44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 10, 2024
- This bill, called the Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023, implements certain provisions of the fall economic statement and budget tabled in Parliament in 2023. It includes amendments to the Income Tax Act and other legislation, such as limiting the deductibility of net interest and financing expenses, implementing hybrid mismatch rules, allowing certain expenditures in the exploration and development of lithium to qualify as Canadian exploration expenses, and introducing various tax credits and exemptions. It also includes amendments related to digital services tax, Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax measures, excise tax measures, and other measures related to competition, bankruptcy and insolvency, money laundering, and more.
- Yea (182)
- Nay (152)
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on 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. The bill would advance the government's economic plan to make life more affordable, build more homes faster and build an economy that works for everyone.
To build an economy that works for everyone, the bill delivers critical pieces of our fall economic statement. It would help make life more affordable. We are rolling out new measures to strengthen our economy, combat climate change and forge excellent career opportunities for Canadians, now and in the future.
The Liberals' plan is already yielding results and we continue to push forward. We are advancing Canada's clean economy with a clear timeline for deploying all investment tax credits by 2024. We are launching the Canada growth fund as the primary federal issuer of carbon contracts for difference. We are progressing the indigenous loan guarantee program.
Canada's economic prosperity increasingly depends on a focused strategy to boost growth, particularly in a globally competitive environment. The nation's future success relies on enhancing productivity, innovation and investments in pivotal sectors, such as technology, clean energy and advanced manufacturing. These fields are vital not only for generating high-quality jobs but also for maintaining Canada's competitive edge internationally.
Additionally, empowering small and medium-sized enterprises with supportive policies and tax benefits is crucial to foster entrepreneurship and economic expansion. Equally critical is attracting and retaining top talent. Policies that encourage skilled immigrants to settle in Canada, coupled with significant investments in the education and training of Canadians, are essential to develop a workforce capable of leading in a high-tech, competitive global market.
Canada stands out among G7 countries for maintaining the lowest deficit and net debt-to-GDP ratios, showcasing exceptional fiscal management. This indicates a more sustainable economic position compared to other G7 countries like the U.S., U.K., Germany, France, Italy and Japan, which generally face higher debts and deficits relative to their GDPs.
This fiscal prudence in Canada supports economic stability and investor confidence. Canada's strategic financial policies enable it to better manage economic fluctuations and invest in future growth.
Among G7 nations, Canada's credit rating is ranked near the top. Major credit rating agencies frequently cite Canada’s prudent fiscal policies, low debt-to-GDP ratio and robust institutional framework as key factors supporting its high rating. This strong credit status enhances Canada's ability to attract foreign investment and borrow at lower interest rates, significantly benefiting the economic environment relative to other G7 countries.
On advanced technologies like artificial intelligence, our approach in promoting reflects a robust and proactive strategy aimed at both fostering innovation and ensuring responsible development within the sector. Canada is globally recognized for its influential role in the artificial intelligence sector, distinguished by its significant contribution to AI research and development.
The nation's focus on AI underscores its dedication to technological progress and strategic economic integration. Leading the way in AI innovation are Canadian universities and research centres, which are vital in producing cutting-edge research and attracting international talent. AI's relevance to the Canadian economy is substantial, serving as a key economic engine.
This is supported by major governmental investments, including the $2-billion artificial intelligence compute access fund and the Canadian sovereign compute strategy, aimed at equipping Canada with the infrastructure and resources needed to sustain its competitive advantage in this critical field.
Artificial intelligence technologies in Canada find applications across diverse sectors, such as health care, environmental protection, agriculture, manufacturing and finance, promising to elevate productivity, competitiveness and job quality. For the companies in these sectors to adapt these AI technologies in their operations, we have provided $200 million. By proactively enhancing its AI ecosystem, Canada not only bolsters its global stature but also secures its economic future, positioning AI as a fundamental pillar of its national strategy for long-term growth and innovation.
Canada is strategically established as a significant contributor to the global supply chain for the critical minerals necessary for manufacturing advanced batteries in electric vehicles and energy storage systems. The country's abundant resources of lithium, cobalt, nickel and graphite make it a key player in the clean energy transition.
In response to the growing importance of these minerals for the global economy and environmental sustainability, we are actively expanding our mining and refining capabilities. This enhancement not only meets domestic demands for EV production but also serves international markets, especially those transitioning to greener technologies. We support this sector with favourable policies, substantial investment and collaborations with private companies and international partners. These initiatives aim to create a secure, sustainable and competitive supply chain that utilizes Canada’s natural resources responsibly.
Additionally, we prioritize partnerships with indigenous communities in mineral resource development, promoting inclusive growth and sustainable practices, thereby reinforcing Canada's reputation as a reliable and ethical source of critical minerals internationally. We are also promoting “one project, one environmental impact assessment” to speed up the implementation of projects.
Our strategic focus on economic growth ensures the sustainability of social programs and the continuation of high living standards amid an uncertain global landscape. After a contraction of 0.1% in the third quarter of 2023, Canada's GDP rebounded with 0.2% growth in the fourth quarter. In February, Canada's inflation rate was 2.8%, down from 2.9% in January. It rose slightly to 2.9% in March, roughly in line with the Bank of Canada's forecast.
Statistics Canada reported today that the economy added approximately 90,000 jobs, far exceeding the anticipated 20,000 positions. This marked the most robust month for job creation since January 2023. Nevertheless, the unemployment rate remained constant at 6.1%. These figures indicate that employers are ready and capable of hiring additional staff, despite the economic challenges posed by increased interest rates.
Bank of Canada governor Tiff Macklem has mentioned a possible rate reduction as soon as June. I have been saying for the last 12 months that we will see interest rate reversals starting mid-2024. Recent months have seen quicker-than-expected easing of price pressures, boosting the Bank of Canada’s confidence that inflation is returning to target levels.
The current high interest rates, which aim to curb borrowing and cool inflation by making debt more expensive, may not need to be maintained much longer. We are achieving a soft landing of the economy, though many had predicted we would fall into recession
1114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, last November, the government introduced Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act of 2023. 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.
For many years, Canada's markets have been described as overly concentrated and not competitive enough. In fact, the 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, which is reflected in a number of important indicators. These trends have been exacerbated by the inflationary pressures our country is facing following a global pandemic and increasing geopolitical uncertainty.
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 proposed amendments to the Competition Act in Bill C-59 arose out of a comprehensive public consultation conducted from November 2022 to March 2023.
Having heard from stakeholders, the government introduced Bill C-56, the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, which was ultimately passed by this Parliament in December 2023.
