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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Fredericton is rising on a point of order.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I just cannot help but notice that the member for Saskatoon—University keeps interrupting our speaker, and I would like to hear what our speaker has to share with us this evening.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I agree. We would like to have the same courtesy accorded to both sides of the House: to be able to make their speeches without interruption.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do accept that in the course of debate, heckling happens. It is part of the tradition, but I would like to finish my speech. However, I would invite my colleague who was doing it to raise a question during questions and comments. I look forward to debating him on this issue and others.

I mentioned the GST waiver that will lead to more building. Just last week, I talked to builders in my London community who are quite excited about this measure because, in the context of high interest rates and a more expensive situation when it comes to securing labour and building supplies, it is incumbent on governments at all levels to do whatever they can to put incentives on the table, just like this government has, and the GST waiver stands out as part of that.

Low-interest loans for apartments in general, but also student and senior residences, are another example of incentives put on the table by this government to ensure the math does work for builders. Through the CMHC, we would ensure that those who want to take out those low-interest loans through the apartment construction loan program, or the ACLP, can do that. The interest rate will fluctuate. It is attached to the bond, but certainly a more attractive interest rate is available than, say, interest rates that would be secured through the big banks. We expect hundreds of thousands of homes, in fact, 131,000 homes, to be specific, to be built as a result of the ACLP program.

There is also a measure that has not been talked about nearly enough, but, based on conversations with builders over the past few weeks, it has been confirmed that changes to the accelerated capital cost allowance program would give builders the ability to write off up to 10% of annual mortgage costs from their taxes, and that is going to lead to much more building.

We saw something akin to that in the 1970s. Earlier tonight, I heard a colleague across the way ask why we are not seeing more homes built. He talked about the 1970s as a period of enormous building in terms of housing starts in Canada. One of the key reasons is that the accelerated capital cost allowance program at that time was akin to what the government has now done. We have moved ahead in this regard, taking our cue not only from the building sector but also from listening to what economists have said. In my community, we have Mike Moffatt at the Ivey Business School, who, among others, has advised the government to go in this direction, and the government has done exactly that.

Finally, on making the math work, we have looked at public lands, and ensuring that leasing is possible through public lands is something that we have taken very seriously. There has always been a debate in terms of land use in Canada for lands that are owned by the federal, provincial and municipal governments. At one time, the thinking was that perhaps they could be sold for housing purposes, but I think it is much more appropriate, and I agree with the government on this, that a leasing option be provided. If the government retains the opportunity to lease instead of sell, we can ensure a more affordable approach to housing.

Underused land or land that is not used at all could be put up for leasing purposes. There could be an affordable housing project on site. There could also be child care opportunities for families. There could also be health care services provided on site. I know the government, in concert with municipal and provincial governments, wants to begin that dialogue to understand how we can better use public lands going forward in this country. An inventory of public lands will be necessary in the first place, but, as I have said, I very much look forward to seeing where this could go. It is very promising, and we are seeing the needle move on this issue. I know many advocates across the country have called for this and are quite pleased with what the government has proposed in budget 2024 in this regard.

Second, in terms of building more homes, we have to work with communities to ensure that more homes get built, because it is municipalities, in particular, that are in charge of zoning. We need many more types of homes. We need duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, mid-rise apartments and row houses. This is the missing middle housing that advocates have called for. We see communities throughout the land moving in this direction. They have signed on to the housing accelerator fund in return for federal dollars. In return for making a pledge to ensure that zoning is changed to allow for that missing middle housing, they have access to funds that can be used for public transit, for infrastructure, for all sorts of needs, including affordable housing.

My community of London, back in September, was the first community in the country to receive dollars through this program, with $74 million that will see thousands more homes built in the next few years, and 750,000 homes nationally is what we expect to be built as a result of communities signing on to this program.

Much related to this is tying infrastructure dollars to home building. This is something that makes perfect sense. There are federal dollars available, as they always have been, for infrastructure purposes, dollars that would flow to municipalities, but especially to provinces, for water infrastructure, waste-water infrastructure and solid waste infrastructure, for all sorts of infrastructure. Tying that to an expectation that we see more homes built mirrors what we have done with the accelerator fund program and is something that will lead to more construction.

Finally, we have to change the way we build. That is crucial to getting more homes built. On that point, I point to the example of modular housing and the potential of modular housing in this country. We have factories throughout the land where homes are being built that are not exposed to the elements. For example, I was in Alberta recently, in Lethbridge. I visited Triple M Housing, the largest modular producer in the country. What I saw was three homes built a day of varying size appropriate for income types that exist, the varying income types we see in this country. Large homes or modest homes, whatever the desire is, the company is able to produce those.

In my own area, just north of London, in Hensall, I visited General Coach. I went to Northlander Industries in Exeter. I look forward to engaging with Royal Homes. These companies have seen in this budget loan opportunities put on the table to the tune of $500 million to see an expanded approach. A greater ability to serve the needs of the country in this regard is what modular companies will have. If they are not engaged in modular housing, if they are doing any type of prefabricated building, that is something that certainly builders can look at. They can look at this budget and see opportunities to expand their operations.

I would surmise that we see the potential of modular homes not only to fill the gap that exists with respect to market housing, but also to ensure that we have more non-market housing built for people, fellow citizens, who unfortunately have found themselves in a very unfortunate way living on the street. We have a huge responsibility in this regard. We have to get people housed, with the wraparound supports necessary for people to make a much more positive transition to ensure they have a brighter future: mental health support services on site, supports to ensure their physical health care, job training, all of that. That is what we would call a just vision to ensure that homelessness is finally dealt with in this country.

Modular home building fits into that, because we can have homes built, as I said before, very quickly. One company is doing three homes a day and others are producing close to that rate. It is something that makes a great deal of difference, and budget 2024 realizes that, among other things.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his focus on housing. He talked about removing the GST from apartments and building, but if Liberals are so focused on reducing the costs for builders, developers and Canadians, why are they charging the GST on top of the carbon tax? Why in this budget did they not remove the GST from the carbon tax entirely? That would lower costs for every aspect of the supply chain and encourage builders, developers and trades to lower their prices because the consumer is not being taxed on a tax and double-dipped with the GST being charged on top of a carbon tax.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, because of my parliamentary secretary role, I have engaged with those in the building sector, and I have put this question to them on the carbon tax. They say that it is not very significant at all. Much more important is removing, as I said, the GST from the construction of rental apartments. Much more important is ensuring that builders have access to low-interest loans. Much more important is seeing on-the-ground changes through municipalities in terms of zoning. That is going to lead to much more building.

The colleague opposite is a colleague I respect. He has been in the House for many years. He did not run off, for example, as the other colleague did. He stayed here to debate.

We have an opportunity here to get more homes built, and if we want to do that, we have to see zoning changes. All of those things add up to more building in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned non-market housing, which I would note is for more than those who are suffering from homelessness.

One of the reasons so many people are struggling to find affordable housing is that previous Liberal governments, starting in the 1990s, really abdicated the federal role when it came to building non-market housing. Today, only 3.5% of Canada's housing stock is non-market, compared to about 12% for our peer countries in the OECD.

Research out of the University of British Columbia says that at least 25% of the 5.8 million homes that CMHC says needs to be built by 2030 should be non-market. However, I have seen no indication of a target for the construction of non-market housing. Does the government have a non-market housing target? If so, what is that target?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the current stock of affordable housing in Canada is around 4%. That is not enough. We have to increase that.

My colleague wants to be partisan tonight. I do not think there is a need to be partisan. Yes, previous Liberal governments did let the country down when it came to not putting enough on the table and not investing enough to ensure an adequate, affordable housing stock. That is true of previous Liberal governments. It is true especially of previous Conservative governments. I do not want to dwell on that.

