44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 17, 2024 11:00AM
- Jun/17/24 12:03:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, here we are again with time allocation. After a disastrous budget rollout and spring session, instead of the Liberals listening to the feedback that I know Canadians are giving them about their budget, their economic mismanagement and their scandal-plagued affairs, they are slamming their budget down the throats of Canadians even though it is clear they are not buying what the Liberals are selling.
I want to ask a very specific question. There are hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending allowances that have been granted through the Liberals' economic agenda. Can the minister articulate very clearly why they had to go beyond and increase the debt allowance and the debt borrowing capacity of this country, which far exceeds the spending proposed in this budget? Can she very clearly articulate why they are demanding so much cash when they are unable to account for where it is going?
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 12:04:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let us be clear about what this budget is about. It is delivering for Canadians. The member refers to terms in this budget that I absolutely do not agree with. We know that Canadians are struggling, and our government is there to support them every step of the way.
In this budget, we look at programs like affordable child care to get women back to work. Think of the contributions women are making to the workforce. Our government is making it easier for women to share their gifts and to participate to a fuller extent by providing them with affordable child care.
There is a national school food program. I worked in education for 20 years. I can tell members that there is a disparity across the country with respect to the food programs taking place. Yes, some teachers are able to take the time, and they have the resources to do it, but there are schools where children are hungry. We know that when children are hungry, they are not at their best. Our government wants to support children so that when they go to school, they have full stomachs. That means the learning takes place at a higher level. They are now able to learn because their stomachs are full. The fact that they are all accessing this food means there is no stigma by providing this. There are 400,000 students who would benefit from this program.
We want to provide dental care. Seniors have said to me that in their senior years, they have never had dental care. Now, with the dental care program, seniors would have access to dental care. Then, of course, there is pharmacare and housing.
In all of these areas, there are supports that the government would give to Canadians because we know it is a challenging time. At the end of the day, members should think about how these supports would elevate Canadians. We are all better off, and we benefit when we all have an opportunity to succeed—
341 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 12:08:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am a person who has been very clear from the beginning of my time in office that positive politics works and that collaboration works. This is an example of working together to ensure that supports for Canadians have been delivered. Yes, I thank the NDP members for their support in helping us get these measures forward. It is with that support that we are going to get these items across the finish line. These are items which, on this side of the House, we have recognized as so very important for Canadians, whether it is housing, as I have said, or whether it is child care or the food program, and there are also opportunities to foster and to promote economic development, a file that is very close to my heart. This is a budget that demonstrates that we, as a government, believe in Canadians. We believe in the talent they possess. We want to give them the opportunity to flourish to their full potential. That is what this budget does.
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 12:09:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1, Bill C-47, made numerous changes to the Food and Drugs Act, redefining what a therapeutic product is. We now see, in Bill C-69, that there are again further amendments to the Food and Drugs Act. There do not appear to be any appropriations in the budget whatsoever that actually require more spending for Health Canada or for the natural health directorate.
I am wondering why the government is continuing to put major changes into how natural health products are governed and regulated in this country, through budget implementation acts, when there is no budget appropriation for it.
Why are they doing this omnibus backdoor approach, instead of actually consulting with the industry, and leaving them blindsided by these budget changes?
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 12:10:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is interesting. Usually, we get criticized for too much consultation, and now we are getting criticized for not enough. In this budget, we have invested $200 billion in health care. We recognize the importance of providing affordable, good health care to Canadians. We are working with provinces and territories in order to ensure that this health care is provided, that there is access to doctors and that information is shared to help expedite treatment and care. In my own file, in economic development, we are making investments in projects like SOPHIE, the Southern Ontario Pharmaceutical and Health Innovation Ecosystem.
These projects are moving health care forward so that we are investing in those research capabilities and also in the commercialization aspect. Health care is a top priority for the government. Our investments have demonstrated that. We are going to continue to deliver the health care Canadians need.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 12:17:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague across the way a question. Over two million people are using the food bank. Seniors are now living in shelters. They cannot afford to even pay their rents.
What, in the budget, have the Liberals allocated to ensure that seniors are able to live? They have not done anything with a carbon tax. The Liberals planned this dental plan, which is great, but if people do not have food or a place to live, how are they supposed to support themselves?
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 12:18:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is interesting because the leader of the official opposition has said that he has not seen any food flow as a result of the budget. That is because it is in the budget. We need to get the budget passed for the national food program to be unveiled, so we can get food to those who need it most.
I have already talked about the support for seniors. I am going to share a story about Kelly, who is a senior in Scarborough. I was just there on Friday. Kelly talked about how she was given the keys to a unit. She was promised a unit. It is an affordable housing unit made possible by the supports from this government. We have supported housing for those who live independently. They are affordable housing units with wraparound supports for those who need supports. It is 24-hour support. That is the type of housing that our government is delivering. Kelly said that, when she found out she was going to have a new place to call home, she cried. She lived in the community, and every day, she walked past the site where the new housing complex was being built. She loved watching it get developed.
I know the opposition members like slogans, and I want to be positive. I have a slogan for them: Let us get the food flowing. Let us get the businesses growing, and let us get the houses showing. That is exactly what the budget does.
253 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 12:20:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there will be no suspense here. This is another closure motion which the New Democratic Party will support. I have lost count of the number of gag orders limiting time on questions as fundamental as the budget.
I understand the NDP even less, who continue to insist on limiting parliamentarians' right to speak to the budget. Yes, the budget allows gains to be made. However, when we hear the Liberals speak on the topics of social housing, the new disability benefit, the environment and climate change, they get all worked up.
They are also creating badly written social programs, like dental care, which has been assigned to a private insurance company, rather than recognizing Quebec's expertise and jurisdiction in this area and transferring the money with full compensation. This would have allowed us to enhance our own program.
I am becoming uncomfortable with the fact that parliamentarians, in a democracy, should face repeated closures on substantive issues. It is certain that my political party and I will again vote against this attempt to limit the time to study a budget that does not meet Quebeckers' needs.
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 12:25:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am happy that my colleague has asked me this because I did not have time in responding to the last question to answer it, but I agree completely with what my hon. colleague has just said. There are a number of priorities in the budget that Quebec would love to see implemented. My colleague has outlined a number of them that I think Quebeckers want. In addition to that, I look at some of the supports that we have provided for Quebec. Just last summer, we provided $1.8 billion in a housing agreement. In budget 2024, we provided $3.4 billion to support young researchers in Canada and Quebec, $1.28 billion to fight homelessness, and $1.5 billion to protect and expand affordable housing.
There are lots of things here, but let me add this as a final point: Yes, Quebec does have some measures that are in place, so let us build on what we have. This does not have to be adversarial or pit one against the other. If we have something that is working, let us continue to work collaboratively, learn from what works and build on what works, but make the investments, not cuts. We do not want cuts.
There are members from the official opposition who are writing me, for example, on CFDCs, which are community future development corporations. They want to see more money into CFDCs. I want to know what they are going to do. Are they going to take that position publicly? Are they going to say that publicly? What dollars are they going to cut because they have this new dollar-for-dollar approach? What is going to be cut? That is what I would ask the official opposition.
293 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 12:28:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will tell what members are voting against when they vote against this budget because it is not talked about much: investing in economic development.
I have had the opportunity, which is a gift, to travel across southern Ontario and see amazing businesses that the government has supported, which are taking their business to the next level. I look at companies such as Cedar Valley, which started as a grade 10 high school project. This young man went home and talked to his mother, and they created Cedar Valley dressing and chips. With a small investment from our government, this business is now taking it to the whole next level. They started with a little fryer that they brought out and showed me. It was a Hamilton Beach. I remember it well because of the Hamilton name. I love that. The money that we gave allowed them to buy a big machine, and that allows them to deliver chips now and fulfill their contracts with businesses such as Costco, and they want to go externally. They were on Dragons' Den and got $1 million in support.
These are the businesses. With economic development we have potential, and it is not often talked about, but the potential we have in Canada to support entrepreneurs, to bring their businesses to the next level and to get them exporting to other countries around the world is all there. Supports are in the budget. I cannot wait to go make announcements that would have a result because of what is in this budget.
261 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 12:33:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's passion for these programs that are in the budget. I have the same passion. There are measures with respect to capital gains where, in fact, a business, unless it makes over $6 million, is going to be better off because of the exemptions we have elevated. I agree with the member. There are going to be a few that are impacted, but as I said, let us elevate all Canadians. Let us ensure that everybody has—
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 1:45:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, of course there are partisan speeches and there are the repercussions they have on people in real life. I would like my colleague to tell me what tools are being given to communities in this budget so they can take charge of their lives, especially as concerns the question of housing and other issues. We need to find a way to decentralize management and trust our people on the ground. There are growing problems. Témiscamingue, for example, needs levers to take charge of its economic development, especially in the forestry sector.
Can my colleague commit to making sure that more power and means are given to communities that want to take charge of their development and invest in their economy if we have a change of government in the next election?
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 1:47:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I applaud my colleague for his work on natural health products in particular.
I was interested to hear him deride the use of omnibus budget bills, because omnibus bills are a bit of a dark art that has been perfected by successive Conservative and Liberal governments. In fact it was a government under Stephen Harper that tabled a budget bill that was 880 pages in length. By comparison, the budget we are debating is 416 pages, including the annexes.
My question is a simple one: Has the Conservative Party decided to oppose the use of omnibus budget bills?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 1:48:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, is a real pleasure for me to stand here on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Davenport to speak to Bill C-69, the budget implementation act.
It is legislation that would deliver on key measures from budget 2024, a budget that would advance our government's plan to build more homes faster, make life cost less and grow the economy in a way that helps generations get ahead. Budget 2024 is a plan to build a Canada where people of all generations have a fair chance to build a good middle-class life, a Canada where Canadians, especially young Canadians, can get ahead, where their work pays off and where there are homes that they can afford.
Fairness matters. Budget 2024 matters. Bill C-69 matters.
The bill we are studying allows us to implement several elements of the last budget, as well as policies that the government announced in recent months. I am thinking in particular of the housing sector, because giving a fair chance to the next generation begins with housing.
One of the key elements of the plan is that it would improve the homebuyers' plan. This is one of the programs that can help Canadians buy their first home. It allows people to withdraw money tax-free from their RRSP to make a down payment for their first house. Homebuyers then pay themselves back over the years by putting the money back into their RRSPs. The program has been in place for over 30 years, and it has enabled thousands of Canadians to become homeowners. I am one of them; I used the program to buy my own home, and I am delighted that we are expanding the program.
Across the country, especially in major cities, home prices have gone up steeply. With rising prices, the amount needed for a down payment is now much greater. The housing market facing today's young families is different from what it was when the homebuyers' plan was created, a time when many of today's young buyers had not yet been born.
We still need to help first-time buyers save, but the support must keep pace with market prices. Currently, a person can withdraw $35,000 from an RRSP to use in the homebuyers' plan. As announced in budget 2024, we have proposed to increase the limit to $60,000 per person.
For couples, if both spouses meet the eligibility requirements of the home buyers' plan, the maximum withdrawal limit will go from $60,000 to $120,000. This will allow more Canadians to buy the first home of their dreams.
In addition, we are proposing to temporarily extend the grace period during which homebuyers are not required to repay their home buyers' plan withdrawals, from two years to five years. This extension would apply to those who made a first withdrawal between 2022 and 2025 inclusive.
In reality, whoever buys a house in 2024 would not have to start paying it back until 2029. In the medium and long term, the building of new housing will drop real estate prices in Canada. This is why in April's budget we presented a plan to make 3.87 million new homes available by 2031.
We must also act in the short term. That is what improvements to the home buyers' plan will do: help Canadians buy a home and enjoy a middle-class quality of life.
Liberals want to help Canadians put a roof over their head. Building more housing is one way. Helping Canadians buy their first home is another. We also need to ensure that homes are for Canadians to live in, not to be used as speculative assets for investors. Platforms such as Airbnb and and Vrbo are keeping tens of thousands of homes off the market, homes that Canadians cannot buy or rent on a long-term basis.
We need to crack down on short-term rentals that do not comply with provincial and municipal restrictions. In last year's fall economic statement, we announced that we would introduce a measure to support provincial and municipal efforts in this area. Bill C-69 proposes legislation to do just that. Under the proposed legislation, tax deductions would no longer be available in computing income from a short-term rental if the property is located in a province or municipality that has rules that prohibit or restrict the operation of short-term rentals and the property does not comply with those rules.
That income would be subject to tax without an offsetting deduction. By ending these tax deductions, the government is eliminating a financial incentive to non-compliant short-term rental properties. The changes will be retroactive to January 1, 2024.
We are also proposing adding an incentive for short-term rental property owners who revert their properties to the long-term rental market.
This too would make more homes available for Canadians.
Another way to help Canadians find a place to live is to limit the number of homes that are left empty and often kept only as a passive asset. To counter this practice, an annual 1% tax is applied on the ownership of vacant or underused housing in Canada; this has been in place since 2022. The tax generally applies to foreign owners. However, Canadians who own their residential property indirectly, like via a corporation, partnership or trust, have been required to file an annual return even if they did not have to pay the tax. Bill C-69 proposes changes first announced last fall to facilitate the application of the law while ensuring that the tax would be applied as intended.
The change would make it possible for more Canadian owners to be excluded from application of the law, particularly those who own their property through entities that are substantially or entirely Canadian. They would no longer have to file an annual return on underused housing or pay the tax.
We also propose to implement a new exception for houses that serve as employee lodging in rural areas with around 30,000 residents. We are proposing these changes in response to constructive suggestions sent to us by Canadians.
Finally, Bill C-69 would extend by two years the existing ban on foreign buyers of Canadian housing, something we promised we would do in January. The ban was set to expire January 1 of 2025. Bill C-69 would extend it to 2027.
That means even more homes on the market for Canadians and less upward pressure on the price. Every exception in place will remain in effect, including those for non-Canadians who will be settling in Canada to build a new life.
Bill C-69 would help to make housing more affordable for every generation. For years and years in this country, if one found a good job, worked hard and saved money, they could afford a home. For today's young adults, that is under threat.
Bill C‑69, like budget 2024, seeks to ensure that the dream of joining the middle class remains accessible to everyone and that Canadians, including millennials and those who are part of generation Z, have the means to buy a home.
1205 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 2:20:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in budget 2024, we are proposing an economic plan for our country. The other side of the House has no plan. We have a plan for the economy, for families, for seniors, for children. Those folks over there have no plan at all.
I hope everyone will vote in favour of our plan this week.
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 6:29:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, my hon. colleague was talking in his speech about the dream of home ownership. For several years now, the government has been working to build new homes so that both younger and older people can have the opportunity to own a home. For example, the 2024 budget includes investments in the housing accelerator fund, which will help municipalities.
Can the member tell me whether the fact that he is voting against the budget means that he does not believe that we are helping municipalities to build more housing? If he thinks he wants more housing—
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 6:43:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I usually enjoy the speeches from the member on the other side of the House. I often refer to him in public as the “minister of finance” because I think he knows more about finance than anybody on that bench.
However, that speech was a ramble. I do not know if it is just because it is Monday and he had not prepared to be here, but he talked about a lot of things, including the capital gains rate, which, I will tell him, because he probably has not read it, is not part of the budget implementation act. He needs to go back and read that.
I will ask him some questions because he raised the budget implementation act. As far as capital gains go, capital gains are going back beyond the formula of his party's previous leaders, Chrétien and Martin, who reduced it to the 50% level because they got the budget back in balance. The budget is now not in balance, so of course, they are looking for ways to take more money from Canadians and are pretending it is only a certain sector of Canadians. It is all Canadians.
At that point in time, what exactly was the exemption rate that Canadians paid zero dollars on for their capital gains?
221 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 7:04:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be able to speak to the budget implementation bill. Bill C-69 is a very important piece of legislation. Ultimately, it shows very clearly to Canadians in all regions of the country what they can expect from a Liberal government versus a Conservative opposition, or the Conservative-Reform party compared to the Liberal Party. Let us be very clear on that.
A few weeks back, I was at the party's annual general meeting, where some of the members were asking me a very simple question. They asked how I would best describe the difference between the Conservative Party today and the Liberal Party. The best thing I could come up with at the time was to say to think of it in the sense that the Liberal Party cares while the Conservative Party cuts. There is so much truth to that.
All one needs to do is take a look at what the Conservative-Reform party stands for today and listen to the many announcements being brought forward by the government to get a better appreciation of the contrast between the two parties. As a government and as a political party, we have advocated for very strong progressive policies. At the same time, we have taken budgetary and legislative action to support a strong, healthy economy. The big difference is that our plan is about building a Canada that ensures fairness for every generation. We do not see that coming from the Conservative Party.
I would suggest some members need to look at Hobbes and his theories on economic development and people to get a better sense of maybe where the Conservative-Reform party is. I would argue the Conservative Party today has really shifted far to the right. The more people understand the degree to which it has shifted, the more they are going to turn their backs on the Conservative Party.
Former prime minister Joe Clark is distancing himself by saying things like he never left the Progressive Conservative Party but that the party left him. Individuals like Kim Campbell are talking in a not a very positive way about the current leadership of the Conservative Party and the type of misinformation the party—
376 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 7:08:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I know there is very little good to talk about in this Bill C-69, this budget implementation act, but it would be nice if the member could use some of his time at least to talk about the actual issue we are debating.
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 7:18:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if Canada is in a sound financial position here and around the world, as our dear colleague from Winnipeg North, who I really like to listen to, says, why was the government unable to include a single one of the measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois? They included giving Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation, increasing old age security for those aged 65 and over, ending subsidies for fossil fuels, supporting a clean energy transition and transferring the amounts dedicated to housing to Quebec.
None of these are in the budget implementation bill. Why is that? For Canada, everything is going well financially. Is it different in Quebec? Are we not entitled to such measures?
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
