Debates of May 9th, 2024

Bill C‑59—Time Allocation Motion

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I think it is very important to use every measure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the energy sector. It is very important to reduce these emissions to protect the entire world.

I have had conversations with people in the energy sector and companies that have the skills to create technologies to reduce emissions. It is possible to use programs in the bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this sector. It is also very important to eliminate subsidies for traditional energy producers. At the same time, we need to develop solutions to reduce emissions.

I believe we can advance technologies that will help reduce emissions in the oil and gas sector. At the same time, we seek to reduce emissions through every possible means. We are in a climate crisis. It is essential that we advance solutions that will reduce emissions as quickly as possible.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, as we know, indigenous people across Canada are disproportionately impacted by the housing crisis. I know my colleagues, the MP for Nunavut and the MP for Vancouver East, have done tremendous work pushing for funding in the for indigenous, by indigenous housing strategy.

I wonder if the minister can provide an update as to when we will see the necessary funding going toward indigenous people to ensure they have access to not only affordable housing but adequate housing to meet their needs.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is quite right to point out the members for Vancouver East and Nunavut for their advocacy, alongside a number of members from different parties in the House. She is also correct to point out the disproportionate impact of homelessness on indigenous peoples across Canada, both the housing needs in indigenous communities and those of indigenous people who have had that connection severed. It is extremely important to address.

In addition to indigenous communities and indigenous-led projects being eligible in our programs of general application, we have specific programs that we have developed, with billions of dollars behind them, to advance solutions. There is a $4-billion distinctions-based fund to provide housing solutions directly in community for rights holders through a distinctions-based program. In addition, there is a $4.3-billion fund, and I believe this is what she was referring to, to meet the needs of indigenous peoples in urban, rural and northern environments.

We are working to finalize some of the program design to ensure we are supporting both distinctions-based organizations and non-profit housing providers to meet the needs of indigenous peoples in urban, rural and northern environments. We expect, in the very short term, to be advancing opportunities to set up the organization nationally that will help run some of these programs as we continue to fund distinctions-based organizations that are supporting members of their community who may no longer be in community.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and to the Minister of National Defence (Northern Defence)]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the minister for the tremendous contribution that he makes to so many programs and services in the country.

I represent a very large rural indigenous riding in this country, a riding that is very much connected to the land and to the ocean, and we depend upon the natural environment for food. However, climate change is impacting the culture of the people I represent and impacting food security, which is why we know that, without an environmental plan, we do not have a plan for the economy, we do not have a plan for workers and we do not have a plan for the future of Canada.

I would ask the minister how this bill would help fight climate change and what it would mean to rural Canadians who, right now, do not have the option to switch to clean energy like many other Canadians can across Canada.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, there are a number of specific elements over and above the emissions reduction plan that we have put forward over the past number of years to advance a world-leading plan to reduce emissions, particularly in an energy-producing country like Canada. An example in this specific piece of legislation is the new investment tax credits to support the advancement of green technology, which will help reduce pollution and at the same time create economic opportunities. Another example is the creation of the Canada water agency.

However, I expect what my hon. colleague is getting at in her question is the doubling of the rural rebate for the price on pollution. Moving forward with the plan that makes sure that pollution is not free is essential in Canada. We cannot allow it to be free to pollute, and we should not make pollution free again. At the same time, we have to recognize that people who live in communities like mine, who do not have an opportunity necessarily to ride public transit and have to endure longer commutes to the office or to their work site, should not be faced with higher costs unnecessarily.

The delays that we have seen from the Conservatives on this bill are denying access to the doubling of that rural top-up. However, I was pleased to see as well, in the recent federal budget, that changes are being made to ensure that rural communities that may fall within larger municipalities will have the challenge around the rural rebate addressed.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am very glad that the minister just mentioned the supposed delays that the Conservatives are causing on the bill. Technically, this government has had a majority for the last year and a half. It has a supply and confidence agreement with the NDP. It has a majority on committee and a majority in the House of Commons, which would allow the Liberals to pass any bill they want during government business. The fact that he lays out an argument that we are the problem is quite interesting.

The minister sat here for the last 20 minutes bragging about how much money the Liberals are going to spend in the fall economic statement. I do not think there is a Canadian who disagrees that Liberals can spend money. I think they know the Liberals are not worth the cost anymore and that they are not getting the value for money that they deserve.

My question to the minister is this: How can the Conservative opposition be delaying the bill before us, which is what the Liberals are telling Canadians, when they have a majority and they can bring this up any time they want. The bill has been tabled since November 30, so it is basically their incompetence that has not got the job done.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, there are a number of pieces of misinformation included in my colleague's question.

First, I do not know if he appreciates this, but this is actually a minority Parliament and he seems to have described it differently.

Second, the member talks about the investments that we have been making, which are helping communities across Canada, as a negative thing. The reality is that, if he wants to examine the fiscal position of the Government of Canada, he will see that the federal government actually has the healthiest balance sheet in the G7. He will see that we are the third-largest economy in the world that maintains a AAA credit rating, and Moody's recently demonstrated that we have a stable outlook, stronger than the United States. The International Monetary Fund is projecting Canada to be the fastest growing economy in the G7, and we continue to see, time after time, compared to other advanced economies in the world, that Canada is among the healthiest, or the healthiest, when it comes to the fiscal projections for the Government of Canada.

It is essential that we continue to move forward with a downward trending debt-to-GDP ratio, and we have seen the impact of the responsible fiscal management with the rate of inflation coming down now to within the target range, despite the extraordinary headwinds we have faced as a global economy. Canada is leading the charge when it comes to fiscal responsibility and economic growth projections.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-59 creates a federal department of municipal affairs, which will bring with it more interference, bickering and delays, when the housing crisis requires fast action.

Members will recall that Pierre Elliott Trudeau attempted something similar in 1971, when he created the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, which was an abject failure. The Ministry of State for Urban Affairs was a source of contention with the provinces for its entire existence and never managed to play a useful role. It was finally disbanded in 1979.

Why is the government trying to do the same thing again when it was such a failure the first time around?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I disagree with my colleague. It is very important to recognize that there is a Department of Infrastructure as well as organizations, such as the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, that implement housing policies and manage programs to support housing across the country.

The purpose of the bill is not to create a new entity but to give ourselves the ability to work together on the two portfolios within a single department. That is common sense. This is about making sure that the housing program runs smoothly while moving forward with the infrastructure program. It is simple.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will just say that last night we spent five and a half hours in the chamber debating a Conservative amendment to delete the short title of a bill, yet we hear the Conservatives stand up and say they have not done anything to slow down the House of Commons. I also was in the finance committee when I watched them delay by forcing recorded votes on clause-by-clause for the fall economic statement, so they have absolutely tried to delay the bill before us.

My question to my hon. colleague is this: What does he think is the impact of slowing the bill down and delaying its provisions, in terms of the impact on Canadians and maybe on the businesses that are counting on the bill's to be passed to give them the relief they need?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, there are a number of people who watch politics and there are a number of people who count on us to do our jobs who do not watch it that closely. I think Canadians would be disappointed to see some of the games that are played to slow down progress.

If a member disagrees with the measures being put forward by the government, they have an opportunity to debate and they have an opportunity to vote against. There is a bill that is particularly important to my part of the world that is focused on sustainable jobs and offshore energy, and there were 20,000 amendments that I believe were generated by ChatGPT, not by somebody who actually cares.

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

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

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.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I request recorded division, please.

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

Call in the members.

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

Vote #759

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

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

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from May 8 consideration of Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

Report Stage

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, last November, the government introduced Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act. Among other measures, Bill C-59 proposed significant amendments to our Competition Act.

I am proud to share that the Standing Committee on Finance has recently completed its review of the bill and has made several amendments to further strengthen existing proposals. Before I get into some of the key details of this critical piece of legislation, I feel it is important to highlight the economic context in which this legislation is being introduced.

Countries around the world are dealing with higher inflation due to a global pandemic, further exacerbated by geopolitical uncertainty. Despite the fearmongering of the Conservative members opposite, Canada's economy is remarkably strong and resilient. That is truly due to the hard work of Canadians themselves. A few proof points demonstrate this: Canada's net debt-to-GDP ratio is well below that of our G7 peers; our deficit is declining; and we are one of the only two G7 countries with an AAA credit rating from independent experts. Something that we can all be quite proud of is that Canada received the highest per capita foreign direct investment in the G7 in the first three quarters of 2023. Some may ask why those facts matter. These proof points show that Canada is in an enviable position when it comes to fiscal management. That position is exactly the reason our government can afford to make transformative investments in improving housing affordability and making life cost less.

Unlike Conservatives, who cut support for Canadians, we believe in supporting the middle class through growth and investment. I hear from my constituents often that their top concerns are being able to find an affordable place to live and wanting to find ways to make their day-to-day expenses cost less. This legislation addresses these two core issues head on.

For many years, Canada's markets have been described as overly concentrated and not competitive enough. In fact, a landmark Competition Bureau study last year, based on Statistics Canada data and analysis from a University of Toronto professor, made critical findings in this respect, showing that competitive intensity has been on the decline over the past two decades, reflected in a number of important indicators.

Bill C-59 was introduced to help build a stronger domestic economy through more competition and contestable markets, to bring lower prices, more choice and better product quality for consumers across all sectors. The measures in this bill include strengthening provisions with respect to merger review, enhancing protections for consumers, workers and the environment, and broadening opportunities for private enforcement.

We should not underestimate just how critical these reforms are for modernizing our law and promoting competitive markets. The Commissioner of Competition has stated on multiple occasions that the amendments in Bill C‑56, the affordable housing and groceries act, which was ultimately passed by this Parliament in December 2023, and Bill C-59, are generational. I would therefore like to highlight some important reforms that have been proposed.

To begin with, anti-competitive collaborations between competitors will be under increased scrutiny, as the bureau will be able to examine and, if necessary, seek penalties against coordinated conduct that lessens competition. The expansion of private enforcement and the ability for the Competition Tribunal to issue monetary payment orders in cases initiated by private parties is also a significant change to our existing enforcement approach.

More competition is always beneficial to consumers, but the bill also takes some more direct approaches to protect consumers. These include strengthening provisions on deceptive marketing so that vendors must present the full cost of a product or service upfront, without holding back mandatory fees, which is known as drip pricing. Businesses making environmental claims about their products will be required to have undertaken adequate and proper testing before advertising those benefits. Together, these changes would ensure that consumers have accurate and complete information about products and services to make informed purchasing decisions.

We have also made strides on the right to repair. Thanks to the bill, a wider variety of service providers would be able to offer more options to consumers when they are choosing where to repair their products. These reforms, along with various administrative changes aimed at facilitating efficient enforcement of the act, are crucial to ensuring that Canadian markets remain competitive and in line with international best practices.

It has been acknowledged by all members of the House that our competition framework requires reform, and my colleagues have engaged in thoughtful discussion on ways to modernize the existing marketplace framework. The committee members were notably quite interested in enhancing protections for consumers and the environment, and I would like to draw attention to some now.

First, clarifications were made to ensure that in the Competition Act's various provisions on drip pricing, the only amounts that can be excluded from the upfront price, are those imposed by law directly on the purchaser of the products, such as sales taxes.

Next, with the committee's amendment, sellers advertising reduced prices would be required to be able to prove that the regular price is authentic to publicize discounts. On the topic of doubtful environmental claims, or so-called greenwashing, the law would also require that those who make environmental claims about their business or business activities, not only specific products, have adequate and proper substantiation in hand to support such claims.

This bill goes beyond making generational changes to competition in Canada. It also takes concrete action to build more homes faster, including new rental housing. Bill C-59 proposes to eliminate GST on eligible new housing co-operatives built for long-term rental, as outlined in the fall economic statement. This is just one of many measures our government is proposing to ensure that more people across all provinces and territories find the housing they need, at a price that they can afford.

Amidst a period of inflation and growing affordability concerns, it is crucial that our markets remain resilient and open to competition. Bill C-59 would reform Canada's competitive landscape, encourage greater innovation and improve affordability for Canadians. It would also get more rental housing built faster so that we can ensure housing is affordable for every generation.

I would urge my colleagues from all sides of the House to work together to expeditiously pass this crucial piece of legislation, instead of doing what we have seen in committee, which is to slow the bill down. We continue to see the Conservatives try to obstruct key pieces of legislation that are helping Canadians in their time of need, and that is not what we have been put here to do.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the member mentioned a bit about housing, and I will ask him a similar question that I have asked other Liberal MPs about the fall economic statement and the lack of investments going to the territorial governments to help alleviate the housing crisis in the north.

Does the member agree, for example, that we should have heard the three territorial premiers when they asked for $600 million in the budget? Continuing to ignore those kinds of calls shows a lack of supporting the economy's needs, which could be generated by supporting housing in the north.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the utmost respect for the member opposite, having worked with her on several committees, heard her testimony, and seen her great advocacy for her community.

I know the particular bill we are debating tonight, Bill C-59, has a measure to waive GST on new co-operative rental housing construction. That is obviously one measure of many in a package of measures that are included in this year's budget, which would make a difference.

I note that the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities had a great intervention earlier with the member opposite. He detailed specific investments that are quite sizable in northern, rural and remote indigenous communities. I know my work on the HUMA committee years ago was part of those studies, and I am glad to see that our government is following through with significant investments.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, this fiscal economic statement has led to a budget where the debt servicing costs $54.1 billion, which is more than the federal government transfers to provinces for health care. We all know health care is very important.

How did the member find his way to supporting a fiscal economic statement that led to a budget that spends more on debt each and every year than this whole country spends on health care transfers to provinces?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can relate to the member's commitment to having a strong health care system in Canada today. That is exactly why our government, through the health transfer, has increased funding to provinces and territories.

I would note that the amount is approximately $200 billion over the next 10 years. We have also followed that up with bilateral agreements that add to those investments and identify key priorities across the country. A stronger health care system is essential.

It strikes me as a bit rich that the member opposite is talking about health care, when the Conservative Party, and many Conservative premiers, seem to struggle to utilize those dollars to truly strengthen our health care system. My family members and people in my community cannot even get a $3-million planning grant to move forward on building a local hospital.

Our government has invested in health care, and we look forward to seeing those investments land on the ground for families.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague from Whitby, who I work with at the Standing Committee on Science and Research.

My question for my colleague is on the effectiveness of implementing, creating a new department of housing. Quebec already has the ministry of municipal affairs and housing and the Société d'habitation du Québec.

The last projects that were funded in Quebec, in my region in particular, were funded from money in budget 2022. It took two years to budget the money, transfer it and come to an agreement with the Government of Quebec. I would like my colleague to explain what Ottawa will be able to do better than Quebec. I would like to know what Quebec cannot do with its current expertise.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the member, having worked with him on the science and research committee. I know him to be a productive member of Parliament who advocates for his community well. It was great to see, in our current budget, the great investments in research that we both advocated for.

With regard to housing investments, our government is working collaboratively with Quebec, and all other provinces and territories. It does take time to design programs and roll them out at the national level, but we look forward to the strongest possible collaborative relationship with the Government of Quebec in ensuring that Quebeckers get the housing they need, just like all other Canadians.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege to stand this evening and speak on behalf of the constituents of Lethbridge and, of course, representing those across the nation as well.

I have the privilege of speaking to the budget implementation act concerning the 2024 Liberal budget, which was put forward on April 16. These are some headlines that came out in newspapers across the country following the dropping of the budget: “Liberal hike to job-killing capital gains tax is inexcusable”; “Capital gains tax change draws ire from some Canadian entrepreneurs worried it will worsen the brain drain”; “David Dodge wasn't wrong, this federal budget is 'one of the worst in decades'”.

Here is the next one: “The Liberals move from borrow and spend, to tax and spend”. Another one is, “Canada's budget 2024: More spending, higher capital gains taxes, and bigger deficits”. This one mentions that the federal budget is “the worst in decades”. These are the types of headlines that came out following the Liberal budget, and they are not wrong.

I am not sure if members have heard of an oil salesman. It is a term that originated in the 1900s from an infamous imposter who sold snake oil as a miracle medicine. It turns out that this snake oil was just a concoction of mineral oil, beef fat, red pepper and turpentine, but he would go around and he would claim that it had magical healing properties, so people would spend a whole lot of money on it in hopes that it would deliver the results that were promised to them. Eventually, this con artist was found out, was exposed for what he was doing, and he actually became a very powerful symbol used throughout the land to warn against false advertising.

When I look at the Liberals' budget of 2024, I see a snake-oil salesman, a commitment to doing something but actually achieving the opposite, and a commitment to helping Canadians but actually thwarting their success, which is why we get the types of headlines that I just read into the record.

On April 16, the Liberals announced that they would be strapping an additional $14 billion in new deficit spending to the backs of Canadians. This makes it the ninth year in a row that the Prime Minister has run deficits, while claiming that the budget would balance itself. We all know that is ridiculous; budgets do not balance themselves. He also said that we would change the economy from the heart out. We also know that this is ridiculous. Hard-working people change the economy in a positive way. A blind or ignorant prime minister changes the economy in a negative way, and unfortunately, what we see is a whole bunch of negative.

The Prime Minister continues to promise that Canadians are better off with his budget, but at the end of the day, we know that families are actually worse off. In fact, the National Post just came out with an article this week, saying that if the economy had stayed where it was in 2015, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, we would all be earning $4,200 more per year, which means that under the Liberal government, every single Canadian is $4,200 per year worse off.

In other words, the Liberal government is not actually helping Canadians; the Liberal government is hurting Canadians to the tune of $4,200 per year. That is alarming. That is a lot of money. That is a good chunk toward the down payment of a house. That is a good chunk towards maybe a new vehicle, maybe toward putting one's child in sports or just being able to pay household bills and to make ends meet.

This year, Canadians will have to pay over $54 billion just to cover the interest that has been incurred because of the government's out-of-control spending. That is a whole lot of money, $54 billion, and we lose sight of what exactly that means, so let me spell that out. That is more than what the government collects in GST paid toward just the interest payment.

That is double what this government has committed to our Canadian Armed Forces, the men and women who serve this country, who unfortunately are going without proper food, care and equipment because the government refuses to fund them adequately. Meanwhile, double the amount that is spent for the Canadian Armed Forces is being paid just to substantiate our interest payments.

Further to that, it is the same amount as what this government transfers to provinces for health care. Imagine the hospitals we could build. Imagine the doctors that could be hired. Imagine the types of care that Canadians could enjoy if we did not have to put that money toward just maintaining our debt.

This is the result of a government without vision for its people. It lands us in this place where things are broken. People are desperate. I hosted a town hall just over a week ago, and the room was filled. People were eager to come and share their concerns with me. Overwhelmingly, the things they talked about were housing, the cost of groceries, fuel and other essentials in life. They were desperate for me to offer them hope and, unfortunately, under the current government, I could not do that. All I could do was ask them to hold on for the day that a new government is coming. The way that the Liberal government has ruled and the decisions that it has made, as can be seen in the 2024 budget, simply bring us down.

People in my riding have been sending me their carbon tax bills. One shows that the cost of the carbon tax bill for a household is $4 more than their actual consumption. They are spending more on the tax than they are on the consumption. Another shows that this family is spending $18 more on the carbon tax than they are on their consumption. Another bill was double. Their actual gas cost was $33.11, and their carbon tax cost was $63.41. They are paying double on the tax versus consumption. There was another bill where they actually only spent $20 on consumption, and they spent $34 on their tax.

There is a business that is spending $600 more every single month just to cover their tax. Imagine that. Another business is spending nearly $1,000 more every single month just to cover the carbon tax.

Imagine the impact that it would have for Canadian families if the punitive carbon tax were to be scrapped. We know the Liberal government is not accomplishing any of its environmental objectives. It has failed on every single one of them, so we know the carbon tax is not about that. There is no metric to point at to show success. We are led to believe that it is for no other reason than simply to be punitive in nature. The government has accomplished its goal. Canadians are paying far more for the carbon tax than they are for the actual consumption of natural gas. Canadians are punished. Well done, Liberals.

At the end of the day, it means that Canadians are paying that carbon tax not just on their natural gas bills, but also on the fuel they put in their vehicles, the home heating, as well as the groceries and the necessities they require for their households. Folks are struggling. Two million people are lining up at food banks. In my riding, food bank use has increased by 75%. That is a problem.

The government could do something about that, should it wish to. However, the 2024 budget shows that it does not. It is the same failed policies that have led this government for the last nine years. Unfortunately, Canadians are caught in the middle of that. Conservatives will do better. That is our commitment to Canadians. We look forward to forming government very shortly.