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

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague across the way talked about the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio, but that only matters if the government is including the assets of the CPP, the Canada Pension Plan, but excluding the liabilities for future payout. When one looks at the gross debt, we are actually the 22nd worst out of 29 in the entire OECD, and we are near the bottom of the G7.

Could the member across the way commit to using the real numbers instead of the dodgy fact or the dodgy misinformation he is using today?

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, that is a bunch of baloney. The member talked about the Canada Pension Plan; let us talk about the Canada Pension Plan, old age security and the benefits they bring to Canadians. Let us talk about medicare and dental care.

Our government is investing in Canadians. If one factors in all those benefits in the economic formulas, however one wants to organize them, one will realize that Canada is the best country in the world to live in.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his French, and I salute all Franco-Manitobans.

We have heard several Liberal ministers say that they are going to take action to protect French in Quebec and that they recognize that French is in decline in Quebec. However, an analysis of the public accounts reveals that 94% of official language funding programs in Quebec are used to strengthen English and are paid to anglophone institutions and lobby groups. Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed in the action plan for official languages 2023-28.

Does my colleague think that continuing to contribute to the anglicization of Quebec will strengthen French outside Quebec?

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Madam Speaker, Canada is undeniably a bilingual country. I am proud to represent francophone and Franco-Métis communities in Saint-Boniface and Saint-Vital.

That said, it is hard to make sure that the French language progresses in Manitoba. We need schools and early childhood education. We need more investments to ensure that the francophone community can continue to grow and contribute to our society.

I am not very familiar with the reality in Quebec, but I do know that the French language is under threat across Canada and that we need to make a concerted effort to expand the francophone space.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on an important issue. The Prime Minister came to Winnipeg on three different occasions. He came to visit a north end school; we talked about the national nutritional food program for children. We had the Prime Minister come and work on the issue of housing in the Transcona area. We also had the Prime Minister come to talk at the Grace Hospital about the investment in generations of health care.

Could the member just provide his thoughts in terms of how the different levels of government came together, working in co-operation, to deal with those types of issues?

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is absolutely right. The Prime Minister has been to Winnipeg several times over the last few months to make incredible announcements about investments in Canadians, such as a new health care agreement with the Province of Manitoba, as well as investments in nurses, doctors and the many hospitals that serve Manitobans and Winnipeggers. Fortunately, we have a provincial government in Manitoba that was at the table, that was not fighting us. It was contributing its own dollars to keep Winnipeggers and Manitobans healthy. The school food program is an incredibly positive program that was launched, at least in Manitoba, in Winnipeg, in a school with hundreds of kids who were energetic and enjoyed the nourishment.

We know that Canadians are feeling the struggle. Inflation is affecting Canadians. That is why we are investing in Canadians on so many fronts. For the life of me, I do not understand why the other side, the Conservative opposition, continues to vote against everything we are doing.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, to start, I will mention that I am sharing my time with my colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

I am pleased to rise to talk to budget 2024, which the government has labelled “Fairness for Every Generation”. We can quite easily say the government is inflicting its Liberal version of fairness on every generation. I am sure Liberals are sitting there on the other side saying, “Why let just boomers suffer through high rent, high food inflation and high crime?” Under the Liberals, the idea is to be fair and make gen X and millennials suffer as well.

Churchill commented, “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” That is what Canadians are suffering under the Liberal government: the equal sharing of miseries.

Now, I want to look at some of the sharing of miseries under the Liberal-NDP government. We will start with rent. We have a crisis across the country of skyrocketing rent. Rentals.ca reported, “Average asking rents for all residential property types in Canada hit an all-time high of $2,202 in May, surpassing the $2,200 level for the first time.”

That is up 9% from last year. In 2015, when the Liberal government took over, the average rent in Canada was $966. That is a 128% increase in rent. I do not think any Canadians have been receiving a 128% increase in their family income since 2015. Now, even adjusting for the out-of-control Liberal inflation, that is still 28% higher than the inflation-adjusted total compared with 2015.