Completing its response to the consultation, the government then presented a more extensive set of reforms by way of Bill C-59. 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 laws and promoting competitive markets. The commissioner of competition has stated on multiple occasions that the amendments in Bill C-56 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 would be under increased scrutiny as the bureau would be able to examine and, if necessary, seek penalties against coordinated conduct that lessens competition. Up until now, at worst the participants would be told to stop what they are doing. The expansion of private enforcement and the ability of the Competition Tribunal to issue monetary payment orders in cases initiated by private parties are also significant changes to our existing enforcement approach. By relaxing the requirements to bring a case and providing an incentive to bring matters directly to the Competition Tribunal, there would be greater accountability throughout the marketplace and more action on cases that the Competition Bureau may not be able to take.
More competition is always beneficial to consumers, but the bill also takes some direct approaches to protect consumers. These include strengthening provisions on deceptive marketing, such as applying requirements more broadly so vendors must present the full cost of a product or service up front without holding back mandatory fees, known as “drip pricing.” The law is further being refined to make it easier to ensure that advertised rebates are authentic when compared to a vendor's past prices. Businesses making environmental claims about their products would be required to have undertaken adequate and proper testing before advertising their benefits. Together, these changes would ensure that consumers have accurate and complete information about products and services in order to make informed purchasing decisions.
I would also like to highlight barriers to repair, which have been an issue of great importance in recent years. Where manufacturers refuse to provide the means of diagnosis or repair in a way that harms competition, remedial orders would be available to require them to furnish what is necessary. This could help a wider variety of service providers offer more options to consumers when choosing where to repair their products.
On top of everything I have mentioned so far, anti-reprisal provisions would also ensure that the system can function. These are included to ensure that workers and small businesses are protected from potential retaliation when they work with the authorities to address anti-competitive behaviour and violations of the act by other parties.
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 practices.
It has been acknowledged by all members of the House that our competition framework requires reform. My colleagues have engaged in thoughtful discussion on ways to modernize the existing marketplace framework. Nothing exemplifies this better than the enthusiasm shown by members of all parties to strengthen these provisions of Bill C-59 once it reaches the Standing Committee on Finance, especially in light of recommendations made by the commissioner of competition.
The amendments adopted in committee notably relate to merger review, deceptive marketing, and refusal to repair. The committee members were quite interested in enhancing protections for consumers and the environment, and these are the ones that I would like to draw attention to now.
First, clarifications were made to ensure that in the Competition Act's various provisions on drip pricing, the only amounts that could be excluded from the upfront price are those imposed by law directly on the purchaser of the product, such as sales tax. Next, with the committee's amendment, sellers advertising reduced prices would now be required to be able to prove that regular price is authentic in order to publicize their 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 businesses or business activities, not only specific products, must have adequate and proper substantiation in hand to support such claims. On refusal to repair, the committee added some helpful clarifications to ensure that the scope of provision was broad enough.
In sum, amidst the 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.
Therefore, I would like to urge my colleagues from all sides of the House to work together to expeditiously pass this crucial piece of legislation.
1057 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, every day, Conservatives stand up in the House and cite food bank lineups, as if they care. They are also clear that they are going to vote against the national school food program. One of the other measures that we have taken, of course, in Bill C-59 is competition reform.
I wonder if my colleague could speak to the importance of having more competition.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here tonight to discuss Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, for which we have been waiting for some time. Unfortunately, Conservatives have blocked debate on it and therefore its passage, but they came along tonight, and that is a great thing to see.
Hopefully we will see less obstruction on key legislation going forward, and the bill before us is key legislation. It includes within it items that are fundamental to this country's future, items that my constituents and constituents throughout the country really care about, like mental health, for example.
Through the years, and especially during the pandemic, I have talked to many mental health practitioners in my community of London, and I know I speak for many colleagues on this side of the House and on the other side of the House as well who made the case that the GST and HST should be removed from the cost of psychotherapy and counselling services. I think that is absolutely critical. We have seen that the government has moved on that. That is a testament to the government's commitment on mental health. Of course there are other things we have done to advance mental health, but this was something that previous governments had not recognized. I want to thank constituents again for raising the issue, because without their advocacy in the first place, I do not think we would have seen that change.
With respect to the environment, I am not going to talk about carbon emissions. I could, because there is a lot in the economic statement that addresses the issue of carbon emissions. However, our fresh water is a source of pride for Canadians. Canada has 20% of the world's total freshwater resources. What the economic statement opens the door to is the establishment of the Canada water agency that would be headquartered in Winnipeg. Here, all orders of government, indigenous peoples and researchers would collaborate on ensuring the management of this country's freshwater resources.
Again, that speaks to a fundamental concern that Canadians have. They want clean air and clean water. They want to ensure that we have sustainable resources going forward for current and future generations. I have a two-year-old little girl. I want her to grow up in a country that values all of these things. When we talk about the future, we cannot talk about Canada without talking about—
411 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have to say it seems a bit surreal to be here tonight debating Bill C-59.
In a way, it reminds me of the movie Back to the Future, because we are going back to the Liberals' fall mini-budget of last year with the hindsight of knowing what we know today because of the Liberals' recently introduced and massively failed budget 2024 document.
What did they call that budget again? Was it “Fairness for Every Generation”? I am still floored by that. Imagine leaving future generations of Canadians massive amounts of debt with zero plan whatsoever on how that debt will ever get paid. Only to the Liberals could this concept of leaving behind your bills for someone else to pay be considered some sort of generational fairness. Fortunately, everyday Canadians see the budget document for what it truly is, and they know that it is anything but fair to leave today's bills behind for our kids and grandkids to try to pay.
I realize we are here tonight to debate last fall's mini-budget and not the spring's latest budget failure, so I will focus my comments on the so-called mini-budget, also known as the fall economic statement.
There is one very fascinating thing about that mini-budget that caught my attention. Prior to it, the Liberals had forecast total debt would be $35 billion for the 2024-25 fiscal year and $26.8 billion for the 2025-26 fiscal year. This was comical. They actually forecast that the debt would go down in 2025-26. The sheer fallacy that this always-be-spending Liberal-speNDP partnership would ever spend less borrowed money is completely nonsensical, yet that is exactly what they tried to pass off to Canadians.
In this mini-budget, of course, the debt forecasts were revised and to the surprise of absolutely no one, except for possibly a certain CBC analyst, the debt forecast increased. The revised debt forecasts were now increased for 2024-25 and 2025-26 to $38.4 billion and $38.3 billion, respectively. However, it is all pointless, because we know the total debt proposed for this year is now up to $40 billion. Next year is an election year, so we can only speculate how much more debt will again increase as the desperate Prime Minister once again attempts to shovel as much money as he can out the door, hoping to buy Canadians' votes.
