Debates of May 3rd, 2022

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am not sure. Maybe the hon. member can tell me what his button says so in that way I will be more clear about my decision, but I want to remind members that I have asked members not to wear buttons in the House unless it is something that has been approved throughout the House.

If the hon. member can tell me what his button says, then I will be able to better say whether he should remove it right now.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Chair, I want to acknowledge that the member might have a point. I did not intend to leave this button on for this speech. I will tell them, since members are curious, that it says “end federal mandates”. I could also table the button if—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will ask the hon. member to remove the button. I will remind members not to wear buttons in the House unless it is something that is being supported throughout the House itself, such as the Moose Hide Campaign or the White Ribbon Campaign.

We are now at the time for closure, unfortunately.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, certainly in light of the conversation that was just had, I would hope that if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to support the message of “end the mandates” here in this place. I would ask for unanimous consent in that regard.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member has asked for unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind members that the House rules are that these are props and they are not to be used in the House. It is not the first time that we have had to raise that with different members of the House. I would again ask members not to wear buttons. It is certainly a conversation that we will have at the House Speakers' breakfast, whenever we have it next. There are to be no buttons at all.

I would say that if the respect is not going to be there for the Speaker's ruling, then I would ask those members not to come to the House if they prefer to wear the button.

It being 3:51 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, April 28, 2022—

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know you mentioned that the time for debate on Bill C-8 was over. My impression was that it was going until 4 o'clock, and that was counting five hours from a particular point. I just wonder if the table might be able to inform us when that clock on the five hours began and therefore when it finishes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

After question period, there were 23 minutes left, which led us to 3:51 p.m..

It being 3:51 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, April 28, 2022, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment to the amendment.

May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

[Chair read text of amendment to the amendment to the House]

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the amendment to the amendment be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 4, 2022, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

moved that Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I would like to first say that, like so many Canadian women, I was both shocked and deeply worried by the news from the United States last night about abortion rights. The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this morning that the leaked document was authentic, but that it does not represent a decision by the court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.

I also want to recognize that this decision is a decision for American judges, American politicians and the American people. However, having said that, and speaking here today as a woman, as a mother and as Canada's Deputy Prime Minister, it is important for me to begin by underlining our government's clear and determined commitment to protect a woman's right to choose. I want every single woman and girl in Canada to hear me say that here today.

Abortion is a fundamental right. Feminists fought for decades to secure it, and here in Canada we will not let it be undermined in any way. As part of Canada's feminist foreign policy, it has been a priority for our government to support the reproductive rights of women and girls around the world. We will continue to do so with greater determination than ever.

We cannot take any of our rights, including this fundamental one, for granted. In a democracy like our own, our rights are ultimately secured by the will of the people, as expressed by the decisions of their elected representatives: all of us here in the House. That is why it is so important for me to make this statement today and why all Canadians, especially all Canadian women who care about a woman's right to choose, need to be active and vigilant and need to speak out.

I am pleased to start today's debate on Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

I would like to begin by explaining the context of the current debate. When COVID‑19 struck for the first time, Canada suffered a tremendous economic shock. Three million Canadians lost their jobs and our economy shrunk by 17%. This gave way to the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Our main objective was to keep Canadians at work and to keep their employers afloat. That is why we provided unprecedented emergency help to Canadian families and businesses. It was a bold plan and it worked.

We have recovered 115% of the jobs lost in those awful first months, compared with just 93% in the United States. That means that more than three million jobs have been created or recovered. Our unemployment rate has declined to just 5.3%. That is the lowest level since Canada first began collecting comparable statistics in 1976. Our real GDP is 1.5% above where it was before the pandemic, with annual GDP growth of 6.7% in the fourth quarter of 2021, and a remarkable 13.9% on an annualized basis in February of this year.

The IMF projects that Canada will have the strongest economic growth in the G7, both this year and next. Last Thursday, S&P again affirmed Canada's AAA credit rating and gave us a stable outlook. This is in part thanks to the emergency support our government provided to rescue Canadians and the Canadian economy. It is thanks to the remarkable grit and determination that Canadians have shown over these past two years.

