Bill C-32

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022

Part 1 implements certain measures in respect of the Income Tax Act by
(a) providing that any gain on the disposition of a Canadian housing unit within a one-year period of its acquisition is treated as business income;
(b) introducing a Tax-Free First Home Savings Account;
(c) phasing out flow-through shares for oil, gas and coal activities;
(d) introducing a new 30% Critical Mineral Exploration Tax Credit for specified mineral exploration expenses incurred in Canada and renounced to flow-through share investors;
(e) introducing the Canada Recovery Dividend under which banks and life insurers’ groups pay a temporary one-time 15% tax on taxable income above $1 billion over five years;
(f) increasing the corporate income tax rate of banks and life insurers’ groups by 1.5% on taxable income above $100 million;
(g) providing additional reporting requirements for trusts;
(h) providing rules applicable to mutual fund trusts listed on a designated stock exchange in Canada with respect to amounts that are allocated to redeeming unitholders;
(i) providing the Minister of National Revenue with the discretion to decline to issue a certificate under section 116 of the Income Tax Act in certain circumstances relating to the administration and enforcement of the Underused Housing Tax Act ;
(j) doubling the First-Time Homebuyers’ Tax Credit;
(k) expanding the eligibility criteria for the Medical Expense Tax Credit in respect of medical expenses incurred in Canada related to surrogate mothers and donors and fees paid in Canada to fertility clinics and donor banks;
(l) introducing the Multigenerational Home Renovation Tax Credit;
(m) allowing access to the small business tax rate on a phased-out basis up to taxable capital of $50 million;
(n) modifying the computation of income as a result of the adoption of a new international accounting standard for insurance contracts;
(o) introducing a new graduated disbursement quota rate for charities;
(p) providing that the general anti-avoidance rules can apply to transactions that affect tax attributes that have not yet been used to reduce taxes;
(q) strengthening the rules on avoidance of tax debts;
(r) modifying the calculation of the taxes applicable to registered investments that hold property that is not a qualified investment;
(s) modifying the tax treatment of certain interest coupon stripping arrangements that might otherwise be used to avoid tax on cross-border interest payments;
(t) clarifying the applicable rules with respect to audits by Canada Revenue Agency officials, including requiring taxpayers to give reasonable assistance and to answer all proper questions for tax purposes; and
(u) extending the capital cost allowance for clean energy and the tax rate reduction for zero-emission technology manufacturers to include air-source heat pumps.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act , the Excise Tax Act , the Air Travellers Security Charge Act , the Excise Act, 2001 , Part 1 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and the Income Tax Regulations .
Part 2 amends the Excise Act, 2001 and other related texts in order to implement changes to
(a) the federal excise duty frameworks for cannabis and other products by, among other things,
(i) permitting excise duty remittances for certain cannabis licensees to be made on a quarterly rather than a monthly basis, starting from the quarter that began on April 1, 2022, and
(ii) allowing the transfer of packaged, but unstamped, cannabis products between licensed cannabis producers; and
(b) the federal excise duty framework for vaping products in relation to the markings, customs storage and excise duty liability of these products.
Part 3 amends the Underused Housing Tax Act to make amendments of a technical or housekeeping nature. It also makes regulations under that Act in order to, among other things, implement an exemption for certain vacation properties.
Division 1 of Part 4 authorizes the Minister of Finance to acquire and hold on behalf of His Majesty in right of Canada non-voting shares of a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Canada Development Investment Corporation that is responsible for administering the Canada Growth Fund and to requisition the amounts for the acquisition of those shares out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act to increase the maximum financial assistance that may be provided in respect of foreign states.
Subdivision A of Division 3 of Part 4 enacts the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management Act .
Subdivision B of Division 3 of Part 4 contains transitional provisions in respect of the enactment of the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management Act and makes consequential amendments to other Acts. It also repeals the First Nations Land Management Act .
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Government Employees Compensation Act in order to fulfil Canada’s obligations under the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America concerning Cooperation on the Civil Lunar Gateway.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Canada Student Loans Act to eliminate the accrual of interest on guaranteed student loans beginning on April 1, 2023.
It also amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to eliminate the accrual of interest on student loans beginning on April 1, 2023.
Finally, it amends the Apprentice Loans Act to eliminate the accrual of interest on apprentice loans beginning on April 1, 2023 and to clarify when the repayment of apprentice loans begins during the interest suspension period from April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2023.

The House resumed from December 6 consideration of Bill C‑32, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:18 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C‑32.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #232

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote, and I believe the government whip also has something to add to that.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the result from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting yes.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply the vote, with Conservatives voting no.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will be voting yes.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and will be voting yes.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #233

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, November 15, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-32 at the third reading stage.

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Gaspésie—Les-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

moved that Bill C-32, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, be read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to share my time with the member for Scarborough Centre. Otherwise, I will be speaking for 20 minutes.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thought that might be added incentive.

It is really important we recognize something that came out of the Auditor General's report that I would like to start my comments off with this afternoon. When we look at it, whether with respect to the Prime Minister, the ministers or the members on this side of the House, we will find a consistent theme. We want to be there in a real and tangible way for all Canadians with an economy that works for all of us. That has been consistent virtually since we have been in government.

We have seen policy decisions from the get-go. Whether it was with respect to cutting the tax rates for the middle class, the complete overhaul of the Canada child benefit program or supporting seniors through the GIS going into the worldwide pandemic, there was virtually a smorgasbord of different programs provided. I know there has been a lot of reflection regarding the Auditor General lately, and I want to use her words with respect to the billions of dollars we have collectively approved to spend through the House.

I would like to quote the Auditor General, who said that she found, overall, that the programs were quite effective in meeting the government's objective of first getting support out to individuals and employers quickly, minimizing the increase in poverty or income inequalities, and then also helping the economy bounce back from the pandemic. That comes from the Auditor General.

I think there are members who, over the last couple of years in particular, saw the benefit of the government creating the CERB or wage subsidy programs and the supports for small businesses. Whether it was putting money into the pockets of Canadians or providing and protecting the jobs of Canadians, the Canadian government and the Prime Minister, working with an effective and active caucus, one that continuously sought feedback from communities from coast to coast to coast, understood their importance. We implemented budgetary and legislative measures so Canadians would be in a better position to bounce back after the pandemic. That is what this legislation, at least in good part, is about.

We, and the Conservatives, talk a lot about inflation. We are concerned about inflation. That is why we have this bill before us. When we talk about the inflation rate, yes, we are lower than the United States. We are lower than many of the European countries, England and others, but it is not good enough. The Conservatives are very critical of our inflation rate. I did a background check and in the last two years of Stephen Harper's government our inflation rate was higher than the U.S.A.'s. Today, our inflation rate is lower than the U.S.A.'s. At the end of the day—

[Greg McLean]

Because you're not growing our economy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. There are hundreds of thousands of jobs out there today. On virtually every point, this government has exceeded what Stephen Harper ever did. One of my constituents summed up quite well the comparison between the previous government and this government when he said that he hated to think what the pandemic would have been like if the Conservatives had been in government.

I believe Canadians are very much aware we have a national government and a Prime Minister who truly care about providing those important services. That is what allowed us, as the federal Auditor General has said, to bounce back to the degree we have.

However, that is not good enough. We believe we can do even more. If we talk about the social programs, things Canadians are very passionate about, I could cite health care and the additional billions of dollars from this government. In fact no government in the history of Canada has invested more money in health care than this government. We have achieved health care accords. We have recognized the priorities of Canadians by looking at long-term health care and mental health. In fact in this very bill we are debating today, we talk about expanding dental benefits for children under the age of 12. For the first time ever, there would be a national program to ensure there are dental benefits for children.

In the fall economic statement, we talk about supporting Canadians who are having a tough time with rent. We would provide rental subsidies to support, as best we can, those individuals. We can talk about the debt students have. Students are going through a very difficult time. We would eliminate the interest on federal student loans. It would not be a one-time thing, but permanent. We want to encourage our constituents and Canadians to look at alternatives, such as how to support the housing demands in Canada.