I want to talk about a couple of examples across the country: In Burnaby, B.C., the average is $2,500, up 8%. In North York, it is $2,300, up 4%; that is the average rent for a one bedroom, by the way. In Ottawa, it is $1,884 for a one bedroom, up 7%; and in Kingston, it is $1,800, up 8.4% from last year for a one bedroom.

Now, luckily for the people in the prairie provinces, those provinces had been spared the high rent increases. However, this is the case no more, thanks to the Liberal government.

In Calgary, a one bedroom is up 6% from last year; Winnipeg is up 9%. Edmonton, my own hometown, is up 16% from last year; Regina is up 16.7% from last year. Saskatoon is up 13% from last year for a one bedroom. Finally, Fort McMurray is up 13%.

That is the reality and the so-called fairness under the Liberal government. Fairness of access to misery is basically what the government has delivered. Mortgage payments have doubled since the government took over. Housing prices have doubled.

I want to read a quote from Bloomberg, the business magazine: “Canada [is] likely sitting on the largest housing bubble of all time”. It is not the largest housing bubble in Canadian history, but of all time. The article argues that “inflated home prices in Canada are a result of...easy money supplied under the [government's] monetary policy.... At the present moment, [there is] risk in mortgage rates climbing”, which we are seeing, “as Canadian bond yields are dragged up, particularly at a time when debt-to-income ratios are sky high.” Canadians, as we are aware, probably have the highest consumer debt-to-income ratio in the world.

The article goes on to say, “The worst part for a housing bubble is when you have [a] credit bubble underneath it”. Again, we have such a high debt-to-income ratio right now. It continues, “The amount of Canadian leverage into the system versus incomes is pretty astronomical — and we’ve seen debt servicing going up dramatically.”

In addition, “There is definitely a risk here that if mortgage rates go higher or unemployment were to rise or we hit the next recession, then this thing does end up in a deleveraging cycle.”

What does the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation have to say on this topic? It says that, this year and next, 2.2 million mortgages, worth over $675 billion, will be facing interest rate shock as they come due for renewal. That 2.2 million households is 45% of all households in Canada, and they have mortgage rates coming up for renewal shortly.

CMHC continues, “Most of these borrowers contracted their...mortgages at record-low interest rates and, most likely, at or near the peak of housing prices”. In this country, 45% of mortgages are probably at about the 1.5% to 2% mark, and they are going to have to renew at 5% or 6%. Mortgage “shock”, as CMHC calls it, is hopefully not leading up to what Bloomberg is forecasting, which is a collapse in the housing bubble.

If we remember back to July 2020, the Governor of the Bank of Canada said, “Our message to Canadians is that interest rates are very low and they're going to be there for a long time”. He then said, “If you've got a mortgage or if you're considering making a major purchase, or you're a business or you're considering making an investment, you can be confident rates will be low for a long time.” Maybe Webster's dictionary needs to update its definition of a “long time” to say that it is less than four years.

Of course, we all remember the Prime Minister trotting out in front of his cottage for an interview. When asked about the risks of this massive borrowing and perhaps rising costs to service it, he said, of course condescendingly, “Interest rates are at historic lows, Glen.” Guess what? They are not at historic lows.

If one wishes to have an example of how out of control things are, how fast things can change and how poor the government is at planning and how it hurts Canadians, the supplementary (A)s, which we debated just recently, showed an added $1.9 billion of needed taxpayers' dollars to pay for interest on the debt. This is $1.9 billion more than the calculations the government did just in February when it was doing the main estimates.

The main estimates are of course the cash authorizations required for the entire year. That was done in February. Between February and May, when the supplementary (A)s came out, interest rates were up, resulting in needing $1.9 billion more than the government thought it would have to ask for in February.