However, there are still challenges ahead. Inflation, a global phenomenon, is making things more expensive in Canada too. Snarled supply chains have driven prices higher at the checkout counter. Buying a house is out of reach for far too many Canadians.

Russia's illegal and barbaric invasion of Ukraine is directly contributing to higher food and energy prices, both here at home and around the world. We need to do better as a country at innovating and encouraging small businesses to grow.

We need to continue to address the existential threat of climate change, which is why, with the investments outlined in the budget and through Bill C-19, our government is focusing on growing our economy and making life more affordable for Canadians.

One of the pillars of our plan is investing in the backbone of a strong and growing country.

People need homes in which to live. The problem is that Canada does not have enough homes. Our budget contains the most ambitious plan ever put forward by a federal government to resolve this fundamental problem. Over the next 10 years, it will help us double the number of new homes built in Canada. To build the new homes Canadians need, we must make a great national effort that will demand collaboration from all levels of government.

That is why Bill C-19 contains measures aimed at investing in building more homes and bringing down the barriers that keep them from being built. For example, the bill provides for up to $750 million to help municipalities address public transit shortfalls caused by the pandemic. To increase the impact of this investment, the provinces and the territories will have to commit to match the federal contribution. This funding will also serve as a lever for the construction of new homes. The provinces and territories will have to accelerate their work with their municipalities to build more homes for Canadians.

We also need to make the housing market fairer, which is why Bill C-19 will legislate a two-year ban on allowing foreign investors to buy houses in Canada. We know that foreign money has been flowing into Canada to buy residential real estate. This has fuelled concerns about the impact on costs in cities such as Vancouver and Toronto, and across the country. Canadians are worried about being priced out of the housing market. By banning foreign purchases of Canadian housing for two years, we will make sure that houses in our country are being used as homes for Canadian families, not as a speculative financial asset class.

We will make all assignment sales of newly constructed or renovated housing taxable for GST and HST purposes. Bill C-19 will help seniors and people with disabilities live and age at home by doubling the home accessibility tax credit's annual limit to $20,000, which will help make upgrades such as wheelchair ramps more affordable.

A growing country and a growing economy also demand a growing workforce. With Bill C-19, we would make it easier for the skilled immigrants that our economy needs to make Canada their home by improving our government's ability to select applicants from the express entry system who match the needs of Canadian businesses.

We would also invest in the determined and talented workers who are already here by making it more affordable for people working in the skilled trades to travel to where the jobs are. This legislation would introduce a labour mobility deduction for tradespeople that would allow workers to deduct up to $4,000 per year for travel and temporary relocation expenses as part of an effort to reduce labour shortages in the skilled trades.

We would also introduce 10 days of paid sick leave for workers in the federally regulated private sector, which would support one million workers in industries like air, rail, road and marine transportation, banks, and postal and courier services.

The budget invests in the skills that Canadian workers need to fill the good-paying jobs of today and tomorrow, and it would help break down barriers and ensure that everyone is able to roll up their sleeves and get to work. Passing this bill is critical to that effort.

In addition, Bill C-19 will enable us to continue the work we are doing to maintain a sound tax system where everyone pays their fair share.

Our government knows that people who can buy expensive cars, planes and boats can also contribute a bit more. Canadians also know this. We were elected on this promise and we intend to keep it.

To this end, we are following through on our commitment to introduce a tax on the sale of new luxury cars and aircraft with a retail sale price of over $100,000. This tax will also apply to the sale of boats that cost more than $250,000.

Today, anonymous Canadian shell companies can be used to conceal the true ownership of assets including businesses and property. Through this legislation, our government would hasten the creation of a public and searchable registry of federally incorporated companies before the end of 2023, two years earlier than planned, to help counter illegal activities including money laundering and tax invasion. This would also help to prevent shell companies from being used to avoid sanctions, and would allow the tracing and freezing of financial assets. This effort is particularly pressing as Canada works hard with our allies through the new Russian Elites, Proxies and Oligarchs Task Force to target the global assets of Russia's elites and those who act on their behalf.

That brings me to the way that Bill C-19 would allow the Canadian government to cause the forfeiture and disposal of assets held by sanctioned people and entities, and to use the proceeds to help the people of Ukraine. Among our allies, Canada is leading the way on this work. We would be, with the passage of this bill, the first member of the G7 to take this important step. I can think of no better way to pay for the very expensive work of rebuilding Ukraine than with the seized assets of the Russian leadership that has waged this war.

In 2019, we introduced a national price on carbon pollution to make sure that it was no longer free to pollute anywhere in Canada. In provinces where the federal system applies, the proceeds are returned to Canadians and their communities.

For those living in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, Bill C-19 will change the delivery of climate action incentive payments from a refundable credit on tax returns to quarterly payments, starting in July of this year.

In Canada and around the world, climate action is now an economic necessity. Trillions of dollars can be invested in good jobs and the clean industries of today and tomorrow. Thanks to meaningful measures, the 2022 budget will enable Canada to benefit from the green transition.

One of these measures is the new Canada growth fund, which will help attract the billions of dollars in private capital we need to transform our economy at speed and at scale.

We will make zero-emission vehicles a more affordable choice for Canadians. We will build and expand the national network of charging stations for zero-emission vehicles. We will make new investments in clean energy. We will also help Canadians and Canadian companies benefit from the transition to a clean economy. One of the measures included in Bill C-19 consists in cutting tax rates in half for businesses that manufacture zero-emission technologies.

We recently introduced the 2030 emissions reduction plan, the 2022 budget and the bill we are debating today. The measures contained in these three documents represent a more sustainable economy for Canadians today as well as for future generations.

Bill C-19 will make a real difference in the lives of Canadians. It will help grow our economy, it will create good jobs and it will help us continue building a Canada where nobody is left behind. I hope all hon. members in the House will support the swift passage of this bill in the weeks to come.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to ask the minister a question that I have asked her before. It is one that we have not received an answer to. It is a question that I believe Canadians deserve an answer to. It has to do with the state of Canada's finances.

We have incurred the largest budget deficits in Canadian history. We have the largest debt that Canada has ever seen. In fact, our debt has doubled over the last six years. We have accumulated more debt over the last six years than all previous governments in Canadian history.

Canadians, quite rightly, want to know when the government's house will be brought back into order, so my question for her is a simple one, with a yes-or-no answer. Does she have any plan to return to balanced budgets?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, my answer is also a simple one. If Canadians want to understand the state of our public finances, they should look to the judgments of the objective analysts who are paid to make those assessments.

That is why it is a real pleasure for me to remind Canadians of the good news that last Thursday, S&P reaffirmed Canada's AAA credit rating, with a stable outlook. Why did it do that? It is because Canada has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Our budget showed a debt-to-GDP ratio that will continue to decline and a deficit that will continue to decline. In fact, our budget has been universally judged to be fiscally responsible, which it is.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, Terrebonne is a magnificent riding, and I hope you will visit us very soon.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her speech. We agree in principle with several of the measures proposed in Bill C-19. However, I have an important question to ask her.

On March 4, we sent a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister concerning the semiconductor shortage. Unfortunately, Bill C-19 contains no measures to address this serious shortage affecting many of our businesses. What we are seeing is a loss of expertise and jobs, and a number of businesses might have to declare bankruptcy or have already done so.

What do the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister plan do about this?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, and I am certain that Terrebonne is an excellent riding.

I would like to start by thanking the Bloc Québécois for raising today, during question period, one of the most important issues at present: the fundamental rights of women and young girls. It is important to highlight that. I want to thank them once again.

With regard to semiconductors, we are aware of the issue. We have had discussions with the Bloc, and I am certain that the member opposite knows that the budget contains measures to support the manufacturing of semiconductors in Canada.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, when we look at the budget implementation act, we see there are some modest changes to the employment insurance system. There is some tinkering with the paid sick day provisions too. However, neither get full implementation.

Canadians are still in need of widespread and ambitious employment insurance reform. There is still more legislative work to do to finally get the 10 paid sick days that were promised some time ago. We have the looming deadline of May 7 for a number of the pandemic benefits that have helped cover off some of the important things that Canadians have had to do during the pandemic, such as stay home with their kids when their kids are sick and stay home from work when they themselves are sick. Not having implemented those EI reforms and the paid sick days fully before having those benefits expire means there is a gap, and it is workers who are going to suffer for that gap.

I wonder if the government is considering an extension of those benefits until it completes those much-needed employment insurance reforms and a final full implementation of the 10 paid sick days.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona for his hard work on behalf of working people in his riding and across the country.

I share his concern with working people, and that is why our government has focused so intensely on jobs. It is why when the pandemic hit, we were so deeply concerned about the three million jobs lost. It is also why in my remarks I underscored the significance of our historically low unemployment rate of 5.3%.

When it comes to the well-being of Canadians and Canadian families, well-being starts with having a good job. I agree with the need for 10 paid sick days. It is why we have that in this implementation act. I look forward to continuing to discuss EI.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance for opening her speech with a condemnation of the loss of women's rights that appears to be imminent in the United States.

I want to address the issue of the budget implementation act by starting with a fair statement. I have gone through the bill, and of course it is very long. I do not find any hidden, sneaky things that should not be in a budget implementation bill, as we experienced in 2012 with two budget implementation bills, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, that were disastrous. Then we had, in 2018, one sneaky thing that I lament, which was putting deferred prosecution agreements in the Criminal Code. That should not have been in a budget implementation act. It is hard to prove a negative, but right now it looks like there is nothing sneaky in this bill.

The main thing I want to ask the minister about is her reference to the climate crisis as an existential threat, which is defined as a threat to existence. It is a threat to the existence of a habitable planet. If we read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's April 4 report, we are currently on a trajectory to an unlivable world. This budget is not taking us away from that trajectory; it doubles down on it.

Would the hon. minister consider re-examining this bill and all bills in relation to the IPCC report?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, l will start by confirming for the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands that all measures in the BIA are referenced in the budget text. I agree with her that climate change is an existential crisis, and I want to acknowledge the many years she has been working on this issue, at a time before it had the wide recognition and support it does today.

However, with the greatest respect and affection, which I hope she does not mind me publicly expressing, I disagree with her about the impact of this budget on climate change. This is a very green budget and it will help Canada and the world.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister spoke about the U.S. rolling back women's rights, and I was really disappointed today to hear the Conservatives yell out “no” to a unanimous motion to support women's rights in the House. Media are also reporting that the leader of the official opposition has ordered her members and senators not to discuss this matter.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister speak about leadership for women and women's rights in this country?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I certainly can. The news from south of the border that we first heard last night has reminded us that at the end of the day, women's right depend, in a democracy, on elected representatives who are willing to stand up for them day after day after day. That is what this government will do, and I know other members of the House will as well.

Use of Props in the House

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order and seek your clarification on an issue.

Earlier, before the finance minister spoke, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan was called out for wearing a button that was deemed to be a prop. Madam Speaker, you intervened immediately, advised members that they are not to violate the House order in that respect and outlined the consequences if they do not follow the rules. However, I was confused about the procedure.

Earlier in the day during Statements by Members, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot was making a statement in the House. It was noted that he was sporting a flag that was also deemed to be a prop. The Speaker at the time allowed the member to finish his statement before advising him that he should not be violating the House rules by wearing what is a political statement.

I am not clear on what the rules and procedures are, and I wonder if the Speaker could provide clarity for me. When members are called out or someone has noted that they are violating the rules with buttons and such, should they be stopped immediately and not be allowed to proceed until they remove a political button, or can they wait until they have finished their speeches? I would love to get the Speaker's clarity on that, just to make sure that every member of the House knows what the rules are and follows them accordingly.