We have the intergenerational housing credit for people who want to construct suites for parents, seniors or people with disabilities. The Government of Canada is there to support that sort of initiative. We have a government that recognizes that seniors 75 and older incur different types of costs and that there are limitations for those seniors. In fact we made a campaign platform commitment to give a 10% increase on OAS for seniors over 75, and we are doing just that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order.

The hon. member for Montcalm on a point of order.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to miss anything my eloquent colleague says, but I have had to adjust my earpiece to the maximum volume. There is no one in the interpretation booths, and the sound is bad.

When a different interpreter comes in, I can hear my colleague as if he were speaking directly into my ear. It is unacceptable that we are unable to fix our interpretation and sound problems.

This is not the first time I rise to mention this. I do not know why there is no one in the booths, but I know that the interpretation system right now is inadequate.

I will not be damaging my hearing and I want to be able to hear my colleague, who I like listening to, incidentally, even if I do not always agree with him. I would like—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the member for his comments. There are three other booths near the lobbies, and there is someone in one of them.

The hon. member for Montcalm wishes to add something.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here is the problem. The sound is good when there are people in the booths here in the House. The booths in the House are properly equipped for sound.

Every time we have an interpreter working remotely outside the House, the sound is bad, and it can damage our hearing. I demand, as a member of House, that my hearing not be jeopardized.

Let us fix the problem once and for all.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I again thank the member. We will try to resolve this problem. We can do another sound check this evening to ensure that everything is working properly.

I am not going to allow the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader to back up and start again, but he could perhaps pick up from the last sentence.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, I would be more than happy to start fresh. However, I will continue on with something I know Canadians from coast to coast to coast are concerned with, and in particular so are my Bloc friends. My friends in the Bloc like the issue of health care, and maybe this is a good way for me to provide some thoughts in regard to it, because I am very passionate about health care.

I really believe it is, for me personally over the last 30 years as a parliamentarian, probably the number one concern, because I recognize the true value of having national health care. Whether someone lives in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Montreal, Halifax, any other municipality in between or up north, I would like to think there is a certain level of quality public health care no matter where.

Mobility within Canada is critically important. I say that because I made reference to the fact that the national government gives record amounts of money toward health care. I was a provincial politician for 20 years, and throughout those years, it seems, every year provinces asked for more money in health care. There is an expectation that the national government should do more than be an ATM.

In fact I can recall the days when there was a huge tax point transfer. Provinces took a tax point transfer instead of a cash transfer, and I was not a big fan of that. I do not think we should do that, or anything of that nature, into the future. I believe Canadians want a quality health care system. I am very proud of our government, whether it is the Prime Minister or the Minister of Health in particular, and their approach in dealing with health care here in Canada.

As a government we continue to support health care. We want to work with all the different stakeholders, and I look forward to that ongoing debate on health care, in terms of this legislation. This is good, sound and solid legislation that would be there to support Canadians. I wish all members would vote in favour of it.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois asked that Bill C-32 include a commitment from the government to increase health transfers. Since the third wave of COVID-19, every expert has said that what Quebec and the provinces need is predictability to be able to improve their systems. Short-term and one-time investments are not going to solve the problem.

I would like to ask my colleague what the government is waiting for to meet the needs of Quebec and the provinces, patients and staff. If we want to rebuild our healthcare systems, we need respectable health transfers. We asked for 35%. The provinces spend $200 billion a year on health, while the federal government kicks in $42 billion. Increasing transfers by 10% will not solve the problem.

If health is important to my colleague, does he agree with the unanimous demand made by Quebec and the provinces?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would be surprised if there were a province that did not agree to ask for more money.

When I was the health care critic for the Province of Manitoba, I suggested that the greatest threat to health care at that time was not necessarily an issue of financing as much as how important it was to manage the changes necessary in order to be able to afford the type of health care expectations Canadians have. I believe there is a role, through the Canada Health Act, for Ottawa to say there is an expectation that, whether someone lives in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Montreal, Halifax or anywhere in between, if they need a hip replacement, it should be available for them in a reasonable time frame.

I do not believe for a moment that the federal government should just hand out a pile of cash. I believe the federal government has a role, through the Canada Health Act, to meet the expectations Canadians have that it ensure a quality health care service coast to coast to coast. Some provinces will do better than others, but overall we need to ensure this social program is there for all of us.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I have been noticing that the Liberals and the Conservatives seem to be on the same side when it comes to not taxing the major big box stores.

I see that they have made a small incremental tax in the Canada recovery dividend, but it does not do enough.

I wonder if the member can respond to whether the Canada recovery dividend needs to be extended to big box stores that have been showing record profits.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in the legislation that accompanied the very first budget, from what I understand, we increased the tax bracket for Canada's wealthiest 1%.

From the very beginning to the more recent federal budget where we put in a special tax, which is due to the recovery, on banks and insurance companies, the Government of Canada wants to ensure that everyone believes, knows or understands that we all have to pay our fair share.

Over the last number of years, we have put a great deal of emphasis on Canada's middle class. The healthier our middle class is, the healthier our economy will be, and we are there to support the middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House that we are debating the fall economic statement. I always notice, and I mean this in the nicest way, that the Liberal speakers know very little about the economy when we are debating economic matters like the economic statement.

I listened to the member across the way, with intent, because he did bring up some historical context here about inflation. I wonder if he knows that the rate of inflation and how it is measured in Canada is historically lower than it is in the United States because of the way we measure owners' equivalent rent.

Most Canadians are asking, “How come it is always lower in Canada than it is in the United States?"

Since he referenced some history about one time when it was actually higher in Canada, according to his interpretation, I will ask him this. Did that measurement change during those years, or did that measurement change to manipulate the inflation rate that we are showing right now?

It is an open question. I actually do not know the answer.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the stats I got were from the U.S.A., which indicated 2014-15, the last two years of Stephen Harper. The actual inflation rate in the United States was lower than in Canada. The member is right. Often, the Canadian rate is lower, as it has been here for the last number of years and continues to be, even today when the Conservatives voice their concerns about the inflation rate.

It does not mean that we should not be sensitive to those grocery costs and other expenses at the local level. We need to do more. That is why we brought forward the legislation to support Canadians, even during this difficult time. I encourage all members to recognize that Canada is doing reasonably well on a worldwide basis.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today during the third reading debate to support Bill C-32. I am one of the final speakers on this important legislation that would implement some of the key measures from our government’s fall economic statement and bring needed help to Canadians who need it the most, including in my riding of Scarborough Centre.

I have spoken several times in the House about inflation and the impact it is having on families in my riding. It seems like everything is more expensive. For families in Scarborough, which is one of those communities where people are working hard to join the middle class, it is not like it was easy for many families to make ends meet already.

The lack of affordable and suitable housing is a long-standing issue. Rising interest rates are not helping. Add in the higher cost of groceries and seemingly everything else, and it leaves many families having to make very difficult choices every month. With housing, transportation, groceries, school outings and clothes for children, paycheques never seem to go far enough. For too many families, it is harder than ever to get ahead.

In the spring, we were all focused on the high price of gas. It is still not cheap, but it is down substantially from its peak of over two dollars per litre. Groceries and other necessities remain more expensive than usual, and this trend is forecast to continue into the coming year.

While my friends across the way may say otherwise, inflation is not a made-in-Canada phenomenon. Groceries are not more expensive because our government stepped up during the pandemic to stop people from losing their homes and businesses from declaring bankruptcy.

In fact, our pandemic supports for Canadians, which I recall all members in the House working on together to deliver them to Canadians expeditiously, saw Canada emerge stronger from the pandemic. We were there for Canadians and we always will be.

Inflation is a global phenomenon driven by the zero-COVID policy in China, ongoing supply chain disruptions, climate change impacting the harvest of vital crops and the war in Ukraine. Canada is not immune to these global pressures.

We have done better than many of our peers. According to a report last month from CTV, Canada had the third-lowest inflation rate in the G7 at 6.9%, which is higher than only France and Japan, and faring much better than the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and even the United States.

That said, the challenges being faced by many Canadians are very real, and Canadians expect their government to be there to help those who need it the most. You and I do not need help, Mr. Speaker. We can tighten our belts and weather the storm until it passes.

However, those families already on the edge, the seniors on a fixed income and the single mother trying to support her kids on a minimum-wage job are the people who need targeted assistance. It is those Canadians we are seeking to help with Bill C-32.

I would like to focus on a few of the ways we are already helping constituents in my riding who need help the most.

By doubling the GST tax credit for six months, we are directly helping lower-income seniors and families. Everyone below a certain income threshold is eligible for the GST tax credit, and this increased rebate is already putting money back into the pockets of Canadians who need help the most.

A single person with no dependent children can receive up to $234, and a couple with no children can receive up to $306. This goes all the way up to $628 for a couple with four children.

We are also topping up the Canada housing benefit with a $500, one-time payment. Everyone, from young people living on their own for the first time to families and seniors on a fixed income, is eligible based on their income and how much of their income they pay toward rent.

In short, whether it is a family with a net income under $35,000 or it is a single person earning under $20,000 and paying 30% or more of their income on rent, then they can qualify for this payment, but they need to apply for it. Applications open December 12, and if someone is eligible, I strongly encourage them to go online to apply.

We have also launched the Canada dental benefit for low-income families with children under the age of 12. It can provide up to $1,300 over two years to help with dental costs for eligible families. We expect this program to expand to lower-income seniors next year. I know it will make a difference for many seniors on a fixed income.

If people take care of their teeth, their teeth will take care of them. This program means that lower-income families without employer coverage do not need to neglect their oral health needs. We are also working toward a national dental care plan for all Canadians.

These are all targeted programs that are putting more money back into the pockets of lower-income families and seniors. We are building on these initiatives with Bill C-32.

To address housing affordability, we are taking a number of steps, including an anti-flipping rule to discourage people from rapidly flipping homes for profit in a short time, which is driving up housing prices. Houses should be a home, not a business. We would make it easier to save for a down payment with the new tax-free first home savings account.

We would change the rules around the tax on the value of non-resident, non-Canadian owned residential real estate that is considered to be vacant or underused. Also, we would double the first-time homebuyer's tax credit amount from $5,000 to $10,000.

I also have a lot of multi-generational households in my riding, and the multi-generational home renovation tax credit would help families make their homes more suitable to their needs.

I am particularly excited about the elimination of interest on federal Canada student loans and Canada apprentice loans, combined with no requirement for repayment at all until a graduate is making at least $40,000 per year. This would be a significant benefit for our young Canadians.

I meet with student groups every year and with individual students all the time in my community. They have long told me about the burden of graduating with major student debt that weighs them down for years. In real dollars, tuition and other expenses are so much more than when we were in school. Even working full time, it can be hard to keep up.

The elimination of federal student loan interest has been welcomed by many stakeholders. For example, the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, which I met with last week, said:

Big news for students across Canada!

Starting on April 1, 2023, the Government of Canada will remove the interest on Canada Student Loans. This investment is welcomed by past, current, and future student loan borrowers.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada said:

We're pleased to see help to Canada's most vulnerable in today's economic update, including eliminating student loan interest payments for thousands of our members and increased funding for the services our members deliver to Canadians every day.

By eliminating interest and delaying repayments, we would make it easier for young graduates just entering the workforce to begin a family, to begin saving and to enter the housing market. Without the burden of crushing debt payments and compounding interest, they could more easily realize their career goals and contribute to society, which would enrich us all. This measure would save the average graduate more than $400 every year, and that would be a real benefit for young families saving for their first homes.

I could go on, but the sooner we pass this legislation, the sooner more help will begin to flow to Canadians who need help the most. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Canadians, and let us pass this bill.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer identified $14.2 billion in unannounced spending in the fall economic statement.

In a complete lack of transparency, the finance minister has refused to say how that money would be spent. Perhaps the member for Scarborough Centre could enlighten us on how $14.2 billion of taxpayers' dollars is going to be spent?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, through Bill C-32 and our fall economic statement, we are trying to provide targeted support to Canadians who need it the most, by doubling the GST tax credit, by eliminating the student debt loan and by providing a one-time $500 top-up allowance for renters who cannot afford it.

I talk to constituents in my riding every day, and they bring up these issues. Affordability is becoming a concern for many. These are measures, like the measures the members on the opposite side voted against, such as providing dental support for families with kids under the age of 12. We are lucky to have insurance, but there are many families in my community who have no insurance to take their kids to the dentist.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my riding likely has one of the fastest-aging populations in the country.

We just learned that groceries are going to cost even more next year and that the Bank of Canada increased its key interest rate for the seventh time. Given these circumstances, it seems to me that the economic update would have been the right time for the government to finally announce that it is increasing the old age security pension for all seniors.

Regardless of whether a person is 65 or 77, I think that it would have been good news for them to find out that seniors would be getting an increase in their OAS starting at age 65. One in four people in the Lower St. Lawrence region is 65 or older.

My question is simple. Why did the government not use the economic update as an opportunity to stop creating two classes of seniors and provide financial support to all of them, regardless of age?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her concern for seniors.

As I mentioned in my remarks, it is important that we support seniors on fixed incomes through the inflationary period. Lower-income seniors are benefiting from the doubling of the GST tax credit and from the Canada housing benefit one-time special payment.

We lowered the retirement age from 67 to 65. The Conservatives had changed it, and we brought it back down. As well, we introduced the age well at home initiative to help our seniors continue to live safely and independently in their homes. We also increased the old age security for seniors above the age of 75. We will continue to make sure we are there for our seniors.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things the member pointed out is that the Liberals have created a special and extra benefit for seniors over 75. While I would not at all dispute that seniors over 75 face extra costs in terms of their lives, somehow it seems to imply that those between 65 and 75 are okay, when we all know they are suffering from those same effects of inflation and those same inabilities to make ends meet when it comes to housing and associated medical costs.

I wonder if the hon. member would support the idea that the increase that went to those over 75 should have gone to all seniors.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, definitely seniors need more help, and I will continue advocating to make sure we are there for seniors.

We have been there for our seniors. The increase we brought to the guaranteed income supplement was to help seniors keep up with inflation. They will benefit from the doubling of the GST tax credit. Low-income seniors will also benefit from the $500 one-time top-up allowance for housing.

We will continue raising our voices to do more for our seniors.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, prior to commencing my speech, I would ask for unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Before I begin, I want to give a brief shout-out to a business that is a Kamloops beacon and a beautiful, thriving small business in Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. It is Riversong Guitars, which recently won a prestigious award. I want to read from a story from the CBC. Here is a quote:

Riversong's P2P River Pacific was announced on Sunday as the acoustic category winner in the prestigious Musical Merchandise Review...Dealers' Choice Awards. In the 30-year history of the international awards, Riversong owner and P2P guitar inventor Mike Miltimore said this is the first time a Canadian company has won acoustic guitar of the year.

That is quite an accomplishment for a relatively small company, and especially a Canadian company. I am equally proud that the people come from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I want to thank Mr. Miltimore and his staff for all they have done for the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo and for the industry.

We do not get to share enough of these stories in the House of Commons. While that is somewhat positive, sometimes we have to dwell on, or not dwell on but point out the negative. Here we are, speaking to Bill C-32, the fall economic statement.

This is a confidence matter. We are talking about over $1 billion of spending. When I asked myself about supporting a confidence measure, as a parliamentarian and as a Canadian, I asked myself, “Do I have trust in the government?”

With all due respect, the conclusion I have come to, based especially on what I have seen in the last couple of months, is a resounding no. I ask myself what it means to have confidence in the government, such that a parliamentarian can support a piece of confidence legislation like the fall economic statement.

Confidence is predicated on trust. Why do I not trust what the government is doing and what the government is putting forward? Why do my constituents generally not trust what the government is doing and what the government is putting forward, based on their communications to me? Last, why do a number of Canadians not trust what the government is doing, communicating and saying?

First, and likely most notably, is when it comes to finances. Here we are, debating a bill based on finances. Let us turn back the clock a bit and remember that this was the Prime Minister who promised modest deficits of $10 billion. He also promised that the budget would be balanced by 2019. What we saw were much larger deficits than the promised $10 billion. We also saw no intention to balance that same budget.

The Prime Minister said the budget would balance itself. It has not. The Prime Minister has doubled all debt and has added more debt to Canada's financial rolls than all other prime ministers combined. I have young children, which is obviously no secret, and I wonder about the care for future generations. Who will pay for this?

I recently read a statistic, and I am going to paraphrase it here. My understanding is that we are paying so much just in interest on the debt that we could nearly fund our whole health care system. The Liberals will extol how much money they put into health care. We Conservatives will say that the money is not being spent appropriately or efficiently and is not getting things done. It is one thing to spend money, generally, but Conservatives believe in spending money prudently. There is a very key distinction.

Who will fundamentally pay for this? I am wondering. The government pays the debt off; there is no doubt about it, but we, the people, must pay the government, and that has to happen in one of two ways. It happens through taxation, or it happens through borrowing.

I will often hear in question period when Conservatives, seemingly the only opposition party in the House at times, or so it feels, will point out the spending or the difficulties, and the Liberals will say in response that they have done this and they have lowered that, or, as I just heard, they have doubled the GST credit.

I am going to give a personal anecdote. Not long ago, I looked at the after-tax pay on a T4 slip of somebody I know well. When I was working in federal corrections, I made a good salary, and this person makes tens of thousands of dollars more than I did, yet the individual's take-home pay is just $200, $300, $400 a month more than what I took home 20 years ago, working for the federal government. That is not because of deductions that those employees are choosing. These are incremental things at the source. There are—

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

It's pensions.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Okay, let us talk about pensions.

I will ask for unanimous consent for my friend across the floor to take 30 seconds to talk about it.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Sure. Yes.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

There is a request for unanimous consent to allow the member for St. Catharines to speak, but I hear a number of members saying no.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is too bad. I would love to have heard him talk about pensions. It is really too bad. I feel really let down about his not talking about pensions, but members need not worry, because I will take it up.

At the end of the day, I am looking directly at the member, and if he wants to tell me how roughly $700, $800, $900 or $1,000 a month goes just to pensions, I am all ears, because I know for a fact he cannot substantiate how $1,000 a month of after-tax income goes to pensions.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We seem to be having a lot of back and forth, so I want to intervene.

I know this government has voted to lower the tax on the middle class, with the members of the Conservative Party voting against it, so I am really looking forward to hearing the explanation about this—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

That is debate. I know that maybe some members have not been here for a while, but we have a 10-minute speech and then questions and answers afterward, so there is an opportunity for members to exchange thoughts and comments then.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member speak recently, after the whole Michael Geist thing, so it is really good to have him here, intervening on a really dubious point of order.

In any event, we have a government that is prepared to forsake a number of Canadian jobs. Those Canadian jobs, when it comes to LNG, could have gone to Canada. Instead, they went to Qatar.

When we talk about trust, we talk about transparency. I hope I get a question from the Liberals, because I would love for them, in the preamble to their question, to answer who the 11 people are. Let us talk about transparency by default. Who are the 11? They said transparency by default and sunny ways were what we were going to get. No, we have not gotten sunny ways. We have not gotten transparency by default. Who stayed in the $6,000-a-night hotel room? Again, it is transparency by default and sunny ways.

The Auditor General's report says we are talking about $27 billion, and the government says it completed its stated aims. That is like saying our stated aim was to start a campfire. We started a forest fire, but that campfire got lit, so we did what we set out to do. That is absolutely ridiculous logic. This is why I do not have any trust in the government.

Let us imagine what we could do about illegal guns with $27 billion. We have Bill C-21, in the mess that it is. We have information that, in my view, is not accurate in Bill C-21 about law-abiding hunters. Again, where is the trust?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually shocked to hear the Conservatives worry that I am not speaking enough in this place. I speak as frequently as I can, but I am happy to rise here today.

The hon. member talks about his constituents, and at the same time, he speaks about too much money being spent and not enough. I was wondering if he tells his constituents about the Conservative record of voting against tax cuts for the middle class, against tax increases for the wealthiest 1%, against increases to the guaranteed income supplement, against increases to OAS and against the supports in this bill that would help Canadians.

The Conservatives talk a great game about helping Canadians, but when the time comes to vote, they are nowhere to be seen. I am wondering if the hon. member explains that to his constituents, or is it just Conservative platitudes and talking points?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we did not preside over the doubling of house prices in Canada. We did not preside over the doubling of the national debt after saying we would not do that. We are the party that lowered the GST. Millennials, and other people, could actually afford a house under Conservatives. They cannot afford a house now under the Liberal government, which is propped up by the NDP.

When it comes to their saying, “We have your backs”, seniors are writing to me and saying they cannot afford any food. They are saying they cannot afford—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Table the letter.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to, if he would like. I would be happy to table the letter. If the hon. parliamentary secretary wants to doubt that seniors are writing to me saying they cannot afford things, shame on him.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

If we are going to table something, we should have it with us, and of course we need to have consent to do that.

I am hearing lots of chatter in the chamber, so I ask that we try to keep it down and have our debate as we normally do.

Continuing with questions and comments, the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia has the floor.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I often hear my colleagues talk about pediatric hospitals and say how the emergency departments are overloaded and that something has to be done. I agree with them completely. There are no pediatric hospitals in my riding. However, obstetric services are often unavailable. We have trouble recruiting, and often this has to do with the underfunding of health care.

Does my colleague agree with me that last fall’s economic statement would have been the perfect opportunity to finally announce an increase in health transfers from the federal to the provincial governments?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a situation I am hearing of more and more about as well. When it comes to pediatric services, clearly what we are doing is not working. Health care is a provincial initiative, but there is substantial federal funding that goes through.

Had something like this been present, specifically in reference to my hon. colleague's question, I would have been happy to consider it, because we can see our health care system is broken. In Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, we often see ERs closing down. I have a friend who is a pediatric resident, and I was trying to talk him into moving to the area because we have such a need, just as I am sure my colleague is seeing in her area.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot in this fall economic statement worthy of support, and I think a lot to critique. My hon. colleague pointed that out as well. However, I take some issue with his recitation of history. I was in this House from 2008 to 2015, when the Conservative government ran deficits in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. After the 2008 economic shock, it ran six successive deficits and only magically balanced it in an election year.

My hon. colleague talked about taking credit for reducing the GST. The Conservative Party invented the GST. It brought the GST to Canadians. How can he expect Canadians to take him seriously when his party has been so instrumental in creating deficits in this country and brought the GST to this country? Does he still think the GST is a good tax?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, well, how much Liberal spending preceded that GST? If we want to go back to 1988 or 1993, that is absolutely fine.

With all due respect, obviously, I was not here in that period of time but I am happy to answer the question. The reality is this: I am very proud that we lowered the GST—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order.

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo has the floor.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would love the answer the hon. member's question if he would just stop shouting over me. I really would.

I believe in prudent financial spending. If I had my way, we would not be spending such astronomical figures that we actually need the GST. The reality is that the government must have the GST because it is spending so much, and that is being spent on the backs on our children, our grandchildren and future generations.

I fear that their tax payments and their funding of the interest payment for taxes will cripple us in the future.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise here today to speak to the government's economic update. On weekends, I spend time in my riding to talk to the folks who I represent. The topic front of mind for all is the state of the economy.

As the Deputy Prime Minister gave her update in the House, I, like many others, listened intently. I heard her warn Canadians that things are going to be tough this winter, and that inflation is high and likely to get higher. Boy, how her tone has changed from the message of sunny days and sunny ways.

A few months ago, we heard that very same minister stand in the House and tell us that we are not so bad off and that we should be happy because the rest of the world is worse. In March, she accused us Conservatives of talking down the Canadian economy. Perhaps the minister could now admit that it was not talking down the economy, but rather it was, and continues to be, a warning to this Liberal-NDP coalition of the harmful consequences on real Canadians that their failed economic policies are producing.

The minister acknowledges that tough times are here, sunny days are behind us, and it is time to pay for Liberal overspending. The Liberals have run up the government's credit card to the limit, and it is now up to the taxpayers to pay the bill. The truth of the matter is, the ones who feel their mismanagement the most are the ones they claim to be standing up for.

We all know that socialists raise their fists in the air exclaiming, “Power for the people”, but what is the result? It is power over the people.

I have heard the minister say numerous times in the House that the government's plan is a compassionate plan. I beg to differ. Is it compassionate to triple the carbon tax on home heating? Is it compassionate to triple the tax on gas? Is it compassionate to triple the carbon tax on food production and delivery? I can answer that with a resounding “no”.

The people of Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame are not feeling any compassion from this government. They are contemplating how to stay warm and keep food on the table this winter. It is looking more like doing both may not be an option. People in my riding are facing a home heating bill that has nearly doubled since this time last year. Is that compassion?

Charlie from Gander, for example, is a hard-working family man who considers himself to be part of the middle class. He told me that he is scared that he will not be able to afford oil to heat his home this winter.

Food banks across the country are experiencing record high usage, yet what did this minister say to that? Well, she did not say, “Let them eat cake”, but she might as well have. She tried to relate to hard-working Canadians by telling of the hardship that her family is experiencing in making the huge sacrifice of cutting their Disney+ subscription. It would be funny if it were not so serious. This government is so out of touch with Canadians that it is completely tone deaf to their plight.

Last week, my colleague told the minister of a senior who is living in her car in Halifax, Nova Scotia, because, even though she has employment and CPP benefits, she is unable to afford housing. The minister's response was to advise the woman against spending her savings on cryptocurrency. Really? How tone deaf can she be to believe that a woman who is forced to live in her car because she cannot afford a house has $10,000 to invest in anything for that matter?

Maybe the minister is just as tone deaf in reading the situation as the Prime Minister is. He thought it would be a good idea to hold a concert in the lobby of a hotel where he had the taxpayers spend $6,000 a night for five nights for his room, which is almost double the average Canadians' earnings in a month. To justify his extravagant spending when questioned in the House, the Prime Minister thought he could distract taxpayers by reminding them of the extremely generous one-time $500 payment to low-income renters. Do the members of this government not see how disingenuous their words are?

The Conservative Party asked the government for a little relief on home heating this winter by removing the carbon tax from heating fuel. In Atlantic Canada, this would be a big relief and offer some peace of mind. What was this government's response? Well, the Liberal government decided to ignore their pleas, and the request of the Liberal premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, by forcing the carbon tax on three Atlantic provinces.

The MPs from our own province should be sympathetic, but no. The senior minister from Newfoundland and Labrador is sick and tired of people complaining about the cold winter. The Liberal-NDP coalition government is tone deaf and out of touch. The government's excuses for the rising inflation rate are anything and everyone other than its mismanagement and reckless overspending. It would like us all to believe that it is because of COVID, but as my colleagues have pointed out on several occasions and I feel is worth repeating, the Prime Minister added $100 billion of debt prior to the first case of COVID in Canada. That bears repeating so we can absorb the figure: $100 billion that is not COVID-related.

This week, the Auditor General confirmed that the members on this side of the House have been warning since 2020 that wasteful spending was resulting due to a lack of controls. With respect to Employment and Social Development Canada, the Auditor General identified at least $32 billion in overpayments and suspicious payments that require further investigation. In the Prime Minister's eyes, that is insignificant and he would like us to believe the rest of the spending was to support Canadians through the pandemic. That too is not completely correct. The Parliamentary Budget Officer discovered that 40% of all new spending measures had nothing to do with COVID. That is $200 billion in spending that is unrelated to COVID. That boggles my mind.

The spending that was done in the name of COVID was poorly managed, to say the least. We saw CERB cheques going to prisoners and there was a $44-million arrive scam app which did nothing and could have been developed for approximately $24,000 in someone's basement over a weekend. The list goes on and on. I am sure members are tired of me saying all this stuff.

What the Liberals do not seem to understand is that this money that they keep spending and giving away to their friends is not their money to give away. Hard-working, taxpaying Canadians deserve respect and real compassion. The Conservative Party is here to do just that. We will fight for those who leave their homes every day to work in the energy industry to provide heat for our homes and gas for our vehicles, for those who fish our waters and farm our land to provide food security for Canadians, and for those who look after our children in day care and who tend to our sick and our elderly. Conservatives have a plan that would work and not just pay lip service.

A Conservative government would impose conditions so that if cities want more federal infrastructure money, they would have to remove the gatekeepers. We would connect their infrastructure dollars to the number of homes that actually get built so that young people could find a place to live. We would also sell off 15% of the 37,000 federal buildings we have so they could be converted into housing and our young people could have affordable homes. We would bring in a pay-as-you-go law so that every time we spent a new dollar, we would have a new dollar of savings to pay for it. Conservatives would fund our programs with real money rather than printed cash, because we know there are no freebies in this world and we know that ultimately, taxpayers and consumers pay for everything.

We would reinstate the Bank of Canada's core mandate to make sure inflation stays at 2% as brought about by the Mulroney government, the last great government, or the second-last great government, after Prime Minister Harper's. We would audit the Bank of Canada through the Auditor General to show her that never again is there such a horrendous abuse of our money as we have seen over the last couple of years.

I cannot support this bill because it has $14 billion of spending that is ready to go, but we do not know what it is for. Is it tucked away to be wasted on another gun buyback? Will that $14 billion be wasted to confiscate the hunting tools that are used to harvest the 20,000 moose per year that are taken to put protein on the tables in my province? Will it be wasted to buy back the Plinkster rifles that young girls use to shoot targets with their daddies, as they learn the safety aspects of handling firearms?

Bill C-32 leaves me with more questions than answers. Therefore, my vote will be nay.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question the member works hard, but where he seems to go down the wrong path is the Conservatives do not understand the difference between spending and investing in Canadians.

The member talked a lot about the economy. I would like the member to tell me and all Canadians why he voted against the top-up for housing and the dental plan and why he voted against the child care program. The Conservatives are voting against major initiatives that would help every Canadian right across this great country.

If the member is going to cut, would he please share with the House which programs he would cut? Could he just let us know?

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, what a pile of baloney that just spewed out of the member's mouth.

The people in my province, my constituents, understand that is all washed out bait. If anyone has ever been fishing, they would know they need to change their bait once in a while because it gets washed out and that old worm is no good.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador understand that what is being thrown out there is washed out election bait. The Liberals should come up with something else. I will tell the House what else. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are not too fond of the government using money they are pumping into the transfer program and now having to bail out the Bank of Canada for the first time in history because of the government's failed policies.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech, which I listened to carefully.

He mentioned certain government expenditures, of course. During the pandemic, the government spent a lot of money, but one expenditure had the support of all the parties except the Bloc Québécois. That was the wage subsidy for businesses.

The Conservative Party, which raised millions in contributions from its members, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party all benefited from the wage subsidy. The Conservative Party received $1 million, the Liberal Party $1 million, and the New Democrats $260,000. They got this money directly from a program aimed at supporting businesses so they could avoid going bankrupt and having to shut their doors.

The former leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Durham, said during his election campaign that he would pay back the money taken from the wage subsidy program. I have just one question for my colleague. Has his party begun to reimburse the million dollars it took directly out the pockets of honest taxpayers?

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot really speak to that, but I will tell members what I can speak to.

I can speak to my Bloc colleagues standing up and criticizing our offshore oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we pay into the transfer program. The billions and billions that are going to come out of Bay du Nord are going to go to subsidize the wonderful people of la belle province.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to the last part of my Conservative friend's speech, and I think he said something like the Mulroney government was the second-last best government in Canada, and it confused me. I am wondering if he could clarify that. I think what he was trying to imply was that either the Mulroney government was worse than the Harper government or vice versa. Could he clarify which order they come in as the worst government?

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot really say for sure who the best recent prime minister was. It was Harper or Mulroney. It is hard to interchange them.

However, I will tell members that this coalition government is definitely the worst the country has ever seen. I cannot believe that my hon. colleague has the gall to come in and sit in this House and be part of that team.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question. Obviously, with the doubling of the national debt under the current Liberal government to over a trillion dollars, the servicing of the national debt is going from $25 billion this year, the same as we put into our Canadian Armed Forces, our military, to, next year, close to $50 billion, the same as we do for health care transfers.

I would like my hon. colleague to expand on what we could actually do with that $50 billion.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, when we get over on that side, we will make sure that money is spent where it is deserved and needed, like to support our military and support our health care system.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I often talk about the housing crisis and about how serious the problem is. There are currently several ongoing crises in Canada: the climate crisis, the language crisis in Quebec, which is very serious, and the housing crisis, which is also very serious.

I am getting to the point where I am tired of repeating the same things and not getting an answer from the government. I decided that, since Christmas is coming, instead of talking about statistics and citing figures—perhaps this will come up during questions and comments—I would tell a few stories. They are not necessarily fun stories, but they are stories.

We could call one “December 23, Merry Christmas, Mr. Côté”, or “The dirty little story about the never-ending housing crisis”. I will warn my colleagues right now: These may be stories, but every story I tell is true.

Let me tell the House about someone we will call Mr. M. Mr. M. has been on the street for almost three years now. He had drug problems 45 years ago that made him homeless. He has been clean for the past year. Things are going well for him in that regard. He is working hard to reintegrate into society. He has serious health problems that prevent him from working, so he gets money from Quebec's social solidarity program. He has enough money to pay for housing, so he is already one step ahead on that. However, even though he is on a priority waiting list for low-cost housing, he cannot find housing because he is stigmatized. Basically, he is being discriminated against because he is homeless. He has done everything he possibly can. Unfortunately, the outreach people who work with him cannot produce housing out of thin air. Even the government, sitting there across the aisle, cannot provide housing. Imagine how the people who work with him feel. This means Mr. M. is going to spend Christmas on the street. I wish Mr. M. a merry Christmas on his park bench.

Now I want to talk about Ms. L. Ms. L. is 60 years old and is currently living in her car. She has to ask community organizations for gas cards to be able to stay warm at night. She showers in an emergency shelter and spends her days in a street café that gives out food and hot coffee.

Mr. Speaker, I forgot to mention that I would like to share my time with the hon. member for Terrebonne.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to split his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

To get back to Ms. L., Mr. Speaker, she is looking for an apartment but her monthly income is $765. She cannot afford anything other than a room right now. All the rooming houses in her area are full at this time.

I wish Ms. L. a merry Christmas in her car.

Let us now talk about Mr. D., a 55-year-old man living with mental illness. He lives in a trailer in the parking lot of a business. Everything he owns is in his trailer, but he needs to get it repaired, and it is expensive, not to mention the parts that are really expensive.

The business that lets him set up his trailer is losing patience, so Mr. D. will have to move. He is under constant stress from the fear of his home, not his car, being towed.

I wish Mr. D. a merry Christmas in his trailer.

Let us talk about Mr. R. and Ms. E., a couple in their thirties. Since they have no apartment, they are currently sleeping on a balcony, behind an abandoned business. They have to take their belongings everywhere with them because they are liable to get stolen if left unattended. They borrowed a grocery cart that they take with them to the street café. They spend the day there and try to rest a bit, napping in the corner, on the floor.

Unfortunately, Ms. E. owes money to the ministry of social solidarity, so she has no income. She works as a prostitute to obtain essential hygiene products. Mr. R. and Ms. E. both take turns panhandling to try to make a bit of money.

I wish Mr. R. and Ms. E. a merry Christmas on their balcony.

Let us now talk about Mr. J., a 30-year-old indigenous man. He is currently living in an abandoned house that will unfortunately be demolished soon. He stockpiles batteries to power the small lanterns he relies on at night. He has begun following the example of a homeless man, a veteran, who has been there for many years and who gives him tips to make money legally, so he does what are known as can runs. He goes to restaurant garbage bins and retrieves discarded cans. Working legally is not easy and it does not pay very well.

He is approached to sell drugs. Although he does not want to go down that road, he wants to be able to meet his needs. He does not know how long he will be able to take shelter from the elements where he currently sleeps.

I wish Mr. J. a merry Christmas in his abandoned house.

Let us now talk about Ms. S., a 60-year-old woman suffering from mental illness. Whenever she manages to find a home, she thinks people are going to break in. She lives in constant fear, so she leaves every one of her homes, one after the other. She is currently sleeping on the couch of a man she met by chance and who abuses her. She spends her days at a street café so she does not face that violence all day. She has no choice, however, but to return in the evening, otherwise she has to sleep outside.

Again, I wish Ms. S. a merry Christmas on her couch, waiting for the next blow.

Let us now talk about Mr. S., a 37-year-old living in a halfway house after spending two years in prison. The youngest in a family of two children, he never really knew his biological father, other than a visit in prison at one point. His mother was a substance user and her partner, who he calls his father, was an alcoholic. He rarely stayed with his parents. He spent his entire life under the responsibility of the youth protection service, caught in a cycle of running away, offending, using drugs and returning to youth centres. That cycle continued in his adult life with periods in prison.

A few years ago, he found his mother. She had died of an overdose. After that, he turned to substance use until he was again arrested for drug possession.

During his sentence, he took control of his life and stopped using. He now has custody of his son on weekends. He goes to see him at his sister's apartment. He does activities with him. It is getting better for Mr. S. Now, he wants to take care of himself and be there as a father. For that, he needs to find a place to receive his son. Right now, he is sleeping on the sidewalk.

I wish Mr. S. a merry Christmas on his sidewalk, with his son.

Let us talk about Mr. C., a 51-year-old man who suffered physical and sexual abuse in his family. He talks very little about those assaults. He fell into the cycle of addiction and mischief in his teens. It is more than likely that his father abused him. He became impulsive and aggressive. He served several short sentences for theft, possession and drug trafficking.

He was assaulted around 2005 with a baseball bat. Since then, he has been living with a head injury. He has a grade six education. He enrolled in a literacy service and is very involved with the organization. He is still clean at this time and has regained a wonderful smile.

He is looking for an apartment. Last time, he was in a place where a dog would defecate on his doorstep and he would not even venture to cook because the kitchen was so unsanitary. He applied for low-income housing, but has been waiting for a response for several years. The scarcity of affordable apartments could lead him to use again and, as a result, put him on the street.

I also wish Mr. C. a very merry Christmas.

Finally, last week, a homeless resident of Longueuil struggling with several mental health problems cut his own throat in front of a shelter in Longueuil. He had just learned that the place he was waiting for at a mental health support facility that would help him with his problems no longer had room for him. That was a shame. He saw no way out and, feeling desperate, he tried to take his own life. Fortunately, he survived.

This gives an idea of how desperate the most unfortunate in our society really are and of the disasters, misfortunes and other tragedies that await us if the housing crisis continues in 2023, which is very likely to happen.

Let us not worry; we, the 338 members of Parliament, will all spend the holidays toasty warm. This is a fairy tale, so it has to have a happy ending.

I wish everyone a merry Christmas, and I am ready for my colleagues' questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, sadly, there are not enough letters in the alphabet to adequately express what the many individuals who find themselves homeless face. I could cite the many people in Winnipeg North who use bus shelters as a home or just fall asleep in alleys and on streets in our communities. That is unfortunately what is taking place.

To resolve the housing urgency by trying to put the blame on the national government is not appropriate. The national government needs to work with municipalities and provinces to meet the housing needs that are there. In fact, the programs we have provided are encouraging municipalities and other stakeholders to come forward with their ideas.

The federal government has invested more dollars in housing in recent years than any other government in the last 50-plus years. I am wondering if my friend could provide his thoughts on the importance of ensuring municipalities and provinces do likewise, invest like the federal government is investing and support our communities so that we have a better chance at resolving the housing crisis.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, whether this is done by the municipalities, the provinces or the federal government, housing must be built now. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the CMHC, announced last week that 3.5 million units need to be built before 2030. That is quite a challenge.

Do my colleagues know how many units have been built in Canada since the start of the national housing strategy? The answer is 35,000. About 60,000 have been repaired. That is 100,000 units, if we are being generous. That is what has been built so far. The shortfalls are absolutely insane.

According to a study by a CMHC economist, in Quebec alone, if nothing is done in the next 10 years, 500,000 units will be built. However, to address the two key issues at this time, affordability and accessibility, 1.1 million need to be built. There is a shortfall of 600,000. Somewhere in the process, the government here or the provinces themselves need to get involved. There is money here. The government must get involved to ensure that those 600,000 units are built. They will not fall from the sky.

That is the challenge we have before us.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we are here talking about money today, and I have heard colleagues from the Bloc Québécois chastise the coalition many times for approving Bay du Nord. Newfoundland and Labrador currently pays into the transfer program, so I am wondering whether the Bloc Québécois will work toward returning the portion of the transfer money that goes to Quebec, which is from the oil industry, to Newfoundland and Labrador and all the oil-producing provinces. Will they send the money back?

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the planet is on fire, yet he is talking about money. That is insane. Canada is the worst country in the world when it comes to fighting climate change, yet my colleague is talking about investments, health transfers and equalization. The planet is already burning. We are the worst country in the G7.

Since the Liberals came to power in 2015, greenhouse gas emissions have increased steadily. We are a disgrace. The Liberals continue to invest year after year. We have learned that we rank second in the G20 in terms of average public investments in fossil fuels. That alone is a disgrace.

Companies like Suncor are making obscene profits. The CEO's pocket change alone could pay for the Bay du Nord development project. I seriously do not understand what my colleague is on about right now.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I have people in my territory who are homeless, like Bernie Napassikallak from Taloyoak, who lives in a tent in harsh winter conditions at the moment. I appreciate that the member focused his intervention on the need to increase housing.

I wonder if the member agrees that the Canada recovery dividend needs to be extended to collect revenue from big box stores and oil and gas companies so that the revenue collected can go toward increasing the amount of housing in Canada.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, more money is needed for housing.

I spoke about housing, but there is also the problem of homelessness itself, as we know. The anecdotes that I told are stories, but these things do happen. These are people I met with on Monday. I went to meet with them at one of the centres in my riding. These are stories I was told.

If we do not invest money now in adressing homelessness, people will be sleeping on the street. The outreach workers live alongside these people, so they know what they are going through. It is already getting cold out, so imagine what it will be like in January. People will be turned away, and they will have to find somewhere to sleep, like the entrance to a subway station.

It is appalling that a G7 country is letting people sleep on the street at ‑20°C, period.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to speak after my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, who masterfully demonstrated how inadequate the government's measures are.

I am going to give three examples. We have talked a lot about the economic statement. It has been examined from every possible angle, so I have chosen three measures that I see as either insufficient or counterproductive. I chose these three examples because they demonstrate that the Government of Canada has lost its bearings. It can no longer steer the ship, which is slowly taking on water.

The first measure I want to talk about is the FHSA, the tax-free first home savings account. It would allow first-time home buyers to save $40,000 on a tax-free basis. This savings account is a hybrid between two existing vehicles. Like the tax-free savings account, or TFSA, it allows money to be saved without the gains being taxed. It shares some characteristics with the registered retirement savings plan, or RRSP. Like contributions to an RRSP, contributions to the FHSA reduce a taxpayer's taxable income, meaning they pay less taxes at the end of the year.

Few people know that the FHSA is nothing new. Few people remember, and I was not born when this measure was introduced, but the RHOSP, a plan similar to the FHSA, already existed in Canada. The RHOSP was announced in the 1974 federal budget and abolished in the 1985 federal budget. As with the FHSA, contributions were deductible, returns could accumulate tax-free, and withdrawals were also tax-free when used for the purchase of a house or even, initially, for the purchase of appliances and furniture. The RHOSP was introduced in an economic context similar to the one in which the FHSA was introduced, with high inflation and interest rates.

This has all been attempted before. The conclusion will probably be the same: There are better tools for improving access to home ownership. We have known this since the 1970s. Accounts like this are not effective measures for helping people access housing. The FHSA is an ineffective and, above all, unfair tool for helping people access home ownership.

I would like to cite an excerpt form a study by Larin and Tremblay on the issue in 1978. It is “individuals reporting the highest incomes that benefit most from the plan, with 6.1% of taxpayers earning between $50,000 and $100,000 [in the 1970s] and 6.4% of those over $100,000 using the plan, compared to less than 2% of those with incomes under $7,000 in 1974.”

The biggest shortcoming of this type of measure is that it is not adjusted based on taxpayers' incomes. It necessarily puts people with higher incomes at an advantage, so it is counterproductive. It is fine to be able to shelter $8,000 from taxes, but that money has to be available. Although the government's intentions are supposedly good, the measure allows people who already have money for a down payment to shelter it from taxes. That is fine, but it does not help people who are having difficulty accessing home ownership. It does not help the people whose stories were just told by my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. It does not help the people who really need it.

The government ought to rely on the scientific literature. A fairer way of offering this type of tax benefit would have been to draw on the example of registered education savings plans. The government could have offered to “pay a grant proportional to the amount contributed regardless of income or even a grant that decreases as income increases”. The FHSA is the first of many examples of the government's outdated and inadequate policies. A savings account is one thing, but the real problem is the industrial and macroeconomic policies that I will discuss in a moment.

That brings me to my second measure. The government is aware of its shortcomings in terms of industrial policy, but it fails to propose any solutions in Bill C-32. Here is what the economic statement says: “Canadian workers need a robust industrial policy that will deliver good-paying jobs by seizing the opportunities of the netzero economy, by attracting new private investment, and by providing key resources to the world”.

Basically, what the government did was create an expert panel in 2020 called the Industry Strategy Council. The council made four main recommendations, but none of them seem to have made their way into current federal government policies.

The government may not want to admit it, but the pandemic significantly changed the global economy. The rules of the globalization game altered drastically with the pandemic. Supply chain resilience is now a key economic issue. Supply problems are one of the main causes of the inflation we are seeing today.

Before the pandemic, supply chains were designed to minimize the cost of each input, so the final product would be as cheap as possible. Value chains were based on minimal transportation costs, so something like a cellphone might be made from parts manufactured around the world.

However, those supply chains are fragile. A delay in the production of one part can hold up the production of several goods. For example, we are still feeling the consequences of the closure of plants manufacturing semi-conductors, which are an essential input for many electronic items. That is why some vehicles are in short supply.

Advanced economies around the world are now investing heavily in acquiring and developing new industries. One sign of that global change is the widespread creation of backup inventories. Many countries and businesses now maintain inventories purely as a safeguard against possible disruptions in their supply chains. Efficiency at all costs is now giving way to a resilience model. The economy is changing. Resilience is the goal now, not efficiency.

Fully 81% of supply chain leaders surveyed by McKinsey are now sourcing materials from two suppliers, rather than depending on one. This is another example of change in the global economy, where globalization as we knew it no longer exists.

The smart way to invest in industrial policy would be to invest in key or strategic industries. Key industries, such as semiconductors, are vital to supply chains. Without semiconductors, there can be no finished product. There is no way to finish them. Strategic industries involve essential goods that we are better off producing ourselves because we need to make sure they are always in stock. In some cases, major shortages could cost people their lives. Medical equipment is one example.

Instead of adopting a clear industrial policy like the U.S., Canada copied another measure, share repurchasing. Companies do this to give money back to their shareholders. Dividend payouts are another such measure. A company can buy back its shares on the market. It can also make a public buyback offer to its shareholders.

In August, the Biden administration implemented a 1% tax on stock buybacks under its Inflation Reduction Act. The Biden administration's measure seeks to encourage companies to invest their capital to grow their business, rather than return it to their shareholders. The tax does not seem large enough to act as a real deterrent to stock buybacks. The connection between stock buybacks and the underinvestment of companies is not all that clear. A company's optimal level of investment is not just determined by its cash flow. It is not advantageous for all companies to grow, even if they have a healthy level of capital.

The Fed studied the phenomenon in 2017 and did not find a causal link between stock buybacks and underinvestment. The measure is a surtax because capital gains on stock are taxable.

Furthermore, this measure was implemented in the U.S. in August, while Canada only talked about potentially implementing such a measure in 2023 or 2024 in the budget statement. Once again, this is very vague. The government is saying that it is going to quickly copy a measure, but ultimately it is not even capable of implementing it.

What the United States is doing, but we are not, is proposing an ambitious industrial policy. Canada is quickly being overtaken. The public purse is a powerful tool. When properly used, it can attract foreign investments to develop a local manufacturing sector. For example, as part of its semi-conductor plan, the United States will be bringing in just over $39 billion in tax incentives to encourage the construction of new semi-conductor plants on American soil.

According to the concept of the fiscal multiplier, one dollar well invested can generate a much larger return. Semi-conductors are the foundation of a digital economy. All the great economic powers are developing semi-conductor procurement and control policies. What policy is Canada proposing for semi-conductors? None at all, unfortunately.

The economic statement contains 34 references to the supply chain problems contributing to inflation, but it does not propose anything to counter them.

In conclusion, the government is clearly short on inspiration. The economic statement contains nothing in the way of impactful, innovative measures. At best, it rehashes things we have seen before, such as the FHSA. Worse still, the Government of Quebec has to make up for Canada's lack of vision, because this economic statement is just like the government that issued it: weak and ill adapted to the changing economic reality.

If Canada does nothing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. The hon. member's time is up, but I am sure she will have a chance to say more during questions and comments.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments that the member made.

One of the issues I would like to raise is in regard to the support programs that are inside the legislation. One of the things is the intergenerational housing credit that will provide incentive for people to build a suite for seniors, possibly a parent or an individual with a disability. It is a substantial credit to encourage that to take place. The previous speaker talked about the issue of homelessness and how important it was for him.

I am wondering if she could provide her thoughts on that specific credit.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, once again, I think it is one of the measures that is probably good, but clearly inadequate.

As I said, the Government of Canada is missing the boat. Actually, the boat is sinking. I refuse to see my country, Quebec, go down with it.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech. She really is a public accounts expert.

I noticed that she was cut off before she finished her speech, so I am wondering if she wants to finish her speech.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his comment, which gives me a chance to finish my speech.

The economic statement contains nothing in the way of impactful, innovative measures. At best, it rehashes things we have seen before, such as the FHSA. Worse still, the Government of Quebec has to make up for Canada's lack of vision. This economic statement is just like the government that issued it: weak and ill adapted to the changing economic reality. If Canada does nothing, there is no doubt it will miss the boat.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things I liked about my colleague's speech was her reference to the lack of an industrial strategy in the government's plan.

Does my colleague know that the government wants to spend more and more money, money that apparently grows on trees? That is what we see when we look at the government's spending. Is that a good strategy for Canada's future?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

If I understood correctly, he is asking me what I think about the current government's industrial policy. In fact, it is almost non-existent. As I said, the key or strategic industries are totally ignored, unfortunately. There are plans and promises, but sadly, there is nothing concrete.

I think that, when it comes to investments, we have to do our best with fewer resources. The important thing is to make government spending more efficient.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I think she knows that my riding is home to many seasonal workers. The Gaspé and the Lower St. Lawrence are very popular tourist areas. During the pandemic, temporary measures were put in place for people who had to stop working for mainly pandemic-related reasons. I have to say that those temporary measures were fairly decent. They could have opened the door to employment insurance reform, but in the end, the government did away with those programs, went back to the old program and thus abandoned all of the workers that did not accumulate a sufficient number of insurable hours.

Does she think that the fall economic update or economic statement would have been the right time to announce something for seasonal workers in the regions of Quebec?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her wonderful question, which gives me an opportunity to talk about a third measure that was conspicuously absent from the economic statement, and that is a major EI reform.

The government is saying that we are entering a recession, so why has it not already reformed the EI system to make seasonal workers eligible? Why has it not helped those who are receiving EI sickness benefits? We need EI reform. It was promsed a long time ago, but the government still has not done anything about it. That was conspicuously absent from the economic statement, the budget and the federal government's policy measures.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to the fall economic statement, legislation that has been introduced in this House. New Democrats are supporting it because there are some important measures in the legislation that we think will help Canadians, and I will canvass a few of them.

This legislation would introduce a Canada recovery dividend, under which banks and life insurance groups would pay a temporary, one-time, 15% tax on taxable income above $1 billion over five years.

I should pause and seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to split his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, this legislation would increase the corporate income tax rates of banks and life insurance groups by 1.5% on taxable income above $100 million. It would eliminate interest on the federal portion of student loans and apprentice loans. Finally, it would enact the framework agreement on the First Nations Land Management Act. All of those are positive steps that are worthy of support in this legislation.

While New Democrats are pleased to see advancement on these measures, we believe there is much more that the fall economic statement should have offered Canadians struggling with the rising cost of living. We know many Canadians are struggling to pay their bills. We also know many corporations are making record profits at the same time. We know inflation is crippling. The price of food, in particular, has skyrocketed across this country. The costs of utilities, insurance and fuels are all up, making it really tough for many Canadians in every corner of this country to make ends meet.

That is why New Democrats would have welcomed a windfall tax, like the one this legislation already applies to banks and life insurers, being expanded to other corporations that are making even higher profits than those sectors are, like food companies, including Loblaws, and like the oil and gas sector. The revenue the government could recoup from applying this tax to big box stores and oil and gas companies alone would total over $4 billion. That is money New Democrats believe would and should be used to help Canadians mitigate the rising costs they are facing, including the cost of heating their homes. New Democrats have long called for the elimination of the GST on home heating in times of struggle like this, particularly as we enter the winter season.

Eliminating the interest on the federal portion of student loans would offer loan holders an average of $4,000 of savings over the lifetime of their loan, and this is important. For years New Democrats have called for the elimination of interest on student debt. We should not be making money off the debt that students are incurring to get an education. Frankly, I have long believed that post-secondary education should be free, at least the first four years, whether it is an apprenticeship, community college or university, whatever it is, so that we encourage and facilitate our younger generation to become more educated. I believe higher-educated societies are more prosperous societies, and it is an investment. Just like public school is free until grade 12, there is no reason we should not extend that to 16 years of public education.

What is not in this legislation is what will have the largest impact on people. It has been estimated that the cost of home heating could go up by as much as 30% in some places in Canada, so eliminating the GST on that would be a simple way to offer Canadians respite in an immediate way.

Food bank usage has drastically increased as the grocery chains that supply Canadian consumers with the food they need to survive are recording profits of $1 million extra a day.

Health care systems across this country are in chaos. There is no new money and no progress after the recent meeting of health ministers for improving health care and ensuring that the federal government increases its share of spending to better approach the fair deal that historically is the underpinning of the Canadian health care system.

The economic policy being used in this legislation is a good start, but it is not broad enough. If we expanded some of these good concepts in a much more broad, targeted and intelligent manner, we could generate billions of dollars that could be used for these very valuable social and economic development programs.

Once again, when we educate our young people, it is not merely good for them. These are people who will generate the ideas, economic activities and professional skills that will generate income into the future, so it is an important economic basis as well.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Certainly, the member for St. Catharines had a lot to say earlier, and we would like to request a quorum call.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I will ask the clerk to count the members present.

And the count having been taken:

We have a quorum.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, just for clarification, in order to have quorum, does it require only one Conservative or more than one Conservative?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

On a point of clarification for the hon. parliamentary secretary, as long as there are 20 members in the House, there is quorum, no matter how many from each party.

Again, I want to remind members that we want to get on with the business of the day.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Waterloo.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the member's comments, not only with respect to the different programs and how we can support Canadians, but also on students and student loans.

In the riding of Waterloo, we have three post-secondary institutions, the University of Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier University and Conestoga College. All students have been asking for the removal of interest from the federal portion.

I would like to ask the member to perhaps elaborate on the difference between paying back the principal versus charging students a ridiculous amount of interest, which is really stopping them from pursuing their future and having that financial opportunity. I would love to hear some more comments from the member on that issue.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for that great question and her concern for students and making sure we facilitate the education of Canadian students.

When I went to university in the 1980s, I and many of my friends came from working-class homes. We could go to university and work part-time jobs. Tuition was low, and we could get an education without going horrendously into debt. That is no longer the case.

I do not see why getting a university, apprenticeship or community college education should cause people to go into debt, when we do not expect that for grades 11 or 12. I think this is a really good start by the government, and I congratulate my colleagues in the Liberal Party for recognizing that we can start by eliminating interest, because we should not be profiting from the debt of students. Then I think we need to take that next step and make sure students do not go into debt at all to get an education.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the division stands deferred until Thursday, December 8, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you seek it you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:01 p.m., so we can start Private Members' Business.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from December 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:18 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-32.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #237

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I wish inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 12 minutes.