Chrystia Freeland

[The Economy, November 4th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives may have an inferiority complex vis-à-vis the United States, but I sure do not. Let me tell colleagues what is better in Canada. Inflation is lower. Interest rates are lower. We live four years longer because we have a universal single-payer health care system.

Investors are noticing the Canadian advantage. Here is what David Rosenberg said last week: U.S.-based investors should strongly consider moving from New York to Toronto, because returns here are better, too.

[The Economy, November 4th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, once again, let me tell the House what we do better in Canada. Inflation is lower. The interest rate is lower. The average lifespan is longer.

I want to share a comment from David Rosenberg, a well-known economist. He said last week that that U.S.-based investors should strongly consider leaving New York for Toronto. That is because he knows that Canadian companies have stronger returns. That is the reality.

[The Economy, November 4th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am a patriotic Canadian and I know that our country is a great country. I do not want to be American. If the Conservatives want to make comparisons, here is what they should be comparing. Inflation is lower in Canada. The interest rate is lower in Canada. The average Canadian will live four years longer than the average American. The Conservatives are wrong if they think that the United States is better than Canada.

[Questions on the Order Paper, October 30th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, climate change is an existential challenge, and climate action is critical to Canada’s long term health and economic prosperity. Carbon pricing is widely recognized as the most efficient means of reducing our greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions, which is why the Government of Canada continues to make sure that it is not free to pollute in Canada.

The federal price on pollution is revenue-neutral for the federal government; all of the direct proceeds from the federal carbon pricing system remain in the province or territory where they are collected. Put simply, every dollar collected from the carbon price is returned.

The fuel charge is generally paid at the producer or distributor level and passed on to purchasers as part of the price paid for fuel. Monthly fuel charge returns only account for aggregate amounts by fuel type and by province or territory. Typically, once the fuel charge has been paid by a fuel producer or distributor, there is no further reporting of who ultimately bears the cost of the federal fuel charge.

In the provinces where the fuel charge applies, the majority of households receive more with the Canada carbon rebate than they incur in carbon pricing-related costs. The government reports the direct fuel charge proceeds collected and returned annually through the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act annual report. For more information on the proceeds collected and returned, please see the annual report for 2022 at the following website: https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.893583/publication.html.

[Questions on the Order Paper, October 30th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada regularly consults Canadians and stakeholders in the context of pre-budget consultations, with over 16,000 submissions and suggestions received in advance of Budget 2024.

A search of the records of the Department of Finance did not produce any results.

[Questions on the Order Paper, October 30th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, in response to part (a) of the question, this figure was estimated using historical information on individual, including trust, and corporate tax filings to project capital gains realizations in future tax years, i.e. ending in 2024 through 2029, using the Department of Finance’s forecasting and simulation models.

Adjustments were made to the baseline projections of capital gains realizations to account for some filers choosing to realize capital gains prior to the effective date of June 25, 2024, leaving less capital gains in future years that would have otherwise been subject to the higher inclusion rate had they not been pulled forward.

The simulation models account for, among other things: changes in the inclusion rate on net capital gains and stock options subject to the $250,000 threshold, the inclusion rate for allowable business investment losses, adjustment factors applied to net capital losses of prior years, Alternative Minimum Tax calculations, and the value of the lifetime capital gains exemption.

In addition, it was assumed that the higher inclusion rate for corporations would result in a reduction in the capital dividend account, and a greater value of taxable dividends paid out by corporations to be taxed in the hands of individuals.

Furthermore, an adjustment factor was applied to the model output to account for additional behavioural responses to the reform, i.e. retiming of capital gains realizations across years after 2024, changes in the allocation of assets to fixed income investments.

As for part (b), the Department of Finance’s modelling tools leverage historical personal, trust and corporate income tax filing data from the Canada Revenue Agency.

The growth rates for key income variables, including capital gains and stock options, are based on the same departmental projection model that is used to forecast key fiscal and economic variables for the federal budget.

[Health, October 29th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to sincerely thank my colleague from St. John's East for her hard work for Canadian women. She is a nurse and knows what she is talking about on this issue.

Today, we introduced legislation that would deny charitable status to centres that fail to disclose services they do or do not offer. This is about telling the truth. It is about women and girls across our country having control of their own bodies. That is what our government is proud to stand up for.

[The Economy, October 29th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader does not usually give press conferences. That is why it is understandable that he goofed yesterday and he admitted his true plan. He said, “We're going to cut two programs for sure, and more beyond that.”

Now we all know that the Conservative plan is one of cuts, cuts, cuts. They are going to cut that school food program that is going to feed 400,000 kids. They are going to cut dental care that has provided care to one million Canadians. They are going to cut pharmacare. They are going to cut early learning and child care, but we will not let them.

[Housing, October 28th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell members what we will never agree with. We will never agree to the Conservative agenda of cuts and austerity, cuts that would hit the most vulnerable the hardest.

The Conservatives have been trying to hide their true colours from Canadians. However, today, the Conservative leader made a mistake and admitted what he really intends to do. I am going to quote him. He said, “We're going to cut two programs for sure and more beyond that.”

The question today is this: What are they going to cut next? We know it is everything that Canadians—

[The Economy, October 28th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, we have known for a very long time that the Conservatives are crying crocodile tears when it comes to the most vulnerable in Canada and, today, the Conservative leader actually admitted it. He said, “We're going to cut two programs for sure, and more beyond that.” Now we know. They are going to cut child care, they are going to cut the Canada child benefit, they are going to cut dental care, they are going to cut pharmacare, they are going to cut support for seniors. That is unacceptable. We will not let them do that.