Bill C-2

An Act to provide further support in response to COVID-19

Part 1 amends the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations to extend subsidies under the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS), the Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy (CERS), and the Canada Recovery Hiring Program until May 7, 2022, as part of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Support under the CEWS and the CERS would be available to the tourism and hospitality sector and to the hardest-hit organizations that face significant revenue declines. Eligible entities under these rules would need to demonstrate a revenue decline over the course of 12 months of the pandemic, as well as a current-month revenue decline. In addition, organizations subject to a qualifying public health restriction would be eligible for support, if they have one or more locations subject to a public health restriction lasting for at least seven days that requires them to cease some or all of their activities. Part 1 also allows the government to extend the subsidies by regulation but no later than July 2, 2022.
Part 2 enacts the Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit Act to authorize the payment of the Canada worker lockdown benefit in regions where a lockdown is imposed for reasons related to COVID-19. It also makes consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations .
Part 3 amends the Canada Recovery Benefits Act to, among other things,
(a) extend the period within which a person may be eligible for a Canada recovery sickness benefit or a Canada recovery caregiving benefit;
(b) increase the maximum number of weeks in respect of which a Canada recovery sickness benefit is payable to a person from four to six; and
(c) increase the maximum number of weeks in respect of which a Canada recovery caregiving benefit is payable to a person from 42 to 44.
It also makes a related amendment to the Canada Recovery Benefits Regulations .
Part 3.1 provides for the completion of a performance audit and tabling of a report by the Auditor General of Canada in respect of certain benefits.
Part 4 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things, create a regime that provides for a leave of absence related to COVID-19 under which an employee may take
(a) up to six weeks if they are unable to work because, among other things, they have contracted COVID-19, have underlying conditions that in the opinion of certain persons or entities would make them more susceptible to COVID-19 or have isolated themselves on the advice of certain persons or entities for reasons related to COVID-19; and
(b) up to 44 weeks if they are unable to work because, for certain reasons related to COVID-19, they must care for a child who is under the age of 12 or a family member who requires supervised care.
It also makes a related amendment to the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1 .

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I note that you were in the Chair when I last spoke to this, so I am sure you are sitting on the edge of your seat waiting to hear the remaining 16 minutes of my speech on this topic. I appreciate that some of my colleagues from across the way are as well.

When we last spoke to this, I was referencing the fact that I was concerned about some of the discussion I was hearing from across the way, in terms of the government's motive for this particular piece of legislation. Last evening I mentioned that the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon claimed the objective of helping provinces and territories with proof of vaccinations across the country was somehow just a political tool, because provinces and territories were able to handle that on their own.

My issue with that was that for some reason there always has to be a hyperpartisan and political reason that is put forward by the other side as opposed to, perhaps, just the willingness to want to help Canadians and to move forward with things. My tone yesterday evening certainly was one of skepticism based on the fact that this narrative continually comes from across the way.

The member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon specifically said that this was just a tool to help fuel the partisan fire. As a matter of fact, earlier in those comments he talked about the fact that this pandemic was now moving into an endemic stage and that we have to come to terms with it. I thought it was an interesting discussion. He was basically accusing the government of insisting on driving fear by bringing forward motions or bills such as this one in an attempt to somehow distract from the fact that this was moving into another stage of the pandemic.

I agree with the member that this pandemic, which we have been going through for two years, is reaching the endemic stage, and I agree totally with his comments that we will be dealing with COVID-19 for quite a while. There is not going to be that one defining moment when COVID-19 suddenly does not exist anymore. We are not going to wake up one morning and just have no more coronavirus. That is not going to happen.

The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan spoke at length about the evolution of science. He would know that the evolution of science, and the scientists out there, are pretty much saying the same thing: that this coronavirus will enter an endemic state and it will be here with us for some time to come.

The member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon was saying that this bill was somehow trying to fuel the anti-freedom movement that he proclaims the government is hell-bent on. When I look through the various parts of this bill, I look at it completely differently. If members look at the actual items that are proposed in this piece of legislation, they could not help but see that this is about preparing for the future, endemic part of coronavirus.

We talk about procuring millions of rapid tests for provinces, territories and indigenous communities. Millions have already been supplied, but we are talking about ensuring that millions more can get throughout the country so that the capacity is there to continue rapid testing. We know that, because coronavirus will be with us for quite some time, this is going to be one way that we can try to control it as best we can: by finding out who has it and when, and helping to protect people and prevent the spread of it.

Another item in this is protecting children by making sure that we invest in proper ventilation in schools throughout the country. Elementary schools and high schools would primarily be in those categories. Again, going back to the science that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is so willing to tout, we know that the science is saying that this airborne virus moves very quickly through indoor settings that do not have proper ventilation.

As we prepare for coronavirus to be with us for a while, why would we not start investing in having the proper ventilation systems in schools? Why would we not help provinces with that? Everybody knows we do not have jurisdiction over education, but we can certainly help from a resource perspective in providing the necessary tools to make schools safer. This is not about fearmongering. This is about providing resources right now so that for years and months to come, however long this takes, schools would be in a better position to fight coronavirus.

We talk about support for workers in businesses through changes to CEBA and EI, which are taking care of people when they have to take time off work. My wife and I have a small business in Kingston. We have an employee who had to take two days off as he waited for the results of his COVID-19 test. Because the province of Ontario has three days of sick pay, businesses across the province of Ontario can help support those employees who have to be off work through the WSIB program. At least in Ontario, that is the case.

This is about continuing to extend supports to businesses and individuals throughout the country as they are faced with dealing with COVID-19 and what is being requested of them. The truth is that there are a lot of employees out there who would probably say they feel fine. They know they just had a test, but they want to go back to work and not take the time off. We know that from a societal perspective it is better to hold them back a couple of days until they get that result before reintroducing them into their workplace. Should we not, from a societal perspective, be supporting those individuals and those businesses?

There are also a host of tax credits that would benefit Canadians, including the ventilation improvement tax credit for small business, which is, again, about helping the ventilation of stores and businesses. I think of my riding of Kingston and the Islands and the downtown area. It is one of the first downtown areas in the country. It is very old, with a lot of limestone buildings that are two hundred or three hundred years old. They do not have the best ventilation systems. These are businesses that have had to close for weeks and months on end at times. Rather than forcing them through some kind of regulation to increase ventilation, why not provide support so they have a fighting chance of surviving? There has also been talk about teachers and farmers and increasing supports to them.

We know that the bill would implement a national tax on value-added, non-resident, non-Canadian owned residential real estate in Canada. I would like to talk about this one for a moment because the member for Calgary Centre's speech yesterday would lead one to believe that this tax was going to be applied to everybody.

I said that he knows this is about non-residents and non-Canadians who have vacant land or unused residential buildings. He agreed to that and concurred with me that I was right, but he then went on to say it is just another added level of taxation and that we are adding another level to the municipal taxes that exist through property taxes, as if to conflate the two issues. He was acknowledging that I was right in my claim and that he had not provided all the information, but then he tried to conflate the two issues again in the same answer to that same question.

This is one of the things that makes me the most frustrated when I have to debate with Conservatives in this place. Time and time again, I find it is as though, as long as we can slightly alter the narrative, even if it does not resemble the truth, it is okay as long as it results in political gain. Therefore, I come back to the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon when he, in his discourse, was doing exactly what I am now indicating that I am concerned about.

The problem with this is that the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon did not come here, look at the elements of the bill, and say that we forgot seasonal tourism and that is one thing he is concerned about. He could have said that he has a number of seasonal tourism operators who may have made a lot of money in the summer, but who are not now, and as a result, they are missing some of the benefits from Bill C-2, and he would really like this bill to dig into that in committee.

My point is that, rather than coming forward and highlighting some of the challenges in the bill and identifying the problems so we can make it better, which is the role of the opposition, he came forward and tried to suggest that this is more about antifreedom and continuing to take freedoms away from people.

The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan started his speech yesterday by promising that he was only going to talk about freedoms and the lack thereof for a couple of minutes and then get back to the bill, which he never did. Members can go back and review Hansard. He spoke the whole 10 minutes on those two issues, and I sat here in silence.

I thought of getting up on a point of order for relevance at one point, but I know that really never results in anything, and of course, I do not want to take away from the member's ability to run a 10-minute continuous clip on Facebook later, or on his podcast—

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to be speaking tonight.

I am going to be totally honest with members: Given all the great and wild events of today, I am going to be doing this speech extemporaneously and sharing my time with the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

When I look at the bill, Bill C-8, in the context of where we are today in Canada, I have a number of key concerns. Bill C-8 in itself is not necessarily the worst bill, but the concern is the context in which we are looking at Bill C-8 in Parliament today and all of the other things happening in our great nation. Part 1 of Bill C-8 talks about changes to the Income Tax Act, including a new refundable tax credit for improving air quality. Paragraph (b) of the summary talks about a new tax credit for travellers in the north. Paragraph (c) talks about the school supplies tax credit and increasing it from 15% to 25%. Paragraph (d) of the summary talks about a new refundable tax credit in the backstop provinces for fuel on farms. All of these measures, in and of themselves, are not bad measures.

Furthermore, the Underused Housing Tax Act taxing foreign buyers in this country is not necessarily the worst thing. The part 3 six-year limitation on the loans offered to small businesses in Canada to be in line with the student loan program in Canada is not the worst measure. Part 4 would authorize payments to be made from the consolidated revenue fund to put new ventilation systems into schools. Part 5 has more money for vaccine- and COVID-19-related initiatives. Part 6 has $1.72 billion from the consolidated revenue fund for COVID tests. We have actually been asking for those for a long time, and even despite all the money being spent, the government still has not brought them to us. Part 7 has changes to the Employment Insurance Act.

All of these measures in this omnibus bill, in and of themselves, are not bad clauses. The problem, however, relates to accountability, transparency and the state of the nation. This afternoon, right before I ran into the House, realizing I was going to be speaking soon, I had a quick call with the Parliamentary Budget Officer. He reminded me of the report he provided to Parliament and all Canadians on the state of the government's finances and what they have reported to Parliament.

Since the election, this is only the fifth sitting week we have had, and I remember very clearly that the public accounts were finally tabled on December 14. This was six to seven months later than normal. In fact, the PBO report outlined that Canada was an outlier compared to other developed nations with respect to financial transparency and accountability. What is even more egregious is that two days later, with barely enough time for us to receive a copy of the audited reports from the various government departments to look at what the consequences of that spending were and how it actually materialized on line-item reporting in government departments across the country, the government tabled Bill C-2.

In Bill C-2, the government requested billions upon billions of dollars more, which it asked Parliament to approve to address the economy and COVID-19. How can the government ask parliamentarians to indebt future generations with more and more spending when we have not even had the time to review what was already tabled? We have to be more serious about how we are treating taxpayer dollars in the House.

I can also remember that in the early days of this pandemic, this official opposition was there for Canadians. We stood with the government to approve the necessary expenditures to make sure people did not lose their homes and that they were going to be able to be paid when the lockdowns came, but we are past that time now. The country has changed a lot in two years. In fact, on January 21, when I was driving into Vancouver for some meetings and I was listening to Dr. Bonnie Henry on CKNW, I was shocked by what I heard, because just the week prior, my son's day care had been shut, and my wife and I had to juggle a two-year-old at home while we were both trying to do our jobs. The school had to shut down because they were following provincial health orders. We agreed that was a great thing and that we needed to follow those protocols to keep children safe. No one is disputing that.

However, the week afterward, when I got out of the car after listening to CKNW and Dr. Bonnie Henry, I actually walked away feeling that things were going to improve, that the omicron virus was not having such a bad impact on people as Dr. Henry had originally anticipated. She said it was time to start changing our thinking about how we treated this virus and its mutations. She actually said we need to start looking at COVID-19 and omicron in the context of other respiratory illnesses like influenza and other viruses.

More recently, Dr. Kieran Moore from Ontario said, “We have let our lives be controlled for the last two years in a significant amount of fear and now we are going to have to change some of that thinking.” He goes to say that we cannot eliminate this threat and that we have to learn to live with it.

Here in Parliament, Dr. Theresa Tam recently said, “I think many experts believe that the so-called herd immunity may not be achievable with this virus because it undergoes constant evolution, so what you're looking at is this endemic state where people will get reinfected over time as immunity wanes”.

I interpret that to say, in other words, that versions of COVID-19 are going to be with us for a while and that our public health officers are telling us to start re-evaluating both the lockdowns and the way, perhaps, that governments are spending money in conjunction with this terrible virus that has had such a negative impact on all of our lives.

How does this relate back to Bill C-8? It starts back in our ridings.

On Saturday, I went by my office to pick up some materials before flying into Ottawa on Sunday, and there was a protest at my office. There were a lot of angry people who were not pleased with me. I went and spoke with them. A lot of people were ticked off that I spoke with them. The people at the protest were also ticked off at me because I am pro-vaccine.

I said to them they have a right to be angry right now. For two years, we have been living in a state of fear. For two years, our lives have been upended. For two years, my young children have not known anything different. My two-year-old son only knows the world of COVID.

What I am encouraging the government to do today is to start looking past COVID-19 now and to stop telling Canadians we still have to live with the same type of fear that we perhaps had to live with two years ago. We can start to move on.

That is why I am so displeased that the government is not giving Parliament and the House enough time to review expenditures, to understand the consequences of how we are spending money, the consequences of what lockdowns are doing and the consequences of not changing our thinking very rapidly.

People are angry. We see that outside today. People are looking for hope, and what all Canadians are looking for is a bit more transparency and a bit more openness from the Liberal government in terms of getting our lives back.

[Martin Roy, Chief Executive Officer, Festivals and Major Events, Regroupement des événements majeurs internationaux]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Festivals and Major Events Canada (FAME) and the Regroupement des événements majeurs internationaux (RÉMI) represent over 500 festivals and events in Canada.

We were very pleased with the last budget. At that time, we thought that the COVID‑19 nightmare was about to come to an end and financial assistance would help repair the damage done. And yet, a year later, here we are again asking you to support our sector.

The major festivals and events support initiative, the new program with a budget of $200 million administered by the regional economic development agencies, is not entirely living up to what it promised to be. I can say more about that, if you wish, during our discussion.

As for Canadian Heritage, what I can say is there has been a great deal of confusion on the ground, and that remains the case to this day.

Many of our members also feel there have been injustices, or at least a lack of understanding. The government chose to support major festivals with the initiative I just mentioned. They chose to entrust Canadian Heritage with everything else, that is, all events generating under $10 million in annual revenue. That means that the initiative supports about 25 events and over 1,000 events are supported by Canadian Heritage, where together they can rely on much less than $200 million. That's pretty lopsided, to say the least. It is not that the initiative has too much money. There is quite simply not enough money at Canadian Heritage.

The fact is, the $200 million announced for local festivals also goes to funding cultural community events and organizations, such as open-air theatre, heritage celebrations, local museums, amateur sporting events and much more according to the budget itself. At the end of the day, very little is left over for festivals and events relative to their needs, relative to the scale of the disaster in our sector and relative to the number of festivals and events.

To distribute the money in the budget, Canadian Heritage chose to set up a recovery fund and a reopening fund. Ten months after the budget was tabled, the reopening fund included in the Canada arts presentation fund remains inaccessible. We're talking about $25 million. Festivals still have no idea what they will be able to submit or when, and it's four or five months from the beginning of the season, and almost a year after the budget. At best, they will not get any answers until right before their event, if not during or even after the event, given the slow pace. That's unacceptable.

No one saw omicron coming. Will we really be able to resume our events this summer and go back to our business models? In any case, FAME believes that assistance programs should be extended, with prorated budgets. That's our general philosophy and it applies to the funds I just mentioned, all those emanating from Bill C‑2 and all the rest.

This past July, I issued recommendations to the Standing Committee on Finance for getting the sector back on track, because we were hoping to start doing that. I will repeat those recommendations for you. In a nutshell, the idea would be to settle funding for festivals and events once and for all by making the 2019 investments permanent, renewing them every year for now until 2024 and, yes, once again injecting a little money.

In general, and this was true even before the COVID‑19 pandemic, I have to say things are not going that well in our sector. Although in 2019 the government reinvested 25 to 40% in the two programs benefiting festivals, some of our members are calling us these days to say they are getting less than they were in 2018.

I also feel that Economic Development Canada and the agencies need to launch a complementary program to support events and festivals based on their contribution to tourism and the economy, specifically Canadian festivals and events that are not cultural in nature and do not receive support from Canadian Heritage. That would require $25 million a year. An entire category of festivals that get no support right now are suffering. The COVID‑19 pandemic has reminded us just how vulnerable they are. Our friends at the Canadian Association of Fairs and Exhibitions (CAFE) also support our request.

In closing, I would add that festivals and events saw their own-source revenue drop 89% in the first year of the crisis. Government assistance is their lifeline to retaining their teams and mounting shows during this difficult period. If we want to have festivals and events after this pandemic, we must act now, listen to what's being said on the ground and hear from associations like FAME. People are in distress. I will end with a few words an organizer wrote to me a few days ago: “I'm discouraged, frustrated and at the end of my rope.”

Thank you.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her devotion to the tourism sector and to this particular issue.

Let me just say, to begin, that through the pandemic we invested $15 billion in Canadians and businesses in the tourism sector. The critical importance of Bill C-2 legislation passing in December was also extremely important, with $7.2 billion and an extra $4.5 billion in reserve in case we needed it and, as we have seen, we do. These supports are critical because, the member is right, the tourism sector has been walloped. It is important that we work together.

To the member's particular issue, it is an active conversation. There is a jurisdictional issue with the federal government and provincial and territorial governments, so I am happy to get back to the hon. colleague on this particular question.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

moved that Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to begin debate on Bill C-8, the economic and fiscal update implementation act, 2021. This legislation builds on important measures enacted by another critical piece of legislation that received royal assent in December, Bill C-2, which provided certainty to Canadians and Canadian businesses in the face of the omicron variant. Like this legislation, Bill C-2 provided essential and targeted support for businesses still deeply affected by the pandemic, including the Canadian tourism sector, which continues to be one of the most affected by COVID-19.

As the Minister of Tourism, I want to reiterate that our government remains fully committed to supporting the tourism industry in these difficult times so that it can quickly get back on its feet and prosper.

I have said it many times and I will continue to say that Canada's economy will not fully recover until our tourism sector recovers. With the support measures that our government has put in place since the beginning of the pandemic, I am convinced that local tourism businesses will recover from the pandemic and be better positioned to take advantage of the opportunities afforded to them in the future.

I can say, as the Associate Minister of Finance and as the member of Parliament for Edmonton Centre, that first and foremost, the best way to keep our economy growing and supporting businesses like those in our vibrant tourism sector is to win the fight against COVID-19. Bill C-8 includes numerous measures to win this fight, including $1.7 billion to help the provinces and territories secure the additional rapid tests they need to keep Canadians safe and healthy, including through expanded school and workplace testing programs.

Access to rapid tests is important for breaking transmission chains, especially for new variants like omicron, and for protecting the people around us.

Our government also supports the provinces' and territories' proof of vaccination initiatives.

Developing a standard proof of vaccination would help fully vaccinated Canadians to travel within the country and internationally, and despite the claims of some it is an essential tool in protecting Canadians. Let me be very clear. Vaccine mandates and proof of vaccination credentials protect our families, our workplaces and our communities. They give us the confidence to have a meal at a restaurant, attend community events with families and friends, and even begin to travel safely in accordance with public health guidelines. This is also another way we can support Canada’s tourism sector, by making Canadians and international visitors feel safe as they explore all that our country has to offer.

As I always note, safety comes first, then travel. Bill C-8 would support these efforts by allocating the necessary funds, some $300 million, for the government to reimburse provinces’ and territories’ expenditures related to the implementation of their proof-of-vaccination programs.

Bill C-8 will also support Canadians' health and safety by investing in adequate ventilation, which can help reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. Whether it is ventilation for a classroom, shopping centre or meeting room, the government is determined to help businesses and organizations improve the ventilation and air quality in their buildings and to ensure Canadians' safety.

Many small businesses are on the front lines in the fight against the pandemic. They want to do their part and make indoor air cleaner, but investing in equipment to improve ventilation can be very expensive.

That is why in Bill C-8 we are proposing a refundable tax credit for small businesses of 25% of qualifying expenses made to improve air quality.

Our government also wants to improve ventilation in schools and protect students, teachers, school staff and parents from outbreaks. To do this, Bill C-8 proposes to provide up to an additional $100 million to provinces and territories through the existing safe return to class fund. This funding would continue the support provided through the original $2-billion safe return to class fund by specifically targeting ventilation-related improvement projects.

As the pandemic continues to affect the lives of Canadians, our government knows that elevated inflation, a global phenomenon driven by the unprecedented challenge of reopening the world’s economy, is leading Canadians to worry about the cost of living. We understand concerns about the higher cost of living, and we are taking action.

Our government has cut taxes for the middle class while raising them on the top 1%. Building on the success of the 2015 and 2019 middle-class tax cuts that lowered taxes for millions of Canadians, our government has put more money in the pockets of Canadians. We are also working with provinces and territories to implement a Canada-wide $10-a-day community-based early learning and child care system that would make life more affordable for families and create new jobs. Because of this measure, the fee reductions in the coming year would help deliver thousands of dollars in tax savings to families with young children.

Additionally, on December 13, our government and the Bank of Canada announced that we would renew the 2% inflation target for another five-year period, which will keep the bank focused on delivering low, stable and predictable inflation in Canada.

As members can see, our government is already working hard to address the cost of living and to make life more affordable for Canadians.

For example, we are proposing to increase support for teachers, whether they are teaching from home or in the classroom. Teachers have shown, throughout the pandemic and always, that they are willing to go above and beyond to make sure their students receive a high-quality education.

To support teachers and early childhood educators in Canada, we are proposing, with Bill C-8, to expand and enrich the eligible educator school supply tax credit.

Bill C-8 also seeks to address housing affordability through the implementation of a national, annual 1% tax on the value of non-resident, non-Canadian-owned residential real estate in Canada that is considered to be vacant or underused, something our government announced as part of budget 2021 to crack down on underused housing. The bill would introduce a new act, the underused housing tax act, to ensure that non-resident, non-Canadian owners, particularly those who use Canada as a place to passively store their wealth in housing, pay their fair share of Canadian tax, beginning in the 2022 calendar year.

Be assured that this is not a new capital gains tax, as the opposition continues to misinform Canadians. It is a sound fiscal measure to address housing affordability. Bill C-8 would also support Canadians living in northern parts of the country by expanding access to the travel component of the northern residents deductions to give all northerners, including those who do not receive travel assistance from their employers, the option to claim up to $1,200 in eligible travel expenses.

Our government has put in place unprecedented relief measures throughout the pandemic to support Canadian families and businesses. As we continue to provide targeted support to those who need it the most, we will be there for Canadians.

As we emerge from COVID-19, we are focusing on jobs and growth, and we are making life more affordable so that Canadians can prosper. Bill C-8 would continue to support our government's work on this important issue.

Colleagues, we are all tired. We are all eager for this pandemic and the challenges it has created to become things of the past. Our message to Canadians from coast to coast to coast is clear. It is that our government is taking action to win this fight, to support Canadians and businesses, and to keep them and their families safe.

That is why I call on my colleagues here today to join me in supporting the passage of this important bill.

COVID-19 Economic Measures

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question and for her hard work for her constituents. Thanks to Bill C-2, we now have the Canada worker lockdown benefit. This ensures that workers affected by new public health restrictions are receiving immediate financial support.

We also have the local lockdown program, which provides businesses faced with omicron lockdowns imposed by local jurisdictions with wage and rent subsidy support. Unfortunately, both the Conservatives and the NDP voted against these essential support measures, but I am glad we were able to put them in place to support Canadians.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, over the holidays, omicron had a serious impact on constituents and businesses in my riding of Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel. Thankfully, the House had passed Bill C-2 before we rose, ensuring that we had support for businesses and individuals still facing restrictions and lockdowns put in place by provinces in response to the new wave.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister remind the House of some of the measures in the bill and how they have been supporting Canadians?

The Economy

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, how can they honestly rise in the House? That is a question that the Conservatives should be asking themselves.

Before Christmas, the Conservatives voted against Bill C-2. It is only thanks to Bill C-2 and the fact that our government looked ahead to the future that we can support small and medium-sized businesses and Canadians today.

COVID‑19 Protests

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the Bloc Québécois for his question and I also want to wish him a happy new year.

I was initially talking about Bill C‑2. I also want to thank the Bloc MPs for supporting this bill, which has become so important for small and medium-sized businesses and individuals.

I totally agree with the leader of the Bloc that it is important for all of us to be able to do our work as members of the House. We must and will support the authorities—

The Economy

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, if there is anyone in the House who needs to apologize to Canadians, it is the Conservatives who voted against Bill C-2 and those provisions that are supporting so many businesses and people.

When it comes to jobs, our government has understood from the very beginning that having a job is the foundation of the economic well-being of the vast majority of Canadians. That is why we focused on getting the jobs back, and that is why I am so pleased we have recovered 108% of the jobs lost to the COVID recession.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the people who should be apologizing to Canadians are the Conservatives, because before Christmas, just as the omicron wave was rising, it was the Conservatives who voted against Bill C-2.

It is thanks to Bill C-2 and the lockdown provisions in Bill C-2 that we are, today, able to pay small businesses, grocery stores and restaurants that are suffering under lockdown restrictions and are able to support them. Thank goodness the Conservatives failed before Christmas.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I hope this will not be taken from my time and we will reset the clock. It does not surprise me that my Conservative friends do not necessarily want to hear what I have to say, but I will tell members that they should listen closely, because if they listen closely, they might get a better sense of the type of direction they want to consider taking.

The member for Sarnia—Lambton asked where we go next in a question she put earlier today. That is a very important question. From the beginning, through the throne speeches, remarks from the Prime Minister and budgetary and legislative initiatives, we have been very clear about what the Government of Canada's priority has been as of 19 or 20 months ago: dealing with the pandemic. We are at a point in time where we are hoping to see strong leadership from all sides of the House to get us through the pandemic. To indirectly answer the question the member from the Conservative Party asked, one of the best things we can do is encourage the public and our constituents to get fully vaccinated.

Sitting on the government benches, I am observing how the Conservative members have been approaching this issue. There is an interesting story, and I would like to quote from it. It is significant because it is from the former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, former prime minister Brian Mulroney, when he was interviewed on CTV. Former prime minister Brian Mulroney told CTV's Question Period a few Sundays back that the leader of the Conservative Party, at least for now, should go further and show any unvaccinated MPs the door, removing them from his caucus. He said, “That's leadership.” That is a direct quote from the former Progressive Conservative prime minister.

He goes on to say, “Who am I to argue with tens of thousands of brilliant scientists and doctors who urge the population desperately to get vaccinated?” He also said, “Look, you're not the leader to follow, you are the leader to lead, and if you think this is in the national interest, Canada's interest, you get your members of Parliament in line, and they have to support what you're doing.”

If we listen to what the former prime minister said and we understand and appreciate, as he indicated, the science and the health experts, we have an appreciation of just how important it is for people to be fully vaccinated. A vast majority, 86% or more, are fully vaccinated, not to mention those over the age of 12 who have received one shot. However, we still have Conservatives within the official opposition questioning this and adding fuel to those who believe they do not have to get vaccinated, sending mixed messages to the public. I think that is at a great cost. On the one hand the Conservatives say that it is time we move on, yet if we follow them, whether their behaviour inside the House or the statements they make on Twitter, they send very confusing messages.

From the beginning, we have been very consistent. Our number one issue 19 or 20 months ago was the pandemic and working with willing partners, including provincial governments, indigenous leaders, non-profit organizations, private companies and people in general from all regions of the country, to take a team approach and build a national consensus on the types of things that we needed to do as a government in order to take on the pandemic. Through that consultation and those efforts that engaged so many Canadians, we are where we are today.

A great deal of thanks and appreciation can be expressed to all Canadians who understood their responsibilities through this very trying time. Whether they were health care workers, taxi drivers, people who work in manufacturing plants or long-haul truck drivers, people stepped up and did what was necessary, whether providing services or staying at home in isolation, but at all times listening to what public health officials were saying and understanding the science of what was taking place in our communities. As a direct result, Canada is in an excellent position.

Looking at the third quarter reports, we see that our GDP grew by 5.4%. That is better than the United States, Japan, the U.K. and Australia. That is, in good part, because Canadians did what they needed to do in order to position Canada well when we had the opportunity to get out of the pandemic.

We have now seen 108% of the jobs that were lost due to the pandemic return. I compare that to the United States, our dearest friend to the south, where it is approximately 84%. For years, when I was in opposition, I used to be critical of the then Harper government talking about trade deficits. We would get trade deficit after trade deficit, year on year. In fact, when Stephen Harper assumed office, there was a trade surplus. When he left office there was a trade deficit. I understand that today we have a trade surplus that is at a 13-year high. These things are happening because governments of all levels and Canadians understood what we needed to do by coming together to make a difference. Those jobs matter. They are very important.

Just the other day, I had the opportunity to get a better overall understanding of the pork industry once again in the province of Manitoba. Maple Leaf Foods is an excellent example of doing what is necessary to ensure there is a high element of food security in our country. It contributed by continuing to operate, even during the pandemic, by taking the necessary measures to protect the industry.

Maple Leaf today is actually growing in the province of Manitoba. The best bacon in the world can be found right in Manitoba, and we are selling it throughout the world, not only because of an outstanding company that has demonstrated its ability to meet and get to market, but also because of the workforce that it employs and their responsible attitude in ensuring that those jobs would continue and ultimately grow because of the quality of work that they provide.

This year we are going to see an additional 350 jobs at that one company. That will bring up the total employment just in Winnipeg to 1,900 jobs. That is not to mention the around 1,500-plus jobs in the community of Brandon, Maple Leaf jobs. The hog industry is doing quite well in the province of Manitoba. If we go to Neepawa, HyLife is another shining example of a successful company that is exporting Manitoba world-class product.

Those are direct jobs in those industries. It does not speak to the indirect jobs that are created by these companies. In the parking lots there are hundreds of vehicles and those vehicles have to be purchased from someplace. The employees live in houses, condos and apartments in communities that require furniture. They require food and restaurants, and that feeds the economy, not to mention our farming communities.

Our agricultural community continues to grow and in many ways prosper. In good part, that is one of the reasons we are able to continue to grow our economy. Relatively speaking to the countries that I have already referenced, we are doing quite well, but there are areas that do need to get special attention, for example, the issue of health care. The greatest challenge in health care today, and yesterday when I used to be the health care critic, is not just money. It is how we manage the changes that are necessary to provide the quality health care services that Canadians expect, and they want the federal government to play a role in that.

We in the Liberal Party understand, for example, long-term health care facilities. The opposition members say it is all provincial jurisdiction. They can make that statement, but there are Liberal members of Parliament who are responding to what Canadians want. They want to see some form of national health care standards for long-term care for our seniors. That is something we believe in. On this side of the House, Liberals also believe in the need to invest in mental health. Apparently, the Conservatives do not. There is an expectation that governments will work together. We saw that through the pandemic. When governments work together, we can accomplish so much more.

This is a Prime Minister who has been committed to doing that, even though what one sees constantly coming from opposition benches on the floor of the House of Commons is character assassination, a focus from opposition to try to tear down the personalities of members who make up the caucus, as opposed to contributing to the overall positive debate. Constructive criticism, too, I must suggest, is a valid thing. I was in opposition. I like to think we contributed to that too.

However, no matter how cynical and negative the Conservative Party has been, we have remained focused on ensuring we are developing and bringing forward the programs that are going to make a difference in the lives of Canadians through a very difficult time.

As a result, we experienced some programs that have ultimately led to the survival of some of our industries. There are actually more businesses today than there were prepandemic. I like to think that has a lot to do with what the government came up with in terms of programs. During this difficult time, people needed a lifeline, and most often we will find that the lifeline came from the federal government, a government that believed in supporting businesses both small and big.

We did that through programs such as the wage subsidy, the rent subsidy and the loan support programs, all catered to support our small businesses and workers in Canada. We brought that out early in the game when the pandemic hit, because we recognized how important it was, in many ways, to keep these businesses viable and to prevent them from going bankrupt.

In the throne speech and back in October, the Prime Minister and the minister made reference to the need to carry on some of these programs, to have a lockdown program. That is why, shortly after the election, not only did we talk about it but we brought in legislation. In fact, that was the first piece of legislation we brought in, Bill C-2. That was to ensure the benefits for small businesses. On the one hand, we have those in the opposition who talk about the importance of small businesses, but when it came time to support small businesses, at least back in December, what did they do? They voted against Bill C-2.

Not only did they vote against that legislation, but during part of the debate they brought in motions to try to filibuster the legislation to prevent it from passing, yet they like to say they are friends of small business. Think of the millions of dollars, hundreds of millions, that the Government of Canada has provided to small businesses over the last 19 months or a year and a half. That is one of the reasons we are in the position we are in today. Relatively speaking, compared to other countries, we are doing exceptionally well.

That is because of the resilience of our small businesses, entrepreneurs and Canadians in general who have responded so well to the need to address the pandemic and to play the role we all needed to play, so that, at the end of the day, we were in a position to continue to grow the economy, support our middle class and allow things to get better quicker.

Taxation

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to supporting small businesses, it is a bit rich of the Conservatives to presume to offer our government any advice at all. After all, before Christmas, when the omicron wave was rising, it was the Conservatives who opposed Bill C-2, a bill that included a lockdown insurance policy for small businesses and Canadians.

The Conservatives voted against it. Thank goodness they failed. Otherwise, our small businesses would have no support today.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

As we are engaged in pre-budget consultations, I'm still going to spend the majority of my time on this, because we have such limited time and I want to make sure that we get the best recommendations on the table.

I know that a number of my colleagues on the opposite bench have suggested that perhaps we want to have our Parliamentary Budget Officer back before us for full sessions. I personally support that very much. As soon as these pre-budget consultations are done, it's very important that we have Mr. Giroux back to answer more fully many of the things he has highlighted in his report that has come out today.

There are a couple of things, though, that I do think are important to mention, because there's a bit of a focus on the change around the fiscal guardrails and whether we continue to need stimulus spending.

It's important to note that, as of last summer, we as a federal government have started to drastically reduce and pull back a lot of our supports and emergency supports. It's also important to note that even after we announced the additional targeted stimulus funding in the fall, international credit agencies still confirmed our AAA credit rating.

It's further important to note that Bill C-2 showed that we continued to have targeted, specific support—and as we could see through this recent lockdown across our country, we have needed it.

The last thing is that there's a very fine line between when to pull back drastically on the stimulus and the supports and when to continue to help ease the Canadian economy as we're still trying to get through this COVID pandemic. Much of the money currently being spent is for the child care commitments, it's for the aggressive climate change actions, it's for reconciliation and it's for continuing to support our businesses and economic growth moving forward.

On that, I'm going to turn my attention to the Green Budget Coalition and ask anybody who is willing to respond to this question.

There was a really wonderful report that came out about sustainable finance from our current Governor of the Bank of Canada, and before that, he had worked on a big sustainable finance report. He has made a number of recommendations about the importance of how to bring in private investment to help ensure that Canada achieves its aggressive climate action targets.

From your perspective, what is the role of private investment in our transition to net zero, and how can we as a federal government better support private investment as we're trying to aggressively move on achieving net zero by 2050 and our 2030 targets?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to start off with a couple of statements. There was an earlier comment about why we don't just deal with the demand side and slow down immigration. I want to make three comments on that.

Immigration, as we know, is key to Canada's economic growth. It always has been. It's key because we have huge demographic challenges, with a huge number of people retiring and a very low birth rate. Especially right now, we have a huge labour shortage issue across this country. We really do need to keep the demand side up. I want to make sure I address that.

There was a comment that was made about more targeted versus widespread support during this pandemic. Starting last summer—it wasn't at Bill C-2—we started targeting the support more specifically. We did it very deliberately. We have continued to target our support as we move along.

I want to point out that even after we introduced our fall economic statement, we continued to have our AAA credit rating internationally confirmed. To me, that shows some confidence in terms of how we're going about spending and how we're proposing to continue to support our economy coming out of this pandemic.

Mr. Perrault, I'm going to address my first question to you. The narrative here is that over the last two and a half years, the actions of the Trudeau government in trying to urgently address and support the Canadian economy have led to the housing problem, the housing crisis and the housing inflation that we have today.

Would you say that the housing inflation that we have now, and maybe the housing crisis that we have right now, has been a 30- to 40-year problem in the making? It's been a number of things, whether it's tax changes, lack of coordination or efforts along all three levels of government, or the different levels of government not supporting some sort of national housing strategy. Would you say that statement is true?