Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

Bill C-31, Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 · Report stage · now at report stage in the House Where it stands

What Bill C-31 would do

This budget implementation bill would change federal tax laws by delivering automatic benefits to lower-income individuals and adjusting business, excise, and international minimum tax rules. It would also ban most non-compete clauses under the Canada Labour Code and establish the Defence Investment Agency for military procurement. Additionally, the bill would transfer authority over air travel complaints to the Minister of Transport and make various other administrative changes across government.

Official text (opens in a new tab)

44 statements

Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Rivière-du-Nord

Bloc Québécois
“Could the money we spend on the oil industry be used instead for health care, seniors, and our other priorities?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. As I have said before, the member for Mirabel’s speeches are always interesting. He knows a lot more about public finances than I do, so I always learn something when I listen to him. I thank him for his speech. That being said, I heard one thing in his speech that keeps coming up. I get the impression that the government could use the money it is spending on the oil sector to address many of the Bloc Québécois’s budget priorities and many of the Canadian government’s other problems. Did I understand correctly? Could what we spend on the oil sector really be used to support seniors and fund health care and all the other priorities?

Jean-Denis Garon, Mirabel

Bloc Québécois

Linked statement

“The government gives tens of billions of tax dollars to oil companies. That money should be used for better things. We want the government to actually spend the money it already budgeted for Indigenous housing. We also want it to make homeless funding permanent, without adding to the deficit. Giving money to oil companies and failing to spend what was promised are bad choices.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, tens of billions of dollars of public money is going toward that sector. They do not print that money. They take it from taxpayers’ pockets. The subsidies given to oil companies could certainly be put to better use for society. We also raised other issues in our pre-budget requests, such as indigenous housing. We are not asking for a single penny more. We are asking the government to spend the funds it has already budgeted. The government puts on a good show, tables a budget, invests in indigenous housing, and then does not even spend its own money. It is the same story when it comes to homelessness and housing. I am thinking of the Reaching Home program. We are calling for these funds to be made permanent to ensure predictability. We are not trying to run up the deficit. Drawing up a budget is about making choices. In our view, giving tens of billions of dollars to oil companies and mismanaging spending are bad choices.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“The parties have talked, and I am asking everyone to agree to pass this committee report now instead of holding a delayed vote.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the order made yesterday pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(3) respecting the deferral of the recorded division on the motion to concur in the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be discharged and the motion be deemed adopted on division.

Michael Guglielmin, Vaughan—Woodbridge

Conservative
“I oppose this budget bill. Canadians cannot afford food because of government spending, high debt, and taxes. The government must cut spending, cancel the expensive train project, and lower fuel taxes to make life cheaper.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the rose scholarship, a scholarship put on by a good friend of mine, Andrew Addorisio, and his wife, Sarah Addorisio. It was inspired by his mother, Rosella Addorisio. This scholarship aims to help underprivileged youth that face barriers to education and the things they are trying to achieve. I want to congratulate them on establishing this scholarship. It is an honour to rise on behalf of the great people of Vaughan—Woodbridge to speak to Bill C-31. Before the government asks Canadians to believe another budget promise, I should explain why so many people can no longer afford to eat. Today, the Salvation Army reported that one in three Canadians surveyed had skipped meals or reduced their size because they could not afford groceries. Among young adults, that number was 41%. These are young Canadians who are trying to establish themselves, build careers and start families. They are being robbed of a Canadian promise, falling behind on what is the most basic of necessities. The Daily Bread Food Bank also released its latest report today. One in eight Toronto children now lives in a household that relies on a food bank, nearly double the rate in 2022. Toronto recorded 4.1 million food bank visits for the second consecutive year. After housing costs, clients now have a median of just eight dollars a day left for food and other essentials. Can members imagine that? Eight dollars is not even enough to grab a meal at Tim Hortons. Let us think about people trying to get to work, feed themselves and replace a child’s worn-out shoes when all they have left is that amount. I am sure we will hear the Prime Minister deliver another speech about the strength of the economy, another talking point in the House that will be dressed down if spoken to the average Canadian. As we have heard, “Affordability is the best it has been in over a decade.” After all, if we listened to the government very closely, we would get the impression that Canadians have never had it so good, but I would ask Canadians watching at home if that resonates with them. Are they better off today than they were yesterday? Are they better off from anything that the Liberal government has done? Parents, when they open their fridge when they get home, know the truth. That is exactly the reality against which we will judge Bill C-31, the second act implementing last year’s budget and, of course, the budget the government is preparing to introduce later this week. Canadians deserve to know whether any of this will leave them in a better position to pay their bills. The government cannot keep raising the cost of doing business and expecting the consequences to stop before they reach the customer. The Prime Minister, over the past decade and a half, has doubled the deficit, with the biggest deficit outside of the pandemic estimated to be the highest spending as a share of GDP this century. There are serious threats, of course, from outside of our borders. American tariffs are hurting Canadian employers and workers. This makes it even more urgent to address the costs the government can control. Canadians should be able to count on their own government to make it easier for them to earn a living here. Instead, the government’s finances are moving further away from the discipline that it promised when it was first elected. The Parliamentary Budget Officer now projects a $63.3-billion deficit this fiscal year. Federal debt as a share of the economy is projected to rise every year over the forecast. The government is also projected to miss its fiscal anchor of a declining debt-to-GDP ratio. It is the Liberals themselves who chose that very commitment, and Canadians are certainly entitled to expect them to keep it. Earlier today at the finance committee, I asked the Bank of Canada governor what his thoughts were on the importance of fiscal anchors from the perspective of the market and what the signal of missing a fiscal anchor might do. Of course, his response was predictable: These are plans, and they give confidence to the market. The government ignores its fiscal anchors, and it has been doing this for the last 10 or 11 years. We might remember a time when Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, when he was finance minister, got us back on track with our fiscal anchors and balanced budgets. Of course, since then, we know about Justin Trudeau’s time here. How many of us would love to forget how the Liberals ran deficits year after year, blowing our deficit to smithereens? Worse than that, they set numerous fiscal targets and ran through every single one of them. Now the Prime Minister has set fiscal anchors, and it appears he will already be blowing through at least one of them. When a family cannot make its payments, it cannot solve its problem by inventing a new description for its bills. A small business can not reassure its bank by moving the goalposts whenever it misses a target. The Prime Minister should face the same basic demand to have an honest plan, one that he is able to stick to and that breathes confidence into the Canadian economy. The PBO projects interest on the federal debt will cost over $59 billion this year, rising to $83 billion in the next five years. Canadians will end up paying that through taxes while trying to manage their own debt. Imagine that. We now live in a time when we are going to be spending more on debt interest than we do on health care transfers. If we recall, former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge once had a proposal for keeping debt servicing costs below 10% of government revenue, or roughly 10¢ for every dollar. According to the PBO, we are already around 10.5¢ for every dollar, and that is expected to rise over the next five years to just under 14¢. Borrowing certainly has a cost. The larger that cost becomes, the harder it is to fund essential services and provide lasting tax relief for Canadians. We should be focusing on metrics that will help the structural issues of our economy and get it moving again. Often, we see from the government that its measure of success is how much money it spent. What we need to do is signal to the economy that we are ready and open for business and want to attract investment. We would like to see some regulatory and tax reform, which is much needed in this country. This is why Canadians are asking for a budget that saves them money. In this budget, we would love to see the Liberals cut wasteful spending, reduce their reliance on expensive consultants, cut unnecessary bureaucracy and corporate handouts, and cancel the $150-billion Alto project rather than committing taxpayers to another enormous project while families struggle. I find that interesting. When we were discussing Bill C-31 at the finance committee, I asked the transport minister what the ceiling was on this project, and he would not commit to a ceiling. There are certain projects that some people try to argue, the way the government has, are in the national interest. That does not mean there is a blank cheque awarded to government for these projects. We have a project that is already demonstrating that the cost will be exponentially higher than first considered. Oftentimes, when projects are put on the books and a costing plan is looked at, there is a large buffer in the plan when dealing with bigger projects. There seems to be no end in sight to the amount of money that this project is going to cost taxpayers. Let us think about the GST on fuel for a second. Conservatives are calling for the elimination of federal diesel taxes until Canada Day, the suspension of the GST on fuel until summer and the permanent repeal of the fuel standard tax. That is exactly what it is: a tax on Canadians and a tax on the trucks that carry groceries to the store, materials to a construction site and products from Canadian factories to their customers. Reducing fuel taxes would lower transportation costs and give families direct relief at the pump. We also need more good jobs and stronger paycheques. That requires businesses willing to invest in this country and to expand and hire in Canada. Ottawa needs to speed up approvals, remove unnecessary regulatory barriers and make it easier to build homes, develop our resources and manufacture Canadian products. The responsibility to protect taxpayers also needs to apply to defence procurement. Division 16 of Bill C-31 would establish the Defence Investment Agency in legislation. One thing we are constantly questioning is why, with every new agency developed, there seems to be less and less accountability from the government. I thank members for their time. I stand here on behalf of Canadians fighting for a more affordable Canada.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 161

  1. Government Orders Government Orders 107 statements
  2. Oral Questions International Trade 8 statements
  3. Oral Questions Major Projects Office 2 statements
  4. Oral Questions Finance 14 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Economy 6 statements
  6. Oral Questions The Environment 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions International Trade 5 statements
  8. Oral Questions Foreign Affairs 6 statements
  9. Oral Questions Natural Resources 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions International Trade 6 statements
  11. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 4 statements
  13. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 6 statements
  15. Oral Questions Canada Revenue Agency 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions National Defence 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Natural Resources 3 statements
  19. Government Orders Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 44 statements
  20. Oral Questions National Defence 8 statements
  21. Private Members' Business Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act 11 statements
  22. Government Orders Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 21 statements
  23. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  24. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  25. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements