Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

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

Sponsor

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.

Part 1 implements certain measures in respect of the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations by
(a) 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 Firstread more

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-69s:

C-69 (2018) Law An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
C-69 (2015) Penalties for the Criminal Possession of Firearms Act
C-69 (2005) An Act to amend the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act

Votes

June 19, 2024 Passed 3rd reading and adoption of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024
June 18, 2024 Passed Concurrence at report stage of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024
June 18, 2024 Failed Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024 (report stage amendment) (Motion No. 154)
June 18, 2024 Failed Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024 (report stage amendment) (Motion No. 148)
June 18, 2024 Failed Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024 (report stage amendment) (Motion No. 146)
June 18, 2024 Failed Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024 (report stage amendment) (Motion No. 142)
June 18, 2024 Failed Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024 (report stage amendment) (Motion No. 130)
June 18, 2024 Failed Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024 (report stage amendment) (Motion No. 79)
June 18, 2024 Failed Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024 (report stage amendment) (Motion No. 49)
June 18, 2024 Failed Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024 (report stage amendment) (Motion No. 46)
June 18, 2024 Failed Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024 (report stage amendment) (Motion No. 44)
June 18, 2024 Failed Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024 (report stage amendment) (Motion No. 42)
June 18, 2024 Failed Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024 (report stage amendment) (Motion No. 39)
June 18, 2024 Failed Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024 (report stage amendment) (Motion No. 38)
June 18, 2024 Failed Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024 (report stage amendment) (Motion No. 34)
June 18, 2024 Failed Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024 (report stage amendment) (Motion No.32)
June 18, 2024 Failed Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024 (report stage amendment) (Motion No. 1)
June 17, 2024 Passed Time allocation for Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024
May 22, 2024 Passed 2nd reading of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024
May 22, 2024 Failed 2nd reading of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024 (reasoned amendment)
May 21, 2024 Passed Time allocation for Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024

Debate Summary

line drawing of robot

This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Bill C-69 is a budget implementation bill that amends or creates 67 different acts. It aims to strengthen the middle class and support young people through measures addressing the housing crisis, dental care, child care, and food insecurity, while also investing in areas like AI and northern nutrition programs. It also enacts the consumer-driven banking act, establishing a federal regulatory framework for open banking, which allows financial institutions to share data with third-party platforms, with the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada acting as the regulator. The bill also includes measures related to tax increases, capital gains, and regulations on therapeutic products.

Liberal

  • Focus on middle class: The Liberal government has been focused on Canada's middle class, those aspiring to join it, and ensuring fairness across generations. They aim to provide essential services and supports while fostering economic participation for all Canadians.
  • Job creation: The Liberal government contrasts its job creation record with that of the previous Conservative government, highlighting the creation of over two million jobs compared to one million under Stephen Harper. This is presented as a key indicator of economic success.
  • Investments in social programs: The Liberal government emphasizes its investments in programs like the Canada Child Care Program, dental care for seniors, and national pharmacare, while criticizing the Conservative Party for opposing these initiatives. They argue these programs provide essential supports to Canadians and reflect Liberal values.
  • Addressing the housing crisis: The government is committed to addressing the housing crisis by increasing the supply of homes and cutting red tape to accelerate construction. They aim to build close to four million new homes by 2031 through collaboration with builders and partnerships with provinces and municipalities.

Conservative

  • Government spending is out of control: Conservative members accuse the Liberal-NDP government of 'wackonomics' and extreme, woke policies, leading to a cost of living crisis, increased poverty, and a housing hell for Canadians. The government's wasteful spending and tax hikes are blamed for high inflation and interest rates, endangering social programs and jobs.
  • Housing affordability crisis: The Conservative party argues that the Liberal government's policies have doubled housing costs and mortgage payments, creating a housing bubble and pushing Canadians into debt. They criticize the government for failing to address the housing crisis and for offering condescending advice to struggling Canadians.
  • Tax hikes hurt Canadians: The Conservative party opposes the Liberal government's tax hikes, including the carbon tax and capital gains tax increase, arguing that they burden hard-working Canadians and endanger retirements. They accuse the government of economic vandalism and hiding the true costs of the carbon tax from Canadians.
  • Government overreach on health products: Conservatives criticize the budget implementation bill for granting the Minister of Health excessive power to regulate health products, potentially impacting access to medications and limiting Canadians' rights to appeal regulations. They express concern over the government's ability to control the supply of drugs for over 40 million people.

NDP

  • Support with Shortcomings: The NDP supports Bill C-69, acknowledging the positive measures they influenced the Liberals to include, but emphasize the bill's shortcomings and the need for further action to improve the lives of Canadians. While not a fully NDP budget, it reflects some of their values and priorities.
  • Key NDP priorities: The NDP has used its power in the minority Parliament to push for key priorities, including investments in affordable housing, universal single-payer pharmacare, a national school food program, reversing cuts to Indigenous services, and investments in child care and youth mental health.
  • Disappointment with disability benefit: The NDP is disappointed with the proposed Canada Disability Benefit, calling the promised maximum of $200 a month and limited access to only a fraction of those in need unacceptable, falling far short of lifting people with disabilities out of poverty.
  • Tax fairness: The NDP advocates for a fairer tax system based on horizontal equity, criticizing the current system where the lowest income households pay a higher total tax rate than the top 1%. They support the increase to the capital gains inclusion rate, arguing that it is a matter of fairness that those who profit from speculation should pay their fair share, similar to wage earners.

Bloc

  • Opposes Bill C-69: The Bloc will vote against Bill C-69 because they feel the government is not listening, is being partisan, and is undermining Quebec. They asked the government to remove a division from Bill C-69 and correct some of its shortcomings so it could come back with a better framework.
  • Federal overreach on open banking: The Bloc believes Ottawa is opting for unilateralism and centralization in Bill C-69. The bill enacts the consumer-driven banking act, which would make the federal government the sole regulator of the open banking sector, with the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada serving as the regulator, despite their lack of qualifications.
  • Disadvantages Quebec institutions: Bill C-69 puts Quebec's institutions at a disadvantage with respect to federal institutions. An institution like Desjardins would be caught between two governments, which could be dysfunctional and give banks an egregious advantage over co-ops and trust companies.
  • Favors a co-operative approach: Instead of taking the unilateral, centralist route, the Bloc feels Ottawa should have chosen co-operation. They suggest a federal-provincial finance ministers' working meeting on open banking to develop a common regulatory approach.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

June 18th, 2024 / 7:05 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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.

As spoken

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

June 18th, 2024 / 7:05 p.m.

Conservative

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.

As spoken

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

June 18th, 2024 / 7:05 p.m.

Conservative

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.

As spoken

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

June 18th, 2024 / 7:05 p.m.

Conservative

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.

As spoken

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

June 18th, 2024 / 7:05 p.m.

NDP

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.

As spoken

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

June 18th, 2024 / 7:10 p.m.

Conservative

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.

As spoken

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

June 18th, 2024 / 7:10 p.m.

Conservative

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.

As spoken

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

June 18th, 2024 / 7:20 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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?

As spoken

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

June 18th, 2024 / 7:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

As spoken

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

June 18th, 2024 / 7:20 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

Order. Before I give the floor to the hon. member, I just want to remind members that if they want to contribute to the discussion, they should wait until the appropriate time.

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

As spoken

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

June 18th, 2024 / 7:20 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Madam Speaker, maybe you can grant me more time for questions and answers so that everyone can ask a question.

As far as the member opposite goes, my greatest fan in the chamber, the Liberals have gone so far left, together with the other radically left parties, that anything in the centre seems far right to them.

As for our effective leader, I believe all Canadians are served well by him. He is interested in them, and he will do a good job for Canada in controlling spending, bringing down debt and making Canada the kind of country everyone is proud to live in and can prosper in.

As spoken

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

June 18th, 2024 / 7:20 p.m.

Bloc

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I have the pleasure of serving with her on the Standing Committee on National Defence.

She began her speech by talking about the fact that we are having to debate an omnibus bill. By definition, an omnibus bill contains anything and everything. This one includes 23 tax measures and 44 non-tax measures.

We are going to vote against it because some of it is completely unacceptable. However, we can still see our way clear to agree that some other measures are acceptable and even good. One example is having the Canada child benefit continue for six months after a child's death.

I would simply like to hear her speak to any measure in the bill she considers worthwhile, or to know whether she thinks Bill C-69 is a total write-off.

Translated

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

June 18th, 2024 / 7:20 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned that we sit on the defence committee together. Tomorrow, the Secretary General of NATO, who has served us well for a decade, will be coming to visit. What is truly an embarrassment for all of Canada is that we are not doing what we should to protect North America. The budget is devoid of funding for the protection of our nation. The Prime Minister has no pride or concern over the security of those living in Canada, cutting a billion dollars out of the budget of the military.

People across the ocean in Ukraine are fighting the fight that we might get drawn into. One witness even said that we are at war, so it is only a matter of time. We need to control spending for a day when we really need it. We should put more money into giving equipment to the women and men who serve us in the Canadian military.

As spoken

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

June 18th, 2024 / 7:25 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, I always like to hear from my comrade from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. That being said, she railed against the NDP's dental care program. It is important to note that 200,000 seniors have had dental care so far, including hundreds in Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. In fact, as we speak, in Pembroke, dentists are advertising the NDP's dental care program. The reality is that many people in her riding are benefiting from the NDP's work.

Could my comrade and colleague please tell us why she is opposing a dental care program that her constituents—

As spoken

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1Government Orders

June 18th, 2024 / 7:25 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke can give a brief answer.

As spoken