We are now in a position where we spend more money servicing debt than we are spending on the Canadian health care transfer. Keep in mind that this is just servicing the debt, not actually paying any off, because that is what “fairness” means to the Liberal-speNDP partnership: Leave today's bills behind for someone else to pay.
Going on nine years now, the Prime Minister has never honoured any such fiscal guardrail he has promised. The Prime Minister has never once tried to live within the fiscal framework he has established for his own government. Every year, the Liberal-speNDP partnership can pick a number they say the total debt will be, and every year, no matter how large that total debt number is, they still totally blow it off and come in higher. It is like they do not even try to live within their own means, let alone what is affordable for taxpayers.
Here is one really wacko thing about that mini-budget. The budget update mentions more housing multiple times, but the most significant parts of those housing promises, even though they were announced in the fall update, in reality are for programs that are still years away.
A few examples of this include $15 billion in new loan funding for an apartment construction program, mentioned by the member for Calgary Skyview. However, that program will not be available until fiscal year 2025-26. Similarly, there is an additional commitment to allocate $1 billion over three years for what the Liberals call an affordable housing fund for non-profit, co-op and public housing. However, this funding would not begin until the fiscal year of 2025-26.
Of course, we have an election that will occur no later than October of 2025. So devoid are the Liberals of ideas that they are now actually making promises today, or I should say last fall, on behalf of a future government that is yet to be decided on by voters. No matter how I look at it, the fall fiscal update was yet another very expensive failure in a long line of expensive Liberal failures.
Now, remember, despite all this massive Liberal deficit spending, things are so bad that even the Prime Minister himself now openly admits that young people feel like they cannot get ahead in the same way as their parents or grandparents could.
Another point, which I raised recently in my budget speech and I will make here again tonight, is that when it comes to total spending and debt, the Prime Minister has failed in every single budget to do what he promised he would do in the previous year. Let us ask this question: If the Prime Minister, who, if we ask him, thinks he is pretty awesome, in nine years has massively and completely failed to come even close to balancing a budget, what is he expecting future generations of Canadians to do that he has never done himself, because they are the ones who will be inheriting all of this?
Of course, on that side of the House, the question is never asked, is it? Why is that? Every member on that side of the House knows that bills need to be paid, and this is why so many Canadians are struggling right now. At the end of the month, when they pay their bills, for a growing number of Canadians, there is no longer enough left to live on. For some, each month, the line of credit or credit card debt only grows larger. Many tell me that they realize their financial situation is just not sustainable, and that is why there is such a growing disconnect. They see a Prime Minister, propped up by the NDP, who will literally spend any amount of borrowed money. It is not helping the average family in the least, and they are frustrated.
I am certain there are members on the other side of the House who absolutely understand and know this. I am also certain that there are a few members on the other side who are probably frustrated, because we all know that much of this mess is made behind closed doors from that inner circle inside the Prime Minister's Office without much input from them. I have been reliably informed that, at least in one caucus, some matters are even decided upon without a vote.
I realize that there is an expectation that the official opposition will oppose the government's fall fiscal update. It is, after all, the opposition's job to oppose and to hold the government to account. That was for the NDP. However, in this case, it is not like the Liberal government even tries to live within the fiscal limits it proposes for itself. That is why I mentioned in my opening comments that it is somewhat surreal to be here debating this.
We all know that the recently released budget, much of it, is just a sham, much as budget 2024 will also go down as a sham. Next fall, there will be another fall fiscal update, which will have an even bigger debt than what was proposed here today, and record spending deficits will once again be through the roof. Is there any person in this room who does not doubt that? What will they call the next budget? Would it be the “even more fairness budget”, as it will leave more unpaid debt? It is obviously pointless to speculate on whatever ridiculous title the Liberals will try to use to sell their next budget.
Getting back to the fall economic statement, we could summarize it as Liberals saying, “Yes, we spent even more than we promised, but don't worry, our expensive new programs are coming soon.” That is really, to me, what the update says. It is pretty much what happens with every single Liberal budget and budget update. The bottom line is that I will oppose this latest debt-and-deficit bill from the Liberals, brought to us by their speNDP partners.
I would like to thank all members of this place for hearing my comments at what is a very late hour, and to the Canadians who are at home, particularly those in Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, I thank them for sticking it through this far.
1482 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, one of the things about this economic update that I am particularly happy with, of course, is something that I have been pushing for for a long time. It is the removal of the GST on psychotherapy and counselling services.
While I was frustrated that the current government and previous governments did not do anything about it and that it took a long time to do it, this is something that makes a lot of sense. If the member could talk about the importance of this measure within Bill C-59, that would be great.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to speak to Bill C-59, which delivers on key measures from our 2023 fall economic statement. It is designed to make life more affordable, to build more homes faster and to forge a stronger economy.
This is a key part of our government's economic plan; since 2015, our plan has been squarely focused on improving life for the middle class and those who want to join it. From enhancing the Canada workers benefit to creating the Canadian dental care plan; delivering regulated child care for $10 a day, on average, in eight provinces and territories so far; and providing 11 million individuals and families with targeted inflation relief through a one-time grocery rebate in July 2023, our actions have strengthened the social safety net that millions of Canadians depend on.
In fact, since 2015, our government has lowered the poverty rate by 4.6%, thanks to direct income supports and a strong economy that benefits all Canadians, all the while ensuring that we maintain the lowest deficit and net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.
Compared with before the pandemic, we can proudly say that, today, over one million more Canadians are employed. However, we cannot refute that still-elevated consumer prices and looming mortgage renewals continue to put pressure on many Canadian families or say that there is not more important work ahead of us to address affordability.
When it comes to housing affordability, supply is at the heart of the major challenges facing Canadians. That is why we are taking real, concrete action to build more homes faster, including new rental housing. Bill C-56 proposed to eliminate the GST on new rental projects, such as apartment buildings, student housing and senior residences, built specifically for long-term rental accommodations. Bill C-59 goes even further by proposing to eliminate the GST on eligible new housing co-operatives built for long-term rental, as outlined in the fall economic statement.
Swift passage of the bill would enable more people in every province and territory to find the types of rental housing they need at a price they can afford. The legislation would also help protect tenants from renovictions, which statistics show are displacing individuals and families, as well as increasing the rate of homelessness.
Our federal government also recognizes the clear link between housing and infrastructure, which is why the fall economic statement proposes to establish the department of housing, infrastructure and communities, currently, Infrastructure Canada. Bill C-59 would formally establish this new department and clarify its powers and duties as the federal lead on improving public infrastructure and housing, so our communities would have the infrastructure they need to grow and remain resilient.
