industry, I have been focused on Canada's declining prosperity since 2015. The public policy choices of the Liberals have caused this decline in prosperity because of three major choices the Liberals made. Number one is that we have too much debt in Canada. Number two is that the world no longer buys enough of what Canada makes, our exports. Number three is that too many oligopolistic industries are charging Canadians too much for their services.

Let us start with the first point: too much debt. When the government debt grows faster than the economy, which is how the Liberals have been managing the country's finances, we eventually hit a wall. Liberal debt has caused inflation, which has caused interest rates to rise. Liberal inflation and interest rates have doubled housing costs and have hurt Canadians. For the ninth year in a row, the NDP-Liberals are running a huge deficit. This year alone, it is $40 billion, and a balanced budget is not even in their thinking.

Let us look at the numbers the budget the Liberals are so proud of proposes. The Liberal spending spree continues with $61 billion in new spending initiatives. The national debt will rise to a record $1.37 trillion. Interest on the national debt will rise from $26.6 billion in the last year of the Harper government to $64.3 billion. Debt interest payments will be more than what Ottawa spends on health care and twice what it spends on national defence.

The budget projects the government's spending to grow to $608 billion, which is $328 billion more than the first year of the Liberal government in 2015. That is a 117% increase in spending alone under the Liberals. That increase alone is more than the entire Harper budget of the last year. In case someone is worried about it, revenue, which is taxes, will rise from $282 billion in 2015 to $586 billion. In other words, government tax revenue has gone up by $304 billion, or 108% under the Liberal government. However, spending has gone up 117%, hence the debt.

If government spending made for a stronger economy and for more powerful paycheques for Canadians, we would be leading the world on our standard of living. However, that is not what Canadians are experiencing. Instead, what we have is a homegrown affordability and productivity crisis. The price of everything has gone up, and productivity per worker has declined. Since 2022, inflation-adjusted GDP per capita, which is an indication of living standards, declined from $60,000 to $58,000 in only a year and a half into 2023 and is now below where it was in 2014, a decade ago.

In other words, declining incomes at a time of rising costs of food, fuel, heating and everything, while our incomes are sliding back, make it more difficult for people to afford daily life. It is a double hit on Canadians thanks to the NDP-Liberals. Clearly, the record spending by the NDP-Liberal government, with the Liberal finance minister adding 62% of Canada's national debt, is not making people better off; it is making things worse.

This is the result of the disastrous policy choices of the NDP-Liberals on deficits, spending, government manipulation of the free market and policy choices to destroy Canada's competitive advantage over other countries, and those are our natural resource industries.

Let us turn to my second point. The world is not buying enough of what Canada creates anymore. As a small nation globally, in terms of population, Canada needs to export in order to maintain and to grow our living standards.

I spent most of my career in business, and when one's company has a competitive advantage, one innovates and works extremely hard to grow and to protect that competitive advantage, otherwise one's business declines and eventually dies. To export what Canada does successfully, we need to offer something other countries do not. In the world of nations, what is Canada's competitive advantage? It is our natural resources. Those include renewables, such as agriculture, fisheries and forestry, and non-renewables, such as minerals, oil and gas. We have been blessed like few others. We need to lead in exporting those commodities and the technology to harvest them.

We do not hear Saudi Arabia saying that they are glad they do not have all those forests to manage like Canada. We do not hear Germany saying that they are glad they do not have all that Canadian oil and gas to manage. In fact, Germany is begging for our oil and gas. However, In 2016, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau—