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

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

moved that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the third time and passed.

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

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be able to rise and highlight a number of issues that I think are really important for those who are going to take the time to follow the debate we are going to be having on the important piece of legislation before us.

Virtually from the very beginning, just under nine years ago, we have seen a government that has been focused on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to become a part of it. It has been focused very much on a sense of fairness for generation X and millennials to ensure that all Canadians feel that they are a part of the economy and of our society, while at the same time recognizing the true value of the Government of Canada providing the types of services Canadians would like to see and to have supports put in place. As a government, we have seen, over the last number of years, a number of actions that have really made a positive difference in all of our communities.

We often hear stats being brought forward by the opposition in an attempt to try to portray things in a negative way. We have the leader of the Reform-Conservative party across the way who likes to travel the country and talk about Canada being broken when nothing could be further from the truth, especially if we compare Canada to any other country in the world. If we put into context how Canada has been performing over the last eight to nine years compared to Stephen Harper and the nine years he was the prime minister, one of the key indicators is jobs. Jobs are so critically important to building an economy and a society. In the nine years of Stephen Harper, there were one million jobs. Let us contrast that against the two million–plus jobs created by this government working with provincial jurisdictions, Canadians, municipalities and the many different stakeholders out there.

Let us look at the types of investments we have made over the years. As a government, even though the official opposition has been more focused on character assassination, we have never lost our focus on serving Canadians. Let me give members a specific example.

In the first budget we presented, one of the initiatives was an extra tax increase on the 1% wealthiest in Canada's society. At the same time, we decreased taxes for Canada's middle class. Let us focus on the 1% wealthiest and the belief that people need to pay their fair share. Back in 2015-16, going into that budget, is when that was incorporated. If we fast forward to today, we have a capital gains tax increase that is being implemented. The New Democrats, the Greens and the Bloc support it, but not the Conservatives. I would like to emphasize that when I say “Conservative”, I am suggesting the far-right Reform-Conservative Party we have today. I say that because its members are very critical of the government for increasing the capital gains tax.

[An hon. member]

Yes, we are.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of them just said that they are. That is the reform element.

Brian Mulroney actually increased it more, albeit Brian Mulroney, in fairness, was a Progressive Conservative. Do not confuse that with the Reform-Conservatives that we see today. In fact, the best way to summarize the difference between the Reform-Conservatives and the Liberals, as I said the other day, is Liberals care and Conservatives cut. That is the bottom line. The Conservatives have a hidden agenda they will not talk about, which means taking away services, many of which we have put in over the last number of years.

We are talking about services that genuinely matter and that provide supports to Canadians in every region of this country. They are programs that are in this budget and programs that were established many budgets ago. A good example of that is the child care program. Remember, in the last election, when we were campaigning and saying that we were going to bring in a national child care program that would provide $10-a-day day care in all regions of our country?

How did the Conservative Party respond to that? At the time, Conservatives said that they were going to rip up the deals. They did not believe in a national child care program that delivered $10-a-day day care. The election went by. The government continued to work on the issue. Every province and territory signed on. As a result of the efforts of the government, we now have a national child care program that delivers $10-a-day day care and child care. The Conservative Party is on the record as saying that it would like to rip up those deals, based on the last election.

Fast forward it again to today, where we see programs that are going to be there to support millions of Canadians in different ways. We hear about the dental program. Hundreds of thousands of seniors have now registered for the dental program; I think it is close to two million. We have literally tens of thousands who have already benefited from a program that has just been rolled out. The Conservative Party is committed to cancelling that program. Even though literally thousands of seniors in each and every one of their ridings would benefit by that program, Conservatives would still cut the program.

What about the national pharmacare program that we talk about? It is a program that is delivering, whether it is free contraceptives or dealing with the issue of diabetes. Diabetes is a serious disease in Canada. There is a substantial cost to it. For the first time ever, we would have a program that would deal with those two issues in a very tangible way. Once again, we have a Conservative-Reform Party saying that it would also cut that program because Conservatives do not believe that the federal government has a role to play in that area. They are so far to the right, they want to see the federal government's presence in our national health care diminished.

What does that say about the $200 billion, which is billion with a “b”, of investment in health care in the next 10 years, in terms of money being transferred over to provinces? Under the Canada Health Act, it clearly indicates that the national government does have a role to play. Canadians love our health care system, in a very real and tangible way. Often, when we ask someone what makes them feel good about Canada, they will often talk about health care.

The Conservatives are no different from the Bloc, the separatists. They do not want the federal government involved in health care at all. The Bloc asks that the government to give it more money, and the Conservatives say that it will not give as much money and that all it needs to do is give some money. Canadians need to be aware that this Reform-Conservative party is putting health care on the block. To what degree is it going to fulfill the commitment we have made for that $200 billion to ensure that future generations have critically important health care? I do not say lightly that the Liberal Party genuinely cares and that it will be there for Canadians. We have demonstrated that.

Let us look at what took place during the pandemic. In every way, the federal government stepped up to the plate and delivered, whether it was vaccines, supports for small businesses or providing disposable income to literally millions of Canadians in every region of this country because we knew the federal government needed to play that role, unlike the Conservative Party of Canada. However, it does not stop there.

For the very first time, in this budget, there is the single-largest increase to establish a disability program. It is a great step forward. It is $200 a month, a significant amount of money. It recognizes that the national government does have a role to play. That is the contrast between the Conservatives and the Liberals. I will not have a problem in 2025 talking about that contrast because I believe that Canadian values are a whole lot closer to what the Liberal Party is talking about than what the Conservative Party is talking about.

I want to talk about two issues. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is a program about which many Conservatives are critical. Other opposition members criticize the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We only need to look at Hansard to get a very clear indication of the number of MPs, particularly the Conservative-Reform MPs, who are critical of it. In essence, the Conservative-Reform government says that it would get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the finance critic says “yes” in agreement. There is no change there. That is their intent. They want to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and it is because they do not understand—

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

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is rising on a point of order.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am hearing impaired and have incredible difficulty listening to the member for Winnipeg North. I would ask that you show some compassion and ask the member to defer the rest of his speech to this time next week.

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

That is definitely not a point of order, but I would ask the hon. member to perhaps lower the tone of his voice.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member always has the option to leave the room if he is feeling uncomfortable.

The truth does hurt, and I can appreciate that. At the end of the day, if I had any sense of a progressive nature, I would feel very uncomfortable within the Conservative Party today. Remember Joe Clark? Joe Clark, like the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, was a Progressive Conservative. The former prime minister said that he never left the Progressive Conservative Party; the progressive left the Conservative Party.

Brian Mulroney said that the Conservative Party today has amputated the progressive nature of the party. Members do not want to know what Kim Campbell says; a lot of it is unparliamentary. With that attitude and the Reform-Conservative party, the far right MAGA movement that has moved into the Conservative Party, I welcome the 2025 election.

Canadians will understand the type of issues the Conservative-Reform party opposes. Let me get back to the two examples I was giving prior to the interruption. The Conservative-Reformers oppose the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The Canada Infrastructure Bank represents about 10 billion dollars' worth of investments.

[An hon. member]

It has built zero products.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, contrary to what the Conservative critic is heckling from across the way, there are a lot of projects. There are over 40 projects, and many of them are in the province of Alberta, where rumour has it there are some Conservative members of Parliament.

Why would Conservatives want to kill a program that is delivering jobs in tangible ways, green jobs, and contributing literally hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, with much of it going to agriculture. In the province of Alberta, there is a project to enhance irrigation so there will be more diversification in the province, yet Alberta MPs and the Conservative-Reform party are constantly saying no and that they are going to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

There is also broadband.

I am going to let the government House leader stand for his point of order.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservative reformers across the way flip-flopped on the price on pollution. We know that. Do members remember the flip-flop? All the Conservative members campaigned on and said they support a price on pollution. They did a flip-flop.

I am imploring and begging them to please reverse the decision on the Canada Infrastructure Bank. It is a good thing; it really and truly is. Not only is there $10 billion coming in from the national government, but we will also see twice that amount coming in from other entities. The Internet will be expanded to over 250,000 Canadians. All forms of capital infrastructure will be built in all regions of the nation.

The Alberta MPs should do some homework. They should take a look at what the Infrastructure Bank is doing in Alberta. They really need to stop with the political spin that they are getting from their leader's office. They should wake up, smell the coffee and recognize a good idea when they see it. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is doing wonders across the country in many different ways.

I was going to say it was the bad decision of the Conservative reformers from last year, but it was actually Trump, when they made the decision to vote against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. That was totally amazing. It was the first time ever that the Conservatives voted against a trade agreement. Why do I say that? It is because no government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements than the current government. In the first three quarters of last year, Canada was number one in the G7 in terms of foreign investment coming in. If we compare it to the entire rest of the world, we were number three.

Corporations and individuals around the world are looking at Canada as a place to invest. Canada has generated more than two million jobs. We can compare our GDP-to-debt ratio, and we are doing exceptionally well, especially if we compare it to the rest of the G7.

Yes, there is room for us to continue to grow. That is why I am excited about 2025, when with a four-year mandate, we will continue to work with willing partners across the way, not only to fulfill the mandate but also to continue to work for Canadians.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is hard to tell where to start, but I would like to start by commenting on the very first part of the member's afternoon maiden speech, where he talked about the Liberal income tax cut to the middle bracket. That was not a cut for the middle class. The median earnings for the middle class in 2016, were about $34,000. The middle income only started at $44,000.

In fact the Liberal Party cut the taxes of every single member of Parliament by hundreds of dollars because anyone earning less than $45,000 per year, in that fiscal year, got nothing less. In fact all they got were more carbon taxes put on them, and nothing has changed in the nine years since then. Even more punishing carbon taxes have been added on top. Would the member now admit that it was not an income tax cut for the middle class, that in fact the median income that year was around $34,000 and that the Liberals have simply pulled the wool over people's eyes?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect that the member opposite, like a number of the Conservatives, should be quite embarrassed, but some of them were not here in 2016 when the voting took place.

Let there be no doubt; there were two major initiatives. One of the initiatives was the special increased tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%. The Conservatives voted no. The decrease was for Canada's middle class, and the Conservatives voted no on giving Canada's middle class a tax break. For those with lower incomes, there was an enhancement of the Canada child care benefit, which literally took money away from millionaires and put it in the pockets of those who had very low incomes. I could go on, about the GIS and the substantial increase for Canada's poorest seniors, for example. This all took place in the first budget, and the Conservatives voted no.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, that was another example of our colleague's eloquence. Unfortunately, it is also another example of the alternating glorification and demonization, depending on which party you belong to.

I would like to remind the House that any money transferred by the federal government does not just appear out of thin air or grow on trees. It comes from taxes paid to Ottawa by Quebec and Canadian taxpayers. It is also the debt that Quebec and Canadian taxpayers will have to pay.

I would still like to understand the logic. When a place like Quebec already has all the health, dental and pharmacare infrastructure in place, why is it absolutely necessary to create a second structure that will cost even more, simply because the federal government has decided to meddle in what Quebec is already doing very well?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am afraid you will not give me the amount of time I would require in order to give a detailed answer to my friend, but let me make the suggestion to her that all she needs to take a look at is the number of people in the province of Quebec who are actually registered for the dental program, and she will find that there is in fact a need for the program.

I will go further by saying that there is a need in virtually all the different regions of the country. We see that by the number of people who are actually registering, and we have not even completed the full rollout where we will see more and more individuals ultimately being able to register.