Another important housing measure in the fall economic statement includes cutting the red tape that prevents construction workers from moving across the country to build homes, as well as cracking down on non-compliant short-term rentals, which are keeping far too many homes in our communities off the market.
Our government is also providing $15 billion in new loans through the apartment construction loan program, which accelerates the construction of rental housing by providing low-cost financing to builders and developers. As recently announced by my colleague, the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, we will be broadening this program by including student residences to help more students find housing across the country. This crucial change would relieve pressure on the housing market by freeing up housing supply that already exists in communities. Budget 2024 delivered a top-up to support the construction of even more units.
In addition, we have launched the Canadian mortgage charter, which “details the tailored mortgage relief that the government expects lenders to provide to Canadians facing a challenging financial situation with the mortgage on their principal residence. It also reaffirms that insured mortgage holders are not required under the regulations to requalify under the minimum qualifying rate when switching lenders at mortgage renewal.” Our goal is to protect Canadians by ensuring they have the support they need to afford their homes.
On a similar topic, I would be remiss if I did not also mention the new first-time homebuyer tax-free savings account, which allows Canadians to save up to $40,000 tax-free towards the purchase of their first home. We launched this account in April 2023, and to date, it has helped more than 750,000 Canadians, and counting, reach their first home savings goals.
A more competitive economy benefits all Canadians by offering more choice and greater affordability for consumers and businesses alike. Building on changes proposed in Bill C-56, Bill C-59 would amend both the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act to modernize competition in Canada, thereby helping to stabilize prices across the entire economy. This includes supporting Canadians' right to repair by preventing manufacturers from refusing to provide the means of repair of devices and products in an anti-competitive manner. It also includes modernizing merger reviews, enhancing protections for consumers, workers and the environment, including improving the focus on worker impacts in competition analysis and empowering the commissioner of competition to review and crack down on a wide selection of anti-competitive collaborations. Finally, it includes broadening the reach of the law by enabling more private parties to bring cases before the Competition Tribunal and receive payment if they are successful. These truly generational changes would drive lower prices and innovation, while fuelling economic growth, helping to further counteract inflationary pressures.
Today, I outlined just a few examples of how Bill C-59 makes targeted, responsible investments to improve affordability, build more homes and build an economy that works for everyone, all while taking care not to feed inflation. These are real solutions that, when combined with new measures announced in our recent budget and Canada's housing plan, will help us tackle Canada's housing challenge while improving affordability across the board. That is why I urge my fellow parliamentarians to continue to support this important piece of legislation.
1018 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, what I appreciate about Bill C-59 is that, inserted into it, because of the great work of the NDP, are measures to lower bills for Canadians, as well as to end the free ride that has been given to CEOs for too long. Some of these measures include better protections for Canadian consumers in the areas of prohibiting drip pricing, deterring greenwashing and moving toward a right to repair.
Could the member respond to how he would communicate the protections we are creating for consumers in his riding?
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate 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.
What a difference four months can make. Indigenous peoples, leaders, advocates and Canadians were shocked and angered at the cuts announced by the Liberals to Indigenous Services Canada in the fall economic statement. How could the government, in the face of a $350-billion infrastructure gap for first nations, be proposing cuts to the services indigenous peoples and communities rely upon?
The Liberals said it would not affect services, but never in the history of cuts this big has that been the case. While they will never admit it, the Liberals reversing some of those cuts is a tacit admission that it would have been the case.
Let us be real about what a $350-billion infrastructure gap looks like. It is a lack of a hospital for the Island Lake region here in northern Manitoba, a region the same size population-wise as Thompson. Communities, such as Shamattawa, are having to deal with a tuberculosis outbreak because the housing crisis is so bad.
First nations on the east side of Lake Winnipeg, such as Poplar River, St. Theresa Point, Garden Hill, Wasagamack, Red Sucker Lake, Oxford House, God's Lake Narrows and God's River, have to live in enforced isolation by the federal government because of the lack of an all-weather road, and the devastating impact of climate change that is rendering its ice roads less and less dependable.
Communities such as Peguis have recently announced that they are taking the federal government to court because of the lack of support they received during the devastating floods of 2022. It has crumbling roads, a housing crises, and a lack of care homes, day cares, youth drop-in centres and recreation centres.
How could the government show this kind of disdain when it comes to its most important relationship? The Liberals say this gap will be closed by 2030, but we know that is not true. Department officials have made it clear that this will be another Liberal broken promise. The AFN has estimated the gap will not close until 2040. The ministers in charge of indigenous services, northern affairs, infrastructure and Crown-indigenous relations refused to meet with the Assembly of First Nations representative to discuss the government's failure on infrastructure and housing.
Ultimately, this failure rests with the Prime Minister, who always says the right thing when it comes to first nations, but pathologically refuses to deliver. He is now refusing to release the quarter billion dollars on housing. The federal government shortchanged first nations in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta because the federal government was using outdated census data. For a Prime Minister who says he is committed to first nations and reconciliation, it seems his preferred method for delivery of services is court ordered.
First nations were clear that the cuts to Indigenous Services Canada for key programs, such as Jordan's Principle, could not stand. The sunsetting of programs related to mental health or the harmful legacy of residential schools was a non-starter. The NDP was clear on this too. I am proud of the work of our team has done, in solidarity with first nations, Métis and Inuit communities, to roll back these cuts. We were clear with the government that it had to reverse these cuts if it wanted NDP support because it is that important.
However, it is clear the Liberals still do not get it, or they do, but they simply do not care. What other conclusions can one draw when the Liberals are investing less than 1% of what is needed to end the housing crisis facing first nations? It is a housing crisis so severe that we could double the amount of homes for first nations and people would still be living in overcrowded conditions.
It is no wonder the Minister of Finance did not mention the word “reconciliation” once in her speech on the budget. Why would she? This year's budget highlighted the $57 billion the government is spending that is court ordered. It is clear the government only helps first nations when either the NDP pressures it to or the courts order it to do so.
I know many of the people across the country are sick and tired of the harmful and divisive partisan bickering that takes place in this chamber every day and of how nothing is done here the way it should, but the NDP showed what principled politics can look like. We held firm on our demands. The Liberals folded, and we reversed the cuts. We did that with 25 MPs. While the Conservatives were happy to spend their days arguing and fighting for the best clip to use for fundraising, we in the NDP got to work to make a difference for people who in many cases need it the most.
Imagine what we could do with 35 MPs or 50 MPs, or even as the official opposition or government. An NDP government would not give away hundreds of millions of dollars to billionaire CEOs so that they can pay dividend checks. We certainly would not have bought fridges for Galen Weston. We definitely would not have spent less than 1% of what is needed to end the housing crisis on first nations.
With 25 MPs, we reversed the cuts to indigenous services, forced the Liberals on dental care and pharmacare, and brought in a capital gains tax. We did not point fingers. We did not plug our fingers into our ears. We just got to work to deliver for indigenous communities, for working people and for Canadians, because for every failure in the budget, there is an important win to be found.
While there is no wealth tax, we did force the Liberals to bring in a capital gains tax on gains above $250,000. While the Liberals refused to reverse the Conservative $60-billion corporate giveaway they have ignored for almost a decade, we forced them to deliver so that kids would not go to school hungry. We also know that 3.7 million Canadians will now have access to diabetes medication and 9 million Canadians will have access to free birth control, all due to NDP pressure.
Meanwhile, we have a Conservative Party, led by a hyperpartisan Conservative leader, that seems hell-bent on bringing back a war on women. Shamefully, we also saw at least one Conservative MP stand with anti-choicers, who were standing against a woman's right to choose and against women's human rights on Parliament Hill today.
Looking at this budget, and looking at the wins for working-class people, how could one make their signature opposition to it be access to free birth control in 2024? Why is the Conservative Party so bereft of ideas that it is forced to recycle their worst ones from yesterday, a few decades ago or maybe even a few centuries ago, when it comes to women?
It is no surprise they are single-mindedly focused on making Parliament fail for people. For a leader who likes to cosplay as a defender of the working class, he sure is happy to echo the message of the well-heeled lobbyists he pretends not to meet. He may say he will not meet lobbyists, unless you include his chief strategist. He may say he will not connect with billionaire CEOs, but he will fundraise off them. He may say he will not speak with the wealthiest corporations in the country, but he will echo their every message. I want to point to the recent work of The Breach in uncovering the extent to which so many people connected to Loblaw, Metro and others are big donors for both the Liberals and Conservatives.
It is ironic that the Conservatives, a party whose slogan is “bring it home”, are so fundamentally opposed to housing solutions in the country. What homes are they “bringing it” to? They are consistently opposing funding for housing for first nations living in overcrowded and mouldy homes, and their approach to housing would mostly help rich investors make more money off the housing market and leave Canadian families behind.
Our message to Canadians is clear. If they want more cosplay and stunts, if they want more coddling of billionaires and if they want to watch their tax dollars go to the wealthiest people in the country, they should vote Liberal or Conservative, but if Canadians want a country where indigenous justice is a priority, where no one is left behind, where we can have a health care system that is truly there for our needs, and where the wealthy pay their fair share to fund the services and the society we need, the NDP is the party for them.
1505 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be able to speak on behalf of the people of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook in Nova Scotia, and I am pleased to speak to Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023.
When I say “fall...2023”, I know that those listening to me must be perking up their ears. It is because the Conservatives have been dragging their feet, as they often do, to slow down the process and delay the passage of bills that will help and support Canadians.
The bill is really our government's economic plan for making life more affordable and ensuring that we continue to invest in housing and create an economy that works for all Canadians. Over the past few years, our government has introduced a number of measures to help Canadian families. We know that many families are struggling right now because of the cost of living. That is why we are introducing direct measures to help Canadians in difficult situations.
For example, the Canada-wide early learning and child care system that we are implementing from coast to coast to coast is saving many families a lot of money. When I say “a lot”, I do mean a lot. Thanks to this new national system, families across the country are saving between $2,000 and $14,000. My colleagues can imagine what that means to these families. I can say that my daughter used to pay nearly $2,000 a month for child care for her three children, and now she pays $800. Now she can invest the remaining $1,200 in something else to help her family. There is no doubt that this is making a big difference for families and their budgets.
Furthermore, our government's enhancements to old age security, the Canada pension plan and the guaranteed income supplement allow more retired people to live comfortably in dignity. It is very important that the benefits increase every year so that they do not fall behind.
We are well aware that groceries cost more. My children remind me often, and when I go to the grocery store, I also notice that the prices are too high and that something needs to be done. In June last year, we distributed a grocery rebate worth hundreds of dollars to 11 million Canadians to help them out.
We also made college and university more affordable. We helped young people by permanently eliminating interest on student loans and Canada apprentice loans. To help students, we increased grants from $3,000 to $4,200.
Our government fully understands that better competition means lower prices, more choice and more innovative products and services for Canadians. That is why, with Bill C-59, we are proposing to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act to ensure that Canadians have more choice when it comes to the companies that they do business with. With these changes, we will be able to strengthen the Competition Bureau's tools and powers. We will be able to further modernize merger reviews, which is always an important issue. We will be able to strengthen consumer and worker protection. We will give the competition commissioner the means to examine more types of anti-competitive collaborations and find solutions that work.
These measures will help us increase competition. This will enable Canada to align itself with international, not just domestic, best practices, to ensure that the domestic marketplace promotes fairness, affordability and innovation.
Our government also understands that psychotherapy and counselling services play a key role in the lives and mental health of millions of Canadians. With Bill C-59, we are making essential services more accessible by eliminating the GST and HST on professional services provided by psychotherapists and counselling specialists.
On another matter, our government wants to help adoptive parents through Bill C-59. While EI maternity and parental benefits provide essential support for new parents, adoptive parents are currently entitled to EI parental benefits but not the 15 weeks of maternity benefits. We are therefore introducing a new 15-week EI benefit for adoption that both parents can share.
As members can see, our government has already implemented several measures to make life more affordable. We are continuing our work with Bill C-59.
In conclusion, I think it is clear that the government wants to make life more affordable for Canadians. We have already implemented a number of measures over the past few years to help take the strain off Canadians. We will continue in the same direction to support Canadians. Obviously, we are making sure that the measures we propose fall within our ability to pay. Fortunately, we are in a very strong economic position to invest in Canadians. We continue to make those investments.
I invite all my colleagues in the House to vote for Bill C‑59 so that we can continue to make life more affordable for Canadians.
834 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, a leopard cannot change its spots.
Once again, it is clear that the Liberal government is trying to interfere in Quebec's affairs and fantasizing about taking over jurisdictions that do not belong to it and in which it has no expertise. Why? Maybe it is trying to justify its existence and appear relevant. Budget 2024 and this bill are perfect examples of that. That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C‑59. Let me say this loud and clear: The federal government's unabashed assault on Quebec's jurisdictions is scandalous.
By choosing to create a federal department of municipal affairs, which it calls the department of housing, infrastructure and communities, Ottawa is announcing yet more interference in how Quebec runs its internal affairs. The size of the public service has jumped by 42%, or 109,000 public servants, and the tax burden has increased by $20 billion, but the Liberal government wants to make the public service even bigger, doubling its army of highly paid public servants, whose thankless task it will be to interfere in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, and who will give the federal government the organizational capacity to impose even more conditions on Quebec and municipalities.
It is readily apparent that this massive public servant hiring campaign will make it easier to coordinate the centralization of power and decision-making in Ottawa. The father of the current Prime Minister, the member for Papineau, tried a similar approach when he created the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs in 1971. The experiment was a dismal failure. As the saying goes, like father, like son. We need the humility to learn from our past mistakes in order to avoid repeating them.
As a proud regionalist and elected official in a riding that includes 39 municipalities and three regional county municipalities, commonly known as RCMs, I know what I am talking about. Many of them are already having a hard time getting what they are owed from the federal government, because of funding that never arrives on time or cuts in financial support for the cultural sector, for example. Why complicate the process with more delays, costs, disputes and even more delays? Municipalities need fast, effective and direct action to address the various issues. They are the ones that deliver services most directly to the public. The federal government, however, is doing the exact opposite by adding more layers of red tape that will only increase costs and lengthen delays.
I should also point out that the Parliamentary Budget Officer recently said, about federal services, “public services themselves appear to have deteriorated. Not all of them are at the level one would expect from the public service.” Do my fellow citizens really want the federal government to manage more things? Well, no.
The really sad thing about this part of Bill C‑59 is that the Liberals are offering a solution that no one asked for instead of meeting expectations within their own areas of jurisdiction, and that is really detrimental. I feel like I am repeating myself, but the housing crisis we are currently experiencing, which is dragging on because of half measures that do not solve the problem, must be addressed quickly. People are suffering. Social housing in particular has been chronically underfunded since the 1990s, yet the federal government is not stepping up. Instead, it is trying to take even more responsibility despite its ineffectiveness and incompetence in other matters.
The vacancy rate in Rimouski is 0.6%. A balanced market sits at 3%. That means it is almost impossible to find housing. Families are living in motels. It is disgraceful. It is not just in my riding, either. My colleagues and neighbours throughout the Lower St. Lawrence are in similar situations, with a rate of 0.7% in Rivière-du-Loup and 1.2% in Matane. The answer is simple. We are asking the federal government to stop trying to manage everything, to stop micromanaging, and to simply do what is expected of it, which is to transfer the money to the Quebec government, unconditionally. Then we can tackle the crisis and try to resolve it. The Bloc Québécois is not going to make concessions. We will stand firm.
Let us now talk about the second major concern that we have with this bill. While we want to do away with fossil fuels, the Liberals are reminding us that they are great allies of the oil companies by adding a $30.3-billion subsidy in the form of tax credits paid for by taxpayers. I am talking about the taxpayers who are watching us at home this evening. That $30.3 billion belongs to them. This is not really surprising. We know that Suncor had a hand in drafting the government's policy. The image that comes to mind is that of a firefighter arsonist.
In Rimouski, these same super wealthy companies are increasing the cost of gas for residents, sometimes by up to 20¢ overnight. They have a virtual monopoly and yet they are putting a huge burden on the shoulders of those who depend on their vehicles to get around, make a living and get to work. I already know that some members will tell me that those individuals can just use public transit to get around. They are right, but when the federal government abandons the regions to focus on large urban centres, then public transit in the regions is obviously not sufficient to offer a real alternative to vehicle use.
The Lower St. Lawrence has practically no trains or buses anymore. The number of weekly private bus departures has gone from 6,000 to 882 since 1981. That is an 85% drop. I met the heads of Via Rail recently. They told me that the trains that go to Rimouski have been in service since the 1950s or 1960s, that the rail cars are at the end of their useful life and that these lines will have to be shut down in a few years if the federal government does not invest in them soon. That means we are going to lose one of our last links to the rest of Quebec if the government continues to do nothing. This situation has been going on for too long. Budget 2024 was not the boost we were looking for to save the regional connections.
I get the impression that we are going backward. Our ancestors who built the railway must be rolling over in their graves looking at their descendants shutting it down, when we do not even have an alternative in place. Is the federal government waiting to swoop in at the last minute like a hero at the risk of further isolating the regions?
I will not get into the fact that there are virtually no flights in the regions. The wonderful corporate citizens at Air Canada took advantage of the public health crisis to cease their operations in June 2020 and they never came back to our region, or to the Mont-Joli regional airport, more specifically.
As a result of all of these transportation problems, some of my constituents now even have to take a taxi to Quebec City to get hospital services. I hold the federal government responsible for that, because it is refusing to abide by its agreement to cover 50% of Quebec's health care costs, which compromises access to health care and the development of these kinds of services in the regions.
Now, if the billions of dollars earmarked for oil companies had instead been allocated to transportation, imagine how much the government could have actually improved the situation. We see that the government's priorities are not always in the right place and that the regions still do not matter to the Liberals. They basically never do.
Consequently, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C-59, which both encroaches on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and demonstrates the full extent of the Liberal government's hypocrisy. There has never been a more centralizing government. I get the impression that it wants to revise the definition of a confederation. We are no longer in a confederation; we are under a central government that wants to appropriate all the powers and change the rules of the game without consulting the players. I would even go so far as to say that the rules of the game are constitutional agreements. We cannot take it lightly when agreements with partners are not being upheld. The government claims to want meaningful collaboration with its partners, yet it does not even respect its own agreements with its so-called partners.
Moreover, we will not support the creation of a department whose main task will be to interfere more aggressively in Quebec's jurisdictions and double the government's army of public servants. Nor will we support the $30.3 billion subsidy to ultrarich oil companies that will undoubtedly compromise our ecosystems and slow down the energy transition that Quebec is spearheading.
That concludes my speech. I welcome questions and comments from my colleagues.
1548 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her wonderful speech on the environment. It was very clear and straightforward.
I would like to ask her the following question. Does she see any interference in Bill C-59 and does she see even more of it in Bill C-69?
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask the member about the greenwashing provisions in the Competition Act. The government worked collaboratively and very closely with Bloc and NDP members to strengthen the provisions within the Competition Act that deal with products that claim to be sustainable and also general claims that companies may make. I think those provisions in the Competition Act really prevent against greenwashing and ensure that companies have to substantiate and have evidence for the claims they make.
Could the member opposite speak to whether she supports that and whether she will be supporting Bill C-59 as a result?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we have been talking about Bill C‑59 for a long time, so I will get straight to the point.
There are both good things and bad things in the bill. The Bloc Québécois is opposed to it. I think that has been said. I have very strong feelings about one of the reasons we oppose it. The government is once again giving gifts to the oil industry.
For the umpteenth time, the government is kowtowing to this sector, giving it $30.3 billion in oil subsidies in the form of tax credits. As a result, taxpayers will be paying oil companies to pollute less, even though they do not need that money. What is more, the companies have no intention of cutting production or undertaking projects that will help Canada meet its climate and environmental protection commitments. Quite the contrary.
Oil companies do not need this money, but they keep asking for it, and the government gives it to them. They have the most powerful and influential lobby, so the government always gives them whatever they want. From pandemic-era asks to arguments in favour of technologies that do not work and increasing deregulation, oil companies always end up with plenty of money.
In recent years, as the pandemic wound down, the oil extraction industry was posting record profits. It raked in $38 billion in 2022, and 2023 promises to be just as lucrative, though the figures are not yet available. Who benefits from these returns? It is the shareholders, 70% of whom are foreign. That is a lot of capital leaving Canada.
The current government's budgets are loaded with goodies for this sector, with plans to introduce no fewer than six tax credits largely intended for oil companies and totalling no less than $83 billion by 2035. The industry is thrilled. Two of the tax credits are tailor-made for the industry: a clean technology investment credit and a carbon capture and storage credit.
Let us start with clean technology. How are the oil companies going to get their hands on the lion's share of the $17.8‑billion pot of money earmarked for clean technology? Let me try to make this simple, but by no means simplistic. It takes a lot of energy to extract the molasses-like substance known as bitumen from the Alberta sands. Right now, the sector uses gas. Selling the gas is a lot more profitable, however, and that is what the oil companies would prefer. The good news is that after punching through Wet'suwet'en territory for the Coastal GasLink project, a new Shell and LNG Canada methane port will make the dream of exporting gas a reality within about a year. This is where the genius of clean technology comes in. Everyone supports it. Everyone believes in it. Just tack on the word “clean”, “green” or “sustainable” and problem solved, the Government of Canada will mind its own business.
With this subsidy to enable the extraction of this toxic molasses to continue and even increase, Bill C‑59 will pay oil companies to buy small modular reactors or SMRs. These are nuclear reactors. The energy from the SMRs will replace the gas that oil companies are currently using, so that they can extract more bitumen and make more gas available for export at taxpayers' expense and especially for their own profit. I am not making this up. It is really well thought out. We still do not know all of the characteristics of the radioactive waste that these SMRs produce, and yet oil companies will be using them in a context where Canada still has no control over the governance of such waste. It is a real model of cleanliness on all counts. Excuse me if I laugh.
For the fervent soldiers across the aisle who might try to tell me that we know that the clean technology tax credit will also benefit renewable energy, no, that is not true. First, there is no qualifying limit for this tax credit. In other words, the astronomical costs of the SMRs are going to drain the allotted budget, leaving very little for the other manufacturing sectors. This is expected to cost the public treasury $17.8 billion by 2035, according to estimates from the Department of Finance. Despite the repeated requests from my esteemed colleague, the member for Joliette, the government has not seen fit to provide the Standing Committee on Finance with a breakdown of the numbers to help us calculate how much of the money would go to the oil companies.
So much for Canada the champion, the leader of leaders, and its much-touted transparency.
What can I say about the carbon capture and storage investment tax credit? There is a lot to say. I talk about it often, but I will reiterate a few points.
I will begin with the fact that the government says that the $13‑billion carbon capture and storage investment tax credit will be available to every major emitter, such as cement plants and steel mills, but that is not true. It is pretty obvious that it is available only to oil and gas producers. There is nothing for Quebec's major emitters, unless the intended message is that Quebec should just produce oil and gas. No thanks. Legislation was voted on for this.
A 2022 Pembina Institute report entitled “Waiting to Launch” shows that, despite making record profits, the oil sands industry is not investing in decarbonization efforts in accordance with its climate commitments. The infamous Pathways Alliance is publicly calling for easily available measures such as process improvement, energy efficiency and electrification. Again, the oil and gas industry has more than enough money to put these measures in place. However, its priority is buying back shares and paying dividends.
The federal government fell into the industry's trap. In my opinion, the government saw it coming, but fell for it anyway. Pathways Alliance's game plan depends entirely on major investments by the federal government. Essentially, it sees consumers as the ones responsible for their greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, it makes the federal government responsible for the costs of carbon capture projects. This is an industry that is transferring all the risks and costs of the transition to the public. It is putting the burden on the shoulders of taxpayers and consumers.
The United States is not always a good model, far from it. However, our southern neighbours seem to be wising up to the truth a bit faster. In fact, just last month, the U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget and the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Accountability published a joint report stating that “[t]he companies' massive public-facing campaigns portray [carbon capture and storage] as a viable and available solution to increasing greenhouse gas emissions, but the companies acknowledge internally that they are not planning to deploy the technology at the scale needed to solve the warming crisis”. Clearly, these companies know what they are doing. The report also states, “The industry's true goal is to prolong, perhaps indefinitely, the unabated use of fossil fuels”.
There is something deeply disturbing about the federal government's fiscal trajectory. Bill C‑59 and Bill C‑69 share a connection. I will briefly explain.
Bill C‑69 creates a clean hydrogen investment tax credit and sets out the terms and conditions. When the government announced it in 2023, it estimated that it would total $17.7 billion by 2035. It is a refundable tax credit. Even if the company pays no tax, it is entitled to the refund.
With Bill C‑69, the government will cover between 15% and 40% of the investment costs required to produce hydrogen. We are talking about green hydrogen, a net-zero energy source. Costs are still prohibitive. Right now, hydrogen is made from natural gas. It is good for the companies, because it creates another market for their gas. As a result, even if gas consumption were to stagnate, they could continue to increase production if they converted their gas into hydrogen.
The oil and gas industry's agenda is well crafted, Machiavellian even, because it covers all the angles. Still, one would have to be deaf or blind, or both, to not notice and take action. Either the government is drinking the Kool-Aid the industry has been serving at the hundreds of lobbying meetings they have had, or it is collaborating with the industry.
I will close by saying that if oil companies dip into the first pot, Bill C‑59, for carbon storage in gas extraction, they can then get even more out of the second pot for converting that same gas at taxpayers' expense. That is bad for the energy transition, but it is a dream come true for freeloaders.
1509 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I agree with the member on many of the things she said. I know that in our discussions on Bill C-59, the Competition Act reforms, there was much collaboration between the Liberals and the NDP at committee. We took some of the NDP's suggestions and further strengthened the measures. I would ask her if she knows what is left to do on the Competition Act reforms as per her leader's bill.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C‑59 today. As tabled, the federal budget proposes a series of measures that will impact all of Canada. However, it is critical that we consider the unique impact these measures will have on Quebec, a distinct society within the Canadian federation. I believe that budgets should always reflect the general needs of Canada, as well as respect Quebec's specific needs and its jurisdiction.
The bill in question is a key document, as it outlines both the financial overview and specific allocations for various government programs and initiatives. It is sort of like setting political promises to a musical score. The main objective for the Bloc Québécois will always be to ensure that budgets consistently reflect the specific values, needs and aspirations of Quebeckers.
Bill C-59 is a nearly 550-page omnibus bill that contains 60 different measures, about half of which are tax measures, and amends or creates 31 acts and regulations. Naturally, Bill C‑59 is made up of good and bad elements, but there are two measures preventing the Bloc Québécois from voting in favour of Bill C‑59.
Indeed, the bill contains two measures that could be described as very bad. There is $30.3 billion in subsidies to oil companies in the form of tax credits, meaning that taxpayers will pay oil companies to pollute less when they do not need that money, which seems very sarcastic. That $30 billion could have been used to help families, who are struggling more and more every day. I think everyone agrees that families are currently in greater financial trouble than oil companies. Instead of greasing the wheels of oil companies, the government could have used that $30 billion to fight against homelessness and increase access to housing.
The government could have taken that $30 billion and done some of the good things the Bloc Québécois suggested. For example, it could renew the rapid housing initiative and make it permanent; create a program to acquire and renovate existing rental buildings for non-profit housing organizations; set aside a specific portion of funding in all housing programs to ensure that Quebeckers receive their fair share; increase the transfer for rent subsidies; transfer the affordable housing innovation fund and the new co-op housing program to Quebec; increase funding for renovation of the existing social housing stock currently under contract; support community rental housing projects by providing ultra-low-rate loans; offer lower-rate loans to first-time buyers to give young people access to home ownership again; relax the prohibition on the purchase of a home by non-Canadians for people who live here and intend to stay here, regardless of their status; significantly increase the envelope for indigenous housing to address the housing shortage on reserves by 2030; and tackle homelessness by increasing and renewing the Reaching Home program for five years.
We have a lot of homelessness back in Val-d'Or. There is no money. There is no support administered by the federal government or transferred to the provinces. The government could have set up an emergency fund to help cities and municipalities support the homeless in their communities, and could have given them the resources to do it.
As we can see, this $30 billion could have been used effectively to make a big difference in the lives of Quebec families. This $30 billion could have been transferred to the provinces and territories so that governments could better support and fund food banks.
I would rather see children going to school with full bellies and in good health than give money to oil companies with deep pockets and healthy finances. I also think that our seniors could have benefited from this money, because they deserve a lot more than what the federal government is offering them. They worked hard, very hard, their entire lives and they deserve to live with more dignity today. I am sure they would have been very happy to get that extra money. This $30 billion could have been used to increase old age security starting at age 65 or to implement measures for our seniors.
The fact is that the Bloc Québécois made some good proposals to the government. We asked the government to implement an action plan to encourage the retention and hiring of experienced workers, including an increase in the employment income that can be earned without affecting the GIS. The government could have provided a tax credit to encourage experienced workers to stay on the job. It could have continued to pay the deceased's OAS and GIS to the surviving spouse for three months. It could have enhanced the caregiver tax credit and made it refundable so that everyone could benefit, including people with modest incomes.
No, none of that was done. This government thought it would be better to help rich oil companies than our seniors. In my riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and elsewhere in Quebec, there is also the forestry sector that could really use a helping hand. Since last summer's forest fires, the forestry industry has taken a beating. Hundreds of people have been laid off at various mills in Quebec. In my riding, for example, Resolute Forest Products announced to its 50 employees on March 26 that it was suspending operations at its sawmill in Comtois, near Lebel-sur-Quévillon, for an indefinite period. The Béarn sawmill in Témiscamingue, owned by Chantiers Chibougamau, closed its doors indefinitely on April 25. A total of 120 workers were laid off. In just over a month, nearly 600 workers have been affected by this wave of layoffs across Quebec.
The money for oil companies could have been used to help the forestry industry. We do not know what will happen this summer. Are we going to have to live through the same hell we experienced last summer? How much forest area will burn? The forestry industry in my region is an important player in our regional economy. Is it or will it be in jeopardy? One really has to wonder. I also think that it would have been a good idea to use the money for rich oil companies to increase the health transfers to the provinces thus guaranteeing equitable access to care for everyone, particularly after the challenges posed by the COVID‑19 pandemic. In short, there are many examples of how those billions of dollars could be put to better use.
The second bad measure in this bill is the creation of a federal department of municipal affairs. Yes, Bill C‑59 creates the department of housing, infrastructure and communities. There is already a minister, but unfortunately, there is no department and we cannot count on an army of civil servants to interfere in provincial jurisdictions, which is the Prime Minister's favourite activity. By creating a full department, Bill C‑59 gives the minister the organizational capacity to interfere more, to impose more conditions on the provinces and municipalities, and to intensify disputes and delays. I wonder who in the House likes to pick fights. This bill definitively answers that question. What about the massive amount of money it will take to run this new department? That is money that could have been used elsewhere, to make life better for everyone. One thing is very clear. Housing, local infrastructure, land use planning and municipal affairs are not federal jurisdictions.
In closing, although the budget implementation bill also contains some good things, it remains essential that these proposals be adjusted to more specifically meet the needs of Quebec. The Bloc Québécois will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that Quebec is not just a partner, but a key player in designing policies that affect its constituents. We are at a decisive crossroads. Before us is the chance to shape a stronger, fairer and more sustainable Quebec. In the future, we see an innovative, green and prosperous Quebec, a Quebec that thrives and inspires not only within Canada, but around the world. Quebec has to be master of its domain, and its jurisdiction has to be respected. We do not accept a budget that would treat Quebec as just another province, without taking into consideration its specific realities. We are advocating for a strong Quebec in a just Canada. Accordingly, because of the measures cited, we will be voting against Bill C‑59.
1456 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member opposite must know about the challenges that many Canadians have faced in terms of postpandemic recovery, with mental health issues on the rise and with many Canadians stressed out about an uncertain future. Bill C-59 proposes to waive GST on accessing psychotherapy. I think that is a great measure for ensuring that Canadians can get access to the mental health care they need, when they need it.
Can the member opposite tell me whether she supports that measure?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
1123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