We often hear the government talk about the pharmacare plan. Of the 9,000 different available drugs in Canada, it would only cover birth control and diabetes medication. That plan is $1.9 billion for five years. If we think about that, just the government's mistake in February on what interest would cost Canadians on the national debt was off equal to the value of its so-called pharmacare plan for five years.

On taxes, in this budget there is $498 billion projected to be raised in taxes. That is up $166 billion from 2019, which the government is taking from Canadian taxpayers. That is $216 billion more in taxpayers' money being taken by the government since 2015, or 76%. That is up $50 billion from just two years ago, yet somehow we have the government telling doctors, small businesses and farmers that they need to cough up a little more, less Canada slips into some dystopian hell. Again, it is $216 billion more than when the government took over. That is 76%, yet if we do not not get a bit more, Canada will fall into dystopian hell.

The Deputy Prime Minister said, “What kind of Canada do you want to live in [without this extra few billion dollars]? Do you want to live in a country where a teenage girl gets pregnant just because she doesn't have the money to buy birth control?” Apparently, over the last nine years they did have money to buy birth control, but somehow, after $216 billion more in tax hikes against Canadians, now teenage girls are facing this.

Interest on the debt is $291 billion for the next five years. That is equal to an entire tax haul when the Liberals came to power. If one thinks about that, just the interest for five years will be equal to our entire tax haul in the year 2015.

I will end with another quote from Churchill: “Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.” I think we can very easily substitute the word “socialism” with “Liberal government” when we look at this budget.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, my question is on the capital gains tax. I am wondering if my colleague from across the way could explain to Canadians why, when the Liberal government makes the decision to have a fairer sense of taxation, the Conservative-Reform party say no, it is a bad idea, yet Brian Mulroney, the former Progressive Conservative prime minister, not only raised it but raised it to a higher level than we are raising it. If the Conservative Party today is arguing that it is going to cause so many problems, what does it think happened when Brian Mulroney, the then Progressive Conservative prime minister, raised it? There seems to be a double standard, and maybe there is not a double standard. Maybe it is because it is really and truly a Conservative-Reform party being given direction from the far right.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague for Winnipeg North has, as usual, a nonsensical question. I was disappointed last week when we were debating the estimates that I was not able to take a question from him.

However, now he is talking about something that happened 40 years ago. I suggest that he perhaps get into his probably government-subsidized DeLorean to go back to the future to today's date.

The member talks about the capital gains tax. This government has increased taxes on Canadians by over $200 billion per year since it took over, yet somehow that $200 billion will not pay for this added little bit it is calling for. It is ridiculous to think that somehow, after raising taxes by $200 billion, now the real secret to success would be to get an extra couple billion from the capital gains. It is clearly not needed if the Liberals were able to raise taxes $200 billion just since they came to power.

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

Madam Speaker, in the Harper days, there was a recession in 2008, but $150 billion was put into the economy, and the budget was balanced in seven years. The Liberal government has had nine years.

I wonder if the member could elaborate on the fiscal failure of the doubling of the debt and the tripling of the carbon tax, as well as what the carbon tax has done to initiate the cost of inflation that Canadians are seeing in their rents, mortgages and grocery bills today.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a valid question.

Something that we do not often talk about in the House is how the government has increased the tax load on Canadians so much, with a 76% increase since 2015, which is 76% more taxes being taken in by the government, yet somehow the Liberals still missed balancing the budget by $50 billion last year. The money is coming in, and it is amazing that the money is going out at a faster rate. However, all we have from the government is failures to serve Canadians, failures to get passports done, failures to provide to the military, failures to provide housing and failures to work on the inflation front. The government is clearly a failure, which is why I will not be supporting this budget.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have appreciated the member's work on the mighty OGGO committee and his chairing of that esteemed committee.

My question is about housing, and the member did run through some of the really startling increases in rent across the country, but the communities I represent are rural communities. I read his party's proposed housing legislation with interest, and I found that it was silent on the needs of rural communities when it comes to getting housing built. A lot of the strategies in there do not speak to communities of 10,000 people or 5,000 people.

I wonder what the Conservatives have to offer when it comes to building housing in rural communities where the problem is not the municipality, and it is not density near transit stops. The need is core infrastructure funding from the federal government.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, probably the best thing this country can do for all housing, or all homeowners and those seeking housing, would be to get inflation down so that we can bring interest rates down to make housing more affordable.

I would suggest that the member vote with this party, the opposition, to get rid of the Liberals so that we can actually attack inflation, get spending down and, therefore, get interest rates and mortgage rates down.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the health-conscious constituents in the riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

For anyone tuning in tonight, one may be wondering why we are talking about health products, even though the bottom of one's screen says this is a debate on Bill C-69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget.

The short answer is that the Prime Minister broke his promise to end the use of omnibus bills. Like a living, breathing “hold my beer” meme, these Liberals clearly thought the last government was not omnibusing hard enough. This bill is so obese, it is even cornering the market in Ozempic.

Ironically, this budget implementation bill would give the Minister of Health, and of anti-tourism, brand new powers to make Ozempic illegal for weight loss for everyone else. Since the Liberals started bragging about taking away people's drug plans and forcing everyone into a one-size-fits-all, Ottawa-knows-best, Soviet-style drug plan, I have had one question.

When Canada finds itself in the next drug shortage, how will the Liberals decide who lives and who dies? Not a single member from the socialist coalition has been willing to address the question, but the budget implementation bill's division 31 provides a sinister answer. The government will do whatever it wants.

Here is what the weighty omnibus bill says:

the Governor in Council may make any regulations that the Governor in Council considers necessary for the purpose of preventing shortages of therapeutic products or foods for a special dietary purpose in Canada or alleviating those shortages or their effects, in order to protect human health.

If one takes the word of the officials from Health Canada, all they are seeking is the power to import baby formula without bilingual labelling. If that were true, if the government's real intent was for a temporary emergency measure, the amendment would have been limited in scope and time. Instead, the government went with the kind of language, which maximizes power and minimizes oversight.

Here is the language the government originally sought for the therapeutic products:

if the Minister believes that the use of a therapeutic product, other than the intended use, may present a risk of injury to health, the Minister may, by order, establish rules in respect of the importation, sale, conditions of sale, advertising, manufacture, preparation, preservation, packaging, labelling, storage or testing of the therapeutic product for the purpose of preventing, managing or controlling the risk of injury to health.

Credit goes to the members of the finance committee for adding an amendment to insert the words “on reasonable grounds” into that section, but it does not matter.

The bill also says, “The Minister may make the order despite any uncertainty respecting the risk of injury to health that the use of the therapeutic product, other than the intended use, may present.”

That is quite a power grab. The NDP-Liberal government is literally saying that it does not need evidence to support its radical policy. In fact, the Liberals are saying that any evidence that contradicts their policy can be ignored. This is not the Liberal government gagging scientists. This is the Liberal government gagging science, handcuffing science, taking science out back and executing it gangland-style.

If we take the word of the bureaucrats from Health Canada, the minister needs these extraordinary powers to prevent teenagers from consuming nicotine pods. If that were true, if this were only about preventing nicotine addiction amongst youth, what explains the very next section? It reads, “An order made under subsection 30.‍01(1) or 30.‍02(1) that applies to only one person is not a statutory instrument within the meaning of the Statutory Instruments Act.”

The “minister of unhealthy road trips” will have the power to pass a regulation to prevent a single person from promoting a health product, and not just promoting. The minister could regulate a single person with respect to “importation, sale, conditions of sale, advertising, manufacture, preparation, preservation, packaging, labelling, storage or testing” of the drug.

Even more concerning is that these regulations targeting a single individual would not be considered regulations under the Statutory Instruments Act. Between this section and the section on uncertainty, the government has essentially neutralized the rights of Canadians to appeal these regulations to the federal court. This is an unprecedented power grab by the technocrats at Health Canada.

Given the arrogance on regular display by the car-phobic Minister of Health, it would not take much to convince me that he is the one seeking the radical, non-reviewable powers. Whether his lust for power is rooted in the repeated childhood traumas of station wagon vacations with his parents is not for me to say, but if this language were included in a Conservative bill, the minister would be among the first to accuse us of having a hidden agenda.

With just the flick of a wrist, the current Minister of Health or the next one could ban any drug based on some vague concern about health. As a parliamentarian, I oppose giving any government, Liberal or Conservative, that level of unchecked power. Health Canada's technocrats will claim that this is the same as the regulations limiting alcohol and tobacco advertisements. It is not. This law would give the Minister of Health the power to shut down a single podcaster or TikToker who advertises health products. It could shut down an Instagram influencer who talks about Chinese herbal remedies.

The government has not gone so far as to give itself the power to issue secret orders. Instead, it just gave itself the power to issue an order against a single person, not disclose the person's identity, not disclose the actual health risk and not have to publish it in the Gazette. Health Canada could destroy a person's livelihood by publishing a single sentence in an obscure web page buried deep in some government website. If anyone doubts that the socialist coalition is capable of that, let us remember that these amendments to the Food and Drugs Act are buried deep in the budget implementation bill.

The changes were not even given a mention in the budget. Instead, the government promised it would spend $3.2 million to update Health Canada's supply management capacity over the next three years. It takes a special kind of Liberal arrogance to believe the government can manage a supply of drugs for over 40 million people. The Liberals cannot manage passports. They cannot manage to recruit anyone into the military. They cannot manage an app for collecting travellers' information. They cannot manage the graft at Sustainable Development Technology Canada. They cannot manage the self-dealing within the local journalism initiative. The Prime Minister cannot even manage a cabinet. As a former Liberal cabinet minister said last week, the government has been drinking from a fountain of “socialist bafflegab”.

The technocrats who have been advising the finance minister believe Canadians would be happier if Canadians were taxed at over 50%. The only thing socialists can manage are breadlines. With the median age around 40, that means nearly half of Canadians were born after the collapse of the last socialist empire. They do not know about breadlines. They do not know that Soviet-style socialist drug plans mean Canadians would have to line up for life-saving medicines. The well connected and the wealthy could pay people in line to wait for them. The poor and the marginalized would have to take a day or two off work and wait in line at the government pharmacy.

Just as in the Soviet Union, when reality fails to conform to Communist ideology, the government will ratchet up repression. If rebellious reporters speak up about the drug shortages, the government can accuse them of putting the health of Canadians at risk and issue an order silencing them. The reporters could take the minister to court, but when the judge asks the government lawyers how certain they are that the censorship will protect public health, the government can reply, “Not certain at all, Your Honour”, and the judge will have no choice but to rule in the government's favour.

If members think this sounds unconstitutional, they would be right, but it would not matter. The Liberals would use their favourite notwithstanding clause, called section 1. We saw it time and time again during the pandemic. Governments issued unconstitutional orders, citizens took the government to court and judges ruled that they were not health experts and would defer to the government's experts.

With the precedent set, the technocrats at Health Canada saw it as a green light to seek more power. The Department of Health already has the power to ban a drug, recall it or place any number of conditions on its sale. It already has that power, but it was not enough. Like our Prime Minister, who admires the Communists who control China, the technocrats want the kind of power that only Communism can grant them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, there is no tin hat over there.

My question for the member is in regard to misinformation. I am very interested in her thoughts on it. The far right, in particular the leader of the Conservative-Reform party, is very good at disinformation through social media on issues such as cutting the carbon tax and missing out on rebates. It is misleading Canadians and feeding into the extreme right.

I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on that. Does she think her leader is doing a good job by representing the extreme right?