I hope that my colleague opposite will support this budget, a budget that does put serious investment on the table, as previous budgets introduced by this particular government have, to ensure that more affordable homes get built. There will be more affordable homes that have wraparound support services on-site, which I talked about before, provided by excellent not-for-profit and charity organizations that have the expertise to ensure people can make a transition to something better.

I have heard my colleague speak in the House many times. I know he believes in these things. He should support the budget.

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

Madam Speaker, here we have the government that created this housing shortage by having an imbalance from taking in new Canadians without making sure the capacity to take care of them was there. It is now blowing billions of dollars when we are already $1.4 trillion in debt, adding another $60 billion, and there is no end in sight.

Instead of getting into the housing jurisdiction, which is not a federal jurisdiction, how is the government going to solve the problem? Will it be by concentrating on the imbalance and fixing the problem in the first place, which is that we have too many people and not enough housing?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we do not have enough housing. We have to build more, as I said in my speech. There is so much in that question, I am not sure where to begin. I know my time is limited, so I will focus on the one point that stood out. The member said that, in her view, the federal government has no business engaging in housing. From that, I assume it is the position of the Conservative Party of Canada.

It is no surprise, and now we understand why the Leader of the Opposition has yet to allow his private member's bill on housing, his so-called housing plan, to come forward. It was supposed to come forward months ago, and he has delayed it. That is why.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, if the leader of the Conservative Party has made one thing clear, it is that, after nine years, the NDP-Liberal government is not worth the cost. It is not worth the cost for the out-of-control spending. Federal government spending is up 43% since 2019. It is not worth the cost for increasing the deficit. Canada's total debt has ballooned to $1.4 trillion, up from $600 million in 2015 when Stephen Harper was prime minister. It is not worth the cost for interest payments. Canada's interest payments are higher than what we spend on health transfers. Plus, the incompetent finance minister forgot to lock in Canada's debts at lower interest rates, costing us billions more. It is not worth the cost for our hard-earned savings, as it is imposing the largest capital gains increase in decades. Because this budget, the government and the Prime Minister are not worth the cost, I will be proudly voting against this budget.

Before this budget came down in mid-April, common-sense Conservatives sent a letter to the Prime Minister with three demands to fix the budget: one, axe the tax on farmers and food by immediately passing Bill C-234 in its original form; two, build the homes, not bureaucracy, by requiring cities to permit 15% more homes each year as a condition for receiving federal infrastructure money; and, three, cap the spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation, so the government must save a dollar for every new dollar of spending. The Prime Minister refused to listen and the result is a budget that the NDP-Liberal government delivered just a few short weeks ago that is just more of the same that broke our country in the first place.

Common-sense Conservatives will not support this runaway train wreck of a budget, nor will we support the NDP-Liberal government, which has broken our country, because the truth is that the budgeting of the government is like pressing the accelerator on a runaway train. Its budgets have boosted spending by 43% since 2019, which is like pouring gas on the inflationary fire, which drives up interest rates. This increased spending further endangers our social programs and jobs by adding more debt and more interest payments. Frankly, this spending spree will not stop until common-sense Conservatives are able to start governing, stop that runaway train and turn it around.

The Liberals and their costly NDP partners are not worth the cost for any generation. The government has doubled rent, mortgage payments and down payments. Food is getting so expensive that food banks received a record two million visits in a single month last year, with a million additional visits expected this year.

While life has gotten worse for Canadians, the NDP-Liberals are spending more than ever before. This year's budget will include nearly $40 billion in new inflationary spending. Former Liberal governor of the Bank of Canada, David Dodge, said that this budget is the worst budget since 1982. This year, Canada will spend $54.1 billion to service the NDP-Liberal debt. This is more money than the government is sending to the provinces for health care. Both the Bank of Canada and former Liberal finance minister John Manley told the Prime Minister that he was pressing on the inflationary gas pedal with all this additional spending, but the Liberals did not listen. As a result, the Bank of Canada has implemented the most aggressive interest rate hikes in its history. As millions of Canadians are renewing their mortgages and know this right now, the NDP-Liberal government simply is not worth the cost.

Let us talk about the carbon tax. We will hear many myths coming from the NDP-Liberal government concerning the carbon tax. I want to dispel some of them for the people back in Saskatoon West who are watching.

The first myth is that the carbon tax does not add to inflation. Canadians know that is not true. They know it is making everything more expensive and miserable for everyone. The International Monetary Fund defines the carbon tax. It states:

Carbon taxes, levied on...oil products...in proportion to their carbon content, can be collected from fuel suppliers. They in turn will pass on the tax in the form of higher prices for electricity, gasoline, heating oil, and so on, as well as for the products and services that depend on them.

This is black and white. Carbon taxes are meant to make everything more expensive. Energy, products, food and everything else that we buy are all more expensive. Boy oh boy, has the NDP-Liberal carbon tax been very successful in making everything much more expensive. Anyone who goes to the grocery store knows the price of food has increased astronomically since the carbon tax came into effect. One cannot buy carrots, potatoes, eggs, milk, cheese, chicken, beef, pork or even Kraft Dinner without burning through one's paycheque. The Prime Minister has blamed this laughably on the war in Ukraine. How much of our cheese, milk, carrots and Kraft Dinner come from Russia or Ukraine? Let me say that it is zero, yet, as any common-sense Saskatchewan person can tell us, Canada produces and manufactures our own food.

What does affect the domestic price of food is when the Canadian farmer must suddenly start paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in carbon taxes to fuel his farm equipment, keep the greenhouses hot, and move the manufacturing line and processing facilities. These costs get passed on to the retailer. The retailer, of course, has their own carbon taxes to pay on the electricity to keep the lights on and keep the fridges and freezers cold while absorbing whatever extra carbon tax costs were incurred by the transport trucks delivering the food to that retailer. All those taxes get added up and passed on to the consumer. That is how the carbon tax is making everything more expensive. That is inflation, plain and simple.

There is a second myth to dispel about the carbon tax. The Prime Minister goes around touting his so-called carbon rebate cheques as his new Marxist wealth redistribution project. He tells Canadians to not worry about paying carbon taxes because he will just give it back to them with a quarterly cheque. Is that true? Like everything the Prime Minister says and does, it may seem true in his world, but in the real world, he is absolutely wrong.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, an independent officer of Parliament who is not beholden to any political party, looked at the Prime Minister's claims and produced a very detailed report. Using the Prime Minister's own figures and math, he went across Canada and examined how much everyone pays in carbon tax and how much they get back in these so-called rebates.

In my home province of Saskatchewan, this year the Liberals will collect an average of $2,618 from every family, but the Liberals will only rebate on average $2,093. That means that each Saskatchewan family will lose $525. Only in the Prime Minister's head does losing over $500 mean that someone is coming out ahead. Within five years, as the carbon tax quadruples, that net loss would be well over $1,700 per year for each family. It is clear that only in the alternative reality the Prime Minister lives in does a loss of $1,700 every year turn out to be a win.

As such, myth one is that the carbon tax does not make everything more expensive, but we know that it does exactly that. Myth two is that families get the carbon tax back, when the truth is they do not, leaving each family $500 in the hole. The third myth is that the NDP is somehow not to blame for the Prime Minister's brazen disregard for the Canadian public every time he raises the carbon tax.

The fact is that the coalition government agreement the NDP and Liberals struck is akin to one of the greatest heists ever committed against the Canadian taxpayer. Did the Prime Minister put the gun to the taxpayers and pull the trigger? He absolutely did, but it was the NDP that loaded the gun, kept the getaway vehicle idling when the dirty work was being done and then put its foot on the accelerator to make sure the Liberals got a clean getaway.

Myth number four is that the home heating oil exemption was not meant to help Liberal MPs in the Maritimes. The truth is that they created this exemption so people heating their homes in Atlantic Canada did not have to pay carbon tax. I can clearly see that in the announcement filled with all the Liberal Maritime MPs.