It is important we recognize that Canada is a vast country with many different regions. There are some things in which there is a need for the federal government, in working with different jurisdictions, to try to provide the programs that provide some equity and a sense of fairness so that, if someone happens to live in Vancouver, in Halifax or anywhere in between, they can get, for example, their diabetes medication.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP has been working for years to make sure that every Canadian has access to the dental care they need. We were driving forth motions in the House over the last decade that the Liberals and Conservatives voted against, and the Bloc seemed to not support them either. One of the things we are most proud of in our confidence and supply agreement is that the NDP compelled the government to bring forth a dental care program that will see nine million Canadians go to the dentist and get their teeth fixed.

My question, because we are talking about the budget here, is on the financing. The Liberal government has provided a dental fee guide that provides reimbursement to dentists, denturists and dental hygienists at about 89% of fee guides. This is resulting in dental professionals' not wanting to sign up for the program and is setting the stage for co-payments when our confidence and supply agreement says no co-payments for anybody making under $70,000.

My question to my hon. colleague is this: Will he push his colleagues in the Liberal Party to raise those fees such that the Canada dental care plan pays 100% of the fees that are charged normatively across this country so our oral health professionals get paid appropriately and so people get the care they need without having to go into their pockets?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as all members know, in the last election, a minority government was elected, which meant that as a governing party we needed to be able to work with and get the support of opposition members in order to be able to fulfill our mandates. At the end of the day, the NDP has played a very important role in many of the different initiatives. My colleagues, along with others, have supported the initiatives, some a little longer than others, but at the end of the day, we have a great opportunity to do some wonderful things. Fortunately, because of a sense of co-operation, we have been able to do that.

In terms of the specific questions and advocacy, I know that the member has a fairly positive relationship with the current Minister of Health, and I am sure he will no doubt have the discussion with the minister directly.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a very important question. We realize that since COVID it has been challenging out there. Affordability is a big issue. Our government has been focused on supporting Canadians through various programs. Two that I want to speak of are our Canada child benefit and the early years benefit, which are helping young families prior to children's entering school, and then afterward, helping them and supporting them. Those are two big programs in my riding.

I would like the member to share how people in his riding are responding and sharing some feedback on affordability when looking at some of the investments we have put in place to support families.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the question, because it reminds me that a few weeks back, the Prime Minister came to a local school in Winnipeg North, where he highlighted the school nutrition program. That program is going to help somewhere in the neighbourhood of 400,000 children attending school. The response we received from stakeholders in Manitoba was absolutely positive and encouraging.

I can recall that in 1988, Sharon Carstairs, the leader of the Liberal Party back then in Manitoba, was talking about children needing food to learn. They cannot learn on an empty stomach. She was right in 1988, and today, we are supporting a national level program that will see more children being fed nutritious food in our schools. That is a positive thing.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the answer my colleague gave a few minutes ago. Some Canadian provinces have little or no pharmacare coverage and do not have the infrastructure in place for the dental care program. Quebec has both, and there is a concept called the right to opt out with compensation.

Why does the federal government refuse to give Quebec the right to opt out with compensation? This would avoid creating a second structure for Quebeckers while allowing the rest of Canada to have its own structures.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, let me give a specific example. Provinces come up with great ideas at times, and often the national government will take a look at them to see how we might expand on them. A good example is our health care system. Saskatchewan came up with a good idea, and ultimately it was spread across Canada. Quebec had an excellent idea in regard to $10-a-day child care. We took that idea and expanded it across the nation. It increases a sense of fairness and equity for all Canadians.

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

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, Carbon Pricing.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, the school of wackonomics is open, and the Liberal-NDP Prime Minister is the dean. What will people learn in this school? They will learn that budgets balance themselves, that the economy is people and absolutely not numbers and that somehow raising taxes will put out forest fires.

The newest graduate, who just graduated with a Ph.D. in wackonomics, is none other than the out-of-touch Liberal finance minister. She learned that once Canadians are put into a cost of living crisis, they can be told to solve it by cancelling Disney+. If they cannot afford gas, groceries and home heating because the government has raised the carbon tax scam, they can buy a bike for themselves, especially those who live in rural Canada.

We have had nine years of an out-of-touch government that has been nothing short of wacko. Its wacko policies are the reason why today we are seeing two million Canadians going to a food bank in a single month, with a million more projected for this year. Now we have found out that one in four Canadians is living in poverty. Wacko, extreme, woke policies have put Canadians in this position today.

Speaking of schools, schools have students. Today, after nine years of the Liberal government, students are going through a housing hell. In fact, all Canadians are living through a housing hell. It is because the government spent $90 billion on housing, only to double housing costs. Not only did it do that, but housing starts have declined in this country according to its own housing department, the CMHC. However, the government still shovels millions of dollars in bonuses to the department that has caused this issue under one of the most incompetent housing ministers, previously the most incompetent immigration minister, in Canadian history. High interest rates are a massive barrier to home builders. This is what we are hearing from every home builder and developer and even those who want to get into homebuilding.

How did we get here? How did interest rates get so high? It is because when the Liberal-NDP government spent more than every single government before it combined, it created a cost of living and inflation crisis. In fact, 40-year highs in inflation have happened. It had a lot of wasteful spending too, and what did that do? That made the Bank of Canada raise interest rates at the most rapid rate in Canadian history.

That is why Canada, according to the IMF, is now most at risk of a mortgage default crisis. It is this high rate of interest that is stopping homebuilding. It is putting Canadians in a bind and taking more and more from their paycheques every single month. Now OSFI, which testified at the finance committee, is warning about a price shock, as mortgage renewals could see a 50% increase in price.

I can imagine when the finance minister and Prime Minister told people to borrow as much as they wanted because interest rates would stay low for a very long time. What they did not know was that the incompetent Liberal-NDP government would pour billions of dollars of fuel on the inflationary fire that it started, making interest rates go up. Now, when people renew their mortgages, they are sometimes renewing at double or triple the rate. That is not what they were promised. They were supposed a “responsible government”. What they ended up getting was a housing hell, and a high-debt, high-tax, high-spend government, which put them in this position.

Now we are seeing people with good-paying jobs, like nurses and teachers, living in their cars, and students who have to live under bridges. In some cases, 16 students are living in one small space. It is because the Liberal government doubled their rents and doubled their mortgages, and now they are in a housing hell.

We also found out that delinquencies are on the rise. It is because Canadians have to shoulder the burden of nine years of bad policy-making. It put them in that position.

I recently talked to a single mom in my community who has three kids. She said that she left an abusive relationship and moved out on her own. Of course, she is one of the people whose rent has doubled. It went up. It has doubled over the last nine years, but recently, she had a $300 increase in her rent. For a single mom with three kids, it was already hard enough to pay for gas, groceries and home heating, so what did she do? She had to move in with her abusive ex-husband because she could not afford day care and could not afford to buy food. In fact, she was already starting to skip meals. She is one of the one in four experiencing food insecurity.

When I spoke to her, she had the exact same story: It was not like this before. She came here as an immigrant and did everything right. She went to school here. She got a job. She had kids. She was married at one time. However, all she got was a government that worked against her, that raised her taxes and that made her cost of living more and more expensive.

This is not the only story. There are millions of Canadians in this kind of situation, to the point where people are asking why they moved to this country. Most of them are now thinking about leaving. Last year, more than 400,000 people left Canada. The top two reasons were the high cost of living and their credentials were not recognized, especially those who moved here as immigrants.

What did the government decide to do? It thought it was a brilliant idea to jack up the carbon tax scam. We found out last month that again rents are at the highest rate they have ever been. On top of that, for these same people, these Canadians who are trying to get to work in their car, trying to buy nutritious meals for their kids and themselves or trying to stay warm in the winter, all of those costs went up by 23% because the government jacked up the carbon tax scam by 23%.

This should be a wake-up call for the out-of-touch government. It should be an absolute wake-up call given the poverty report that came out today. We now know that we cannot believe anything that comes out of the government's mouth. It did not tell the truth about how many people were in poverty. That was proven today. We have found out that one in four Canadians could possibly be living in poverty. That is unheard of in this country. It was never like this before. It just goes to show that everything the government has done has made life worse for everyday Canadians.

We hear the government say over and over again that life has never been better for everyone here, that they should enjoy what they have and enjoy what it gives them. However, the number of Canadians in poverty, which we heard about today, could rise. It is 30% for Canadians aged 18 to 30 and 44.5% for single-parent households, while 42% of renters cannot afford two or more household essentials. Some 21.7% of Canadians cannot cover an unexpected expense of more than $500, while 8.8% of Canadians cannot pay their bills on time. On top of this, 7.2% of Canadians cannot afford to heat or cool their homes. The truth is that working Canadians will have to foot the bill for the government's spending once again.

The government talks about tax fairness. Never have Canadians had a bigger tax burden than after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government.

Let us start with the carbon tax, a scam that it hid from Canadians recently. Did members know that it had a gag order on the PBO, which was asking to release a report, a damning report that proved the carbon tax scam committed $30 billion of economic vandalism? That means $30 billion was taken away from the economy, taken away from the paycheques of workers and taken away from investments into things like equipment and other capital investments.

It is no wonder Canada's productivity is worse than it was in 2014. In fact, there are seven straight quarters of productivity decline. What does that mean? To the average person, that means Canadians are poorer, and it is easy to tie that in with the poverty report that we see today. Despite the sunshine that the Liberal-NDP government tries to portray with its economic vandalism over the last nine years, the reality is that Canadians are poorer than they have ever been before, and it is only getting worse. The Liberals introduced tax hikes, such as the carbon tax scam, but they hid the damning report from their department. It took the PBO's courage, after Conservatives put on pressure, to release the report that proves there was $30 billion of hidden costs in the scam on Canadians.

In fact, because the Conservatives put the pressure on and forced the papers to be released, to no surprise, the day that the vote was supposed to happen, the Liberals released the report. The report proved what Canadians already know, which is that the Prime Minister and the carbon tax scam are not worth the cost. The carbon tax has raised the cost of gas, groceries and home heating. Because of the tax, costs have gone up to our farmers, to our truckers and to everyone else. That is why we are seeing the record rise in poverty in this country.

The Liberals sold the scam as something that would automatically fix the environment. They tell us that, if we pay a bit more tax, they will pour it over top of the forest fires and put them out. The reality is that emissions have gone up and the forest fires have not gone. Every claim that the government had that the carbon tax scam was to fix the environment was false. The government's own department officials admitted that they do not tie in how much of the carbon tax scam is related to so-called fixing climate change, which is what the Liberals say. It does not work like that, and that is why they are not tracking it. Even they know it is not worth the cost.

Just yesterday, the PBO admitted to our common-sense Conservatives that the cost of climate change would have no effect on the cost of the carbon tax scam to Canadians. The PBO proved it. People just have to pull up the blues from the committee yesterday, and it is clear to see that the Liberals keep jacking up the carbon tax, but it has done nothing to fix the environment. How embarrassing that is for a government whose members claim to be stalwarts of the economy and the environment, but their ranking on the climate change index fell. It fell four spots, to 62 out of 67 on the world stage, but it is on par with the embarrassing Prime Minister, who jet-sets around the world just to embarrass Canada further. We need serious leadership once again in this country.

The PBO also said that Canadians pay more into the tax than what they get back. The claim that eight out of 10 Canadians get more back in rebates than what they pay into it is false, and the PBO proved that, over and over again. Carbon tax scam 1, which the PBO did costing and an analysis on, proves that a majority of Canadians, six out of 10 households, are worse off because of this scam compared to what they get back in rebates.

There is another part to this whole thing. It is called carbon tax scam 2, the clean fuel regulations. That has zero rebate, and it affects every single Canadian in every province. The PBO, yesterday, admitted to me that, if a majority of Canadian households are worse off with carbon tax scam 1, which has the phony rebates, then when we factor in carbon tax scam 2, which has no rebates, overall, a majority of households are still worse off. Therefore, the Liberals' claim that it leaves Canadians better off is false, and the claim keeps being proven wrong over and over again.

On top of all of that, the Liberals introduced a job-killing capital gains tax hike, which is a direct attack on hard-working farmers, fishermen, physicians, tradespeople, home builders and, of course, small business owners. Today, the finance committee heard from a plumber who talked about how his small business is his retirement savings. He did not put money into RRSPs, and he does not have a pension because he put all of his time, effort and money into his business. He admits that he is not rich. He is not one of the ultrarich that the government keeps talking about. He did everything right. He worked as hard as he could to leave something for his kids, his grandkids and their kids. However, on par with the Liberal-NDP government, hard work is punished in this country.

I know many people who live in Calgary Forest Lawn who left their home countries and took a big risk to come here. They took the risk because they wanted to go to a country where they were promised that, if they worked hard, they could make something of themselves and leave something for their kids. After nine years of the Liberal-NDP government's failed economic policies, the Canadian dream they were promised is broken. It is gone. That is why nine out of 10 young people say they have lost the dream of home ownership. That is why two million Canadians are going to food banks in a single month, and people with good jobs are living in their cars or tents.

They have a government that will not stop attacking their success. In fact, it vilifies success. The greedy government will do anything to fill its coffers. The only people it really cares about are rich Liberal insiders, like those with the $22 billion in consultant fees that it paid. Not all Canadians are well connected like that. They wish they were, but the government is doing everything it can to work against hard-working Canadians.

We heard from a farmer today who only wanted to work hard, make food for Canadians and leave his farm to his four daughters. However, once again, this job-killing capital gains tax hike would ensure that less will go to his kids and their kids and more will go to the greedy government.

As I mentioned before, Canada is in a productivity crisis. GDP per person has gone down. That is the definition of how successful people are in this country. It has gone down, and it continues to go down. The government drove away $460 billion of investment that went to the U.S. It made sure that U.S. workers get paid better than Canadians. That means Canadian workers get 58¢ of investment for every dollar of investment that goes to an American worker. The government's high-tax, high-spend ideology has driven away investment and workers from this country. What did that do? That made talent leave as well and, with that, made Canadians poorer.

I will tell Canadians that hope is on the horizon. It was not like this before the Liberal-NDP government, and it will not be like that after it is gone. After the next carbon tax election, when the member for Carleton would become the prime minister of this country, Canadians would get what they deserve and what they have been promised by this common-sense Conservative government. We would axe the tax. We would take the tax off for good for everybody and bring down the cost of gas, groceries and home heating. We would build the homes by incentivizing municipalities to build. We would fix the budget and bring in a dollar-for-dollar law. Indeed, we would make sure that income taxes are lower, simpler and fairer for all Canadians and not punish hard work as we have seen being done under the government.

We would also stop the crime. We have seen drugs, disorder and chaos increase all across the country. We would put an end to that. We would once again bring home the Canadian dream of working hard and being able to accomplish great things. We would bring it home.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about two issues that I am concerned about, which are affordability, of course, and housing. Our government has been focused, in the last number of years, on key issues for families and supporting Canadians. If the member is saying that we have an affordability problem, a housing crisis, et cetera, then why are the Conservatives voting against all the good programs that we are bringing forward? On the dental program, they voted against it. On pharmacare, they voted against it. On early learning and child care, they voted against it. On the Canada child benefit, again, they voted against it.

When the member talks about axing the tax, what he is actually saying to Canadians is that, if the Conservatives take power, they would axe all those programs. It is easy to understand because they are voting against them, which means they are not in favour of them. I would like the member to tell me, and tell Canadians, if he would axe all those good programs or not?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, let me start by saying that when we form government, Canadians would be able to realize the Canadian dream.

The member is asking why we voted against some of those measures. Well, it is clear to see that we do not want to be complicit in the economic vandalism of this Liberal-NDP government, which, after the last nine years, sent two million Canadians to a food bank and made one in four go into poverty.

We are not gullible like the NDP, which needs to protect our leaders' pension like they keep doing by propping up the government. We are going to do what is right for Canadians. We would axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget, stop the crime and bring back that Canadian dream.

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

Madam Speaker, the budget implementation measures in Bill C-69 are full of interference in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. Whether it is a question of housing, health, education or the banking sector, the fiscal imbalance really is on full display.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague makes it very clear that, after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government, everything is broken. Everything he is listing is just a list of the things that the government has done.

We see that Confederation is also more broken than it ever has been before because the divisive Prime Minister has pitted region against region, sector against sector and Canadians against Canadians. However, that is what he wants. He rules by dividing, and then he deflects and blames. We would bring home a country that is more united.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I had the benefit of being in the same finance committee meeting as my hon. colleague this morning where I heard the same evidence about the capital gains inclusion rates. Of course, most of what my hon. colleague has just said in here was simply contradicted by the evidence, including that there is zero evidence that the capital gains inclusion would have any negative effect on job creation in this country.

The member seems to be opposed to raising the capital gains inclusion rate. I am wondering if he can explain why the Mulroney Conservative government raised the capital gains inclusion rate in 1988 from 50% to 66.67%, and then again, in 1990, to 75%. Were the Conservatives wrong about the capital gains inclusion rate then, or are they wrong now?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, the member was in the committee when a small business owner was there, a plumber, who did everything right, worked as hard as he could to leave something for his kids and their kids, but the capital gains tax is going to punish all that hard work. This member sat there, yet he would rather listen to Liberal-NDP-paid economists than everyday, hard-working Canadians. That is a problem with the government. It keeps propping up the Prime Minister to protect its leader's pension, all at the expense of the suffering of Canadians.

Second, let me remind the member that when John Manley, who was the finance minister under the Liberals, reduced the capital gains tax to 50%, what ended up happening? Well, productivity went up. Government revenues went up. Do members know why? It is because it helped stimulate the economy once again.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech. As well, I listened intently to the last two NDP-Liberal MPs who asked questions The funny thing is that they complained that, when the Conservatives attain government, we would cut their great programs, such as the green slush fund from which, of that billion dollars, almost $400 million went to conflicted directors' own companies.

I am wondering if the member could expound on the other great Liberal programs that have resulted in this kind of corruption, which the Conservatives would end when we assume power.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, we are going to cut the number of Liberal seats in this House when we form government. That is the first thing we will cut, and, of course, we are going to axe the tax. We are going to cut the tax on gas, groceries and home heating, and, indeed, we will cut out the corruption. My friend, who is a great hockey player, highlighted just one piece of a plethora of corruption that we have seen under the government. There is the WE scandal and the green slush fund that is growing in scandal every single day, which he and other members are doing a great job of highlighting. We are also going to cut out the Infrastructure Bank, which has built exactly zero projects. It is a $30-billion program. It has built zero projects, yet it has shovelled millions of dollars to Liberal-connected insiders. This is the kind of corruption we are going to cut under a common-sense Conservative government once the member for Carleton becomes Prime Minister.

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the finance critic for the Conservative-Reform party says that they are going to cut the Infrastructure Bank. He is just reaffirming a policy that we know. My question for him is this: Is the member aware of the many projects that are taking place in his home province? One of the examples would be the investments in irrigation, which is helping farmers diversify. Liberals have continuously been there to advocate for farmers, and the farmers would actually be fairly disappointed in the Conservatives' not recognizing the importance of irrigation in the province of Manitoba.

Why does the Conservative Party oppose that particular program?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a bit rich, coming from the most anti-Alberta government in Canadian history. We thought Trudeau 1 was bad, but under the current Prime Minister, we have never seen such brazen attacks on the hard-working people from my province, the greatest province in this country, Alberta, as those that have come from the Prime Minister. The attacks do not stop, whether they are on our province, on our energy sector, on our farmers, or on everyday hard-working Canadians.

I do not think there is any Canadian today who can trust that whatever the government is doing is in the best interest of Canadians. We recently saw that with the carbon tax scam, where the environment minister, who is probably one of the most anti-Alberta ministers I have ever seen, hid a report that proved to Canadians that there is a $30-billion carbon tax loss to the economy and to workers. The government did everything it could to hide that report, so I do not know anyone who can trust that the government is doing anything in the best interest of Canada or Canadians.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked about the cost of living and touched on the issue of housing. At the moment, there is a trend on both the Liberal and Conservative sides. There is a coalition trying to interfere in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction when it comes to housing.

Both the Leader of the Opposition's bill and the latest budget from the party opposite attempt to get tough with cities so they will propose housing solutions. These magic wands will not work. Instead, the money earmarked for housing could be transferred unconditionally to Quebec, because housing comes under Quebec's jurisdiction. What does my colleague think?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, let me just correct the record first. The only coalition is the carbon tax coalition of the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc. There is no way we would be complicit in any way like the Bloc has been in making sure that housing costs have doubled. That is not something we were complicit in. I will say that our common-sense plan to fix the housing crisis in this country will do just that. We will bring up the supply by incentivizing municipalities to build and stop the gatekeeping—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Joliette has the floor.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑69 is a budget implementation omnibus bill that creates or amends 67 different acts. The government promised never to use this type of thing, but for the past several years, it has continued to do so.

Bill C‑69 enacts, among other things, the consumer-driven banking act, which establishes that it is the federal government alone that regulates this sector and that the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada acts as the regulator.

We asked the government to take this division out of Bill C‑69 and correct some of its shortcomings over the summer so it could come back this fall with a framework that does not give Bay Street an unfair advantage over other financial institutions, that respects the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, and that will be administered by a competent body. However, the government just voted against our request. The government is not working well. It is not listening, it is being partisan, and it is undermining Quebec. That is why we will be voting against this bill.

I am going to talk more about the open banking system, beginning with some context. As things stand, all financial services are based out of financial institutions that people do business with directly. These institutions are legally and financially responsible in the event of fraud or data theft, so they are fiercely protective of our personal data. Under an open banking system, financial institutions will have to share our data with platforms that will enable us to access all our accounts with one click. It would be a minor revolution. Ultimately, we can envision a system in which financial institutions essentially just create financial products, with client relations being handled by tech companies that do not themselves provide financial products, but act as intermediaries and data aggregators. That calls for a framework.

People want the flexibility an open banking system offers. That is why financial technology or fintech companies have already started coming on line despite the legal limbo. They are not well regulated, so they find other ways to evolve. Users themselves provide their credentials. The app goes into a user's account, extracts data from the screen and stores it. Financial institutions' secure networks get regular visits from actors outside the financial sector, and that makes them vulnerable. The more advanced these strategies get, the greater the risk.

We know that the level of risk varies. An aggregator that scans public data to show us mortgage rates at all financial institutions in one click is low risk. When it collects our personal data to give us a detailed picture of our financial situation, that carries more risk for the protection of sensitive personal information, namely financial information. If the app can be used to perform transactions, which implies that it places orders, that opens up a whole new level of risk, the risk of fraud. Let us also not forget that a series of orders quickly placed with the help of an AI system could completely destabilize all financial institutions. What about the principle of needing to know the customer? That principle is the foundation of our anti-money laundering laws. How can a financial institution apply this principle when it is communicating via an app?

Lastly, an important part of risk is the financial capacity to take on risk. Without that, the consumer could lose everything. Prudential regulations have to adapt. What we need is a clear framework with clear obligations and responsibilities.

The financial sector is a shared jurisdiction. The federal government has authority over banks and federally incorporated financial institutions. Financial institutions that are not banks, namely credit unions and trust companies, fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Financial intermediaries, such as investment dealers and financial advisers, fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Tech companies in the financial sector are not currently regulated, but they are likely similar to financial intermediaries.

There are different models in all this. There is the Interac approach. The Interac system, which enables exchanges between institutions and allows us, for example, to use our debit card everywhere, was developed by the financial companies themselves. These companies agreed on a common technology and standards to ensure that transactions are secure. Companies that adopt and comply with the common standards can join the system and offer Interac. This is the approach taken by the United Kingdom. In Canada, it is the approach that was favoured by the Advisory Committee on Open Banking in 2021.

The advantage of this approach, which is the simplest and most flexible, is that each government retains full regulatory power and adopting the open banking system does not result in any transfer of power. The disadvantage is that it is a form of self-regulation. The standard adopted may very well be aimed primarily at developing the sector rather than protecting citizens. Personal information, financial risks and fees come to mind. The banks, which initially advocated self-regulation, realized that squeezing out the legislator would not work and that co-operation would be a more realistic option.

Another approach, the one that we advocate and prefer, is the securities approach. Securities fall mainly under provincial jurisdiction, but Ottawa has laws governing federally incorporated companies. The Supreme Court of Canada has also recognized federal jurisdiction over systemic risk in the financial sector. In Quebec, the Autorité des marchés financiers is the regulator. To ensure that businesses could raise capital across Canada and that registrations in one province would be recognized everywhere, governments decided to coordinate. That is why Quebec's corporations legislation is very similar to the federal corporations legislation and to the corporation laws of all the other provinces. The same is true for all legislation governing the various aspects of securities. Quebec retains its legislative powers. The Quebec act may be stricter in some respects. For example, Quebec is the only province that requires a French version for all corporations registered with the Autorité des marchés financiers. However, this version must comply with the common standard adopted by all governments.

For years now, the federal government has wanted to centralize securities regulation in a single commission and concentrate the entire financial sector in Toronto, to the detriment of Montreal in particular. Quebec and the Quebec business community have always opposed this. In 2021, my party successfully amended the budget implementation bill to close the federal office responsible for creating a single securities commission. It was a really nice moment in a committee meeting over Zoom. I remember it clearly. The model of co-operation between governments, which has survived repeated attacks by the federal government, is still going and is working well. As I was saying, the securities model is the approach that my party and I favour for the open banking system.

However, in Bill C‑69, Ottawa is opting for unilateralism and centralization. As I was saying earlier, Bill C‑69 enacts the consumer-driven banking act, which would make the federal government the sole regulator of this sector, with the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada serving as the regulator. That is a problem, too. The agency does not have the qualifications to do that at all. Since fintechs are not under federal jurisdiction, Ottawa has opted to regulate them indirectly by regulating how banks can transact with them.

Specifically, Bill C‑69 provides that banks and other federally regulated financial institutions will be covered by the new act. They will be required to co-operate with fintech companies, but they may do so only in accordance with federal rules and standards. Institutions that are not federally regulated will be ignored. They can opt in voluntarily with approval from their province, which would then have to waive the right to apply its own laws to the portion of their activities that comes under the open banking system. For now, Bill C‑69 does not affect insurers, because of the sensitive nature of the medical data they hold, or intermediaries such as brokers, but the framework will likely expand to cover them in the future.

The specific rules and standards that will apply to the sector, particularly in terms of consumer protection and financial liability, will be set out in another bill that is due out in the fall, but the decision to make it exclusively federal is being made now, in Bill C‑69.

In practical terms, the Quebec Consumer Protection Act and the Quebec act respecting the protection of personal information could cease to apply to financial institutions for any activities related to open financial services. That is no small thing.

We are getting ready to pass this bill at third reading in the House, but the impact of an exclusively federal open banking system on the prudential obligations of Quebec financial institutions, as set out by the Autorité des marchés financiers, is still unclear.

In addition to forcing Quebec to transfer legislative power to Ottawa, Bill C-69 puts Quebec's institutions at a disadvantage with respect to federal institutions. While banks will have only one set of regulations to follow, under this bill, an institution like Desjardins would be caught between two governments: the Government of Quebec, for its general operations, and the federal government, for its technological interactions with customers. That is ridiculous.

The fact that Quebec institutions will be subject to two uncoordinated regulatory bodies could be downright dysfunctional and give banks an egregious advantage over co-ops and trust companies. That is unacceptable.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We have to move on to Private Members' Business. The hon. member will have eight minutes and 30 seconds remaining when the House resumes consideration of this bill.

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

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, after that 15-minute break to discuss Bill S-224, I am going to return to my speech on Bill C-69. I want to focus on the division that creates the federal framework for the open banking system and centralizes powers.

As I said before the break, under this bill, banks under federal jurisdiction would have only one set of regulations to follow, whereas an institution under provincial jurisdiction, like Desjardins, would be caught between two governments: the Government of Quebec, for its general operations, and the federal government, for its technological interactions with customers. The fact that these institutions will be subject to two uncoordinated regulatory bodies could be downright dysfunctional and give banks an egregious advantage over co-ops, trust companies, credit unions, Alberta Treasury Branch Financial, and so on. Why always favour Bay Street? This is unacceptable.

Bill C‑69 places Quebec in a dilemma in which there are no good options. If we refuse to join the federal framework, our institutions will stay trapped in the 20th century while their federal competitors step into the technological 21st century. Maybe we could let our financial institutions opt in to the federal framework, but then Quebec would have to waive the right to apply its own laws to their activities that come under the open banking system, which is unacceptable, especially with the Civil Code, consumer protection laws and so forth.

Then there is the worst-case scenario. In order to survive against its federal competitors, an institution like Desjardins could choose to stop being a Quebec institution within the meaning of Quebec's Cooperatives Act and become a federal institution under Canadian co-operative bank legislation. Trust companies would face the same choice. Since the open banking system could eventually be expanded to cover insurance, all of our insurance companies could switch over to federal regulation. That is what is at issue in Bill C‑69.

If this worst-case scenario comes to pass, the entire financial sector and all of its activities will be completely outside Quebec's jurisdiction. That is a serious threat to Montreal's status as a financial hub. In short, by using its power over banks to regulate all companies that interact with them, Ottawa is trying to force Quebec and the provinces out of the financial sector, which it failed to do when it was trying to regulate securities.

Rather than taking the unilateral, centralist route, Ottawa should have chosen co-operation. It could have called a federal-provincial finance ministers' working meeting on open banking. It could have encouraged them to release a joint statement at the end of this meeting in which the governments announce their intention of developing a common regulatory approach with a clear deadline, such as 2025, and possibly setting up a federal-provincial office. It could have sent a clear message to all financial institutions, not just banks, telling them to agree on a common technology, such as a secure data transfer protocol, because open banking is coming. It could have worked on common regulations on accreditation rules for fintech companies, security standards, clarification of financial liability, and consumer and data protection.

We asked the government to take out the division on open banking that centralizes the sector exclusively at the federal level, to take a few months to coordinate with the various players and the provinces and then to come back in the fall with a framework that respects jurisdictions and does not put provincially regulated institutions at a disadvantage. This government rejected our proposal, so now we are going to have to build this new system on a very bad foundation.

Another concern is that, in Bill C‑69, the government delegates the administration of the framework to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, an agency that mainly promotes financial literacy and does not have any of the required expertise. In committee, FCAC representatives acknowledged that they did not have expertise in sharing financial data in a way that minimizes the obvious cybersecurity risks. They also told us they do not currently have a plan for developing the expertise needed to oversee the security aspect of open banking.

We also asked several questions that the FCAC representatives said they were unable to answer. For example, since fintech companies are not banks, they are not federally regulated.

Did the government obtain the consent of the provinces, particularly Quebec, which has its own civil laws, before introducing this bill? They are unable to answer.

During the briefing on the notice of ways and means preceding the bill, it was my understanding that provincially regulated financial institutions could opt in to the federal framework provided that the province consents and declines to regulate those activities involving the open banking system. Is that the case? They do not know. They are unable to answer.

Which provincial laws will have to take a back seat to federal laws? They cannot answer this, either.

Who will be tasked with certifying the technology companies? Will it be Ottawa or the Autorité des marchés financiers? They are unable to answer.

Will Quebec's Consumer Protection Act apply to the activities of the open banking system? They are unable to answer. In the event of fraud or damages, will it be possible to launch a lawsuit or class action under the Civil Code or the Consumer Protection Act against a fintech company? Once again, they are unable to answer that question.

Will the sharing of financial liability between the financial institution and the technology company necessitate changes to the financial institutions' prudential standards? Will the Autorité des marchés financiers need to change its rules to comply with the federal framework? Again, they are unable to answer.

None of this is surprising. The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada is not well placed to administer this framework. It learned it would be receiving this role the day before the budget was tabled. When it comes to behaving like amateurs and making things up on the fly, this government takes the cake.

To avoid a disaster or some risky backpedalling, we asked the government to remove this division from Bill C-69. We suggested reworking it this summer and coming back with a good bill this fall. The government refused.

We are opposing this bad bill that sets this entire sector up on a terrible foundation. It is unacceptable.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciated a number of the comments the member made. I can understand why, through technological changes and advancements in web design, consumers rely more and more on Internet banking.

The member gave the impression that the reason he is voting against the budget bill is that specific issue. Is my interpretation right, or are there other aspects to the legislation the member opposes?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a big problem for us with this bill.

The bill is 660 pages long and amends or creates 67 laws. Some of it is good, and some is not so good.

One example of something good is that it changes the rules so that companies that declare their profits in tax havens are taxed more effectively. That is a step forward. That is good. We applaud that.

The $11 billion being given to the gas industry to make hydrogen is a subsidy, a program tailor-made for the gas industry. It is not a plan to fight climate change. Therefore, we oppose it.

I spent all my allotted time talking about open banking for a reason. It is a big deal. It is a big deal for Quebec, for Montreal's status as a financial hub, and for our financial institutions, like Desjardins. It is unacceptable. Once again, I condemn the government's failure to listen. As soon as there is a chance to favour Bay Street over its competitors in the financial sector, the government seems to kowtow to the big Bay Street banks. That is unacceptable. That needs to change.

The framework will not be put in place until next fall. Why not take the summer to coordinate and build on a solid foundation rather than on such a shaky, poorly managed framework?

It is a disaster waiting to happen.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, honestly, I have lost count of how many attempts this government has made to impoverish people, to make them feel insignificant. It is interfering in our most fundamental jurisdictions, in the areas that are the most important to us. In 2021, I realized just how important securities are to Quebec and how symbolic they are. I would like my colleague to expand on that.

When it comes to finance, the government and even the opposition present themselves as champions of the economy, but they forget that there is so much room for improvement. I am referring here to the securities framework, but also to capital gains. We made some intelligent proposals, but once again, we have not heard anything from the government. I would also like my colleague to comment on that.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the member for Shefford, for her comments.

First, the capital gains tax comes into effect on June 25, but the bill does not yet exist. We are told that there will be a draft bill at the end of July and that it will not be introduced, debated and studied in the House until this fall. We certainly intend to make amendments to improve it. We will make sure that millionaires pay a higher tax rate than middle-class working people. That is not currently the case. We will also make sure that collateral victims get better protection than we expect to see in the bill.

Symbolism matters when it comes to Quebec's model for financial institutions, for securities, for the open banking system we are talking about here. The government symbolically recognizes the Quebec nation, but the more than 100,000 well-paid jobs at the Montreal Exchange and all the associated expertise, plus everything to do with insurance, is more than just a symbol to us. We do not want to be at the mercy of companies like Power Corporation, Sun Life or Canada Life. We see how badly that is working.

Quebec has expertise when it comes to the financial sector and insurance. We want to maintain that expertise. The federal framework allows it, but the pursuit of excessive centralization we see with this government and other governments we have here is hurting us. It is a constant struggle just to protect our turf.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am really privileged to serve on the finance committee with my hon. colleague, and I want to thank him for all of his excellent contributions at committee. My question to him is on the capital gains exclusion issue, which is not covered by this bill, but, as he points out, will be in legislation coming to this House soon.

He heard evidence today suggesting that when the Conservatives raised the capital gains inclusion rate in Canada in 1988 and 1990 from 50% to 66.6% to 75%, there was no material effect on investments by businesses. It did not have any negative effect on their investments in machines or equipment. Nor has there been an increase in investments as capital gains have come down since the year 2000. In other words, he heard evidence that there is no real relationship between the capital gains inclusion rate and investments by businesses.

Can the member tell the House what his thoughts were after hearing that evidence?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I am also pleased and privileged to work with him at the Standing Committee on Finance. We sit next to each other and I think we are learning to work well together, which is a great privilege.

I raised this question, this thought earlier today in committee. The irony is that it was the Conservatives who increased the capital gains inclusion rate to 75%. It is the Liberals who lowered it to 50%. Now, the roles are reversed. The Liberals want to increase it to two-thirds and the Conservatives are getting all worked up.

As for the economic consequences of this, I am no expert. The International Monetary Fund just said that the impact, if there is one, would be quite marginal. I do believe, however, that for the principle of tax fairness, it is something that would be important to implement.

However, we have a lot of concerns for people who are not part of the wealthiest 1%, but could get caught up in this when selling a home for their retirement. This happens a lot in Quebec. We want to properly study the upcoming bill to determine what it is all about and to better protect any potential collateral victims.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. Personally, I think this is a case of major interference in Quebec's businesses and financial services. How does my colleague think the financial community in Quebec will react? What dynamic can we expect to see?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from La Pointe-de-l'Île for his intervention.

Yes, it is interference, and yes, it is a concern for provincially regulated financial institutions. Desjardins is subject to Quebec regulations. Representatives of Desjardins appeared before the committee and raised many serious concerns in their testimony. Federal governments of every political stripe always work for the big Bay Street banks at the expense of other players, such as credit unions or Desjardins.

If the government had any respect for the federative nature of the country we are currently in, it would never dream of interfering like this. First, it should negotiate, and then it should coordinate. That is all we are asking the government to do, but it refuses to do it. It always comes down to John A. Macdonald's great dream of a legislative union rather than a federation. That had no support back then, and it has none today either. The compromise was a federation where each government, each assembly, was sovereign in its own jurisdictions.

Rather than properly managing problems within its own jurisdictions, this government is trying to encroach on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. It is trying to boss them around and tell them what to do. It is trying to steal powers so it can turn the federation into a legislative union. It seems that Quebec, Quebec's specificity, no longer counts, even though the House has officially recognized Quebec as a nation. The government does not seem to be listening. That is unacceptable.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I heard my colleague talk about capital gains earlier. I heard the Leader of the Opposition say earlier this week that this bill could not be amended in committee.

I was confused. The leader of the official opposition has been a member for 20 years. Is it possible that the leader of the official opposition does not know how a bill works?

I would like my colleague to elaborate on that.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I served with the current Conservative leader on the Standing Committee on Finance. He knows perfectly well how it works.

When he says that the forthcoming bill cannot be amended or modified, that amendments cannot be brought forward, he is lying shamelessly. He is lying through his teeth.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand and speak to the budget bill, Bill C-69, here in the House today.

I think budgets are an opportunity for us to examine the values that we have as a nation. To many people in this House, government can be a force for good, but others, and I am thinking of my Conservative colleagues, view government as something to be feared, something to be shrunk and something to be incapacitated. We, on the New Democrat side, believe that government plays a vital role in Canadian society to deliver services that Canadians individually cannot and that the market is also unable to provide. Others in this House, and again, I think of my Conservative colleagues, believe that individuals ought to be left to fend largely for themselves, to sink or swim as they may.

On this side of the House, in the New Democrat caucus, we believe that government can be a force to build a fairer, more equal society. Others in this House do not share that value. They believe that politics is a dynamic that exacerbates division or that aggrandizes differences. In the New Democratic Party, we believe that good politics focuses on what is working well in society, and we look for ways in which we can harness optimism and collective strength to make things better. Others in this House, and again I look across the way to my Conservative colleagues, sell a line to Canadians that everything is broken, exploiting fear and insecurity.

I am reminded of President Joe Biden's famous dictum, which he actually stated well before he was ever president, where he said, “Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.” I think this budget provides a great opportunity to show Canadians what the various values are of the various parties in this House.

New Democrats know that millions of Canadians are really struggling right now from coast to coast to coast. The cost of living is up dramatically. It is getting much harder to pay the rent or the mortgage, if one is lucky enough to own a house, to buy food and to pay one's bills. At the same time, we know that large corporations and the well-off in this country are doing better than ever in some cases. There are certain sectors, like the oil and gas sector and the grocery sector, that are making record profits, profits higher than they have ever made in the history of their operating in this country, while at the same time often gouging Canadians with sky-high prices, either at the pumps or in the grocery aisles. Even with corporate profits soaring, the investment of the business community in this country in Canadian workers, in machinery and equipment, in technology, and in the Canadian economy is declining. Major shareholders and top executives are often reaping enormous benefits without the promised trickle-down to workers, communities and consumers that right-wing economists promised us some 30 to 40 years ago.

The New Democrat caucus has used our power in this minority Parliament to deliver results for people. In this budget alone, we have compelled our partners in the Liberal government to build more homes, to preserve existing affordable housing and to protect renters. We used our power to bring in universal single-payer pharmacare, setting the stage for the biggest expansion of our health care system in a generation, starting with contraception and diabetes medication and devices. We pushed to establish a groundbreaking national school food program. We are the only country in the G7, and one of only a handful of countries in the industrialized world, that does not have some form of universal access to school nutrition, something that hurts our kids and puts an added cost on families that are struggling to pay their bills. This budget reverses damaging cuts to indigenous services. It invests in accessible, high-quality, non-profit child care. It establishes a dedicated youth mental health fund.

This is the work of New Democrats, who used our values to try to bring in policies and programs and to allocate resources to Canadians in need in this country. We did not sit and just tell Canadians that we think everything is broken. We rolled up our sleeves and came up with policies that would make things better for Canadians. My colleagues on the Conservative side of the House have done none of this, but instead just preach a narrative that everything is broken and that nothing can be done about it. That is not a value that we share.

While these achievements illustrate in part what a New Democrat government could accomplish, the 2024 budget does not fully reflect our party's vision. This is not an NDP budget, but it is a budget that was influenced by the NDP. Likewise, Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, includes many positive measures that the NDP was able to compel the Liberals to implement. However, we want to underscore that this legislation does have several shortcomings. There is much, much more, in our view, that the federal government can do to make life easier for people and to provide opportunities for generations to come. New Democrats will not stop working to deliver results for people.

I just want to talk briefly about some of these positive aspects. The national school food program would be in place as early as this fall and would help some 400,000 children access food that they need to grow up healthy. This is an important first step toward establishing a national program that we hope and envision will provide universal access to nutritious food for all elementary students, some 2.8 million kids in this country in grades 1 to 8.

Across Canada, nearly one in four children does not get enough food, and more than one-third of food bank users are children. These are shocking statistics in a G7 country. According to Children First Canada, there has been a 29% increase in food insecurity in children in the last year alone. A national school food program would not only give students in Canada access to nutritious food, helping them learn better, but it would also make healthy eating a daily lesson for our kids. Countries with national school food programs have documented better academic performance, improved short- and long-term health for children, help for family budgets and improved efficiency in the health care system. This is something that Conservatives are voting no to.

Bill C-69 includes measures to make housing more affordable. I want to touch on a few of the measures. It would enhance the homebuyers' plan by increasing the withdrawal limit from $35,000 to $60,000 and temporarily adding three years to the grace period before repayments to that RRSP are required. It would crack down on short-term rentals, hopefully to unlock more homes for Canadians to live in, by denying income tax deductions on income earned from short-term rentals that do not comply with provincial or local restrictions. The bill would continue the ban on foreign buyers of Canadian homes for an additional two years to ensure that homes are used for Canadians to live in and not as a speculative asset class for foreign investors.

I am always struck by my colleagues in the Conservative Party, who tell us to just wait until they are in government and then they will fix housing. The New Democrats are not waiting for that day, which we hope will not come. We are working now, because we know that Canadians need help with decent housing now, not a year or two or three from now. We also, by the way, are mindful of the Conservative record. When the Conservatives were in government, they did not build any affordable housing in this country at all. In fact, it was the Mulroney government in 1992 that took the federal government out of social housing for a generation, leading, in large part, to the crisis that we experience today.

Bill C-69 has a myriad of other measures that would make life more affordable for Canadians in important ways. It would make it easier to find better deals on Internet, home phone and cellphone plans by amending the Telecommunications Act to better allow Canadians to renew or switch between plans and to increase consumer choice to help them better find a deal that works for them. We know that Internet use and cellphone use now are consumer staples. They are really essential utilities that every Canadian needs to stay connected and function in their communities, in their homes and at work.

This budget would crack down on predatory lending by strengthening enforcement against criminal rates of interest to help protect vulnerable Canadians from harmful illegal lenders.

It would make it easier to save for children's education by introducing automatic enrolment in the Canada learning bond, to ensure that all low-income families receive the support they need for their children's future.

It would also launch Canada's consumer-driven banking framework to provide Canadians and small businesses with better, secure access to more financial services and products. Again, these are measures that the Conservatives are voting against.

Finally, Bill C-69 includes measures to support workers by protecting gig workers and by strengthening prohibitions against employee misclassifications in federally regulated industries. It would establish an important first historic right to disconnect to help restore work-life balance for workers. It would extend additional weeks of employment insurance for seasonal workers in 13 targeted regions. It would advance employee ownership trusts to enable employees to share in the success of their work by encouraging more business owners to sell to an employee ownership trust.

Before I leave the positives, I just want to comment that there are disappointments in the budget. One of the primary ones, for me, is the Canada disability benefit. The Liberal government promised to bring in a Canada disability benefit for which the New Democrats have been pushing for years. The Liberals said the benefit would lift people living with disabilities out of poverty; that is what they promised.

However, the Liberal government's plan announced in the budget is to provide a maximum of $200 a month. That is based on holding a disability tax credit certificate, which applies to only a fraction of the Canadians who need such assistance. At present, a single adult with a disability will live below the poverty line if they receive funding from any of the provincial programs across Canada, and an additional $200 a month is not enough to bring them above the poverty line. Over 1.5 million people with disabilities currently live in poverty across Canada, yet the plan would be accessible only to an estimated 600,000 people. It will not lift even them out of poverty.

New Democrats are deeply disappointed to see the lack of investment and, frankly, a colossally broken promise to people who need it the most. A $200-a-month maximum benefit going to fewer than half of those who need it is simply unacceptable in this country. We will continue to push the government to significantly increase the benefit to make sure that all Canadians living with disabilities receive the money they need to truly lift them out of poverty.

Now I want to talk a little about tax fairness. In the 1960s, the Carter commission spent four years looking at Canada's tax situation. It came to some very important conclusions, one of them famously summarized by the phrase, “A buck is a buck [is a buck]”. That means that no matter how people receive their income, it should be taxed the same. Now, unfortunately, through successive Liberal and Conservative governments, we have built a tax system where that principle has not been respected at all.

We heard today at the finance committee from the Canadian Labour Congress economist who authored a report entitled “Canada’s shift to a more regressive tax system, 2004 to 2022”, which found that overall, Canada's tax system is only moderately progressive through the bottom half of the income distribution and is regressive at the top of the distribution, due to several sources of untaxed or lightly taxed income, such as capital gains, inheritances and bequests and employer-provided benefits, which predominantly go to top earners.

The report found that in 2022, the total tax rate for the lowest household income decile, that is the bottom 10% in Canada, was 35%, whereas the total tax rate for the top 1% in Canada is 24%. In other words, the top 1% pay taxes at a rate 11% lower than the poorest 10% in this country. Moreover, the report found that the top 5% paid a lower rate in 2022 than the bottom 95%, with the top 1% paying an even lower rate.

Canadians should ask themselves why Canada's tax system imposes a higher total rate on the lowest-income households, versus the top 5%. Can anybody in the House go back in their communities this summer and explain why, in Canada's tax system, the top 1% of households pay the lowest total tax rate of any income group? I cannot explain that.

According to the report, a comprehensive tax review in the United Kingdom concluded that a good tax system must be both progressive and neutral. That is to say that it can raise the revenue government needs to achieve its spending and distributional ambitions while minimizing economic and administrative inefficiency, keeping the system as simple and transparent as possible and avoiding arbitrary tax differentiation across people and forms of economic activity. It reads, “A fair tax system should be based on...‘horizontal equity’: the principle that two people with the same amount of income in a given year pay the same rate of tax regardless of the source of that income.”

Bay Street accountant Kenneth Carter, who headed the important Royal Commission on Taxation in the mid-1960s, captured that notion, yet since the 1960s, we have built a tax system in this country, again, through Conservative and Liberal governments, that fails to achieve a tax system based on horizontal equity, despite the recommendations of the Carter commission.

I will turn back to the issue of the capital gains matter, which the Conservatives have raised with such furor in the House. The capital gains tax was first brought into this country in 1972, and it was brought in by a Liberal government at the rate of 50%. However, it was the Conservatives who raised the capital gains inclusion rate, in 1988, to 66.6%. They then raised it again in 1990, to 75%.

Therefore it is really something to hear the Conservatives rail against a measure today that would set the capital gains inclusion rate in this country at 50%, the lowest it has ever been, for the first $250,000 of capital gains, and then to 66.6%, a moderate amount, which they themselves raised all capital gains to in 1988.

I will read from a couple of very important witnesses who appeared at the Finance Committee today. Dr. Jim Stanford from the Centre for Future Work said this: “A capital gain results not from producing and selling a product or service, but rather from acquiring and reselling an asset. It reflects speculation, not production. Other forms of income (like wages) must be fully declared. Granting asset traders this unique preference is morally unfair, and fiscally wasteful.”

I cannot say it any better than Bea Bruske, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, who asked why we tax a worker who flips burgers for a living at 100% of her income, but someone who flips stocks for a living, who is wealthy, we tax at only 50% of their income.

That is the principle that faces Canadians today, and it is something that I challenge Conservatives to explain to Canadians. Why do they believe that workers like mechanics, teachers, servers and cleaners have to pay tax on 100% of their income because they get it in the form of wages, but wealthy people, or people who are declaring a capital gain of over a quarter of a million dollars, have to pay on only 66.6%? By the way, the measure that is being announced in the budget would still permit one-third of all capital gains that anybody has in this country to be tax-free, and still the Conservatives are apoplectic.

As well, there is zero evidence that the rise of the capital gains inclusion rate through the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s had any negative effect on business investments in this country, nor is there evidence that the reduction of it in the year 2000, back to 50%, had any positive influence on investments in this country. There is zero evidence, but of course my Conservative colleagues are more interested in rhetoric than facts. I think Canadians will understand this when we come to talk to them in the summer about fair taxation and why the wealthy should pay their fair share of tax in this country, just like the working people of this country have always done.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member once again gave us a lot to think about. It is interesting, because we often do not hear about some of the history and what decisions different governments made. What I find interesting is that he brought up the late Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, because it definitely demonstrates really what a Progressive Conservative government is like versus what the neo-con Reform-Conservative government is like.

What I also found interesting was that Prime Minister Brian Mulroney brought forward the GST and that it was Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government that lowered it by 2%. How it tried to recoup that was by making seniors work two extra years. The same people, seniors who have built the foundation of our country and have given so much, were told by Conservatives that they were going to have to work harder, for two extra years, so the Conservatives could lower the GST for everyone, which is a consumption tax.

My question really involves what the member believes is the vision of the Conservative Party, which today is against increasing capital gains on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians, yet whose history demonstrates it had no problem increasing taxes or having some of the most vulnerable in our communities contribute more, whether they were youth or seniors. I would love to hear the member's comments on that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is a lot to that question. I would say to Canadians that this is not their fathers' Conservative Party, but a mean-spirited, fact-free, Donald Trump-influenced party that has reduced politics to slogans. I call it “nursery rhyme politics” or “bumper sticker politics”, where Conservatives take complex, serious issues in this country and reduce them to a jingle. That is not going to work.

I think the Mulroney government may have had different policy ideas than my party, but it was serious about the issues of the day, which is why it increased the capital gains inclusion rate in this country. I have not heard my Conservative colleagues say a word about that. They look down at their shoes as soon as I raise the issue, because they cannot explain why their party raised the capital gains inclusion rate.

Of course, the reason it did that back then was that in the 1980s, I think all parties in the House were concerned about tax fairness because we paid attention to the Carter commission and the facts as established by a royal commission; we were not whipping up division and making up false numbers that do not make any sense. However, Canadians know the answer; most Canadians know that they are not going to be selling buildings and making capital gains over a quarter of a million dollars every year, like the Conservative colleagues' wealthy benefactors do, so we will know which party will support good tax policy in this country.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, Quebec has a model that can also be found elsewhere in Canada, but it really is unique to Quebec. For example, a mechanic, a teacher or anyone, really, can invest in a duplex, triplex or fourplex that they will then often live in. The purpose of this investment is to cover their retirement costs. For 30 or 40 years, the person pays for the building, the investment, pays the taxes, does repairs and then, when the time comes to retire, sells it. The intention is to fund their retirement. Obviously, someone like that is not the same as an investor who flips real estate every year or someone who hides their money somewhere.

Does my colleague agree that these small investors, who would see their life's work reduced to almost nothing, should be better protected by the capital gains measures?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think it is important for us to remember some basic facts. The first is that the capital gains exemption for principal residences is maintained in the budget, so Canadians can purchase their own principal residence and sell it tax-free. That remains.

I know that people are worried about how the change might affect gains on the sale of a property such as a rental property or a second home. I think something that is very important to remember is that the $250,000 inclusion rate, which stays the same as it always was, at 50%, can be stacked. That means that if two people, a couple, own a second home or a vacation property and sell it, they can add their $250,000 capital gains inclusion rates together to make it half a million dollars.

I will also take a moment to talk quickly about family farms. They benefit from a lifetime capital gains exemption that is going to be raised in the budget from $1 million to $1.25 million, plus family farms also benefit from the principal residence deduction, which is the value of their house, and 1.24 acres is also totally exempt from capital gains.

There are provisions in the budget that protect family farms, cottages and second residences; therefore I think the people my hon. colleague is concerned about will be well taken care of with the budget.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on beautiful Vancouver Island, search and rescue and firefighting services are largely staffed by hard-working volunteers, members of our community who put their lives on the line to act as first responders. One measure in this bill would increase the search and rescue and volunteer firefighter tax credit from $3,000 to $6,000. I want to recognize my colleague, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, for his private member's bill and the efforts he has made to campaign for this. We successfully used our leverage in this House of Commons to push the Liberals to do this on behalf of volunteers.

I am wondering if my colleague can comment on this particular aspect of the bill and maybe reflect on it as yet another example of how we have used our leverage in this place to help hard-working volunteers in ridings throughout Canada.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of issues in this budget that we do not have time to touch on, but I am very grateful he raised that one because the spirit of volunteerism in this country and the things that bind communities together, particularly in rural Canada, deserve to be recognized. This budget would do that by doubling the search and rescue and volunteer firefighter tax credit from $3,000 to $6,000 in recognition of the essential role and sacrifices of these volunteers in keeping Canadians safe.

I hear a lot of rhetoric from the Conservatives about public safety. They are going to vote against a budget that would put money in the hands of the people in our communities, the men and women who volunteer in their communities to help keep their neighbours safe in times of strife. That goes back to what I said at the beginning of my speech about values. The New Democrats believe that government can pool resources and use them to help make communities better in this country, to make Canadians safer, more secure and healthier and to give them greater opportunities. The Conservatives do not share that view of government. They think government needs to shrink, get out of the way and cut taxes and services. Where will that leave people in rural communities? I wonder. It will leave them less safe, less secure, less healthy and with fewer opportunities. That is not the Canada that I want for my children.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, to build off that, when my hon. colleague talked about values, he spoke about the disability benefit. I too am very disappointed. A lot of people in my riding were counting on the Liberals to come through on that promise and unfortunately they are not.

Could the member talk about the value-based system through which consecutive governments legislate poverty, what it means to ensure that people have a livable income they can rely upon and what they give back to society when that occurs?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I yearn for the day when we can bring in an authentic New Democrat federal budget in this country to deliver those values. We do not share the values of the other parties in this House. We believe that no Canadian should live in poverty and that positive measures and policies can realistically achieve that. For instance, my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre has a bill in this House for a guaranteed livable income. That is a creative idea.

Frankly, the New Democrats have been the driving force for creative ideas in this country since 1960. Health care was a system we created. Pharmacare was a system we created. Dental care is a system we created, along with guaranteed livable incomes and social welfare supports. Everybody in society should be able to get a public post-secondary education and free education in universities, colleges and trades.

These are the ideas of the New Democrats. They will share the bounty of this country and make sure that the wealth created by Canadians from coast to coast to coast is shared equally so that everybody has a fair chance to get ahead. I would like—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member's time is up.

Resuming debate, the hon. Minister of Northern Affairs, Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada and Minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Minister of Northern Affairs]

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in this chamber to talk about Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, which is focused on strengthening the foundations for a good middle-class life, especially for young people so they do as well as or even better than their parents. This is our commitment to Canadians, and we are committed to doing it in a fiscally responsible way.

I will get into a bit about the structure of Canada's economy, the bones of our economy.

The economy in Canada is resilient, and we will deliver the strongest economic growth in the G7 next year. Despite everything we have been through, with almost four years of the pandemic and the disruptions it has caused, like supply chain disruptions and inflation, Canada will continue to lead the G7 in growth.

Our debt-to-GDP ratio is among the best within the G7, and more than 1.1 million more Canadians are employed today than before the pandemic. If we let that sink in, we realize that it is an incredible statistic. Our unemployment rate remains at record lows, and with our fiscally responsible approach to the budget, our AAA credit rating is assured.

At the same time, too many Canadians are not feeling this growth. Too many Canadians are struggling with inflation, the high cost of everything, like groceries, and the lack of housing, which they cannot afford.

Our growth is undoubtedly a strength, but we need to follow a responsible path to ensure that everyone benefits from this growth and that young people can get ahead and find their place in the world.

As I mentioned, one of our biggest challenges is the housing crisis. Most people will agree that the best way to bring home prices back down within reach is to focus on increasing supply and to do it quickly. That is exactly what we are doing. This budget would enable significantly more apartment blocks to be built across Canada. In fact, our caucus was in Winnipeg recently to announce $120 million for the City of Winnipeg from the housing accelerator fund. We are cutting red tape to help homeowners get shovels in the ground quicker, and we are unlocking public lands for residential housing.

Budget 2024 has a long list of targeted relief to make housing more affordable. By collaborating with builders and leveraging the resources of the federal government, in partnership with provinces and municipalities, we will build close to four million new homes by 2031. We are addressing the housing crisis head-on, with solutions to build homes faster, while continuing our commitment to Canada's middle class.

Inflation has fallen dramatically over the last two years. In fact, inflation went down several weeks ago, the Bank of Canada announced. Two years ago, remember, it was 9%, and the Bank of Canada predicts that we will return to the target rate of 2% by 2025.

While the numbers on paper are positive, our government knows that affordability is still a real issue for Canadians. To lower costs for families, we have expanded our social safety net.

Our $10-a-day child care will save Manitoba families over $2,600 a month per child this year alone. Also, we are bringing in dental care. It will save families hundreds of dollars every year. In fact, in Manitoba alone, in 2023, 28,300 children benefited from the Canadian dental care program. The next time the Leader of the Opposition says this program is not real, that it does not do anything, we have to call him out on that. By the summer, people aged 65 and up and those under 18 will be covered by the dental plan. By 2025, nine million uninsured Canadians will be covered.

We also know that too many kids go hungry at school, which is a barrier to their success. Our government is launching the national school food program, which will help 400,000 more children have the food they need to succeed in school. This is how we support fairness for every generation. The Conservatives have already voted against this. They will continue to vote against this. Our government understands that we need to look ahead to the future and keep supporting families.

I want to focus on the Prairies, as minister of PrairiesCan. We know that the $23 million of direct funding from budget 2024 to the department of PrairiesCan will support completion of the world-leading research infrastructure at the University of Saskatchewan's centre for pandemic research, the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization, in the great city of Saskatoon. VIDO is getting $23 million. The result will be better preparedness to tackle the next pandemic, with expertise from Saskatchewan.

Budget 2024 will also invest $20 million over three years to support performing arts organizations in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and it proposes another $3 million over two years for the operations of the RCMP Heritage Centre in Regina. The Conservatives, of course, will vote against all of this, but the result will be a more vibrant cultural industry in communities all across western Canada.

The regional development agencies, including PrairiesCan, would share over $200 million over five years to build on Canada's AI advantage. The result will be more real support to help start-ups across the Prairies to bring new technologies to market, something that will benefit key sectors like agriculture, the clean-tech economy and manufacturing.

We also have critical investments for innovative housing solutions, such as the design and upscale of modular homes, the use of 3-D printing, mass timber construction and panelized construction. The result will be more targeted funding for PrairiesCan to invest in more innovative homebuilding in communities big and small in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. This all means new possibilities.

Our government is also empowering entrepreneurs to take their space in Canada's economic success. I am particularly proud of the work PrairiesCan is doing with regard to inclusion in the small business sector, ensuring that no one is left behind as we move forward.

Take our Franco-Manitoban community, for example, which is a major contributor to Manitoba's prosperity. PrairiesCan is actively engaged with 15 bilingual communities in Manitoba, building strong relationships and helping them develop their economic opportunities. In Manitoba, it pays to be bilingual.

With the support of our government, PrairiesCan helps develop and implement funding programs and develops projects that have an impact on Franco-Manitobans. Part of PrairiesCan's role as an investor and facilitator is to create opportunities and provide financial support to for-profit and not-for-profit organizations facing economic challenges in Manitoba. For example, the Economic Development Council for Manitoba Bilingual Municipalities received funding to provide services that help with training, access to capital, mentoring or information services, networking and marketing advice.

Another important project is the $1.2 million in funding that PrairiesCan is giving to the Association of Manitoba Bilingual Municipalities to strengthen the labour market in Manitoba's rural municipalities.

There is much for the north as well. Budget 2024 would provide $23.2 million this year for the nutrition north subsidy program to lower the cost of healthy food and other essential items that people use every day. Food security is key in the north and the Arctic. That is why we are committing over $100 million to support the harvesters support grant and the community food programs fund to promote indigenous communities in implementing locally led solutions to food insecurity. Nutrition north will be further expanded to include the market food component, called the community food programs fund, with an additional $20 million per year over three years.

Based on feedback from indigenous partners, recent improvements have transformed nutrition north into a broader and more inclusive program that respects and responds to the unique food security issues of indigenous and northern communities. By the way, indigenous and northern communities co-developed the harvesters support grant, something that provides country food and traditional food to Inuit and northerners in the Arctic. We know nutrition north alone will not solve food insecurity in northern communities, but it is constantly evolving with feedback from northerners from across the region, and we are committed to making it more efficient and effective.

Another one of my priorities for the north, which is covered by budget 2024, includes measures to help clarify and reduce timelines for major projects by advancing the principle of one project, one review. It commits to engagement with partners, northern premiers and indigenous governments. The budget is about how government can do great things for the people it serves.

To me, the bottom line is that we are driving economic growth across the country, including for northerners and people living and working on the Prairies, to ensure that every generation of Canadians can reach their full potential. That is why we must pass Bill C-69 and continue the momentum.

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

Madam Speaker, I know the member opposite, my colleague from Manitoba, was talking about how great the economy is. In front of me, I have a document showing data published by the International Monetary Fund in April. It is a table entitled “The U.S. Economy is Outperforming Those of Other G7 Countries.” The United States, from 2019 to 2024, is up 8%. Second is Italy, third is Japan, fourth is France, fifth is the U.K. and sixth is Germany. Madam Speaker, guess which one is dead last. Canada's GDP per capita shrank by 2%.

Where is all the economic growth the member spent the last 10 minutes talking about?

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

Madam Speaker, the simple facts are that there are 1,100,000 more people working in Canada now than there were before the pandemic. Our unemployment rate has been and is at record lows. That is really something that is unheard of during these times of disruption and difficulty.

Liberals know inflation is too high. I believe we have turned the corner on the rate of inflation. The Bank of Canada predicts that, within another year, or another year plus a few months, inflation will be near 2%. We will continue the growth. It is well known that our debt to GDP is the lowest in the G7. We are proud to roll out programs that help Canadians, such as dental care, pharmacare and $10-a-day day care. They are all programs the Conservative government, and my colleague from Winnipeg, voted against.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague referred to investments in clean energy. We know that, in Alberta and western Canada, those investments are mainly being made in carbon capture and storage strategies. However, many experts have said that these strategies are a big waste of money. What is more, a Deloitte report commissioned by the Alberta government was just published today, and it found that, if we want to meet our greenhouse gas emissions cap targets, the best solution is not to invest in carbon storage strategies, which are far too costly, but to reduce oil production.

Does my colleague not think that the investments in the budget for carbon capture and storage are just an exercise in futility and a waste of money?

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

Madam Speaker, that is a very important question for the future of Canada. We know that the three prairie provinces are very strong in energy development and always will be. The question is what sort of energy they will develop. Obviously, the transition to a green economy will require a lot of technology and different approaches.

What matters to us the most is ensuring that people keep their jobs in their own industry. We are going to make a transition that makes sense.

[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?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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

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

Madam Speaker, I am not a comrade yet.

I know the dental community in Renfrew, Nipissing and especially Pembroke well, and I can tell members that I get nothing but complaints across the valley about this so-called dental program. The Liberals did not plan anything. It is not a plan. They just threw money out there and signed people up. There is not a single dentist in Pembroke signing up to this Soviet-style dental plan, and not 200 people have received service. If the member can show us otherwise, I would be pleased to speak to it further.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. If members want to contribute, want to try to answer or want to make comments, they need to wait until the appropriate time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today and speak to the budget implementation act, even though we are in the eleventh hour of this session. I am looking forward to the House rising at the end of this week for the summer recess.

It has been nine years of the costly Prime Minister, and each successive budget creates a bleaker outlook for Canadians' futures. The guise of fiscal restraint has been cast away, and the Prime Minister and his finance minister have put the pedal to the metal. They have decided to spend Canadians' money at an alarming rate, with no plan to balance the budget, to pay off the debt or to even rein in deficits to a modest level. They are literally going for broke. They believe they can tax their way out of the problems that their out-of-control spending has created. While inflation has reached record levels, the government continues to pour fuel on the inflationary fire with tens of billions of dollars in new spending.

I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

In fact, Tiff Macklem, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, stated that the Prime Minister's $61 billion in new spending was “not helpful” in bringing down inflation. It costs the average Canadian family an extra $3,867, but the Prime Minister refuses to learn from his mistakes and continues to double down on his failed policies, which means more inflationary deficits driving up inflation and interest rates, doubling our national debt and, thus, endangering our social programs and jobs across the country.

More to the point, doubling the national debt means that the federal government will now be spending more on interest on its debt than it will send to the provinces for health care. There will be $54.1 billion spent on servicing our national debt, half of which the Prime Minister is responsible for. The high-spending addiction of the government has endangered Canadians' livelihoods. It has led to a record high of two million visits to food banks in a single month, and now we have a report from Food Banks Canada that one in four Canadians is living in poverty.

After nine years of the Prime Minister's disastrous policies, 25% of Canadians are living in poverty. Every party in the House had the chance to vote on giving Canadians a break and to help them keep more of their money in their pockets when Conservatives proposed giving Canadians a break from the carbon tax for the summer. Instead of giving Canadians the relief they are looking for from the oppressive Liberal carbon tax regime just for the summer, Liberals have doubled down and have introduced a new capital gains tax increase.

Despite Canadians struggling paycheque to paycheque, the Liberals have decided to endanger their retirements, which have taken decades of prudent planning, saving and investing to build. According to the government, it is unfair for a plumber to sell their business they built over decades to fund their retirement. It is unfair for an electrician to sell the company they built to fund their retirement. It is unfair for a doctor to sell their shares in their practice to fund their retirement. It is unfair for the Liberals to take more of Canadians' hard-earned, self-made retirement funds so that they can continue to indulge in spending billions of dollars on their failed policies, yet the Prime Minister continues to squeeze Canadians for every last dollar with tax increases, while showing no signs of fiscal restraint.

If the Prime Minister is worried about the richest in Canada, he should look in the mirror. While life has gotten worse for Canadians, the Prime Minister and his friends have never had it so good, with tens of billions of dollars going out the door each year to his high-priced consultants. Hundreds of millions of dollars in favourable contracts went to his friends at McKinsey, which was led by the Prime Minister's close friend, Dominic Barton. There was $222 million given to Rio Tinto just months after Dominic Barton became the chairman. The billion-dollar green slush fund funnels hundreds of millions of dollars to Liberal insiders with no oversight. Canadians suffer and Liberal insiders prosper.

After nine years of the Prime Minister, Canada is on track for its worst decline in living standards in 40 years, with more than nine in 10 middle-class families paying more in income taxes. Struggling families cannot afford the Prime Minister's higher taxes and out-of-control spending, which is driving up the cost of everything. The Liberal government has doubled rent, mortgage payments and down payments, and the number of tent cities is growing across this country. It is no wonder that Canadians are fed up with the NDP-Liberal coalition.

The Prime Minister is trying to trick Canadians into believing that he will fix what he broke by doubling down on his failed policies, issues that were created by nine years of methodically disastrous policies and that have made life more expensive for Canadians. They are policies that have stolen the dream of home ownership from young Canadians, policies that have forced Canadians to live paycheque to paycheque and policies that have endangered Canadians through a steep increase in violent crime.

Now that these policies have caused crises in housing, immigration, crime, inflation and other areas, the government feigns interest in fairness. It is not fair to Canadians to jeopardize their retirements with a punitive capital gains tax increase. It is not fair to double housing prices and rent. It is not fair to drive up inflation, drastically increasing the prices of everyday necessities, including basic food items. It is not fair to push 25% of Canadians into poverty and to force millions to visit food banks in a single month. The government does not care about fairness. It cares about spending as many taxpayer dollars as it can in its short-time left in government and setting the Liberal government members and their insider friends up for comfortable retirements.

In conclusion, it will come as no surprise that I cannot support this budget implementation act. It is more of the same failed policies from the NDP-Liberal coalition, which refuses to acknowledge its failures. If any member in this place truly believes in fairness, they cannot vote in favour of this bill. No member can look around Canada today, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal coalition, and truly believe that the government has served Canadians well.

It borders on the absurd that Liberal members can stand in this place, claim that this budget, which is more of the same policies that got us into this current mess, will somehow now get us out of it. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Unfortunately, Canadians are the ones paying the price for this madness. I will repeat what I said when speaking to the budget. Canadians are losing hope. They are hanging on by a thread, and this bill will be the scissors that severs it.

This bill should not be passed. Canadians are depending on all opposition members to stop the government's harmful policies and its out-of-control spending, and vote non-confidence.

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

Madam Speaker, allow me to pick up on the issue of caring. If the member opposite and members of the Conservative Party truly cared, they should do some self-reflection in terms of why they do not believe that fixed-income seniors who do not have a dental plan should not be allowed to have access to dental services and be supported by the Government of Canada. Even Pembroke has dental services, I think a half-dozen or more, being made available to their constituents.

I would ask the member this: Why will Conservative after Conservative-Reform member across the way, all those reformers and former Alliance members, not support fixed-income seniors in getting dental care in the ridings they represent? Is it that they do not care?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question because, at the end of the day, Conservatives have a simple plan, and I know that the member could probably repeat it verbatim: We will axe the tax. We will build the homes. We will fix the budget and stop the crime.

The government has a housing accelerator fund that is not building houses. It has a school lunch program that is not serving lunches. It has a national dental program with a handful of dentists who have signed up. We are going to cut the waste and mismanagement of the government, and we are going to restore common sense for Canadians.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her faith.

I would like to bring her back to familiar territory: common sense. Back home, growing up, my father often talked to us about common sense. Common sense relates to a set of elements that everyone, or almost everyone, agrees on.

Is my colleague's party seeking unanimity? After all, there is a part of the population that is worried about climate change and the astronomical contribution of billions of dollars in taxpayer money that is invested in oil companies that are already worth many billions of dollars since they make a lot of money.

Since my colleague is for common sense, I would like to know if her potential government will stop investing in oil companies that already have billions of dollars. I would also like to know if she is going to increase health transfers to the provinces so that they can use them how they want and breathe a bit of life back into their health care networks.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, one thing Canadians can count on is that Conservatives are the party of common sense. We are consistent in our approach when it comes to reducing taxes. We are consistent when it comes to making life more prosperous for Canadians. We are consistent when it comes to how we vote in this place, which is something that member should actually talk to her leadership about.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek for those comments. I enjoy sitting on committee with her.

I was thinking back to another minority Parliament that saw a tremendous amount of progress when it comes to iconic policies that are now an integral part of the fabric of our country. They are things like the Canada pension plan, Canada student loans, the 40-hour work week and two weeks of vacation time, and a new minimum wage. Many of these things were put in place despite the opposition from the Conservative Party.

Is the member not worried that she is on the wrong side of history when she rails against things like a national dental care plan and universal pharmacare for people who need prescription medication? Is it not clear that these things will make our country stronger?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member is right. We do serve on the government operations and estimates committee together, and one thing we have been dealing with is the absolute out-of-control spending of the current Liberal government when it comes to outside consultants, and when it comes to lining the pockets of Liberal insiders and their friends.

What I would put back to the member is this question: When is he finally going to start standing up for Canadians and be an opposition member who is looking out for their interests?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have been around this place long enough to see a clear pattern of what a Liberal budget is, as well as the Liberals' omnibus budget implementation acts, which, of course, they promised not to use.

One might ask what exactly is the pattern of a Liberal budget. We have to go back to 2015 for a moment. What happened in 2015 is that the Prime Minister promised three years of so-called “modest” deficit spending budgets before he made a cast-in-stone promise to return to a balanced budget in 2019. One might ask what happened to that promise. In every one of those three years, the Prime Minister spent considerably more than he promised he would.

In 2019, he did not even attempt to honour his so-called cast-in-stone promise to return Canada to a balanced budget. In other words, the Liberal Prime Minister did not even try to do what he promised he would. Why even make the promise at all to return to a balanced budget if he had zero intention of doing so? It is because, of course, making promises on things he has no intention of ever honouring is basically a hallmark character trait of the Prime Minister.

Where are we today with this latest Liberal 2024 budget? We are now at a total spending of $535 billion for the 2024-25 fiscal year. Let us pause for a moment to recap.

The 2022 so-called “return to fiscal responsibility” budget was $434 billion. Here we are in the 2024 budget, and the proposed spending is up to $535 billion. This means that this latest Liberal budget proposes to spend $100 billion more than what the Liberals themselves labelled as a “return to fiscal responsibility” budget just a short time ago. Let us not forget that before the pandemic began in 2019-20, the Liberals were spending around $338 billion. We went from $338 billion to now $535 billion. That is an increase of almost $200 billion in annual spending. Let us not kid ourselves. Everyone knows the Liberals will spend more than the $535 billion they are proposing, more so given that next year is an election year.

Now we can all see the pattern to Liberal budgets that I mentioned earlier. Every year we are told what will happen, but it never actually comes to pass. The forecasts, the promises, everything the Liberals promise ends up being completely false. They do not even try to live within the fiscal limits they propose for themselves. Most offensive of all is that the Prime Minister's Office has the audacity to label this budget as the “fairness for every generation” budget. I am literally aghast by this.

The 2024 “fairness for every generation” budget proposes a $40-billion deficit for this fiscal year alone. We know that this is not the case. The finance department has said that the government is billions over that particular projection already. This is noteworthy because the Liberals' previous debt forecasts were at $35 billion for 2024-25 and $26.8 billion for 2025-26. That is a big difference we see between $40 billion and the $27 billion or so they had previously said for 2025.

We all know that the cost of servicing the national debt has exceeded the federal spending on health care. This is what the Liberals call fairness for everyone. It is not unlike the capital gains increase. The Liberals will tell us that this tax impacts only Canada's most wealthy, yet we have heard from many everyday Canadians who, through a divorce, a health crisis, retirement or otherwise, are in a one-time situation where they might be looking at paying a once-in-a-lifetime capital gains tax. These are doctors, small business owners, people in the trades. Larry the plumber from Winnipeg was brought up today, who is working hard. None of these people are so-called ultrawealthy, but they will all be hit hard by this latest Liberal tax grab. The Liberals know that these people exist and also know that the Liberal tax grab will hit them hard. However, they would still look them in the eye and say that only the ultrawealthy would be impacted by this.

I do not know if anyone on the Liberal or NDP side of the House realizes how angry people become when they believe they are being deceived and misled by their own government. Make no mistake: They are not happy with the Prime Minister. He needs that extra tax grab for fairness, he says. Let us talk about fairness for a moment.

There is now an entire generation of young Canadians who are left out despite all the Liberal spending. Literally, this problem is so bad that even the Prime Minister himself openly admits that young people now feel like they cannot get ahead in the same way their parents or grandparents could. However, it is much worse than that. The Prime Minister is leaving future generations of Canadians with record levels of debt and no plan whatsoever to return to a balanced budget, ever. The Prime Minister has failed in every single budget to do what he promised he would do in the budget the year previous. He just spends more, and we go further into debt. That is not fairness.

Before I close, I would like to share something with this place. We, of course, spend a portion of our time in this place debating budgets and budget implementation acts. A sitting government hopes to table a budget that resonates with Canadians. As all experienced parliamentarians will know, some budgets resonate more than others, and some, very little at all. This particular budget has not been like most. I do not recall at any time so many different citizens coming forward in opposition to a budget as they are for this budget, and by extension the budget implementation act. I make a point of reading every email, returning every phone call and scheduling as many meeting requests as I can. I can tell every member of this place that this particular budget is not impacting many Canadians the way the Liberal government would have us believe. The Liberals may call this a “fairness for every generation” budget, but many I hear from see this budget as being anything but fair to them.

I am not one to follow polls, so it does not surprise me at all that so many different polls show this budget, like the Liberal government, as falling down so badly. I would submit that this is without a doubt an unfair budget for many Canadians. I will be joining with those Canadians who now say “enough is enough” in rejecting the Prime Minister, his desperation budgets and this flawed budget implementation act.

I have one final point before I conclude my comments this evening. Earlier today, I read a report from the National Post, and the headline said it all: “Airplane food cost more than $220K on [the Prime Minister]'s Indo-Pacific trip: Meals included beef brisket with mashed parsley potatoes with truffle oil, braised lamb shanks and baked cheesecake with pistachio brittle”.

When the Prime Minister and his finance minister lecture others about fairness and needing people to do a little more, why is it that the Prime Minister never does his part? The reason is that the Prime Minister is always above these rules. Why does the Prime Minister consistently make demands upon others that he himself fails to follow? Canadians are tired of this. In my riding, as I am sure in many other members' in this place, people want an election and they do not want this budget or this budget implementation act. That is why I will be opposing it.

I would like to thank all members of this place for taking the time to hear my comments today.

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

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to aircraft and expenses. I was in opposition when Stephen Harper flew to India and then made the decision to fly his car to India at a cost of $1 million for the taxpayer. At the end of the day, we value all tax dollars. We also value the services that tax dollars can provide. There is the difference between Conservatives and Liberals: Liberals care; Conservative-Reformers cut.

My question to the member is related to the cuts. We talk about disability benefits. We talk about pharmacare. We can talk about dental care. These are the types of programs that this government is getting behind, providing literally hundreds, if not thousands, of his constituents supports. Why has the Reform Party of Canada, or the Conservative Party, as they are the same thing, made the determination that they are going to cut those services?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will let Canadians judge the content and the conduct of that member. He cannot even get the parties' correct names in this room, so I do not know if they will trust him with details. When it comes to a prime minister's security detail, it is the RCMP that makes the decision on what security is appropriate. I believe that it is important for a prime minister to remain safe and secure, particularly when we are doing international travel, so I will leave the RCMP to manage those concerns, but what is 100% under the conduct of the Prime Minister is his penchant for expensive hotels and for the $220,000 on meals and alcohol. That is what I am contesting here, not the security detail.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague began his speech—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We cannot hear what the hon. member is saying because there are people who are participating in the debate when they should not be. I hope that people will follow the rules of the House and refrain from talking when someone else has the floor.

The hon. member for Saint-Jean.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague began his speech by talking about the importance of balancing the budget and cutting the government's unnecessary spending.

Bill C‑69 includes a nice oil subsidy for so-called green hydrogen. It is a tax credit of 15% to 40%. Last year, the federal deficit was about $40 billion. The subsidies and tax credits for oil companies totalled about $30 billion. We could reduce the federal deficit by 75% in one fell swoop.

Is that not something interesting for my colleague to think about?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is important to know whether the Bloc Québécois plans to vote for or against the government and the bill. The Bloc Québécois member has a choice. She must decide whether the budget and the Prime Minister are acceptable and balanced for Canadians.

It is important to note that the Conservative Party is voting against the government. We do not trust the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. I will never support the bill we are currently discussing.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I like my colleague, but he said that he has never seen a budget with such a negative response. I remember the terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad Harper budget of 2012, and my colleague should too. It gutted veteran services, gutted health care, forced seniors to work years longer in their lives and gave tens of billions of dollars in handouts to banks, billionaires, and oil and gas CEOs. Conservative financial management is an oxymoron.

I like my colleague a lot, but how could he possibly not apologize for that extraordinarily bad budget and the terrible financial management of the Harper years?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy the member from the NDP raised the subject of choices and what is worthy of support. I spoke to a constituent who could not believe that the NDP supported the budget implementation act last year, because it made big changes to natural health products and their regulations. They cannot understand why the NDP would support the Minister of Health to put in place a regime that is going to see less consumer choice and more expensive natural health products.

I would love for the member to start looking through the budget implementation act as he probably did with Mr. Harper's budget. I would also like to see the NDP start standing up to the Prime Minister and the government's terrible bills.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 19, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from June 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

It being 3.34 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-69.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #847

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)