When Saskatchewan thought this type of exemption should also apply to people heating their homes in our frigid province, what did the Prime Minister do instead? If I turn to page 408 in annex 3 of the budget, it would give the Liberals the legal authority to prosecute the Saskatchewan government for not collecting the carbon tax on natural gas. As such, exempting home heating in Atlantic Canada is A-okay for the Liberals. Exempting home heating in Saskatchewan would be a criminal act, so obviously this shows the lengths to which the Prime Minister is willing to go to favour one region of Canada over another.

Ultimately, as a member of Parliament, I must make a decision on how I will be voting on the budget. How do I represent the interests of the people of Saskatoon West? Do I vote in favour of higher taxes, out-of-control spending, massive inflationary debt payments and no end in sight? Many folks in my riding email me, almost on a daily basis, imploring me to stop doing these very things.

They are very concerned that our activist Prime Minister is breaking Canada. They see the crime, chaos and destruction are on our streets. They feel the pinch of higher grocery prices and higher taxes. As such, do I vote against another wasteful budget, a budget that is meant to harm Canadians, a budget that raises their taxes and increases inflation?

I am a Conservative, and I believe in common sense. I am voting no to the budget. I am voting non-confidence in the NDP-Liberal government, and I am voting in favour of us having a carbon tax election as soon as possible.

Let us bring it home.

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

Madam Speaker, I found it very interesting that the member asked what Kraft Dinner has to do with Ukraine. He should go and have look, because CNN did an interview with the Kraft CEO specifically, who said, “We’ve already increased the prices that we were expecting this year, but I'm predicting that next year, inflation will continue, and as a consequence [we] will have other rounds of price increases”. The article goes on to say, “Beyond the double-barrel challenges of shortages of raw materials and inflation, issues like...the war in Ukraine...are adding to the uncertainty”, so the member does not need to take my word for it.

The member asked what Kraft Dinner has to do with Ukraine. He can listen to the CEO from Kraft, who made those comments that I read out, who explicitly said shortages coming out of Ukraine are contributing to inflation.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, this is just another example of the Liberals failing to take responsibility for the inflation that has happened in this country. We have had serious record inflation, the highest rates we have had in 40 years.

This has hurt the pocketbooks of all Canadians. It has reduced their buying power. It has made everything more expensive, including Kraft Dinner and everything else. The carbon tax has a lot to do with that.

Inflationary spending has caused the rate of inflation to go up and has caused those expenses to get higher. Canadians are feeling the pinch.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. We work very well together at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I really enjoy working with him. He is very thorough.

The Conservatives say they are going to form the next government. We, as well as the Conservatives, are going to vote against this budget; there is no doubt about that. Now, what would the Conservatives do if they were sitting where the Liberals are? That is never quite as clear.

Since my colleague sits on the immigration committee with me, I will ask him a question. There is one item that is missing from the budget, and I would like to know whether the Conservatives would proceed differently from the Liberals when it comes to the billion dollars that the Quebec government is requesting for taking in asylum seekers. The Liberals refuse to pay that money to the Quebec government.

Quebec's National Assembly is calling on the federal government to reimburse the $1‑billion cost of taking in asylum seekers. If my colleague's party were in power, would Quebec be reimbursed that $1 billion?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean and I do enjoy our time at the immigration committee.

What would Conservatives do if we were in government? Well, first of all, we would not have all the messes we have now that are leading to situations like what my colleague described. The most important thing I want to reiterate about what we would do is that, first of all, we would get rid of the carbon tax. That is the first thing we would do.

The second thing we would do would be to balance the budget because that is causing inflationary pressure. The third thing we would do would be to build more homes by requiring cities to permit 15% more houses each year in order to get federal infrastructure funds.

The fourth thing we would do would be to stop the crime by making sure that repeat offenders end up in jail and that we have proper treatment facilities for those who need it in the country.